by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
The momentous decision by the US EPA re the greenhouse endangerment is discussed at length in a post at Climate Law Blog: D.C. Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenges to EPA Climate Regulation. Summary:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, in a major victory for the environment and President Obama’s Administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a series of challenges to EPA’s body of greenhouse gas regulation. The cases, called Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, were brought by various states and industry groups.
In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases “unambiguous[ly]” may be regulated as an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act (CAA), (id. at 529), and that EPA had a “statutory obligation” to regulate harmful greenhouse gases. (Id. at 534). In direct response, EPA then issued an Endangerment Finding, in which it determined that greenhouse gases may “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” See 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). This finding led to the promulgation of a series of greenhouse gas-related rules. First, EPA issued the Tailpipe Rule, which set emission standards for cars and light-duty trucks. EPA next determined that the CAA requires major stationary sources of greenhouse gases to obtain construction and operating permits. However, due to the fact that immediate regulation of all such sources would result in overwhelming permitting burdens on permitting authorities and sources, EPA issued the Timing and Tailoring Rules. The Timing Rule required that new controls of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources be triggered Jan. 2, 2011. The Tailoring Rule determined that only the largest stationary sources would initially be subject to permitting requirements.
Petitioners challenged all four of these rules, arguing that they were based on improper constructions of the CAA and were otherwise arbitrary and capricious. However, the three-judge panel, which included Chief Judge David Sentelle, a conservative appointed by President Reagan, Judge Judith Rogers and Judge David Tatel, both Clinton appointees, concluded that: 1) the Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule were neither arbitrary nor capricious; 2) EPA’s interpretation of the governing CAA provisions was unambiguously correct; and 3) no petitioner had standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction all petitions for review of the Timing and Tailoring Rules, and denied the remainder of the petitions. The major points of reasoning behind the courts holdings are explained below.
On another topic, there is an article from Fox News: EPA blasted for requiring oil refiners to add type of fuel that’s merely hypothetical. Punchline:
Federal regulations can be maddening, but none more so than a current one that demands oil refiners use millions of gallons of a substance, cellulosic ethanol, that does not exist.
So the refiners are now suing the EPA, in part because the mandate gets larger and larger– 500 million gallons this year, 3 billion in 2015 and 16 billion in 2022.
Ethics and science journalism
At Bishop Hill, Doug Keenan has a very good post on the recent UK Conference of science journalists. He presents some interesting examples of fraud and misconduct. His summary statement:
For me, the take-home message from the conference is that a large majority of science journalists are extremely naive about scientists. The naivety is so extreme that I suspect it must be partially willful.
For global-warming skeptics, something else should perhaps be mentioned. Many global-warming skeptics seem to think that there is something special about the prevalence of bogus research in global warming. There is not. Anyone who has looked at other fields of science knows that there are fields that are worse than global warming. This tells us something important: the underlying cause of the problem is not specific to global warming.
I mention this especially because some skeptics seem to believe that what is needed is reform of the IPCC. Yes, the IPCC could benefit from reform. But that would not solve the problem.
We have known for millennia that prerequisites for integrity in human affairs include things like transparency and accountability. Those things should be in all scientific research.
An interesting case has emerged this past week regarding the drug Celebrex, see this article In Documents on Pain Drug, Signs of Doubt and Deception.
Grappling with advocacy in science
AAAS reports on a workshop to address advocacy in science, that was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation. Some excerpts:
Many younger scientists, including those in graduate school, express an increased interest in the impact of science on the broader society. Unfortunately, workshop participants noted, few educational or training resources are available to assist scientists interested in advocating in a responsible manner. Most participants at the workshop agreed that advocacy could be included as one topic for discussion within an ethics curriculum.
See Steneck’s code of conduct for advocacy in science:
Code of Conduct for Advocacy in Science
- As a scientist:
- Be honest, accountable, fair and a good steward in all of your professional work
- Accept responsibility for the trustworthiness of your science
- When acting primarily as a scientist reporting, explaining and interpreting your work:
- Present information clearly, in understandable terms; avoid making exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims
- Be aware of and make your interests transparent when presenting views on particular decisions
- Point out the weaknesses and limitations of your arguments, including data that conflict with your recommendations
- Present opposing scientific views; recognize critiques by others
- Recognize when your activities as a scientist merge into advocacy
- When providing advice to others on policies and courses of action (advocating):
- Base your advocacy on your area(s) of expertise, separating formal expertise from experience-based expertise and personal opinions
- Make clear when you are speaking as an individual scientist as opposed to someone formally representing a scientific organization and/or group of scientists
- Be aware of the impact your actions as an advocate can have on science and its uses
- Take steps to become knowledgeable about the complex issues that have a bearing on public decisions
Two good articles this week on open science.
In the New Scientist, Stephen Curry has a very good article Set Science Free From Publishers’ Paywalls. This point in particular caught my attention:
But if open access is so clearly superior, why has it not swept all before it? The model has been around for a decade but about nine-tenths of the approximately 2 million research papers that appear every year are still published behind a paywall.
Part of the reason is scientists’ reluctance to abandon traditional journals and the established ranking among them. Not all journals are equal – they are graded by impact factor, which reflects the average number of times that the papers they publish are cited by others. Nature’s impact factor is 36, one of the highest going, whereas Biochemistry’s is around 3.2. Biochemistry is well regarded – many journals have lower factors – but a paper in Nature is still a much greater prize.
Unfortunately, it is prized for the wrong reasons. Impact factors apply to journals as a whole, not individual papers or their authors.
Despite this, scientists are still judged on publications in high-impact journals; funding and promotion often depend on it. Consequently few are willing to risk bucking the trend. This has allowed several publishers to resist calls to abandon the subscription model.
Nature has an article Open your minds and share your results. The article is by Geoffrey Boulton, who chaired the Royal Society report discussed last week. Some excerpts:
We also need to be open towards fellow citizens. The massive impact of science on our collective and individual lives has decreased the willingness of many to accept the pronouncements of scientists unless they can verify the strength of the underlying evidence for themselves. The furore surrounding ‘Climategate’ — rooted in the resistance of climate scientists to accede to requests from members of the public for data underlying some of the claims of climate science — was in part a motivation for the Royal Society’s current report. It is vital that science is not seen to hide behind closed laboratory doors, but engages seriously with the public.
Too often, we scientists seek patterns in data that reflect our preconceived ideas. And when we do publish the data, we too frequently publish only those that support these ideas. This cherry-picking is bad practice and should stop.
Data curation should be viewed as a necessary cost of research. Creative data generation should be a source of scholarly esteem and a criterion for promotion. We need a revolution in the role of the science library, with data scientists supporting the management of data strategies for both institutions and researchers. We need strategic funding to develop software tools to automate and simplify the creation and exploitation of data sets. And above all, we need scientists to accept that publicly funded research is a public resource.
From the Fox News item
“And still, not a gallon of cellulosic ethanol in sight.”
Not quite. Poet/DSM have a production plant for cellulose ethanol under construction, using provate funds. It is due to come into production either late 2013 or early 2014. For more in formation, Google Project Liberty Poet/DSM.
At best it is produced late *next* year or the year after. IF the prediction is correct.
yet the EPA is demanding it in 2012. So the headline is exactly correct, and your dismissal of the fact is a bit misleading.
The real fun starts when bootleggers make moonshine in their sheds and try to pass it off as cellulosic Eth. How are they going to know the difference?
We’ll need Revenoooors to make sure the feed in tariffs are adequately enriching the producers.
Kim, extracting money from the public is only a small part of the domestication of homo sapiens.
A government that manipulates data and observations denies citizens access to the reliable information required for self-governance.
i agree. But to understand where science went wrong we need to step back.
In 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington to change Earth time. First words said was that only 1 day could be used on Earth to not change the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1 day and ignored the other 3 days. The bible time was wrong then and it proved wrong today. This a major lie has so much evil feed from it’s wrong. No man on Earth has no belly-button, it proves every believer on Earth a liar.
Where did Science Go Wrong ?
These historical events show why leaders of the scientific community are now promoting misinformation:
1543: Copernicus discovered a fountain of energy at the core of the Solar System (Sol)
1905: Einstein reported energy (E) is stored as mass (m). Therefore m => E powers the fountain of energy in the core of the Sun (Sol)
1922: Aston’s Nobel Lecture on precise measurements on the energy (E) stored as mass (m) in the nucleus (core) atoms included this prophetic message (12 Dec 1922):
“Should the research worker of the future discover some means of releasing this energy in a form which could be employed, the human race will have at its command powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction; but the remote possibility must always be considered that the energy once liberated will be completely uncontrollable and by its intense violence detonate all neighbouring substances. In this event the whole of the hydrogen on the earth might be transformed at once and the success of the experiment published at large to the universe as a new star”.
1945: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by the sudden release energy (E) stored as mass (m) in the nucleus (core) of uranium (6 Aug 1945) and plutonium (9 Aug 1945)
1945: Frightened world leaders established the United Nations (24 Oct 1945) to save themselves and the world from destruction by “nuclear fire”.
1946: The lofty ideals of the 1945 UN Charter – “to save humanity the scourge of war and to reaffirm rights, dignity and worth of humans” – was betrayed by adoption of two misleading papers [1,2] on the core of the Sun (Sol) in 1946, without debate or discussion .
I plan to update and post this historical review and references in time for the 236th celebration of the US Declaration of Independence on 4th July 1776: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
 Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-59 (1946)
 Fred Hoyle, “The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 343-83 (1946)
 Fred Hoyle, “Home Is Where the Wind Blows,” [University Science Books, 1994, 441 pages], pages 153-154
Based on a few recent comments from the consensus side I read in the past few weeks here at Climate Etc…, someone forgot to tell the DC Court of Appeals that Big Business and large Corporations really run the country. How dare they find for the EPA in the face of all the money corroupt corporations use to influence politics.
someone forgot to tell the DC Court of Appeals that Big Business and large Corporations really run the country.
How silly. Everyone knows the courts are in fact appointed and paid off by the state, and therefore do its bidding. Regulating and taxing CO2 obviously benefits the state, which is all the judicial lackies in DC needed to know.
Amazing! EPA documentation accompanying proposed greenhouse gas emission regulations states that it’s regulations will reduce the average global temperature by ’0.006 to 0.0015C by 2100,’ but that of course assumes that we are not headed for an overdue ice age in 50 years, right? Reality is stranger than fiction.
“Climate change is a global phenomenon and EPA recognizes that this one national action alone will not prevent it. Importantly, EPA quantitatively analyzes the potential climate benefits of this rule which has the potential to substantially reduce GHGs emissions from the transportation sector, specifically light duty vehicles. The changes in climate effects that the rule is projected to produce – average of 2.9 ppm of CO2, a few hundredths of a degree Celsius difference in global mean temperature, and 1 to 2 millimeters of sea-level rise, a small increase in ocean pH – are small. However, EPA notes this would be true for any given GHG mitigation action when takenalone. Although the magnitude of the avoided climate change projected here is small, it shows a clear directional signal across all climate sensitivities evaluated. The benefits of GHG emissions reductions can be characterized both qualitatively and quantitatively, some of which can be monetized (see Chapter 7.5 of the final RIA).”
The only thing the Left with their ‘pangloomian’ view of reality have been able to accomplish is destroying the culture, the society, the economy, and waging war on Bush and everyone else that stands up against the Left’s fearmongering and corruption of science and the political system.
It’s curious, I noticed on google a lot of blogs, news sites, etc are pushing that argument, but none of them provide the EPA response. It’s as if they don’t know the EPA response, or are choosing not to report it.
EPA Estimates Its Greenhouse Gas Restrictions Would Reduce Global Temperature by No More Than 0.006 of a Degree in 90 Years
(CNSNews.com) – Tough new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency restricting greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the global mean temperature by only 0.006 to 0.0015 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100, according to the EPA’s analysis.
Exactly, once again the EPA response is not provided.
It’s sorta-kinda like reporting someone’s argument that voting in an election is pointless because your single vote out of millions of votes only influences the election by a few thousandths of a %, but never providing the general response to that.
We should get a statement from Greece too. Let’s get a consensus of opinion of government employees about if we should pay any attention to EPA estimates.
Is it significant in your opinion to take actions on a subject that will have little measureable impact on the feared problem? The actions by the US EPA will have VERY little impact on US emissions, or the long term rate of CO2 rise worldwide. It will have NO measureable impact on the feared conditions that would result from CO2 rising
i am not so sure, it may set a precedent and make further measures easier and also may influence other countries along similar lines.
So, lolwot, you praise the EPA and see that organization inspiring others to similarly adopt carbon-reduction regulations through their example and leadership from the front? A surprising take on the matter, by you, lolwot, I must say.
So, guy, just when did you get religion, and all? I mean, like, didn’t we have this discussion before, lolwot? I mean, like, didn’t I previously urge you, lolwot, to show leadership by example and from the front as a carbon-reduction inspiration to us hoi-polloi?
Remember, lolwot? Think back, lolwot, how urged on you carbon reduction through the video-conferencing of enviro-conferences. Remember now? And recall that I also implored you to call-out, by name, those green-washed phonies of your acquaintance who frivolously indulge themselves with imported food-stuffs, take vacations beyond biking distance, and dwell in abodes equipped with air-conditioning and central heat, all while preaching the perils of demon carbon. All coming back now, lolwot? I mean, like, I’m quite sure I even pleaded with you to denounce Big-Green’s Big-Snouts–your benefactors, I believe–for their alpha carbon-hog, hypocrite lifestyles–you know the sort of lifestyles that regard yachts, palatial mansions, private jets, bullet-proof limos, and jet-set frolics as life’s bare-necessities.
And do you remember your response, lolwot? Do you? Well, lolwot, your rather huffy response was that Greenshirt Biggies to include their lickspittle, well-rewarded toadies, of course, could not be expected to set the example and lead from the front, in carbon-reduction matters, however inspiring that might be. The reason? Correct me, if I’m wrong, lolwot, but the reason you gave, as I recall, was that “that’s not how the world works.”
But now, lolwot, that the U. S. EPA is imposing its carbon-phobic, onerous regulations on us expendable, useless-eater helots–the peons you hold in such contempt, lolwot–you have become the outspoken champion of inspirational leadership, by example and from the front. Curious, huh?
But, lolwot, I think we can safely assume that your new-found enthusiasm for the EPA’s exemplary leadership assumes that your CO2-spew good-deals will remain in tact. Right, lolwot? And I mean, like, let’s be honest, lolwot, the whole deal is really all just a hustle and a scam aimed at reducing us “little people”–those who survive the “cull”, that is–to a cowed, destitute serf status to the benefit of our betters. Again, right, lolwot?
“you praise the EPA and see that organization inspiring others to similarly adopt carbon-reduction regulations through their example and leadership from the front?”
I am not praising them, just saying that their move may have more influence on reducing carbon emissions than a direct by-numbers calculation suggests.
“Think back, lolwot, how urged on you carbon reduction through the video-conferencing of enviro-conferences.”
I argued the technology wasn’t there plus various timezone problems. But more importantly in this case, it’s not a move that would influence the argument for national regulations on carbon emissions. No-one is using the excuse or argument that emission regulations should not be implemented because international conferences don’t use video-conferencing. So using video conferencing for international conferences would not overcome some common objection.
In addition the EPA restrictions once in place could be potentially expanded in the future to cut emissions further. They would also serve as a make-or-break argument for those who claim the regulations will destroy the economy. If the EPA regulations go into force and the economy isn’t destroyed people might trust such arguments less in future. It might also serve to weaken US opposition to a global treaty on emissions, eg in time opponents of the EPA regulations might prefer to see a global emission treaty to replace the EPA US-specific regulations. There’s a whole bunch of influences it might have beyond the direct impact on global temperature.
Thanks for the clarification, lolwot.
So let me be sure, lolwot, I’ve gotten this right:
The EPA’s carbon regulations have provided a potentially valuable boost to the CAGW make-a-buck/make-a-gulag hustles and scams that have been so good to your and your good comrades. And the EPA’s carbon regulations are a further boon to those greenshirts aiming for a world where conspicuously consuming, semi-hereditary, carbon-hog eco-hypocrites call the shots; where carbon-piglet henchmen, flunkies, stooges, and lickspittle apologists do their betters’ dirty work and suck at the good-deal carbon-troughs their betters conditionally provide for their sell-out usefulness; and where a destitute, servile, groaning peasantry, hat-in-hand and with a tug at the forelock, respectfully admires their opulent betters at a distance while timorously anticipating the enviro-knout wielded by the local enforcer thugs and sadists. I think I got it, lolwot!
And, I take it, lolwot you’re comfortable, at the very least, with the brave-new-world your comrades are cooking-up for the rest of us–a world modeled on “that’s the way the world works.” But, lolwot, please respect that proud, free men and women see things differently and want a different sort of world. And they don’t need a hive in order to get ahead, contribute to society, and prosper in the world.
The US is the coal capital of the world. Other countries would like to take away the US’s energy cost advantage.
Australia ,the US and Russia have ‘abundant’ cheap coal. The rest of the world has to exist on ‘expensive’ imported coal. They’ll cut their CO2 because imported coal is expensive, not because of any nonsense that the US ‘set a good example’.
The last I checked, the Chinese plan on having a demonstration thorium reactor up and running by 2015. Maybe because they care about the environment, but more likely because Chinese Aluminum Smelters can’t compete against American Aluminum Smelters burning ‘cheap coal’ .
As the saying goes….Money talks,$hit walks and I crawl.
You say that passage may end up having other impacts, such as further regulation, even if it does not have any appreciable or even measurable impact on global climate and therefore health. While my personal opinion is you may be a little too optimistic, it doesn’t mean you are wrong.
So assuming you are correctly evaluating the value of the new regulations, do you see any propblem with passing regulations – using as justification they will provide improved health for the US population (remember that the health and welfare of people outside the US is not within the purview of the EPA) when in fact said regulations will do nothing of the sort. At best they will act as the nose of the camel.
If you think your camel will be happier sleeping in Omar’s tent with the hoped for result he doesn’t spit on and bite you so frequently, is it ok to start that process by getting his nose inside the tent under false premises?
So to sum up:
Even though the science is dubious, and the alleged benefits of the regulations the EPA is imposing are even more dubious, and even though the EPA violated its own procedures to come up with its findings, , the EPA is dedicated to doing the pointless to solve a minor problem at great expense to those who actually work.
Sounds like the sort of logic the productive should employ in downsizing government bureaucracy. Eliminating the EPA is just a minor dent in helping to reduce government spending but it’s a start in the right direction.
Can you comment on the cost in $ per degree temperature reduction?
Can you comment on the costs and benefits – how much damage cost will be avoided and what is the cost to avoid those damages?
can’t I’m afraid, I’ve never really followed that side of the subject, I don’t even know what the damage, cost, benefit estimate are.
I’d suggest it is pretty important to know the cost and benefit before implementing a policy and befroe advocating a policy.
It seems in this case, the benefits are negligible and the cost enormous. That’s bad policy.
Here is some background if you are interested:
thanks for the link
As I’ve said before, I do not doubt your sincerity. But can you understand that without looking at all aspects of an issue, it is almost impossible to reach the best course of action?
How can you come to the conclusion that the recent EPA rule makings represent an overall benefit without knowing exactly what the predicted benefits are (and how they were determined) or the costs associated with their implementation?
I believe this is the key sentence:
The benefits of GHG emissions reductions can be characterized both qualitatively and quantitatively, some of which can be monetized
In other words, they can run some scenerarios and play with numbers that will show “qualitative benefits – which fall under the heading of subjectivwe, and hey, we can even should some monetary benefit as well.
In other words, regulations which have significant monetary costs will result in some minor monetary benefit and a bunch of “qualitative” benefit, with qualitative being defined and determined by the regulators.
I.e., EPA: “But wait, there’s more” to come.
The oversight Committee on Government Reform is
Mandate Madness: When Sue and Settle Just Isn’t Enough
How is in the interests of We the People to pay environmental activists to sue the EPA to impose very expensive regulations with little benefit?????
Hi Judy – On the EPA decisiion, I recommend John Nielsen-Gammon’s post
Why EPA Regulating Greenhouse Gases Is Absurd…And Why It Doesn’t Matter
That headline might have been a bit clearer if they hadn’t chopped off the part about in not mattering legally. At first glance, it could be interpreted as meaning that the decision itself doesn’t matter for engineering/economic reasons.
EPA finalizes greenhouse gas requirement, keeps tailoring rule
That Code of Conduct has no rhyme or rhythm.
Since the SCOTUS has just clarified that a fine is a tax is a fine, the cellulosic Eth mandate can be viewed as simply a tax. You use unicorn unobtanuim, or pay the ‘tax’. Which was the whole idea to begin with.
Tax my Axe.
If Michelle “No Fatsos” Obama has her way there will be a tax on the axe proportional to the amount of junk in the trunk. It could amount to far more than a pound of flesh.
P.E. Yes, the SCOTUS has clearly determined that taxes are fine as fines and that common sense is optional.
Except it’s not unobtanium. It’s dragged-their-feetium:
You don’t have a mythical unicorn here. You have a FauxNews myth.
Cellulosic ethanol first produced in 2004. It’s 2012. That’s plenty of time to build. Heck, in 2008, there was so much stimulus money, the only excuse for not building a plant to make innovative substances was deliberate choice or incompetency.
I’m not saying the EPA’s policy is right or wrong.. but the other guy is lying through his teeth. To us.
See how that fits in with the articles about honesty in Science later in the topic?
Bart, look at your article in Wikipedia, they list no commercial plants available in the US. Yes a semi-commercial (whatever that means), pilot and demo.
CMS | June 30, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
I get that US industry produced no commercial plants. And that the US therefore imports its cellulosic ethanol from other countries who did not drag their feet.
Foot-dragging, and then pretending when they get caught they weren’t? That’s just more typical rent-seeking behavior.
Sometimes government agencies aren’t there to spend tax money for no good (though I understand the cynicism, having watched all the subsidies to corn ethanol, the tax dodges for fossil profiteers, and heard the bleatingly shameless justifications for industry leeching off of government). The EPA’s principle measureable role is to ensure that property and resources are not depleted by private individuals without compensation. In the case of the fossil industry, private profiteers are depleting so much so fast only the most backwards of thinking could consider the EPA on the wrong side of defending taxpayers’ interests. And I’m saying this as a minarchist who knows smaller government to be better government.
There are still no commercial plants worldwide. How do you think you can get away with lies?
The cost is still twice that of grain ethanol – although that may change.
Ultimately – low cost energy is the one viable energy response. Hard to see how this advances the cause. But you are still a deadbeat liar – Dusty.
Bart your claims to be a believer in small government are always entertaining, since you invariably place yourself on the totalitarian side of an argument.
Like with the EPA now, who we supposedly need to prevent fossil “profiteering”. Does this even mean anything? Seems once again your anti-fossil mania has broken loose (I’m sure many here still recall your recent risible claims that fossil energy is subsidized). A basic point here: If and when fossil fuel is thought to be in short supply, we can expect the price to rise and so choke off demand.
If a few large players in the fossil industry decide they don’t like regulations, the regulations have a limited shelf life.
Yeah, right, even though government is hundreds if not thousands of times bigger than all the fossil companies put together, and has the exclusive use of proactive violence to back its decisions. The example you gave involved showing the harm the regulations were causing. So we see you are opposed to open discussion of regulation, people must not question, but just accept what government does to them. Like any other totalitarian would.
Your totalitarian socialist outlook is as welcome here as any other. Just stop pretending you aren’t one.
I know nothing about Cellulosic ethanol. Therefore I won’t speak directly to whether government mandates for its usage is justified or not.
I will note that the DoD in its most recet evaluation of using biofuels basically came to the conclusion that even if you ignore the higher cost, they do see the services being able to meet any of the goals set out for them.
The services have been told to take the lead in going green. Technologies developed for the military have historically resulted in significant commercial benefit. Two obvious examples are cell phones and GPS. The DoD has been provided funds to do this. Yet with all this incentive, they have concluded that the technologies and capacities are not there and will not be for the foreseeable future. When something as big as the DoD establishes a demand goal for a product, the market will not ignore it nor drag its feet. I suspect that if cellulosic ethanol is seeing little traction, it is likely due to cost and/or technical issues.
Once upon a time, I worked at the headquarters of an automobile manufacturer as an external contractor. They were being compelled by government regulation to do things they didn’t like. Naturally, they balked because regulation is the enemy of opportunism. Lobbying politicians at all levels, using ‘public interest research groups’ and ‘think tanks’ to question the regulations. Running advertising campaigns and driving their marketing to make following the regulations as costly as possible not just for themselves but also for their competitors. Offering significant incentives in negotiation with unions to get the unions themselves to oppose the regulations. Certainly little of this was in the short-run interest of shareholders. But it worked, and it worked across the industry.
If a few large players in the fossil industry decide they don’t like regulations, the regulations have a limited shelf life.
All we’re seeing is the fossil industry flexing its muscles against cellulosic ethanol. The science, Economics, and public policy? I don’t pretend to take on those questions. The corrupt practices of industry doing everything in its power to shirk its regulatory obligations? That is patent.
Erica | July 1, 2012 at 4:01 am |
A small village is being looted and pillaged by a local gang of banditos who pee in the village well and raid the village granary while corrupting the village children with lies and temptations.
Seven gunslingers ride in at the behest of the villagers, clean up the gang of thugs, and ride on to the next village to repeat the same feats there.
They don’t hang around taking money for wearing badges and looking impressive. They don’t build a jail to give the town drunks a place to sleep off nights of excess. They don’t stay and become the town drunks. They don’t stay and become the new local gang of banditos. They’re performing the right role of government, at the democratic urging of the people, in as minimal a way as can get the job done.
And you call that socialism? Get a grip.
And you still claim fossil fuels aren’t subsidized?
Talk about hook-line-and-sinkerism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORkgMaHkv6U
“A small village is being looted and pillaged by a local gang of banditos who pee in the village well and raid the village granary while corrupting the village children with lies and temptations.
Seven gunslingers ride in at the behest of the villagers, clean up the gang of thugs, and ride on to the next village to repeat the same feats there.
“They’re performing the right role of government, at the democratic urging of the people, in as minimal a way as can get the job done.”
First, it’s some kind of Western movie.
Second, it’s maybe capitalism, or more closely, vigilante.
A real government act would be the town people, organize
and deal with thugs by themselves. And if there are too timid to do
this, they should kill themselves as favor to the world.
It’s only in a nanny state that the people could be so crippled that
they are unable to resolve a local problem.
Any ways having official roving gangs is too much like the ATF, and if
you couldn’t understand how stupid this is without having ATF to demonstrate this idiocy, all you have to do is read the news.
So you think you can continue disguising your underlying totalitarian ideology, by regaling us with a minimum government tale of policing of peeing in the village well? For shame. For shame for painstakingly obscuring that pee in the well and CO2 in the air are such utterly different cases – the former matter being clear cut, the latter being controversial, to put it mildly.
And for shame for continuing your loony-left lie that fossil energy is subsidized, while steadfastly ignoring the reality of subsidies to loony-tunes energy sources like wind. For shame for again dressing up you motives. Why don’t you just come clean with your ultra-statist vision?
And what is it about fossil companies that your really don’t like ? (really I said, not your usual grandstanding tripe from the moral high ground you so love feigning to occupy).
gbaikie | July 1, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
“They should kill themselves as a favor to the world.”
Sleeps-with-M19-under-the-pillow logic never fails to amaze.
Sleeping with an M-19 under the pillow will result in a poor night’s sleep and probably some significant neck pain.
You do know what an M-19 is, right?
Much better suited for mounting to a vechicle.
I don’t see the need to accuse you of being a socialist, totalitarian or anything else. Stating one’s opinion should not justify such antics. I do think that you sometimes over estimate the actions and intentions of certain groups. For example you seem to believe that fossil fuel corporations have an implicit incentive to delay or prevent the development and adoption of a product such as cellulosic ethenol. First off, there is no monolithic fossil fuel industry. Coal companies might be against it, but the reason is obscure. Perhaps they would prefer coal liquification technologies. Oil companies could not like it because it could involve some costly modifications to existing facilities. I don’t know. However from what I’ve seen, they are as likely to supply funding for it so that they are positioned for a future with less oil. The industry that I can see having the most to lose is big ag companies who are invested in corn enthenol. They don’t exactly count as “fossil fuel” giants.
Erica | July 2, 2012 at 12:16 am |
You don’t think peeing in the well is ‘controversial’?
Clearly, you’ve spent very little time around the military, or engineers.
It’s not going too far to speculate that it’s a far more ‘controversial’ topic than CO2 emission, by far, in those groups.
I don’t ignore, nor endorse, subsidies to wind. They’re just so many orders of magnitude below the total amount spent on rent-seekers in the carbon- and book- burning sectors as to be a lower priority for objective critics.
You have heard of priorities and objectivity, haven’t you?
Oh. Wait. Look who I’m asking.
You don’t think peeing in the well is ‘controversial’?
Correct; I am not aware of any school of thought that says it’s a-ok to pee in the well. Who exactly are these engineers and military types who you say do think it’s ok.
I don’t ignore, nor endorse, subsidies to wind.
Ah, the cunning pretense of not being a totalitarian extremist again. Trying to hide the anti-fossil industry mania with some fine-sounding principle.
They’re just so many orders of magnitude below the total amount spent on rent-seekers in the carbon- and book- burning sectors as to be a lower priority for objective critics.
Oh, on the non-existent subsidies for fossil energy you like to pretend exist, you mean? The ones you use as a cover for your anti-fossil industry mania ?
C’mon Bart, since we don’t know (or seek to know) your real identity, what’s you real beef with the fossil companies? You surely aren’t dumb enough to buy the ‘consensus’ wild guess are you ?
Erica | July 2, 2012 at 4:55 am |
My ‘real identity?’ Tch. You get to know my real thoughts on the subject of Climate, Etc. What possible interest could ‘real identity’ hold for anyone?
Here, a primer about subsidies and tax expenditures to help you out (http://prezi.com/e9wkbkznkoys/tax-expenditures-tax-you/) from a collection of musings, doodles and obscurata at prezi.com. Consider the ideas; I have no interest in your identity at all, but hope to hear more of your own genuine thoughts responding to the topic of interest.
As for your sheltered life and inexperience in military and engineering culture, perhaps best reported as a frequently heard joke. One night a soldier and a marine meet in a bathroom. After using the latrine the soldier started out the door when the marine says, “In the MARINES they taught us to wash our hands.” The soldier replied, “In the ARMY they taught us not to piss on our hands.” You can substitute whichever two schools of engineering you like for marines and regular army. Lax attitudes toward hygiene are a well-documented phenomenon, otherwise the extensive education programs put out to combat the attitude in the military wouldn’t exist. What engineers do to combat the attitude, I have no information on.
My ‘real beef’ is really what I really say: subsidies are statist mechanisms that distort fair Market Capitalist democratic decision making, encroach on private rights of citizens, hide rent-seeking from the public eye by every means they can find to deceive and misdirect purely because they know what they do is wrong. Tax expenditures are subsidies. They’re documented. They’re huge. They just happen to go to the carbon-burning industries in disproportionate amounts due historical accident. I’d be happy to see an end to alternate fuel subsidies too.. and if you follow the money carefully, you’ll see that those too generally end up going to the very same people.
So, not knowing your ‘real identity’ (since I don’t care), you can freely admit, what is it about being ripped off by unfair subsidies to profitable special interests you like so much?
What possible interest could ‘real identity’ hold for anyone?
I made it abundantly clear I did NOT have any interest in your identity…so what are you on about…??
Here, a primer about subsidies and tax expenditures
Well done. I suggest you read it immediately. Then perhaps you’ll stop conflating tax expenditures and subsidies.
Anyway, at least we now see why you’ve been making these absurd claims about fossil energy being “subsidized”. All you really mean then, is that the government buys gas to put in its automobiles etc. Just like it buys pencils, office space, and many other things (what else are they supposed to do?). Which does of course unavoidably boost those industries, but is not loading the dice as a genuine subsidy.
But do keep up the effort on understanding economy, we may yet tempt you away from some of your more extreme statist leanings.
The usual version of that joke is and officer and an enlisted man, with the officer playing the role of the shocked hand washer.
In reality it is a preety good analog for a false consensus of what is proper behavior.
If one was accurately aware of how germs and other pathogens are spread, they would wash their hands before going to the bathroom, not after. I can’t speak for anyone’s personal hygene but my own, but I know for a fact that “willy” is far more germ free than Palmala and her five sisters.
Erica | July 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
Boggling. Read it? I wrote it for you.
And while governments buying gasoline to put in its gas tank (or in the case of the USA, buying a sizeable fraction of gasoline on the market at any time to pour into a salt mine where it can only recover 40% from) is a form of support for the fossil industry that is a concern, that’s not what is meant by the term ‘tax expenditure’.
Did you know that Detroit shut down substantial portions of its mass transit system – which was run by private operators under city license – at the insistence of Henry Ford, who felt he’d sell more cars if not for all the cheap fares his cars couldn’t compete with?
What would you call politicians shutting down five smaller private companies and driving up the living expenses of half the population of a city, just to encourage sales to a single larger private company?
Boggling. Knowing close to zip about the economics of subsidies and taxes, you’ve written a “book” on them. Scary. Please act responsibly and take care you show it to noone.
But of course political favoritism such as you claim Detroit showed Henry Ford was bad, perhaps a “subsidy” very loosely understood. But clearly nothing like that favors fossil energy currently. (Except in your frothing-at-the-mouth anti-fossil diatribe imagination).
There are guidelines for advocacy by scientists now? I fear that, rather than controlling it, it will legitimise all sorts of claptrap.
Can a slow turnaround in editorial opinions now be observed as in “Nature” or do we have only lip service from the wolf in the sheep skin?
Well, Pekka’s a little sheepish, but still unbelievable.
I support great opennes and availability of data. What I don’t support are inflexible rules and excessive regulation.
kim: Please leave a comment at my blog. I’d like to discuss something with you via email.
Current Global Weather Patterns Normal Despite Government and Media Distortions by Dr. Tim Ball on June 28, 2012
“as the world has cooled since 1998”
The world hasn’t cooled since 1998. If Tim Ball can’t even get the elephant-in-the-room fact right, what does that say about the trust we can put in the rest of his claims?
The UAH last month was quite a lot colder than January 1998. There has been no monthly average higher than January 1998 in either of the tropospheric records. You know it hasn’t warmed 0.2 degrees C. And while the oceans warmed a little – the most obvious cause of that is SW changes.
A very temporary upwelling of heat around January 1998 doesn’t count as the planet warming. Adjusting for that upwelling the planet was cooler in 1998 than today.
Let me translate that for you. What you are really saying is:
‘When we adjust the data to eliminate all the effects that our theory cannot account for, we find that the revised remaining data is in very good agreement with the theory’s predictions’
Well, duh, you’d need to be really, really incompetent to prevent that :-(
I think you tried to pull the same trick with ENSO a few days ago.
‘We couldn’t accurately foretell the future because some totally unforeseen and unexpected things happened. If they hadn’t, our predictions would have been right’
Somebody here is missing the point bigtime. And I’m pretty certain it isn’t me.
No it just means that there has been no peak in the troposphere greater in the interim. Adjust them all numbnut – the 2010 El Nino etc.
See Foster and Ramstorf 2011 where they do adjust out the ENSO impact. The 1998 El Nino period gets adjusted down about 0.4C. The 2010 El Nino gets adjusted down about 0.2C – it was a weaker El Nino.
Even without adjustment the 2010 global temperatures in UAH are equivalent to the 1998 global temperatures:
So after adjusting for ENSO it must be the case that 2010 would beat 1998, by almost 0.2C
Indeed the FR11 results (solar and volcanic adjusted too) do suggest that:
I think you might be looking at things a bit askew if you think that tropospheric temp in 2010 was comparable to 1998. It was 0.1 degree C lower in 2010. So we have one reading that may be 0.1 degree higher if the crude adjustments are made. With ocean warming caused by less reflected short wave last decade and the Pacific ocean surface cooling – and increased cloud – over another decade or 3.
No it is not looking good for Foster and Ramstorf. I will tell you a secret. You need to look at a broad range of science and form an opinion dispassionately weighing and balancing the quality of evidence especially. Science after all is, according to Mark Twain, an endeavour where one ‘gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.’ Something much more a factor in the blogosphere.
Heres another one from realclimate – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
Now I’m pretty relaxed about not much warming last decade and not much warming for another decade or three more and denying it seems a bit well denialist of you. .
FR11 offers the following description of recent years: continued global warming masked by declining ENSO and declining solar output. The skeptics however argue that recent years show global warming is not masked, but has stopped.
But the skeptics don’t address the declining ENSO and declining solar output. Which is odd given the skeptic emphasis on cooling factors since 1998, eg a cooling influence of the PDO switch and a cooling influence of the deep solar minimum. Both of these, in addition to the weaker ENSO in 2010, should have led to a strong cooling on 2010 relative to 1998, but 12 month running mean is instructive. It shows the height of warmth in 1998 and 2010 were just as warm, yet 2010 was a weaker El Nino.
I don’t see skeptics addressing these influences in any depth. If they did I am sure they’d reach the same conclusion FR11 reached. Ie if skeptics analyzed the contribution of ENSO and the Sun in recent years they too would reach the awkward conclusion that these things have temporarily masked warming in the past few years.
Fortunately FR11 provides a prediction for the immediate future that is starkly at odds with the future skeptics ambiguously predict, so this matter should draw to a head soon.
FR11 explains recent global temperature changes as the sum of ongoing global warming temporarily masked by the Sun and ENSO. This temporary mask is lifting and so global temperature should leap in coming years. Indeed if the ENSO and solar mask doesn’t just drop, but even reverses then the global temperature leap will be even greater than provided by longterm warming alone.
In contrast many prominent skeptics are well published as not expecting any warming past 1998 and indeed many of them even predict cooling in coming years.
I would say for a start it will be instructive to watch how high global temperatures reach this year at the peak of the El Nino which now seems to be forming.
‘This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.’ http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025052.shtml
A change in the frequency and intensity of ENSO is rather the point.
Perhaps you might believe Phil Jones of the CRU?
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Since 1998 was hotter than 1995, that infers global cooling since 1998.
Global warming since 1995 ‘now significant’
But since 1940 it isn’t significant. Adjusting for UHI and airport/ asphalt/ tarmac effects and all of the problems with corrupted, manipulated and missing data — not to mention the outright fraud of participants in the global warming hoax — we learn anew what human history never bother to question: between ice ages the interglacial warming periods like the one we are in now have been good for humanity.
Dr. Tim is anything but on the Ball. I thought ALL deniers had given up on the “there’s no evidence that the earth is warming (poor siting, natural variability, crooked scientists, etc)” meme, preferring instead to now admit that the earth is in fact warming, but stipulating that warming is caused by a multitude of factors, none of which is CO2. Yes indeed, warming could be due to ANYTHING but CO2. Somebody please tell poor Dr. Tim to get with the updated program.
Owen – the primary thrust of Ball’s post is the increase in the cold Arctic dome causing a change in the Rosby waves. e.g. from 4-6 weeks to 8-10 weeks.
Do you have any evidence refuting Ball’s key observations?
On temperature trends, Lucia calculates from both 2000 and from 2001 to 2012:
See Hadley trends from Jan 2001 to Dec 2011.
Ball’s observation is still basically accurate that the trend for more than the last decade is flat to negative. It is obviously NOT +0.2 deg C/decade predicted by IPCC.
Lucia shows IPCC’s 0.2 C / decade trend is above or about at the 2 sigma trend boundary for 32 years from 1980 to May 2012.
Can evidence be brought to bear against the IPCC’s 0.2C/decade trend?
Can it be invalidated?
“A study from Harvard University concludes that the “real problems” of the international oil market aren’t so much a matter of production and supply as “political decisions and geopolitical instability,” which will define the international marketplace and US energy security in the years to come.”
“The Harvard study found that of all the major oil-producing countries in the world, only four — Iran, Mexico, Norway and the United Kingdom – show a long-term decline in production capacity by 2020.
The loss of production in Iran and Mexico, according to the report, is due largely to political factors. Mexico, for all intents and purposes, is a narco-state. With sanctions set to go into force against Iran in a matter of days, Tehran has already acknowledged oil exports were down by as much as 30 percent.
The Harvard study, by former Eni executive Leonardo Maugeri, found that gross global oil production from current sources could add another 49 million barrels per day to the markets by 2020 — twice the current level.”
Imbecilically, for much of the week WUWT headlined Anthony Watt’s complaints about the word “denial”, and yet at the same time WUWT‘s followup story was Chris Monckton’s demagogic monolog “Don’t worry about the ickle birdies“.
What’s striking — yet scarcely unexpected, given that unremarked logical contradictions are business-as-usual at WUWT — is that precisely zero of WUWT‘s 500+ comments on these two stories perceive any contradiction between Anthony’s professed standards-of-discourse and Monckton’s chronic violations of them.
Continuing WUWT’s frat-boy tradition, Willis Eschenbach’s new post refers to his Australian colleagues as “professors from the University of East Wankerton.”
WUWT? (the usual!) :) ;) :)
Whoops! I stand corrected … fredb has posted:
It’s good to see that WUWT readers are acquiring a clue. Perhaps the WUWT editors will follow-suit? :) :) :)
Johnny, if you have an issue with WUWT, why don’t you take it over there? If you don’t like their policy of no proxy servers, take your University laptop to Starbucks.
*Discourse*, Over time I am sure that the meaning of words will change but…
“Servicemen are now more important in the national psycho-drama than at any time since the Second World War.”
treason? Will it still be a hate crime or to late to be understood that way? Do you see a pattern? They all march in step wearing their very fine suits too. A very pleasent change from the sixties, to be sure.
P.E. it’s no secret that the WUWT mods are rampin’ up their asymmetric censorship practices:
Ain’t it th’ truth! :) ;) :)
I’m sure our readers would like to see the full mod quote, not just the final admonition. Here it is
‘Respond to the specific scientific points and avoid personal attacks, challenges, and ad-homs, and your comment will always be posted. And please, no argument on this. The internet is a big place if you’re not happy here’:
Latimer Alder, please let me recommend that Climate Etc. folks scan through all the the 96 WUWT comments relating to Monckton’s message … save (of course) for the comments that were judged (by Anthony) as being too “wankowous” for the delicate sensibilities of WUWT readers! ;) ;) ;)
None of us will ever know what those now-deleted “wankowous” comments had to say regarding Monckton. But that’s OK at WUWT, provided that Monckton’s message gets through loud-and-clear. And there’s zero doubt … is there? … as to the self-evidently “wankowous” qualities (or lack thereof) of Monckton’s message. ;) ;) ;)
Latimer – Don’t respond to the troll Fan of More BS. You just encourage him.
Asymmetric how? I’m banned there too and I’m hardly a warmist.
You have to be careful about the domain name on the proxy server, by the way. If you can tell it’s a proxy server by the name then so can the moderators.
I have said on a number of occasions that I don’t like belittling those we disagree with and especially disapprove of the extreme and insulting name calling that goes on here and at WUWT. I suppose that illustrates however that not everyone sings from the same song sheet, which is a good thing, but it would be nice if people would cut the unpleasant stuff.
Banter is a different matter and on a different level
Do you really not get the difference between being called a racist and a wanker?
I wouldn’t dream of calling you the former but you certainly qualify as the latter.
A search of the mathematical, scientific, and engineering literature finds no previous usage of the word “wanker” (although there *is* a respected cardiological researcher named Erich E. Wanker).
So, should we credit Willis Eschenbach / WUWT with this important innovation in climate-change research nomenclature? :) ;) :)
And there was a researcher at a place where I worked once named Jack Tinkler. Take that as a suggestion if you wish.
Proves my point really. It has a much longer history and I am sure the term is broadly applicable in many areas of science and engineering but I am not surprised you missed that. :cool: Try recourse to popular culture – you might become less of a wanker.
‘Phil Collins used the word in his 1984 cameo appearance on Miami Vice and has sometimes been credited with introducing the word to America.
On the American TV Show Married With Children, Peggy Bundy’s maiden name is Wanker, and her family hails from (fictitious) Wanker County, Wisconsin.’ Wikepedia
So in summary fan doesn’t really get the difference between being called a racist and something that is much more benign – and will continue to rabbit on in an almost completely content less manner complaining about being not allowed to comment on WUWT. :razz:
I don’t spend any time on WUWT – but surely a lack of fan is an incentive.
Readers of Climate Etc. are invited to visit Prof. Dr. Erich E. Wanker’s Alzheimer’s-related research page:
Dr. Wanker’s research is very impressive, eh?
So maybe Willis Eschenbach’s /WUWT’s intent was to praise Australian climate-change researchers by calling them “wankers”? If so, that would be a *terrific* outreach effort.
Hopefully this has cleared up any remaining misunderstandings with regard to evolving standards of “wanking” at WUWT! :) ;) :)
Try not to rock out with your spock out Fan – :eek:
Here’s a few alternatives to contemplate.
Chief, your video doesn’t work for me. If it perchance your post related to various high-Ranking and markedly RancoRous WUWT guest-videos, perhaps this is the Monty Python sketch that your post intended? :)
Now you are just being absurd. :cry: And still not answering the question about the cultural distinctions between racism and onanism. One is morally objectionable on a fundamental level and the other is ubiquitous and the subject of humour. You are someone interested in obscure point scoring in some schoolgirl debate going on your delusional frame of reference rather than a seeker after enlightenment. Very boring. :roll:
You don’t know Fanny, do you? I don’t think he’s ever made an on-topic comment here or anywhere else. Ever.
Despite this, scientists are still judged on publications in high-impact journals; funding and promotion often depend on it. Defence scientists however, have to work under a blanket of secrecy. Warfare is all about surprise, so countermeasures secrecy is essential. It follows that scientists who have produced great advances in defence science are often unknown.
“Too often, we scientists seek patterns in data that reflect our preconceived ideas. And when we do publish the data, we too frequently publish only those that support these ideas”
Of all the tools available to scientists ‘joining the dots’ is one of the most productive. Yes, inferences drawn can be preconceived and the scientist needs to explain, for example: “the author can see no other explanation”.
This paper was published in 2005 on Why Most Published Data is Wrong.
And so by implication, that referenced paper is wrong as well.
What most people don’t understand is that research is about going in the right direction. Every little finding doesn’t have to be exactly correct, but the accumulation of the evidence is what provides the inertia toward correctness.
AGW skeptics have no inertia of their own, as the accumulation of evidence to back up a counter-theory is virtually non-existent.
Trains have inertia. Start one off on the wrong track and that inertia is not a good thing :)
Web AGW skeptics have no inertia of their own, as the accumulation of evidence to back up a counter-theory is virtually non-existent.
Eh? The consensus group say some distant star is made of green cheese. The skeptics group say there seem to be problems with the evidence; and they have no opinion on the star’s makeup.
What is the rationale of trying to burden skeptics with the ‘need’ to have a counter-theory?
Lift a finger and do some climate analysis. You can do it, I know you can — just watch how captain Dallas makes a mess of things.
Fellow Sophist – are you being molested by this cretin? May I offer you the service of a model and a counter-theory courtesy of Dr. Anastasios Tsonis? It is called a new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts.
‘First we construct a network from four major climate indices. The network approach to complex systems is a rapidly developing methodology, which has proven to be useful in analysing such systems’ behaviour [Albert and
Barabasi, 2002; Strogatz, 2001]. In this approach, a complex system is presented as a set of connected nodes. The collective behaviour of all the nodes and links (the topology of the network) describes the dynamics of the system and offers new ways to investigate its properties. The indices represent the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the North Pacific Oscillation (NPO) [Barnston and Livezey, 1987; Hurrell, 1995; Mantua et al., 1997; Trenberth and Hurrell, 1994]. These indices represent regional but dominant modes of climate variability, with time scales ranging from months to decades. NAO and NPO are the leading modes of surface pressure variability in northern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, respectively, the PDO is the leading mode of SST variability in the northern Pacific and ENSO is a major signal in the tropics. Together these four modes capture the essence of climate variability in the northern hemisphere.’
This model has the virtues of being peer reviewed, correct, developed by a Professor of Atmospheric Physics and useful in evolving our understanding of the climate system. Webby’s power law equations have none of the virtues and are in fact bizarrely unphysical. They in fact emerge from a deeply disturbed mind. Far be it for me to spread rumours – but rumour has it that he lives in his mother’s basement and eats only pop tarts and Dr. Pepper. Webby objects to this model on the basis of he doesn’t know what it means.
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.
What is the rationale of trying to burden skeptics with the ‘need’ to have a counter-theory?
In the post by Keenan at Bishop Hill on scientific fraud and cheer leading journalists, a comment by Greensand, 28/06/12, seems pertinent …’as the “gatekeepers” continue to decline their responsibilities, the need for The Fifth Estate is becoming all the more obvious.’
Beth Cooper | June 29, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
Always boggles me when Science ethics is discussed among science journalists and the word “irony” doesn’t come up.
When codes of ethics don’t include terms like pro-active, systematic, or aggressive in describing how to go about honesty and openness.
Though it is nice to see others recognize what a tiny fraction of the dishonesty in science happens in climatology. Even if you include the dishonestly like Dr. Ball’s and Mr. Orssengo’s, it’s still tiny compared to pharmacology, for example.
…tiny fraction of the dishonesty in science happens in climatology.
But nevertheless what a huge fraction of climatology is fraudulent (hidden data, etc etc).
Erica | July 2, 2012 at 2:40 am |
Well, if you don’t like fraud, hidden data, etc etc, then stop going to Idsos’ and Watts’ etc etc sites. ;)
Bart, re yr … ‘tiny fraction of the dishonesty happens in climatology…’
Seems to me dishonesty is dishonesty wherever.
Rigging results in either medical or climate studies, of course, can also have costly consequences. Impossible to argue the ends justify the means. Fergit noble cause corruption that the Fourth Estate possibly thinks is their justification fer cheerleading hocky stick science.
Beth Cooper | June 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
The problem with treating some dishonesty as special and worse (or better) than other dishonesty is that it’s impossible to tell from dishonesty itself. Would I be happier if Al Gore’s 5%-10% (as determined by senior British courts) climate untruths never happened? Absolutely. Do I think it somehow a different type of untruth than, for example, Rick Perry’s 90%-95%? Qualitatively not so much. Gore had a bigger international audience. Perry lied more as a proportion of what he said. They’re both guilty of dishonesty.
But however much we seek to respond to their dishonesty, it does not affect the logic or the Science, the facts, the observations. Well.. that’s not exactly precise. UAH observes entirely different facts than two other equally competent satellite research facilities (all three have slight differences, which is to be expected, but UAH’s has suspicious correspondences with observer bias). So in some ways, dishonesty will color Science regardless of the sincere goodwill of scientists. (No one suggests UAH are intentionally dishonest.)
But then, there are very few false claims of rigging results in medicine compared to actual result rigging.. while practically every result in climatology routinely is assailed with claims of rigging.. often before the critics have even read the research. That’s it’s own form of dishonesty.
Bart, that is too precious. My tax dollars don’t support WUWT. It is understandable that you, as a socialist, don’t distinguish between public and private, but there is in fact a difference. My tax money supports many climate scientists, they owe me to be honest and open. Watts does not. Get over it.
jim2 | June 30, 2012 at 7:39 am |
D00d. I understand you now.
You’re a lawyer! You go by the principle of the legal profession that it can only be dishonest if it’s paid for, and then only to the one who paid for it; that anything you say to someone who hasn’t paid you owes them no truth whatsoever.
See, I get you now. When you, or WUWT, say anything, however fabricated, false, misleading, made-up, synthetic, artificial, incomplete, backwards or malicious, to you that’s ethically not just okay, but expected and even required, unless you or WUWT have been paid to tell the truth.
That’s private enterprise, to you.
I want to see a receipt for the tax money you say you paid for climate scientists.
Actually, as I won’t be paying you, and know you will therefore just lie, don’t bother. As no one can now take you seriously. Or Watts.
I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that if you keep calling Watt’s dishonest, you had better be able to prove it in court.
jim2 | June 30, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
You say, “I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that if you keep calling Watt’s dishonest, you had better be able to prove it in court.”
But previously you said, “..they owe me to be honest and open. Watts does not.”
The implication of your earlier statement is clear and unmistakeable. Are you prepared for Watts to take you to court?
And the irony, of course, is that you use an argument that the state owes you truth for your tax dollars, a fundamentally statist precept, and one of the foundations of the socialist belief that the individual is owed things by society.
Such hypocrisy, doubletalk and sham from jim2. And he isn’t even a lawyer.
You are wasting time trying to discuss intelligently with Bart.
I’ve had more productive discussions with dogs.
If you watch what they do with their nose and their paws,
Just like Poor Ol’ Jeffdog, you’ll soon have four eyes.
So as far as EPA goes, the only way to be sure is defund the agency.
Since 1970 they have been costing in total 250 billion dollars. And have become so twisted that they imagine they add o economic growth by forcing business to deal with ever increasing amounts of red tape.
So killing the agency will only save about 10 billion per year, but at least it’s less billions wasted.
Mike @ 29/06 7.319pm:
Say, Mike, you do have a way with words..’Big-greens-big-snouts,’ ‘little people-those who survive the “cull,” ‘ lol. As one of those little people in Oz about to be hit by Labor’s Carbon Tax, D Day (D=disaster,) on August 1, have to agree.
Is it really a climate week-in-review?
Now it’s a week in review.
Nothing this week from http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/news/ — the Antarctic still appears to be losing mass, and US groundwater still appears to be depleting..
And time for a blast from the past, missed in the Back-to-the-Future thread: http://www.c2es.orgwww.c2es.org/docUploads/2012%20new.pdf from 2004, a look at what 2012 and after might look like.
Have a read, and entertain yourself with what they got wrong, and right, about the world’s climate policies.
‘The trouble with treating some dishonesty as special and worse ( or better) than other dishonesty…’
Well Bart, none of us are Gods, or Plato, dispassionate observers, above it all, judging ‘dishonesty’ in itself – we respond to specific situations. I read very closely the Climategate emails, historical primary evidence, the team’s private correspondence to each other on FOI, gatekeeping, obfuscation of difficulties with data, and i read Steve McIntyre’s detailed, dated communications with them concerning selection of tree samples,and stats processes … that’s my issue with climate science dishonesty. And, well, we keep on finding stuff going missing.
People focus, Bart, and wherever some con is going on, let’s hope someone, or group, from whichever side of politics, religion, etc etc is taking a critical interest in what’s
Bart, jest call me Beth why don’t you :-)
Beth Cooper | June 30, 2012 at 2:27 am |
Ah, Beth. I do call you Beth. Your ideas, your correspondences, I try to label by author and datestamp, to make the documentary reference of people interested in what is said easier.
Which leads to the interesting mistake of those not gods nor Platonists who cannot divorce meaning from source. To me, arguments are not genetic. Ideas have no mommy and daddy. My opinions of their parentage will not influence my attitudes of their validity as ideas.
So I scarcely read McIntyre or Climategate, as they are virtually data-free and almost factless; I find historical primary evidence only evidence or primary if it is authenticated as a first source, the freer from interpretation by intermediary the better. I understand enough about FOI and the hack of the FOI system used to punish the CRU to just ignore the enterprise on both sides, and look instead at the actual statistics McIntyre et cie performed on the actual statistics the IPCC presented, and on my own estimations, and concluded that the tempest in the teacup revolved around fewer than five percent of datum on only one reconstruction of a half-dozen that all disagree with each other about the LIA and MWP and each of which has but a fraction the confidence level of the current instrumental record.. and am unimpressed by the fuss.
Paleoclimatology is imprecise and verges on superstition in the best of cases. Systematic and organized efforts to deliver meaningful paleoclimate conclusions through intensive gridded observation of all possible data are barely possible, but not seriously considered. Any fuss about global climate prior to 1800 is thus no more significant scientifically than two camps of baboons screeching and armwaving and flinging feces in the grasslands.
The exception to this is ice core reconstruction of CO2 level, which delivers enough information for us to reliably talk about CO2 rise coinciding with human influence, and CO2 rise coinciding with temperature change.. and to conclude that the CO2 rise due temperature only explains up to the sub-300 ppm level of CO2, and the CO2 rise due human industry has increased more than the entire natural span of CO2 change observed in the past 800,000 years.
We can conclude that industry is making a CO2 mess and not cleaning up after itself. All the rest, Physics and Chemistry, Biology and Economics is enough to tell us. We don’t need tree rings to tell us anything, and so much less so do we need name-calling and feces-throwing.
What is the cost?
This has important consequences.
When the regulations are fully implemented, all emitters will have to be included. EPA has estimated the cost to EPA alone would be $21 billion per year http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/09/16/document_pm_02.pdf#page=48 . The cost to industry to comply with the EPA’s emissions measurement and reporting requirements is unknown. However, since tens of thousands of businesses would be included, I imagine the total cost to industry and, therefore the loss in USA GDP, would be tens, hundreds or thousands of times more than to the EPA. After all, it is industry that has to implement the measuring equipment, maintain it and report the information. The EPA requirements require measurements every 15 minutes and calibration of the instruments before every measurements. The information must be summed at different time intervals and sent to EPA. EPA’s requirements for the other gasses have changed every few years. The costs of the changes to the measurement and reporting systems would be enormous. Not only the measurement and reporting systems must be changed but all the legacy data and systems for all the organisations that use and analyse the data must change – all the government departments that use the data ands all the consultants, etc. Others can add to this list.
The studies of environmental chemist Patrick Zimmerman have demonstrated that the digestive processes of the worlds’ termites return more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than is produced by modern consumption of fossil fuels.
Folks, it seems global warming is not only man made. It is also termite made. May be we should think of changing the digestive processes of termites.
Find a termite that burrows deep into the earth to eat crude oil and you’ll have something. If they eat 2x4s it’s called 280 ppm forever – natural.
Your termites have a natural mechanism to limit their numbers: http://www.awf.org/content/wildlife/detail/pangolin
The only limit on industrial emission of CO2 is common sense and Economics.
I understand populations of things that prey on termites are under pressure due to human activities.. So it seems Common Sense isn’t a reliable mechanism, and we must resort to Economics.
Save a pangolin. Privatize the Carbon Cycle.
Washington state, under Attorney General Rob McKenna, signed on to the case in 2009 and 2010 in support of EPA’s move classifying the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change as harmful pollutants. Industry groups had argued that the science of global warming was not well-supported and that the agency had based its judgment on studies that were basically a compilation and synthesis of thousands of other studies, which made the conclusions unreliable. “This argument is little more than a semantic trick,” the opinion said. “EPA did not delegate. any decision-making to any of those entities.
As I recall, they delegated the science to the IPCC.
It was that finding by their Inspector General that led to his determination that the agency failed to follow its own processes and procedures.
The gist of FR11 seem to be : this (X) is what we say the various non-anthro forces are doing, therefore any change from X we will assume is down CO2. The notion that there may be other as yet unknown forces or feedbacks at work, seems to have quite passed them by. The main focus seems to be on not diluting the basic alarmist message.
You are avoiding what they actually did.
FR11 removed an estimate of the ENSO and the solar cycle impact and “isolated the global warming signal”. This remaining warming rate is steady over the entire period which contradicts claims that warming has recently stopped or slowed down.
In other words, if you remove ENSO and the solar cycle and find the remaining warming is steady and without pause then how can it be said the warming has recently stopped?
It is you who is avoiding what they did. They only pretend to know what all the non-anthro forces are doing, so that they can then ‘conclude’ that CO2 accounts for the rest.
You’ll struggle to find actual deniers that CO2 has some, so best ditch that particular strawman. The real question is : how does CO2 rank in comparison to natural forces? If it ranks very low, then cutting CO2 will be pretty pointless, especially given the huge anticipated costs and loss of freedom involved.
The problem is – nobody yet knows with any confidence. All we have is the confidence tricksters of the IPCC ‘consensus’.
There are two separate issues.
1) Whether the global warming signal since the beginning of the satellite record is ongoing or has stopped since eg 1998. The FR11 paper argues that once ENSO and solar cycle are removed the “warming rate is steady over the entire period”.
2) The cause of that steady ongoing warming rate.
You seem to be avoiding #1 by focusing on #2.
They took out things they speculate were sources of cooling and then say look, if it hadn’t cooled, it would have warmed. Not too impressive.
If you are going to make extreme predictions, then stick with them, don’t change your story when it doesn’t come true. If there had been MAJOR volcanoes, you could argue that this was the cause since they have been up front all along that major volcanoes have a prolonged cooling effect. Also with CAGW predictions, the rate of heating is predicted to accelerate, not stay constant.
I am not a partisan on either view, but too many people are. You can decide for yourself where you fall.
“They took out things they speculate were sources of cooling and then say look, if it hadn’t cooled, it would have warmed. Not too impressive.”
Why is it not impressive? The logic is sound. You must disagree about the sources of cooling then.
So you disagree a solar minimum has a cooling effect?
Or do you disagree that La Ninas have a cooling effect?
I think you, like a lot of skeptics, are simply wishing to ignore the sound point that FR11 makes.
“If there had been MAJOR volcanoes, you could argue that this was the cause since they have been up front all along that major volcanoes have a prolonged cooling effect”
They’ve also been up front that short periods can be swamped by noise. That’s why among other things they recommend not reading too much into short-term trends.
Their focus on the solar cycle and ENSO is an attempt to explain some of that noise.
Erica | June 30, 2012 at 8:09 am |
The notion that there may be other as yet unknown forces or feedbacks at work, seems to have quite passed them by.
In statistical and graphical analyses, “Unknown unknowns” are detected for by the principle that, once known explanations are removed, unknown factors are revealed in the residue.
No signal in the residue, no unknown factor.
Do you see a signal in the residue?
Show it to us.
“No signal in the residue, no unknown factor.” If the system time constants are all correct, otherwise you get a false sense of security.
Say you take two containers of water and two identical heat sources. One container has half the mass of water but both have the same surface area. With the same energy applied to each, there will be different final states because of the difference in thermal mass. What assumption of thermal mass was made in the FR11 paper?
This has been discussed at the BlackBoard pretty well. BartR, you should know the limits of that statement but seem very confident. All it takes is one wrong assumption and ASS-U-ME kicks in.
capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 per doubling maybe :) | June 30, 2012 at 11:24 am |
I don’t foresee the Atlantic or Pacific boiling dry within the timeframe under consideration. If this is the sort of discussion to be had at the Blackboard, then ‘pretty well’ is not a sufficient level.
Maybe you’ll want serious discussions with more careful and deliberate participants. AS yoU won’t See ME there until then.
The discussion was not about boiling oceans just whether the assumption of linearity is appropriated, whether 2 or more ocean heat capacities should be considered and the approximate shape of the approach curves for the various assumptions. The projections are based on an ensemble of models that disagree with each other and are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Hardly what I would consider cause for a great deal of confidence, but I am silly that way.
BartR, here is an interesting little chart, UAH lower troposphere land minus oceans. For some reason, RSS data doesn’t come broken down quite as nicely as UAH, perhaps you can contact RSS it UAH is an issue for you.
By subtracting the ocean temperature from the land temperature, the radiant impact of CO2 should be amplified, the oceans have that thermal lag doncha know. Since the Northern extent has the larger percentage land mass, most of the recorded warming and most of the emissions, I would suspect that the northern extent land would be warming more quickly relative to the oceans than any other region. Oddly, the tropics have the largest land versus ocean warming rate. Now I know that aerosols are mysterious and powerful things to be considered, but this strikes me as a bit odd.
capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 per doubling maybe :) | June 30, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
So.. irrelevant Blackboard threads and an ultranoisy UAH graph (not chart).. and I’m expected to do what with this?
And if you could explain how you contend that stratospheric cooling is a ‘response to tropospheric warming’, rather than a response to changes in CO2 levels? Or what timescale, lags and .. oh, look, signals of unexplained factors.. you might wish to clarify about your cases?
Why is it you’re so careful about other people’s arguments, and so careless in your own?
Here is a puzzle for ya BartR. One of the more difficult concepts of GHE theory is stratospheric cooling in response to tropospheric warming. From the AQUA data in that chart, the stratosphere warms while the troposphere cools and vice versa. Kinda like the game plan.
Up until 1995, the stratosphere cooled while the troposphere warmed, now the stratosphere has taken a time out on the cooling gig. There is an obvious explanation and plenty of much more creative explanations.
That one is obvious, asymptotic decay to an equilibrium heat content. So why ignore the obvious?
Oops, you must be reading that wrong. The top three lines indicate the stratosphere which is cooling. It is kind of surprising this can be seen so clearly in such a short record.
JimD, I got no quarrel with Einstein or Newton. Arrhenius appears to have changed his mind with the 1.6 (2.1) with water vapor. So likely I am just finding out the same thing he found out just never published. Now Hansen or Trenberth, that looks like light work to me, they are not even close to the same league.
There are plenty of thermodynamic books, steam tables, psychrometric charts, salt water property tables, all the stuff you need to start at the beginning. What do you reckon is the specific enthaply of salt water at 21.1C? Right about 83 Joules per gram. What is the estimate of the latent cooling flux from the surface? About 83 Wm-2. Now how are Joules per second and Watts per second related again?
I think it is pretty interesting to work on the problem. Who knows, I might learn something :)
So which part of Arrhenius’s idea did you not agree with? That adding CO2 has an effect on the energy balance? That water vapor feeds back positively? That the surface temperature responds to restore the balance? The ideas he had were correct, but his data were not up to today’s standards, plus we now have the data to show this effect coming to pass.
JimD, 5.35, That is not supposed to be a constant. It can’t be a constant. Angstrom told him it was not a constant, Hansen just never got the memo.
Yes, not constant, just the asymptote over time.
JimD, look at the annual cycle, There is some long term stratospheric cooling because there is a GHE, but the rate shifted. It is the changes in the rates of change that tell the story. If you don’t base the estimate on the correct initial conditions you get wrong answers. The equilibrium heat content allows you to determine what is causing what, remember, land use, recovery from the little ice age, aerosols, black carbon all those silly little details :)
I would just average over the annual cycle, because that is not climate change. Sub-decadal trends are a bit iffy too.
JimD, I would and have just averaged, compared that short series to the longer satellite series, compared that to the longer instrumental series and compared that to the longer paleo series, compared that to the early sensitivity estimates and to the more recent sensitivity estimates. There is really no shortage of data, just a shortage of model agreement. Dr. Curry recently mentioned that a aqua model might be useful. I actually have started an aqua model. I have also added a radiant model to that and found that there needs to be a third model to consider areas of the Earth surface not include in either of those models. GHE theory is incomplete as best I can tell, meaning there is no magic one size fits all lambda ans not to surprising the me, the major issue is not in the physics but in the models attempting to resemble physics and averaging surface that do not have common physical characteristics. Its a uh oh kinda thing that happens when you make the wrong assumptions.
It could be my poor choice of assumptions of course, but the aqua or moisture boundary layer model is still hanging in there.
The stratophhere warmed slightly from about 1995 to about 2003. It started cooling slightly since then. This just happens to match up very well with the solar cycle. It apears there is a solar signature and a volcanic signature in the lower stratosphere but it lacks a CO2 signature. Time will tell but I wouldn’t put any money down on CO2.
steven, you may not put any money on radiative physics of gases being right, but I would. More CO2 does mean more cooling in the stratosphere. The effect of CO2 changes in the next century is going to be at least five times that so far, so it should emerge from the noise of other variations quite obviously. This is another area where the skeptics need it to be obvious already before listening to the predictions from physics.
CD, the bottom line is the energy balance. How does the climate system conspire to increase its outgoing radiation when CO2 suppresses it? AGW says the surface temperature has to increase to accomplish this. The question is how much (they predict 2-4 degrees per doubling). The rate over the last 30 years is consistent with this range, but other explanations are still being sought by the skeptics.
Jim, seeing is believing. Besides, this paper wasn’t written by skeptics and it states that all the fluctuations in stratospheric temperatures can be explained just with volcanic eruptions and there is no need to include CO2 or solar. At least I’m not denying solar :).
steven, obviously solar variations and volcanoes have an effect. Who would deny that? This is exactly why the CO2 signal will take some time to emerge.
Jim, I can accept a wait and see attitude. That’s what I have.
steven, OK, the paper didn’t mention CO2, so clearly they didn’t expect its changing effect to be large compared to what they were looking at in this period.
No, nobody does that studies it anymore I don’t believe. Ramanathan said it wasn’t the dominant factor way back in 2006. Basically all the talk about a cooling stratosphere being the fingerprint of AGW has been disposed of. But people still keep saying it anyway. So maybe there is a co2 signature and it is just very small.
Ooops, make that Ramaswamy not Ramanathan. Sorry. Those long R names always confuse me.
JimD, said, “CD, the bottom line is the energy balance. How does the climate system conspire to increase its outgoing radiation when CO2 suppresses it?” That is exactly what I am working on which requires accurate estimates of what “normal” is. Generally, non-linear dynamic systems that exist, as in haven’t gone BOOM, have a what is know as a “system” curve. There is a region of instability where the system can jump from one point on the system curve to another. This is like the strange attractors in chaos theory, but in the real world I have worked on a few of those potentially unstable non-linear dynamic systems. And yes, one did almost blow the roof off an office building because of a little time delay miscommunication :)
The approach I used on those systems appears to work quite well for climate, but you have to start at the slower more potent forces and work your way out to the others. CO2 is fast and not the most potent. So instead of what impact CO2 has on OHC you start with what impact does OHC have on CO2. Then you balance forces out from the center of calamity. Now that OHC is approaching stability, you can begin to see what impact it has on CO2 then determine the new balance.
The current approach of assuming CO2 causes everything is totally asinine.
steven, yes, it is small compared to what else is going on, so far. I would bet that the IPCC AR5 will show it at least as strong as AR4 in the future projections and may also show it in current data. There is no backing off that one as it comes from basic physics.
CD, you may be working on something, as you say, but first you have to say why scientists since Arrhenius got it wrong, because that is by far the most accepted theory. If you had your own theory of gravity, first you would have to say why Newton or Einstein were wrong. A lot of skeptics say there is a natural variability component that happens to be currently acting the same way as CO2 would, and has been for thirty years and counting, but they have said it goes up and down for some unknown reasons and has a magnitude of 0.2 degrees, insignificant compared to AGW, for the next century. I don’t know why they bother with such small quantities. The sunspot cycle has that same amplitude, but people don’t make a fuss about that nearly as much. Hopefully you can come up with something much larger than that with its own balanced energy budget and provability in the data. Maybe it will add onto AGW and give us cause for more concern.
capt. dallas said:
“The current approach of assuming CO2 causes everything is totally asinine”
More asinine is claiming that anyone assumes CO2 causes “everything”. Please sight just one published piece of research that claims CO2 causes “everything”. .
“Although climate sensitivity is usually used in the context of radiative forcing by carbon dioxide, it is thought of as a general property of the climate system: the change in surface air temperature (ΔTs) following a unit change in radiative forcing (RF), and thus is expressed in units of °C/(W/m2). For this to be useful, the measure must be independent of the nature of the forcing (e.g. from greenhouse gases or solar variation); to first order this is indeed found to be so.”
deltaTs=lambda*RF, would probably work like a champ on a billiard ball.
That stratospheric cooling is static ie no significant trendsince 1995 was a finding of the wmo o3 assessment eg.
New analyses of both satellite and radiosonde data give increased confidence in changes in stratospheric temperatures between 1980 and 2009. The global-mean lower stratosphere cooled by 1–2 K and the upper stratosphere cooled by 4–6 K between 1980 and 1995. There have been no significant long-term trends in global-mean lower
stratospheric temperatures since about 1995. The global-mean lower-stratospheric cooling did not occur linearly but was manifested as downward steps in temperature in the early 1980s and the early 1990s. The cooling of the lower stratosphere includes the tropics and is not limited to extratropical regions as previously thought.
The mechanisms for the decrease prior are also clearly defined ,
The evolution of lower stratospheric temperature is influenced by a combination of natural and human factors that has varied over time. Ozone decreases dominate the lower stratospheric cooling since 1980. Major volcanic eruptions and solar activity have clear shorter-term effects. Models that consider all of these factors are able to
reproduce this temperature time history.
The inclusion of the additional chapter on ODS/Climate coupling for the wmo 2011 review was a formal requirement from the MP parties to provide critical overview to the AR5 assessment.
The current chapter helps to place the Protocol’s climate impact within a wider context by critically assessing the effect of stratospheric climate changes on the troposphere and surface climate, following a formal request for this information by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. As requested, the current chapter also considers the effects on stratospheric climate of some emissions that are not addressed by the Montreal Protocol, but are included in the 1997 Kyoto protocol. Hence, the chapter covers some of the issues assessed in past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (IPCC, 2007; IPCC/TEAP, 2005). The current chapter is designed to provide useful input to future IPCC assessments.
The troposphere and surface climate are affected by many types of stratospheric change. Ozone plays a key role in such stratospheric climate change, but other physical factors play important roles as well. For this reason, we consider here the effects on the stratosphere of not only emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), but
also of emissions of greenhouse gases, natural phenomena(e.g., solar variability and volcanic eruptions), and chemical, radiative, and dynamical stratosphere/troposphere coupling
“… chemical, radiative, and dynamical stratosphere/troposphere coupling”
That is the meat right there. Solomon noted that en trained water vapor reacts with ozone. That could well be a natural effect of the upper temperature set point.
Solomon noted that en trained water vapor reacts with ozone
There are multiple mechanisms with Stratospheric water vapour (swv) that are a poorly understood,ie integrable eg WMO 2011.CHAPTER 4
the trend in stratospheric water vapor is not well understood. Over the period 1950–2000 there was an increase in entry-level stratospheric water vapor on the order of 1%/yr (Rosenlof et al., 2001) during a period of increasing tropospheric methane and decreasing tropopause temperatures (Zhou et al., 2001). At the end of 2000 there was
a decrease in stratospheric entry-level water vapor coincident with a step-like drop in tropical tropopause temperatures (Randel et al., 2006; Rosenlof and Reid, 2008). The observed long-term increase in stratospheric water vapor over the 1950–2000 period cannot be explained through tropical tropopause temperature trends, although some aspects of interannual variability can be. The more recent
decrease in stratospheric water vapor can be explained
by tropical tropopause temperature changes, although the
mechanism driving that temperature change is not well
The entrainment problem however is clearly identifiable (although from a different perspective) ie poorly resolved stratospheric climatological parameters have a tendency for blowup eg Joshi 2010
in the radiative forcing associated with doubling CO2 from pre-industrial concentrations (in HadCM3) is 3.75Wm^−2. If the extra downward LW effect associated with SWV in the LEP2 experiment is 2.8Wm^−2, this will almost double the total radiative forcing …
Further pg 7166
…A scenario that should be considered is whether the high temperature response in LEP2 might occur in reality because of a real change in convective entrainment or other processes that significantly increase SWV in a warmer climate. There has indeed been an increasing trend in stratospheric humidity over the latter half of the 20th century, which is thought to be climatically significant (Forster and Shine, 2002; Solomon et al., 2010). However, the trend is noisy (e.g.: Rosenlof et al., 2001), has many possible causes not related to climate warming (e.g.: Scaife et al., 2003; Joshi and Shine, 2003),
and at present is hard to attribute (Fueglistaler and Haynes, 2005). In addition, stratospheric water vapour values decreased from the late 1990s to the early 2000s and there is no evidence of a positive trend since the year 2000 (Randel et al., 2006).
Since LEP2 exhibits a radiative effect from the change in SWV that is about 80% of the CO2 forcing, one might expect that the radiative forcing associated with observed SWV changes since pre-industrial times should be a significant fraction of the 1.6Wm−2 associated with CO2 since 1860,if the real world behaved like LEP. Forster and Shine (2002) estimated a value of only 0.29Wm−2 for stratospheric water forcing in the 20th century, and this was based on the peak trend, which has now lessened.
This open problem firstly suggests that time series in ar4 was not long enough( and constrained by the jumps) ,and reversibility suggests natural variation.
The full model of FR 2011 only explained 70 to 80% of the variance in long-term temperatues, which is pretty good, and certainly is powerful evidence of the effect of anthropogenic forcing, but it also shows that there are other natural forcings at play besides ENSO and solar that could account for the additional 20 to 30% of the variabilty. NAO aerosols might be good places to look.
Should have been “NAO and aerosols might be good places to look.”
Doc, the NAO are both part of the puzzle, but it is looking like what they impact, the snow/ice balance is the more important thing to understand. I start with big and work towards small. Not so surprising to me, I am finding that the snow/ice balance along with the freezing point difference between salt water and fresh are the more likely candidates for the glacial/inter-glacial attractors. Then instead of global temperature changing it is really ice sheet/open ocean area changes that define the extremes. So if you attempt to model past climate without separately consider the moisture air region and the ice/sheet dry air region, you get inconsistent results.
The moist air/open ocean region would be very stable temperature wise, just expand or contract with OHC.
Regarding the economic viability of cellulosic alcohol (and other biofuels), the American Society of Mechanics Engineers (ASME) published in the May issue of Mechanical Engineering an analysis by AMSE fellow Frank Kreith titled “Bang for the Buck: Energy return on energy investment is a powerful metric for weighing which energy systems are worth pursuing” (a Google search finds it).
As befits an engineering journal, the conclusions are plain, fact-driven, no-politics common sense:
By the criteria of energy return on investment (EROI) the ranking of non-fossil energy sources turns out to be:
• best EROI (by far) conservation
• excellent EROI wind
• good EROI solar
• marginal EROI nuclear
• worst by EROI (by far) biomass
Engineering Conclusion: Petroleum seems to be in terminal decline, while wind, solar and conservation look promising.
Scientists and hard-nosed (but rational) skeptics alike can enjoy Dr. Kreith’s fact-driven, numbers-driven EROI analysis, eh? :) ;) :)
Fan of more BS, this is all predicated on the assumption that burning fossil fuels is bad. If you’ve been paying attention, that has yet to be proved. So, let’s not get so worked up over this.
Then there is this from one experienced in the oil business – not just someone who makes up “models” and declares them to be true because they are mathematical. Your article from an “engineer” makes a false assumption here also.
jim2, You are getting buried by the harsh realities of engineering analysis. The Fan Man gave you a link that you can’t deal with and I will pile on with another one.
Forging A Better Supply Chain For Minerals
This is from the June 25th issue of Chemical and Engineering News describing issues with resource availability of minerals such as phosphate and metals, with options for recycling as the virgin reserves start to dwindle. The story of phosphates is very interesting, and along with the helium story (which is covered by research physicists :
HELIUM CRISIS: THE WORLD IS RUNNING OUT OF HELIUM.), we have some very interesting challenges ahead of us.
Alas, most climate skeptics don’t seem to care, or else, like jim2, tend to be combative.
Web – Helium is a problem and some other minerals could become one. Oil isn’t as an immediate problem as some would have us believe. But it strikes me that the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority” has a couple of sub-fallacies: Appeal to Mathematics and Appeal to Computers.
I appeal to math on resource constraint problems because no one else seems to want to use the approach.
I’m a big fan of math, Web. But a model, mathematical or realized in a computer, is only as good as one’s knowledge of the system in question. Not to say there aren’t emergent properties of a complex model, but in order to be realistic emergent properties, the underlying concepts have to meet reality.
You have the gist of webby’s problem Jim – he lives in alternate universe with very different physics.
When you repeat that all caps stuff about helium, I wonder: Do you sound like daffy duck?
That shows the lack of any depth to the skeptical arguments. I take an ALL CAPS link off of Professor Park’s What’s New newsletter, which he has been running since 1987 and having pioneered social media for physics, can present it any way he wants. Yet, Hunter can only complain about the caps.
BTW, as a disclaimer, I have early research ties to Park and his work. He is a pioneer in many ways, and is one of the REAL skeptics that all of you FAKE skeptics can only dream about.
No really – we could run out of helium by the end of the century. What on earth do they want us to do about it? I vote for going to the moon.
Noo – on reflection I vote for sending webby to the moon.
Reminds me of that old feminist joke. If they can send one man to the moon – why can’t they send them all?
That the burning of fossil fuels is “bad” can be measured by how you wish to define bad. The potential greenhouse warming effect from dumping all this extra carbon in the atmosphere that had been sequestered for millions of years in th lithosphere is only one metric to measure “bad”. The short term and long-term health effects on humans who are subjected to breathing the poisons and toxins that come from the burning of fossil fuels is another metric that couldbalsonincluded in the definition of ” bad”.
“The potential greenhouse warming effect”
The imagination is something, isn’t it? ;)
Thank you for this. Interesting reading, well worth its own thread.
Johnny, before you try to pull that appeal to authority nonsense, let me point out that not all engineers are sane.
And just to clarify, I’m using that website as an example of insane engineers. Just in case it wasn’t obvious from the context.
P.E., we all appreciate that there’s a certain brand of climate-change skepticism that adamantly rejects the scholarship of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
What these peculiar climate-change skeptics reject is simply this:
• the AMSE’s unimaginative embrace of “mathematics”,
• the AMSE’s reliance upon “laws of thermodynamics”,
• the AMSE’s restrictive insistence upon “facts & data”,
• the AMSE’s scrupulous “verification & validation”,
• the AMSE’s boring suveys of “technological history”.
Oh, those boring AMSE engineers! ;) ;) ;)
P.E., we all encounter plenty of climate-change skeptics who wish that the reasoning processes of AMSE engineers were more like Chris Monckton’s magic-imagining ideology-driven faux-rational demagogic denialism, eh? ;) ;) ;)
Because the universal embrace of demagogic climate-change denialism would be so convenient, eh? For some folks. ;( ;( ;(
Speaking of mechanical engineers, maybe you ought to ax Lucia about these things. If you and her start putting IQ points down on the table, she’ll still be in three digits by the time you run out.
PE, if climate-change skepticism is nowadays reduced to defending the likes of Chris Monckton’s demagogic denialism over the sober-minded science-and-engineering analysis of the AMSE … well, that means it’s game-over for denialism, eh?
Science-and-engineering wins by a knockout. Good. :) :) :)
Were you also a troll over at the sciguy blog?
‘Asked whether he thinks the world will soon run out of phosphate fertilizer, Rahm doesn’t give a direct answer, but he doesn’t seem too worried. He acknowledges the talk in academic circles about global peak phosphorus production, which might come as early as 2030. But he suggests the situation isn’t as dire as it might seem. He has faith in economics and technology to keep phosphate supplies solid.
“There’s more phosphate out there than is being described in some of the peak phosphorus studies,” Rahm believes. “It all comes down to at what price,” he contends.
“If the world needs more phosphate, markets will adjust to provide the incentive to address the scarcity issue,” Rahm continues. “The markets will tell us we need capital to flow into this sector to develop some of the less useful resources that weren’t viable a decade or two ago.”’
The above is from Webby’s link. Oil is similarly not expected to peak until 2050 at least. The question is not whether there may be increasing scarcity of some resources – paerhaps gallium and indium as well – but what the response should be. Markets or government mandated restrictions. Technological innovation or taxes.
No one expects the energy or resource use mix to be the same in 2050 as today. This is mandated by prices and innovation. This can be the century of humanity – we can go to space, we can feed, clothe and educate the world or we can descend into barbarism and horror. This is the true use of engineering – technologial solutions and not selective quoting in the service of fear and loathing. We can put faith in human ingenuity or faith in totalitarian states. It is the stark question that separates us in the battle for the future.
Captain Kangacuckoo says:
What a complete maroon. It’s humorous observing Civs talking about areas outside their specialty of designing latrines.
The incompetent boob returns to his speciality of trolling. Can you ever add anything sensible or is this the limit of your talents. My engineering specialty is of course hydrology – my environmental science specialty is biogeochemical cycling – my professional speciality is integrated urban water cycle management.
You are what – an electrical engineer with experience in furnace control systems?
I am afraid you are conflating your limited field of expertise – if you have any at all – with a broader understanding in other fields that you entirely lack. You apply principles that are not functional in the wider world.
My training and experience are certainly much more relevant than yours – my opinions much more nuanced ad informed by a much greater range of knowledge across more areas – and it is telling that you continue to need to disparage my training and experience. Discussing these sorts of issues endlessly was part of the process from the early 1990’s.
It is the case that you are a policy free zone simply endlessly Cassandra like prophesying doom in one way or another. And alternating with tedious and unimaginative complaints and insults. I think that probably sums it – unimaginative, egomaniacal and tedious. We are more than a little bored and have told you repeatedly that you are not only wasting your own time but more importantly ours. I have no idea why Judith doesn’t put you on moderation watch and delete most of your comments holo bolus. I suspect it is just too much to bothered with.
I know Gallium Arsenide and Indium-based semiconductors and they aren’t close to being resource limited for electronics applications. Stop digging, or continue — latrines take a lot of work,.
It’s tough to take the trolling of these poseurs.
I don’t really want phophesise rare earth doom – we can always scratch through old mine workings. It has been enough in the news lately and might be as much a problem as helium.
Wan’t to do the old bait and switch trick Webby? Divert from the demonstrated fact that you are an idiot?
“I have no idea why Judith doesn’t put you on moderation watch and delete most of your comments holo bolus. ”
Notice how the Chief Kangaroo wants someone else to somehow make the harsh reality go away. He has deep problems with respect to discussions on physics, and so tries to take the easy way out. Asking for deletion is concern trollery at its finest (as if this commentary had any archival relevance).
Webby – it is the parsimoniuos in me. You are a waste of bandwidth entirely.
The other point I originally made is that I read his link and it said something totally different – the guy has problems. They all have problems with the truth. It is well beyond amusing.
As someone with degrees in engineering and environmental science – I agree in large part with the ASME article. To be complete and honest though – something Fan and Dusty decline to practice – the technology with the consistently highest EROI is – wait for it – coal.
The pedant in me says that this is a restatement of cost/kWhour analysis and shows no new results other than a criteria for judging which technologies are worthy of R&D. That is – an EROI greater than 10. Perhaps I am mistaken but it may be that neither solar or wind would originally have met this requirement.
The environmental scientist in me says that they go not nearly far enough. By far the most effective path for world agriculture is conservation farming. It also sequesters humungous amounts of carbon in soils. Lifting incomes through free markets and honest and principled governance allows the replacement of cooking fuels with sources that release less black carbon. Higher incomes also enable conservation and restoration of ecosystems sequestering carbon but with other more important benefits. Wealth through free markets allows improvements in education, safe water and sanitation and health infrastructure. All positive and putting downward pressures on population.
My technological bent suggests that conservation and cheap solar are all well and good – but not terribly exciting. Cheap solar would be a fine source for many parts of the world and there is nothing in the technology that suggests breakthroughs aren’t possible. It would be feasible for some 10% of supply in a developed market. I would wait for the breakthroughs rather than subsidise large scale deployment. Australians have reduced consumption of electricity by 15% – due to rising costs that are caused in part – ironically – by subsiding solar.
Oil is of course a different problem in a different market. But there may be a solution that straddles stationary and mobile power. The gen IV reactors – http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf77.html – are practical designs that are in operation today and bear little resemblance to earlier models. It changes the economics and almost entirely eliminates the safety issues. Four of the designs are intended for hydrogen production – which might be used as a standalone fuel or combined with carbon to make a liquid fuel. There are many possibilities – and I think the most telling comment in the article was on restriction in R&D funding. Amazing. You waste trillions on nonsense and can’t even get to any basic R&D. Let me give you a clue. Offer a billion dollar prize for the most cost effective applications of energy technologies.
So while this goes over old ground and doesn’t go nearly far enough – you do seem to have blown Dusty’s whistle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSnkWzZ7ZAA&feature=related operation today and bear little resemblance
That varies a lot with location. In North America, (and probably in Europe as well), the Highest EORI is gas, by a huge margin. That’s due to to a combination of very cheap fracking gas and rather low capital investment in gas plants. This is why grams of carbon per KWH is going to drop in these locations regardless of policy. And in NA, the process is being hurried along by a lot of coal plants being near the end of their lives right now.
Imagine. All this happening spontaneously without policy wonks. Whoodathunk, huh?
For those people who like to arrive for appointments precisely on time. Adjust your clocks tonight. :)
How about we get some traction on a plan whereby the people voluntarily cut a full half of their atmospheric CO2 production in exchange for a full one-half cut in government empoyment. That would have save Greece from bankruptcy.
Climate has always changed. It’s the anti-economic growth ideology behind the UNEP and IPCC that started the anti-CO2 movement of the climate catastrophists, and those who can will profit from it. Maurice Strong can’t be happy.
True, true our tax dollars and funding anti-capitalism. Forcing employers to do business within the ever-narrowing confines of acceptable conduct that is established at the whim of politicians and demanding that employers police the business’s compliance with an ever-growing set of rules and performance criteria–as interpreted by government bureaucratic fiat–should henceforth be considered to be an impossible standard for employers to meet.
Does any seriously dispute that, for example, the health care industry — which represents more than 20% of the enonomy — is going the way of public education and the post office? And, that’s what global warming is all about too and nothing more: nationalization of energy.
Wagathon, certainly the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) thinks you are right! Now that America is moving inexorably and irreversibly toward Swiss-style healthcare system, we can expect administrative costs to drop from their present outrageously wasteful 30% to the Swiss level of 5% — saving American citizens trillions of dollars, and bringing-to-bear market forces where they really count: improving health.
Gratitude is due to three political leaders — Hillary Clinton (2000), Mitt Romney (2006), and Barak Obama (2010) — for each recognizing (independently and wisely) the immense economic gains, and the moral benefits too, that come from restricting of market forces to their proper role in health-care: improving health.
Bravo and kudos to Clinton, Romney, and Obama for making healthcare reform a reality! :) ;) :)
What’s next? Similarly well-regulated energy markets, of course. That bring energy-related market forces properly to bear on achieving a sustainable economy, just as healthcare-related market forces are properly brought to bear on sustaining health.
Both of which are pure common sense, eh? :) ;) :)
The Swiss system is the third most expensive in the world, along with the USA and Germany. And they are a very small country with a very good work ethic. The unemployment rate there is around 3%.
Then there is their approach to immigration: Make it very difficult!!
SWITZERLAND SHOWS WISDOM
“I prefer how the Swiss government handles immigration and citizenship to the virtual open-door policy advocated by the president and the Senate bill. The Swiss appreciate tourists and businesspeople, but if one wishes to become a Swiss citizen, the government makes it difficult. The Swiss want to preserve their culture. There is no ‘right’ to be a Swiss citizen. Being born in Switzerland doesn’t automatically make one Swiss. The government regulates the right of citizenship through descent.
“People who wish to be naturalized in Switzerland must live at least 21 years in the country; submit to complete integration into Swiss life, which includes familiarity with Swiss habits, customs and traditions; comply with the Swiss rule of law; and demonstrate they are no danger to Switzerland’s internal or external security. Local towns may add other requirements.” Source: Cal Thomas, The Washington Times, 5/21/06, p. B1
Comparing Switzerland to the US is apples to oranges.
So, fan, as I see it, the VIPs–the Big-Snouts with Clout and their contemptible useful tools will enjoy a special side-entrance and a no-wait, privileged access to the one or two competent health care providers available to the “public.” You know, no waiting in lines and surly, inept employees to deal with and all. The rest of us? Well, when it comes to the health-care needs of us “little people” and our families, we will wait in lines for hours to be incompetently seen by sullen, bored, officious, DMV rejects and former TSA employees fired from the TSA for their over-enthusiastic groping. And, of course, some few big-shots, somewhere, will pocket a big wad of dough in the name of our health-care.
Sounds like the hive’s idea of a really great BFD! Thanks but no thanks.
Jim2, the Swiss fully integrate non-citizen immigrants into their healthcare system.
Not only is Swiss immigrant-inclusion morally right, it turns out to save plenty of money overall. Because the Swiss system harnesses market forces in service of sustaining health, and lowering administrative costs, by simplifying and streamlining the healthcare system.
The Swiss result is better health for everyone, within a fairer system, that’s so simple everyone can understand how it works, and so choice-driven that costs are far lower, and efficiencies are far higher.
Smart folks, those Swiss. Because they don’t let political ideology interfere with creating market-driven health-care systems that work.
That’s why Hillary Clinton (2000), Mitt Romney (2006), and Barak Obama (2010) all were right about healthcare, eh? :) :) :)
Now let’s do the same for energy markets!!!
It’s fairer there because almost everyone works. In this country, we have a large privileged class who live off the government. And now they just want more and more. That’s the problem with your socialist system, Fan Of More BS.
You are wrestling with a pig.
A talking pig at that.
To paraphrase, you can give a pig a degree but in the end he’s still a pig.
Now let’s vote out Obama and his socialist cohorts.
Jim2, what percentage of Swiss health-care providers work for the government?
Let me help you Jim2: the answer is zero percent.
This is why, when it is fully implemented, ObamaCare is structured so as to vastly shrink governmental employment in healthcare in America … just as already has occurred in Switzerland.
Thoughtful conservatives — such as those at the Heritage Foundation — have long appreciated this beneficent conservative reality.
Modern-day political demagogues foolishly deny it (needless to say).
What is your next question, Jim2? :) :) :)
You’.d like to think the country has had its fill of Illinois-stule politics.
To be replaced by different corporate puppets (with really nice hair though…in fact creepily nice.)
Lying in such an obvious way Fan of BS – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden
“This is why, when it is fully implemented, ObamaCare is structured so as to vastly shrink governmental employment in healthcare in America … just as already has occurred in Switzerland.”
If so why did ObamaCare need to rise taxes instead of lowering taxes?
Supreme Court said it was clearly a tax. If was reduction in taxes, they would not be a fuss about it.
Now if it cost less, and one has a tax increase, who making the difference in the money?
Waiting the the gymnastic performance.
Now, also ObamaCare is just the beginning, as stated by those supporting it. And like climate change the beginning is the beginning of higher and higher taxes.
Who that supports ObamaCare also favors lowering taxes?
it’s always more. Thne dems always want and strive for higher taxes- it’s their duty in life.
Let’s look at the new taxes – 21 of them:
“Eliminating Tax Expenditures” is Left-Wing Code for “Raising Taxes”
Comprehensive List of Obama Tax Hikes
Which one of these tax hikes will destroy the most jobs?
1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco: …
2. Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes effect in Jan 2014): …
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337
3. Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax (takes effect Jan. 2014):…
Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years
4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income (Tax hike of $123 billion/takes effect Jan. 2013): …
5. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Tax hike of $32 bil/takes effect Jan. 2018): …
6. Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Tax hike of $86.8 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): …
7. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax (Tax hike of $5 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): …
8. Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Tax hike of $1.4 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): …
9. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Tax hike of $13 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): …
10. Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Tax hike of $20 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): …
11. Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Tax hike of $15.2 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): …
12. Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010): …
13. Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Tax hike of $4.5 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill:…
14. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010): …
15. Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/took effect immediately): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance,” and “billing and collection” rules set by HHS. Bill: …
16. Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): …
17. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers (Tax hike of $60.1 bil/takes effect Jan. 2014): …
18. Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Tax hike of $0.6 bil/takes effect Jan 2013). Bill: …
19. Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 ($min/takes effect Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: …
20. Obamacare “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion/took effect immediately). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105
21. Obamacare Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion/took effect immediately). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113
Hey Johnny. If you love the Swiss system, go there. Max will buy you a beer. I’m sure he’d be delighted to see you come grace their country with all your brilliance and value and smileys and stuff.
LOL …PE, it appears you’ve caught the “demagoguery bug:”
`Cuz that statement makes zero sense, eh?
As though Abraham Lincoln had said: “Americans against slavery should go back to Ireland and Scotland!”
Uhhh … why don’t we make things better right here PW? After all, that’s the AMERICAN WAY! :) :) :)
I am there. We had a young English friend over, and he naively tried running down a slope. Cracked open his chin on a rock, the Swiss medical system took care of things and didn’t expect any kind of payment. The system is one of deep trust, but these are all anecdotes anyways and it is just amusing watching the skeptics flail over the truth in what Fan is saying. Fan Man can come over any time :)
Here is a choice anecdote and one that Bart would appreciate. When we buy appliances in CH, the upfront cost includes a disposal fee. What? A disposal fee? Obviously that prevents people from chucking the appliance off the side of the park road when it stops working, which is a common occurrence elsewhere. Instead you bring it to the recycling center where they take it no questions asked, because you paid for the disposal upfront.
So what happens if there is a disposal fee attached to burning fossil fuel hydrocarbons? The CO2 is clearly a pollutant with unknown and uncertain long term ramifications. People should be paying an upfront disposal fee as they chuck the CO2 off the side of the road and into the commons where everyone else and future generations have to deal with it.
Yes, the Swiss have wisely voted against a “single provider” managed healthcare system (run by the government) and have competition among private companies. The system is expensive (what isn’t, in Switzerland?) but works. A problem in Switzerland, which results in higher cost, is over-specialization in the medical profession, with a shortage of general practitioners
Although this will never happen, it would be interesting to see how US voters would vote if given the same choice as here..
Close, but not quite correct, Manacker — ObamaCare is designed so that it can evolve into a Swiss-style all-private choice-driven system … and all my colleagues and relatives in health-care foresee that this conversion is unstoppable.
In fact, the pure-politics reason that Mitt Romney isn’t *himself* beating the drums for America to move faster toward a Swiss-style all-private healthcare system, is the embarrassing circumstance that Hillary Clinton advocated Swiss-style reforms way back in 1993 … and a politician like Mitt just hates to be perceived as being twenty years behind the times! :) :) :)
Having missed the train on health-care reform, its time for American conservatism to be more forward-looking with regard to climate change … or else, get left behind again.
That’s pure common sense, eh Manacker? :) :) :)
I know the strengths and weaknesses of the Swiss healthcare system first hand – you don’t.
It works but it’s expensive. It has not gotten less expensive since it was made mandatory a few years back. On the contrary.
But Switzerland is not the USA.
First of all, it is tiny in comparison.
Then the Swiss voter has the right to call for a referendum on any decisions by the parliament or executive branch at the federal, cantonal or communal level; this “direct democracy” right does not exist in most other representative republics, including the USA (with some minor exceptions, such as CA at the state level).
And it is a “bottom up” system, where the highest percentage of the income tax revenues goes to the community, a slightly smaller percentage (on average) to the cantons and the smallest percentage to the federal government.
As far as health care is concerned, Switzerland never had employers providing health care insurance for their employees, as is common in the USA. Switzerland has also avoided the “one size fits all” rationed healthcare system of the UK or some other European countries.
So it is very difficult to compare Switzerland with the USA as far as healthcare systems are concerned.
PS As far as “moving forward” regarding the CAGW “consensus” premise of IPCC, I think there are still way too many uncertainties regarding the science behind the premise itself to even consider implementing any mitigating actions whose unintended consequences we also do not yet know. Don’t you agree?
Manacker, we hear yah talkin` about a Swiss system that has similar doctor/patient ratios, better outcomes, lower costs, full freedom of choice for every citizen, is fully privatised, and employs *zero* government officials.
Can you say again why every conservative in America isn’t 100% behind evolving ObamaCare in Swiss-style a direction (as ObamaCare is surely destined to do?).
`Cuz it seems like a no-brainer.
So if you feel different, use short words and plain logic, OK?
And more, it’s plain that politicians who have a poor grasp of healthcare, also have a poor grasp of climate-change.
Because politicians who parrot foolish slogans about the one, parrot foolish slogans about the other too.
As folks can plainly see, eh?
Similarly, in that most ardent of high-spending European welfare states, Sweden, the shift from a healthcare system previously dominated by a public sector monopoly characteristic of the UK, to one with diverse providers and powerful consumers has been profound in recent years – and most striking in the city of Stockholm. Across Sweden the number of contracted private healthcare providers has risen significantly in recent years, reflecting a new era of consumer choice and a preference on the part of many young doctors and nurses to work in the private
sector. Indeed, Stockholm’s revolutionary approach to healthcare – public funding, public-private cooperation in provision and freedom of choice – has started to attract international attention.
As in the UK and Italy, access to healthcare is a universal right in Sweden and coverage embraces doctors’ visits, hospitals services, prescription medicines and dental care. While the national government sets overall policy direction, health services here are managed by county councils which generate most of the funding through taxation.
Although private medical insurance is legal in Sweden the number of people purchasing it remains relatively small – although growth has occurred in recent years as waiting lists have grown in the state sector.
Between 2000 and 2002 the number of private health care providers doubled to represent some 27 per cent of the nation’s total. Today, there are nine private hospitals in Sweden – with most of these based in the larger cities. However, more than 90 per cent of Swedish doctors remain salaried employees of the county councils. While the remaining 10 per cent work in private practice they are still compelled to sign agreements with a county council so as to be reimbursed by the public system. It is largely through these agreements that the county councils seek to regulate and control the private health market.’
Emphasis mine. Why do these people insist on outright lying? Being Australian – I am sympathetic to universal health care. We get good care from dedicated people in the public system. Mind you I have private insurance. The problem really is the levels of administration above that in a centralised system. I think health care is one of those functions a government should supply.
Still why does Fan insist on lies and deceit? Why such bad faith?
fan is pulling things out of the same place that GI doctors do under light anesthesia.
Captain, your long cut-and-paste boils down to this: “Sweden has moved in the Swiss direction.”
Well … duh! :) :) :)
Hunter – Fan’s GI Doc extractions: “…, having had long periods of self-examination at close range…”
‘As a result of the entrepreneurial nature of the system, the Swiss benefit from a lavish hospital infrastructure. With more than 400 hospitals in total, 130 are private for-profit and 270 are either public or publicly subsidised not-for-profit institutions.’
Seems very like it. It was just the lie about Swiss not emplying any health worker in the public sector. I don’t know why you bother. :roll:
Does Captain Kangaroo think that Switzerland and Sweden are the same country?
Can I admit to 2 brain fades in one day? Forget Sweden – the nil Swiss medical staff are employed by the State statement by Fan is such obvious BS. Why don’t you focus on lies and not human error?
Captain, it’s time for health-care skeptics and climate-change skeptics both to get a factual clue as to how market-driven reforms really work.
The basic idea is simple: bring the same prudent checks-and-balances to bear upon markets, that America’s founders brought to bear upon government.
And the practical reason also is simple: history shows us plainly that governments without prudent checks-and-balances (even democratic governments) become exploitive and destructive tyrannies … and similarly, history shows us plainly that markets without prudent checks-and-balances (even free markets) become exploitive and destructive tyrannies too.
Is that simple enough for yah, Captain? :) :) :)
‘Jim2, what percentage of Swiss health-care providers work for the government?
Let me help you Jim2: the answer is zero percent.’
You show bad faith as a matter of habit.
Markets like civil society require the rule of law to work and governments exist to provide services that markets cant or wont. But you deliberately falsely conflate taxes with markets – both with health and energy. The new US system is a tax as the Supreme Court made clear – and you may tax however you like but to insist that taxes lead to lower costs is illogical.
Energy taxes similarly lead to higher costs. Indeed it is the essential purpose of the a carbon tax. This again is all well and good and you may tax what you like – but it has impacts on the economically marginal and there are better ways to harness innovation and markets.
You are in summary smarmy – dishonest – illogical and a liar – :razz:
Your analysis is simple enough, sure. Just dead wrong. A free market inherently contains checks and balances, by virtue of inviting competition (both actual and potential). A market ‘tyrant’ can only endure if government regulation stifles its actual and would-be competitors.
Hillary Clinton is just one of thousands of examples of people who rule over us who have never earned an honest dollar in their lives based on providing something of value to a willing buyer.
In Arkansas when you wanted to purchase the favors of the Governor you retained the biggest law firm in the state, in which his wife was a partner. Hillary Clinton never had a client in her life but one–Whitewater, which was a fraud.
Wagathon, Forbes is right to recognize a great truth:
And the same is true with regard to climate change denialists and the energy economy.
Because there’s a name for teams that only play defense.
That name is “losers”.
That is why America requires more — far more — of its conservatives and skeptics than negativism and demagogic denial.
Step up to it, folks.
Part of their defensiveness is due to these heat waves we keep getting, so I wouldn’t blame them. The ordinary public think these are due to climate change, so they have to keep making the point that it isn’t, every time. it uses a lot of their energy.
But of course, conservatives would be lying if they said these heat waves are NOT related to AGW. This would be akin to denialist. The only honest approach by a true and honest skeptic of AGW is to say “we don’t know”.
No – but ask us if we give a rat’s arse. The maximum RECENT (h/t Fan – :wink: ) warming that might be attibuted to greenhouse gases is 0.1 degree C/decade – do you get this distinction?
Even then I am not sure that we have quite got a handle on secular changes in cloud. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html
And that we have seen last century the limits of natural variability.
But interesting as all this is – it is more important in this critical century for humanity to get the policy settings right. Something we have proven to be such arses at (h/t Fan – :???: ). I’d go with free markets, economic growth as absolutely essential and democracy. The limits to growth argument is always about chessboards and grain. Obviously – any grain doesn’t stay long enough on the board to stockpile so the argument is moot. It shoeveled into hungry mouths. We are impoving supply a lot with something called conservation farming – the current super green revolution sequestering humungous amounts of carbon in the process. Just part of the technological prowess of humanity on which we increasingly depend and which is in large part the heritage of the western enlightenment. Freedom and science are marvelous things (h/t Fan – :oops:). What say we forget this limits to growth nonsense – feed, clothe and educate humanity instead and head out to space for whatever other resources we might need in future. After all – if we survive this century we have a billion year future.
I have argued for some time that enlightenment liberals – those who are for freedom and not ever more totalitarian states – must take the high ground in framing a positive narrative for the future (h/t Fan – :razz: ) – it is now a matter of some import to be less reactive and more pro-active.
The heat waves are regional in nature – not related to global warming. See http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Select channel 5 and the last 5 years. Globally, the temperature is not outstanding in any way.
Regional events that were at the very unlikely tail of the distribution in 1950-1980 have become more than ten times as common in recent years, at least applied to seasonal average temperatures. This was the subject of Hansen’s loaded dice paper, which was a statistical analysis of just how the distributions are shifting worldwide.
Sorry Jim2, but you can’t possibly know that regional phenomenon aren’t related to global changes. Unless you can’t site specific research that conclusively proves that.
In fact, in seems more intuitive that global changes would be reflected in regional effects.
Sorry Gates, but you can’t possibly know that regional phenomenon are related to global changes.
I’m not hearing any mention in the MSM that while the heat wave is going on, 25 states are experiencing well below average temps.
Note how the true believers cannot offer any proof of their conjectures, but demand you disprove them or they sit on their assertions.
Boring, boring boring predictable lazy derivative true believers.
Anytime one of the AGW denialists wants to talk about the fact that the MSM doesn’t want to talk about the supposed record lows being set, I have to do what all actual skeptics do- take a look at the facts. And inconveniently for AGW denialists, the facts show that record highs have been far outweighing record lows for several decades.
Sorry denialists but you’ll have to try harder…
Unfortunately Gatsey – you never look far enough.
Hmm. Temperatures change do they? So someimes its a warmer trend and sometimes its colder….
from my article ‘the long slow thaw.’
“Reginald Jeffery observed in his book ‘Was it Wet or was it fine,’ “By 1708 the middle aged would say where are our old winters?”
This query was being echoed on the other side of the Atlantic around the same time as the records of the Hudson Bay Company demonstrate that climate change was not restricted to Europe.
“Over the fifteen years between 1720 and 1735, the first snowfall of the year moved from the first week of September to the last”
Interestingly the CET anomaly currently is the same as it was in the 1730’s.
You still keep banging on about Hansen’s paper, even though I’ve pointed out the fatal flaw in it twice in previous threads – which you chose to ignore. See: http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/20/a-new-perspective-on-drought-in-the-american-southeast/#comment-211562
Either challenge me and show me where I’m wrong, or drop it.
@Jim D | June 30, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
Even if you are right (saying because I haven’t checked your allegation), you can’t lay out a cause and effect relationship between the 100 or so ppm of CO2 generated by man and the extra volatility in the weather.
If the EPA wants to cut on greenhouse gasses, the first step is to regulate water vapor.
Ha ha, see you dodge this one!
A transparent predetermined conclusion is still predetermined. The process will always be farce as long as all possible evidence is only allowed to support one conclusion. In a population afflicted with the Flynn effect this kind of logical problem might really matter.
And to that you can add those who are afflicted with Hot World Syndrome.
Say, Bart, 30/06 10.45 am, you’ve got me categorized? I’m still workin’ on yours … we human mammals can’t help it can we? I suppose it was always a matter of survival. The basic categories homo habilis used must have worked well, after all, he/she survived with a few important categories like
food/not food?… danger/ non danger?… enemy/ non enemy? and responses, ‘advance/ retreat’ …probably with an added vocal signaling.
Under “Theories of Origins of Language” category.
Maybe language developed to extend signalling, and in a complex world evolved as critical language to enable us to employ more sophisticated categories such as , ‘Green Fascist,’ Republican Jerk’, etc etc.
I haven’t amassed the confirmation data to support my theory as yet, Bart, but it’s fer certain out there. )
Beth Cooper | July 1, 2012 at 2:00 am |
Indeed, I do not touch you for coining. Categories for people do me no good. Look at my failed attempt to categorize jim2 as a lawyer because he holds to the ethos that he nor anyone owes truth to others only when paid for it.
From just such cases, I long ago developed an aversion for pigeonholing people.
Their ideas, on the other hand, those sort out quite nicely through filters of logic, of reason, into “true” and “false”; further, by validation and verification, into “opinion” and “fact”; further, into topic and contexts and so forth.
People are never facts nor opinions, and so incommensurable to any category of interest.
Though for your theory of language, I suggest a productive avenue is the topic of words used by comedians correlated with the part of the mouth in which their sounds form (place of articulation). You may find that the alveolar ridge corresponds well with the funniest words.
Bart – you are bitter in defeat. You seem to believe that if you say it, others will believe it. There is no greater fool than one who fools himself.
jim2 | July 1, 2012 at 11:09 am |
And there’s the difference. I make deliberate and measured efforts to rationally test the validity of what I say beforehand.
You merely say what you hope will have the effect you want, regardless of how underhanded.
If that is the best you can do WRT rationality, there is no hope for you.
jim2 | July 1, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
There is little more flattering to a man’s rationality than attacks on it by an avowed deceiver. Thank you for that.
WORDS ARE TRIGGERS TO ACTION
“You are driving an automobile, minding your business and singing a song. Some inconsiderate lout cuts in ahead of you, forcing you to pull over sharply to the curb to avoid being killed. Not a nice situation. It can upset your nervous system, at least temporarily. What it does to you depends upon your skill in classification, depends upon your use of words.
You can classify it as a personal attack. In this case, you can catch up with the other driver, force him over to the curb, and pick yourself a good fight. Or you can classify
the situation as one of large civic interest, call a policeman, swear out a warrant on a misdemeanour charge, and make yourself a big reformer and a little nuisance. Or you can classify the situation as an ordinary hazard of driving in a wealthy, happy-go-lucky community where even the feeble- minded have cars and drivers’ licences.
If you do just that, you will say, “No bones broken. Lucky for me that I was driving carefully. That fellow is on his way to the operating table in the emergency ward.”
Then you will feel a little sorry for him, because life never deals kindly with dim-wits. And your anger and your jitters will die an easy, natural death.
Words are inventions of man and share with their maker his lack of omniscience and perfection. They represent the accumulations of thought and observations of millions of anonymous wordmakers. They share with their makers both the ignorance and the wisdom of their times. Words at best are imperfect tools of communication. Like dynamite, they should be labelled, “Use with skill and caution,” for they can blow up in your face. It seems like a good idea to learn more about words and how to use them in the interest of your mental health.”
Release From Nervous Energy
David Harold Fink
Sorry, should be:
Release From Nervous Tension
David Harold Fink
Yes, Girma, words are triggers to action:
See my ‘homo habilis-category-3-survival-response:’
“enemy/non enemy?” Response, “advance or retreat.”
So learn to use yer words with skill and caution:*
‘Friends, Romans, countrymen, …throw off yer chains!’
H/T David Harold Fink )
Thinking about thinking, Girma, words are ‘tools’ of thought, ‘enablers’ of thought through conceptual and critical language but also seducers of thought … think the dynamic effect of charismatic language, of seductive patterning and imagery on the the listener’s mind -and maybe the speaker’s mind as well:
‘ O! she doth teach the torches to burn bright.
It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night
Like a rich jewel in an Ethiop’s ear;
Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear.’
(Romeo and Juliet)
As We Again Celebrate the US Declaration of Independence
When this great nation was founded on July 4th 1776, our leaders had a keen sense of the reality revealed by science (experimentation, observation, contemplation) and spirituality (meditation, contemplation, prayer).
Leaders of the scientific community and leaders of nations apparently lost contact with reality after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by “nuclear fires” in August 1945.
The response of world leaders and leaders of scientific organizations to evidence of manipulation of global temperature data in Climategate emails and document in Nov 2009 is consistent with the following historical record of misinformation promoted in government science since 1946 [1-3]:
Thus, the document proclaiming our right to self-governance only survived intact for ~170 years (1946-1776 = 170 years), before scientists started promoting misinformation to save the world from an imaginary threat of destruction by “nuclear fires.”
They thus undercut the fundamental assumption of self-governance: Public access to reliable information.
A return to the humility of our founding fathers is probably the only way world leaders can reverse the current slide of society into chaos.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
 Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-59 (1946)
 Fred Hoyle, “The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 343-83 (1946)
 Fred Hoyle, Home Is Where the Wind Blows, [University Science Books, 1994, 441 pages], pages 153-154
Happy Sunday Morning Jim D and Webster. Since the Webster requires everyone show their work, I thought I would find a fitting theme for my silly little model for the two of you to bash. The Theme I have selected is Plumber’s Nightmare :)
It’s not a real week in review until you get another progressive chicken little “the weather is not climate, unless it’s hot” story.
Scroll down a bit for another example of the scary use of crayons by CAGW activists to show the world is on the verge of thermageddon.
And just so you know this is real science, and not the usual CAGW agitprop, we get a link to those non-political types at Real Climate on the March heatwave.
So see, it’s all about the science.
What’s really hilarious is the “because a meteorologist said so” part. I’m sure the usual suspects won’t see the irony.
And more irony: their (coal based) power is out. Oh nose! If they only had windmills to capture all those gigawatts of wind…
Well if we are seeing as part of global warming, hot extremes shifting up further then such events are becoming more frequent and global warming has to be fingered when stuff like this happens. It cannot be ignored as if it’s completely irrelevant.
:lol: ^^^^ :lol:
This might be a good link under the section referring to bogus research in many fields.
Not sure if you had seen this from 2005 I believe. It might be worth its own post even if you addressed it back then. It concerns the use of weak statistical tests and the habit of not publishing negative results. Then you can have multiple studies with small sample sizes that suggest there might be a statistically significant result. This, of course, results in a news story with a gaudy headline. Years later when they pool a bunch of small studies, you find there never was a significant result and if the dozens of negative results had been published, then no one would ever have speculated there was an effect to begin with or you could have done the meta study much sooner.
Bill, thanks for the link to this paper. We did a previous thread on Ioannidis’ more recent writings:
Also one on false positives:
and data torturing
‘My comments were ironic, Bart. Theory of language, too… ‘I haven’t amassed the confirmation data yet.’ Guess it isn’t always clear. I laugh at myself yer know …oh well (
Language and laugh, both alveolar sounds.
All comments at Climate, Etc. are, it appears, ironic in some sense. ;)
I note a correlation of palatal consonants and comedy, too. ‘Click’ must be hilarious.
Nice patterning, Bart. ( I was about to add more but I mean to mend my ways! :-)
Any chance you will comment on Sallenger’s “Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America”? It has been getting a lot of publicity lately, but seems to this skeptic to be alarmism of the worst sort? It’s not currently behind a paywall: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1597.html
The authors show that the sea level rise on parts of the Atlantic coast has been unusually rapid (3.8 +/- 1.1 mm/yr) over the past 40-60 years. But if one looks at Figure 3, SLR has been roughly 0 +/- 1 mm/yr over the last century, essentially the same as the global average 0.59 +/- 0.26 mm/yr.
Figure 4 show that sea level fell in the first half of this century; something that didn’t make the news. The authors try to attribute the hotspot trend to NH temperature and ice melting, but NH temperature and ice melting will effect global sea level, not just in one location in the North Atlantic. The authors say that GCM’s predict that decreases in the AMOC may increase sea level in this region, but the AMOC is critical to Northern Europe. Are scary changes on the Atlantic Coast compatible with the recent weather in Northern Europe? IMO, this hotspot is probably a consequence of “long-term weather” (like changes in the PDO) rather than climate change. One could hypothesize a link between the PDO and Atlantic winds near the hotspot.
Check out Neven’s sea ice blog.
Greenland’s not so bright and that can cause it to melt a little faster.
Imagine that, black carbon from industry, forest fires both wild and controlled, change snow and ice albedo. Next thing ya know high latitude volcanic ash may contribute to ice melt, agricultural expansion, ice breaking ships, snow plows and such might play a role. Good thing ya got CO2 to blame :),
Good thing you can rule out CO2 and blame it all on forest fires, volcanic ash, though not many volcanos depositing ash on Greenland lately, can’t spell it or pronounce it went the other way and wasn’t last year anyway, and icebreaking ships ?
WTF does icebreaking ship have to do with the albedo of greenland’s higher elevations?
Snow plows might play a role, that is just freaking stupid.
What the data indicates is that the ice on Greenland is melting at higher and higher elevations.
Is that good or a portent of rising sea levels?
Bob, The correlation of warming with agricultural, industrial and human expansion is much better than with CO2. Greenland Ice would not be in the news if it weren’t for human expansion into the high latitudes. Our efficiency at getting rid of snow at the lower altitudes and more touristy locals, cause most of the higher altitude melt. The actually temperature at higher altitudes in other locations is dropping. Coasta Rican coffee plantations started having off season rains and nightly temperatures 6 to 8 C below normal in 1997. There has been a climate shift and CO2 is having little impact.
For the volcanoes, http://www.trcbnews.com/volcanic-ash-cloud-closed-greenlands-air-space/113171/
Still, even if the correlation is better, you still need a causal mechanism, which is sorely lacking with the causes you suggest, but CO2 has the necessary mechanism to provide for the warming.
So shoveling snow is causing the melting of ice at high altitudes in Greenland?
Assuming from your moniker that you are from Dallas, I think that the cows are leaving Texas, so soon everyone in Texas will be “all hat and no cows”
“leavin Texas, fourth day of July, sun so hot the sky so low, the eagles filled the sky”
bob and robert
Bob, irrgation can be a source of heat transport from the irrigated areas to the arctic. Take a look at figure 4 from this paper
Bob, The neat thing about models is that they are all wrong. As long as they are consistently wrong, you can learn one thing, when they are inconstantly wrong you learn something else. The something else is that the radiant impact of green house gases amounts to about 1/3 or the atmospheric effect, the latent properties of water amount to the majority of the other 2/3rds. Or Hansen screwed up. Which most folks have long realized. You hitched your wagon to a donkey :)
If you look real hard at that drawing, there is this this called ice. Since it is the coldest substance in the oceans, it is called a heat sink. Web calls the deep oceans a heat sink, If the deep oceans were colder than Ice, then they would be, since they are not, the ice and super cold salt water near the poles is the real heat sink for the oceans. All the flows will balance in equilibrium, not just some flow from some poorly defined surface to some poorly defined atmospheric sink, so that simple model will tell you more than any of the fancy ocean atmosphere couple climate models. Like Dr. Curry said, a water model might be a good place to start.
If you really put your thinking cap on you will realized that sometimes the best models are the simplest.
Steven, I think the little blob of orange from your cite doesn’t explain the huge amount of blue from my cite.
The arctic sea ice is going away and the Greenland ice sheet is soon to follow.
You guys are working so hard to find these little counterexamples, I find it hard to believe you aren’t overlooking the majority of ther data.
Bob, I wasn’t aware I was trying to explain everything with irrigation. You were curious about possible mechanisms for the things dallas listed so I gave you one. I wasn’t aware the total of the effect had to be limited to one cause. If I had only one choice for the Arctic I would pick the AMO, not irrigation.
You call that redneck nightmare model useful, you don’t even bother to label it and you think you are right and Hansen and Trenberth are wrong?
The latent heat of water only moves the energy around, it doesn’t contribute to the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere.
Greenland ice is in the news due to the threat to humans that it represents if it was changed from a solid heat sink locked in one place to a more mobile warmer form.
You are aware that the modeled response of the arctic sea ice is much slower than what we have seen.
Bob Drudge Said, “The latent heat of water only moves the energy around, it doesn’t contribute to the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere.”
Bob, It controls the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere. It governs the rate of energy gain and energy loss for 70% of the planet and deposits reserve thermal mass in portions of the other third.
If it were a different substance with different thermal properties the Earth would be different. The radiative physics would be the same but the outcome different, so what control what Bob?
I think there is a much better correlation between any of the global temperature indices and the decline in Arctic sea ice and the melt rate of the Greenland ice sheet than there is with the AMO.
You could show evidence of any correlation between the AMO and the conditions in the Arctic, so why don’t you.
Here Bob, think about this little ditty, “Energy is fungible, the work done is not.” Short and sweet.
Ein=Eout +/- delta S, S stands for Entropy and cannot be negative? So the the Equation is incomplete, you have to go back to the basics,
The basics is the Carnot heat engine. There is work done freezing and melting water, work done maintaining the pressure gradient in the atmosphere. So there is a maximum entropy dependent on the efficiency of the work done. Thermo 101 Bob.
Bob, I’m not sure exactly what you are looking for since sea ice area extent data starts in 1979 after the AMO had already reached its trough and was on its way up. So if you are looking for that correlation, yes there is one, the AMO was going positive the entire time and sea ice extent was getting less the entire time. So obviously the correlation there is great.
If you are looking for reasons to believe it has anything to do with Greenland just observe where Greenland is on the map and compare to the effects of the AMO
If you accept temperature as a proxy for ice melt a good correlation can be found in fig 3 of this paper
capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 per doubling maybe :) | July 1, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
I could take the “snowplows cause the Arctic summer sea ice to melt” argument, or even the “AMO causes the Arctic summer sea ice to melt” argument, if not for: snowplows plow in the winter; the AMO is multiyear to multidecadal; the Arctic ice loss peaks in the summer and the winter ice loss trends are explained entirely by the summer ice loss; the Antarctic Ice Shelf (the southern equivalent of the Arctic Sea Ice) has had its largest breakups in the history of navigation (which has tracked the shelf pretty meticulously for over a century) in just the past decade; the center of the Antarctic continent – far from any snowplow or the AMO – is also losing mass according to GRACE.
Snowplows and AMO and a thousand other causes, or one single explanation for one single phenomenon? I know what Occam’s Razor says about that.
BArtR, said, “Snowplows and AMO and a thousand other causes, or one single explanation for one single phenomenon? I know what Occam’s Razor says about that.”
Very good BartR, There are a variety of causes. What is the greatest cause? It ain’t CO2, it is progress in general. There are millions of kilometers squared of agriculture north of latitude 50, where before man the ice sheets advanced and contracted. Each gram of that snow and ice gains 334 Joules as it melts and releases 334 grams as it freezes. By not allowing the advance and retreat man is changing climate. CO2 plays a role, but by my calculations, not a predominate role. So why tackle the molecule when it is the use of the fuel to change land not the release of the molecule that has the predominate impact. in other words, try to determine the true problem before proposing a solution :)
Ever see the Penn and Teller DiHydrogen Monoxide skit?
Bart, assuming they now have accurate models of isotropic rebound Antarctica is losing ice. I make no such assumption since I haven’t seen how they resolved the controversy.
BTW BartR, did ya ever hear of the Faint Young Sun Paradox? Paradoxes are generally reserved for logic and statistics, not physics.
When I see a theory that involves a paradox, I go Hmmmm?
steven | July 2, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
Could you be more specific in with regards your reference to isotropic rebound? Cites? Because that sounds like a WUWTism, not an argument.
capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 per doubling maybe :) | July 2, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
Penn and Teller? What decent skeptic doesn’t sharpen his skills by dismantling the tricks of a few overhyped professionals from time to time as an intellectual exercise? Getting doped-up fairgoers to sign a petition for a pretty presenter is hardly a cause of sea ice loss, though, is it?
Your ‘variety of causes’ is the standard FUD treatment. Define ‘progress in general’ as requiring emission of more CO2 (when we technology innovation watchers know that just ain’t so), is frankly intellectually insulting, and ought be beneath you.
Are there a variety of things we do that leave the world worse off to future generations for our being in it? Sure. Are they relevant to the topic of CO2 emission? Not so much as you argue, nor in a direction that argues for less aggressive action to limit CO2 emission.
Snowplows cause the summer sea ice retreat? Listen to how absurd you sound.
Bart, could you be more specific with your question?
steven | July 2, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
Please expand on what the heck you’re armwaving about. How exactly does isotropic rebounding cause you to have questions about the accuracy of GRACE measurements of sea ice mass?
Is there a specific formula, calculation, expression, line of software, published scientific paper, presentation from NASA about GRACE, or like source you could refer to (with link, if at all possible) that explains what you mean when you say, “..assuming they now have accurate models of isotropic rebound Antarctica is losing ice. I make no such assumption since I haven’t seen how they resolved the controversy.”
Why is it an assumption that the models are accurate? Isn’t the accuracy of the models something that can be independently validated and verified? Are you somehow dissatisfied with any particular model as published? Could you link or give full publication reference as citation, with page number if more than one page, so the rest of us can understand what you mean?
Because if you’ve just made up a controversy, and then not followed up on how this fabricated problem might have been resolved by people who are entirely unaware of your issues with their measurements, then you’re just wasting everyone’s time. And from what you’ve said here, there’s no way to tell if that isn’t what you’ve done.
LOL BartR, the effect is a disruption in the energy balance, the causes are cumulative. Progress in general is perfectly valid summation of the “causes”.
That one snow plow is of course not “the” cause. Up to 34,383,000,000,000,000,000 grams of snow and ice per year for 120 years is a cumulative effect of all causes. While you mention the NAO, you don’t even know what contributes to the NAO. Advance and retreat of snow and ice in the northern hemisphere would shift the tropical belt north or south. So for the NAO to change there has to be a reason, no change in ice balance, no change in NAO. The winter of 2010 was very severe in North America. One of the few years on record where all 50 US states had snow on the ground at the same time. National parks opened late and had snow drifts 10 meters tall carved into to clear roads for the visitors. The US had no problem rebounding from severe winter snow thanks to technology. What would have happened in 1816?
Tonyb has historic records which of course cannot be used to accurately determine past temperature, but you can estimate recovery time from severe events. Then they persisted, now they don’t, technology in general allows us to modify our environment.
That impact is in “the energy is fungible, the work done is not”, observation. Snow and ice are energy storage, changing the stored mass and the time of release changes the impact. Clearing land quickens snow melt, has an impact, spreading compost on a field to change the albedo to increase the snow melt has an impact. Spreading salt to increase the rate of snow melt to clear roads has an impact. Using ice breakers to clear a shipping lane has an impact. Progress in general has an impact with a cumulative effect.
The question would be whether the effects are desirable or not.
capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 per doubling maybe :) | July 2, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
Taken to its logical conclusion, the plowing of snow causes minute shifts in gravity of the Earth, resulting in nutation and displacement at sub-Planck-length scales in the center of gravity of the solar system, resulting in frictional heating of the Sun’s core.
Congratulations, you’ve proven Scafetta’s zodiacal theory is not the most absurd claim possible in all of science.
LOL, Good move BartR, when incapable of doing the math divert attention.
Here is a tip, ocean heat content gain is proportional to ice mass loss. How many grams of ice at 4.2 Joules per gram equals the OHC gain?
capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 per doubling maybe :) | July 2, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
When a snowplow develops the power to teleport or disintegrate snow and remove its influence from the world entirely, you’ll be onto something.
Sure, albedo effects happen too. Sure, CO2 emission isn’t the only factor in anthropogenic climate change. Absolutely, we ought look for ways to deal with those influences human industry causes, but using them as FUD is hardly one of the ways I’d recommend.
This ‘do nothing about anything because everything is to blame’ case you’re building, I simply don’t buy into. That you have to resort to giving your figures in grams at 20 decimal places when it’s dubious your figures are accurate to more than four significant digits is simply insulting.
Snowplows cause arctic sea ice to retreat by disintegrating snow (temperature content and all) out of the Universe? You keep digging yourself a deeper hole. And it isn’t in snow.
LOL, politics is definitely your true calling BartR. If the Ice mass of the northern hemisphere equaled the ice mass of the southern hemisphere, there would be exactly the same climate in both hemispheres, because there would be the same thermal sink capacity in both hemispheres. If you change the ratio, the climate shifts toward one and away from the other. Since the NH has more land surface, the impact of the sink is delayed. The ice is isolated from the source of the heat the oceans when it forms on land or at altitude. That would create a timing imbalance and an internal oscillation. The changing location and capacity of the snow/Ice sinks drives the internal oscillations. We currently have more stationary highs and lows because the ice mass location and capacity is limited. The system doesn’t like that. It wants to oscillate.
Each El Nino is a relief of thermal system pressure, there is a capacity limit. Each attempts to restart the oscillation sequence. If we left it alone, we would progress into an ice age of some degree. Then Scaffla’s theory may have some impact if the thermal inertia were suitable.
Remember BartR, ice ages predate man :)
Bart, not sea ice mass. If you were talking sea ice that has been increasing in the antarctic not decreasing.
Turning away from the stunning news that ice ages predate man — which I’m sure many Bible scholars will be pleased to learn — to a sort of kind of reply to the question of clarifying what the heck isostatic rebound has to do with uncertainty of Antarctic continental (not shelf) ice loss.
steven | July 2, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
..Bart, not sea ice mass. If you were talking sea ice that has been increasing in the antarctic not decreasing.
The mass of ice shelf remaining in two particular spots in the Antarctic is indeed increasing, while decreasing in a third.. Two major ice shelves however calved from the Antarctic recently, more than an order of magnitude larger than the puny ice mass gain in the shelf, and again, the continental ice mass is decreasing (albeit very slowly). Your own citation says so. But perhaps some clarification:
The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth’s glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That’s enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep. (That’s about 3/4’s of the world’s total ice mass loss for 2003-2010 from Antarctica and Greenland.)
The new figures take into account the isostatic rebound you’re concerned with; while there might be other explanations someday, Science holds the hypothesis best supported by the current data to be true or very nearly true. And so, if you happen to have improvements to recommend for GRACE technically that can refine the observations, have at it. I’d be very glad of better technical accuracy and precision.
Until then, you have not raised a valid point. You’ve just imagined a what-if without subtantiation based on the state of things two years ago.
Bart, the original estimates took into account the isostatic rebound. The difference between the two estimates are huge. As far as technical improvements, the people in charge of GRACE are more capable than I of making such improvements. When they start saying they have a good handle on things instead of requiring more data is when I will start taking the estimates seriously. Have you seen such a statement?
“”Both the GPS and gravity measurements are accurate on their own, but untangling the relative contributions of the two processes as observed by satellites is difficult. This technique provides a first global attempt at doing that,” Watkins said.”
Does that qualify in your world? In my world is says remain skeptical until further notice.
steven | July 3, 2012 at 5:34 am |
Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica)
In Newton’s world, it says accept at accurate or very nearly true, until such time as new observations may be made by which exceptions to the hypothesis require explanation.
As you have furnished no cause to doubt the current observations other than that in the past they’ve been improved upon tells us you will never accept any observations of anything, if you apply your reasoning evenly.
Which would lead to a world of superstition, faith in the unexplained, and mystery no one would seek to penetrate. You stand for the antithesis of Science, in what you say.
Bart, you read difficult and first attempt any way that pleases you.
from the same source, another feedback in process:
You cite an article which is headlined:
The last month for which NSIDC has published the sea ice extent is May.
Here are the past 11 years’ sea ice extent for end May (million km^2):
2002 – 13.12
2003 – 13.00
2004 – 12.58
2005 – 12.99
2006 – 12.62
2007 – 12.89
2008 – 13.17
2009 – 13.39
2010 – 13.10
2011 – 12.79
2012 – 13.13
As you can see this year has the third highest sea ice extent for end May (only 2008 and 2009 had a greater extent).
There is no “record low”.
Just goes to show you shouldn’t believe everything you read in the funny papers…
Try this site http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
They update it almost daily, and it seems to have just dropped below previous years now. They also just added a cool animation today, so you can see the sea ice melting.
Or just http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/06/20120619_Figure2.png and find that NSIDC does indeed have June figures.
Which shows the fastest May-June drop on record.
Winter sea ice extent (which holds lingering influence in May), is not the area people looking at summer sea ice extent are interested in. It’s like judging a goal keeper by how many goals he scores.
One thing there is not uncertainty about is the status of Arctic Sea ice. We’re at the lowest point of area, extent, and volume (with volume being the most important) for this date (July 2) since at least 1979, and probably far longer. The only thing worth potentially quibbling about is whether or not this is a cyclical event reaching a point of an extreme (i.e. a Black Swan event) or is it a true regime change based on anthropogenic climate change (a Dragon King event). Obviously as a warmist I would tend to favor the later, but as a skeptic, I could be persuaded otherwise with the right facts and data.
We now have the May 2012 data for average global temperatures from HAD/CRU 3.
If my arithmetic is correct, then in order for 2012 average to exceed the 1998 value, the average monthly temperatures for the last 7 months of the year must average about 0.7 C.
Now Smith el al Science August 2007, forecast that after 2009, half the years would have temperatures exceeding 1998. There is some doubt as to whether 2010 was cooler, warmer or about the same as 1998, but 2011 was certainly cooler. If 2012 turns out to be cooler than 1998, then the predicitons of Smith et al dont look to be in very good shape. If all three years (2010 to 2012) are agreed to be not warmer than 1998, then the probability that the Smith et al prediction is true is something like 12.5%; not very good odds.
It would appear that hindcasting data, as Smith et al did to calibrate their model, is not a very sound scientific way of validating a model.
Hadcrut3 is for bozos.
JCH writes “Hadcrut3 is for bozos.”
I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean. The Smith et al analysis was based on HAD/CRU 3 data. The HAD/CRU 4 data only goes to the end of 2010, so we only have one year out of 3 for the post 2009 prediction from Smith et al.
What current data set would you suggest we use to see whether Smith et al are correct?
BTW, for the best and most informed discussion on Arctic Sea ice available on the blogosphere, I highly recommend Neven’s site at:
Certainly WUWT can’t even touch the truly informed discussion that Neven’s site provides. It is hands down the best.
I looked up
and I could not see a forecast from your reference. Yet the blog seems to have all sorts of ideas as to how the future melt will go. I dont have much faith in pepole who dont put “their money where their mouth is”. On WUWT we had a poll and an entry into the ARCUS forecast. I wonder whether we will see a forecast from your reference in July and August.
Those who frequent Neven’s site are hardly a monolithic bunch, but if you’d taken the time to actually go to the site and look at it in detail, you’ll see that Neven does take a poll of the followers of the site for their guesstimates as to where the sea ice might be come the September low. Neven probably writes more about the Arctic and sea ice dynamics than any other blogger I know. These are all posted quite out in the public and many other blogs actually pick up Neven’s work. He is not a professionally trained scientist, but he has certainly “paid his dues” in terms of understanding what makes sea ice dynamics work. He’s got a very good grasp of it. It would be quite interesting to see a live discussion between him and some of the actual Arctic/Climate related PhD’s.
Anyway, you’ll not find any blog anywhere that has better discussion of Arctic sea ice dynamics…truly for hard-core cryo-junkies for sure. I frequent the site.
WUWT is getting ready to put in an estimate of minimum sea ice extent for 2012 in time to meet the July deadline. So, if anyone wants to make a guess, just go to WUWT.
And what is bad about less sea ice in the arctic?
Yeah, everyone knows a warmer world is a better one. Crops grow better don’t they, oh except soya, wheat and maize in the USA at the moment. Prices rising daily, that’s got to be good for everyone hasn’t it?
Wheat up 24.85%
Corn up 26.70%
Soybeans up 17.13%
all in one month
That’s good news right?
It is if you are a farmer :) Corn may even break $8.
Picking that valley instead of 52 months is pretty nifty.
You have not mentioned anything directly related to melting arctic ice in summer. What makes you believe that arctic ice melting in the summer is worse overall than the prior condition. Stop arm waving with general comments and think through your response
There are likely to be winners and losers as the Arctic climate continues to change. Some species will benefit and some won’t. Adaptation or extinction has been the rule throughout the ages. The vast majority of species have followed the second option.
Being vastly skewed by the large number of AGW skeptics at WUWT (and yes, a few outright deniers), their guess is always way too high. To his credit, Anthony did encourage his skeptical herd to tone it down a bit this year and be more realistic. Even Anthony must realize that an Arctic sea ice “recovery” just isn’t going to happen.
Getting a start on next week’s week in review, a look at the weather (though not the climate, nor attribution, as that would be crass, and require hard math): /www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/us/extreme-heat/index.html
Helpful information. Fortunate me I found your website accidentally,
and I’m shocked why this coincidence didn’t took place earlier!
I bookmarked it.