by Judith Curry
The Hearing is scheduled for Jan 16, and I have been tapped to testify.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has scheduled a Hearing entitled Review of the President’s Climate Action Plan on January 16.
For context, the President’s Climate Action Plan was discussed in this previous post.
Needless to say, I am very bizzy preparing my testimony.
The witnesses:
Panel 1
| The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency |
| The Honorable Nancy Sutley Chair Council on Environmental Quality |
| The Honorable Dan Tangherlini Administrator United States General Services Administration |
| The Honorable Daniel M. Ashe Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
Panel 2
| The Honorable Bill Ritter Director, Center for the New Economy Colorado State University |
| Dr. Andrew Dessler PhD Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Texas A&M University |
| Dr. Daniel A. LaShof Director, Climate and Clean Air Program Natural Resources Defense Council |
| Dr. Judith Curry PhD Professor and Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Institute of Technology |
| The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White Distinguished Senior Fellow-in-Residence and Director, Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment Texas Public Policy Foundation |
When you say “tapped,” does that mean a subpoena, or is it an offer you can’t refuse, or what exactly?
I have been ‘invited’. Not a command performance, but something not to be turned down lightly. I view it as an important opportunity. Stay tuned . . .
Staying tuned!
Just the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth….will be a breath of fresh air ;)
Give ’em hell Judy.
The honourable ‘n distinguished recognizer
uv uncertainty regardin’ our oh so complex
interactiv – earth – ocean – atmosphere climate
system, Dr Judith Curry, PhD and much, much
more.
In the United States, the prefix the Honorable has been used to formally address various officials at the federal and state levels, most notably judges.
Yet people suggest that Americans have no sense of irony.
@DocMartyn
Yes, I understand virtually every elected official in the USA is referred to as “the Honorable”. In the UK, Members of Parliament call each other “the honorable member”, but no one else is expected to think they are honorable.
Just give them the plain unvarnished truth Judith as you see it. You cant do any better than that.
I always thought that American society, especially in politics is full of Irony.
In the UK we are full of titles MP’s – Honourable Member yes, but if they are also Queens Councillors (expensive attorneys) they are Honourable Learned Members (which makes the rest of the members sound illiterate).
“…Members of Parliament call each other “the honorable member”, but no one else is expected to think they are honorable.”
As they do here in the antipodes.
I recall having a conversation with one of my MPs staff along the lines of:
Helper: “I don’t know why they all get called ‘honorable’ – not always appropriate, ha ha!”
Me: “True, but they also call them ‘member’, which is singularly appropriate!”
;-)
( It’s a reference to Truman, folks ).
“I never did give anybody hell.
I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.”
Harry S. Truman
S
=
Historical examples throughout the march of humanity to compare with the faith Western academics invest in the predictive ability of numerical models (General Circulation Models or GCMs) – to represent physical processes in the atmosphere, ocean, land and poles some 50, 100, and even 4,000 generations hence – include some rituals of legend like reading tea leaves or making a journey to the Oracle of Delphi.
I am, of course, one of the few remaining practitioners of accurate tea leaf reading, which is especially helpful during the current climate of Western social upheaval. I recently performed a very accurate reading of the leaves to determine the validity of these GCMs that many now believe have simply been fabricated out of whole cloth by the government researchers to spread alarming tales about out-of-control, human-caused global warming.
In a somewhat abstruse response I was informed that for starters, the Earth’s climate is not random. It’s chaotic. I was then chided by the gods who told me of Albert Einstein’s admission that, “if we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”
The correct term is “stochastic” which means “governed by the laws of probability”. The opposite to “stochastic” is “deterministic”. (Mathematical) “chaos” is the term used to describe what happens when deterministic equations are used in an attempt to describe stochastic phenomena. Spectral analysis of ice-core proxy temperature time-series indicates that climate is not only stochastic but is a bounded random walk, see:
http://www.blackjay.net/papers/bounded-random-walk/index.html
I would agree that with the mathematics of GCM-making we are merely using numerology to give gravitas to our stochastic projections. For the seas to rise as government-scientists hoped global warming would melt Antarctica and failing that, all we have left to give are the ice fields and glaciers. That’s not likely given an anomalously quiet sun. With low solar activity, if the gods of chaos decide to throw some volcanic activity into the mix, something a bit bigger than Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull could frost our sneakers, as occurred in, The Year Without a Summer — the Poverty Year — a severe time in the Northern Hemisphere during the summer of 1816 as Earth approached the final years of the Little Ice Age.
Wagathon,
I must point out that, as a recognised world authority (even if I do say so myself, in all humility) on the art of divining facts from examination of various entrails, your claims as to the accuracy of your readings of the tea leaves may leave much to be desired by comparison with my obviously superior methodology.
My far superior results indicate that the GCMs, rather than being fabricated out of whole cloth, as you claim, have been fabricated out of holey cloth, previously used for wrapping phlogiston and luminiferous ether.
However, as to fabrication, it seems that our readings agree. I must therefore admit, albeit reluctantly, that tasseomancy, or probably more correctly in this tasseography, appears to produce valid, reproducible and incontrovertible results.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Please give us a reading the entrails concerning what happens if we fail to face the “fiscal cliff” and step off now, if need be — while it’s just a short fall down — and, if continue as we are, how many years on the Greek calendar will it be before Nadolf Nitler is elected president to ‘right all the wrongs’ and humanity is forced to face the immeasurable chaos of the moral cliff?
Of course, the best model would cover both the stochastic and deterministic properties of climate, as described in this excellent paper:
http://www.maths.lth.se/matstat/climate/ScalingWorkshop2011/KrysPSARMA2011.pdf
Sergey Kotov used the mathematics of chaos to analyze a 4000 year Greenland ice core temperature record and found a pattern in the data. Extrapolating into the future Kotov’s approach predicts cooling to 2030, then warming, and then 300 years of cooling beginning in 2100.
A quote from Wikpediai (which people tend to use as a reference, for better or worse):
“The question of how to distinguish deterministic chaotic systems from stochastic systems has also been discussed in philosophy. It has been shown that they might be observationally equivalent.[57]”
I love chaos!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Realistically in not philosophically it should be considered impossible to expect a computer program to bring on stochastic reasoning to solve problems until such time as computers are capable of weaving known facts together with creative and holistic thinking while being able to recognize a Come to Jesus moment.
Didn’t the JFK and LBJ base their decision making in Vietnam on the computer models of the RAND group?
True, true on paper they won the war.
Wagathon,
Thank you for your recognition of my entrail reading abilities.
In regard to your query, I am currently suffering from a lack of entrails, and thus unable to forecast when I will be able to do your forecast.
I will have a cup of tea and consider the matter. Unfortunately, I have to use a teabag. Maybe I could model some tea leaves and send them to you.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Understood but when I said tea leaves I was speaking metaphorically — I really meant stains from week coffee.
There are those adept at tea leaves, and those who beseech guts and those who seek in the stars, but come, this is climate, weather, and atmosphere. It’s the vagaries of birds, and particular flights of flocks, which augur with accuracy in these matters.
====================================
I hear the soft beating of butterfly wings…
Whether auguring?
Hey, it’s ants climbin’
ter higher land,
‘n moths swarmin,’
and especially
climate scientists
flyin’ ter tropical
waterin’ places,
that tell yer witch
way the winds
blowin’ regardin’
globul warmin’.
Bob Dylan :
“You don’t need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Wagathon: Sergey Kotov used the mathematics of chaos to analyze a 4000 year Greenland ice core temperature record and found a pattern in the data. Extrapolating into the future Kotov’s approach predicts cooling to 2030, then warming, and then 300 years of cooling beginning in 2100.
Could you supply a reference? I would appreciate it.
See–e.g., Kotov S.R. Near-Term Climate Prediction Using Ice-Core Data from Greenland — Geological Constraints on Global Climate
and then 300 years of cooling beginning in 2100.
Could you supply a reference? I would appreciate it.
Here is a Reference that is well known.
Roman Warm Period, cold period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, current Warm Period, next cold period.
“Historical examples throughout the march of humanity to compare with the faith Western academics invest in the predictive ability of numerical models (General Circulation Models or GCMs) – to represent physical processes in the atmosphere, ocean, land and poles some 50, 100, and even 4,000 generations hence – include some rituals of legend like reading tea leaves or making a journey to the Oracle of Delphi. ”
Or one that is much closer, the attempt to predict / control the PDO by the elite of the Lambeyeque people of Peru, via massive pyramids:
“If you look around all the pyramids at Túcume, consider each one of them would have had some kind of lord living on top. Lambayeque, as other Andean civilization, believed that the truly powerful gods lived in the mountains. When the Lambayeque built a pyramid they were building a replica mountain with the same supernatural power they hoped could control the forces of nature. And just as the gods lived on the mountains, the lords would live on top of these pyramids to protect the people from what they most feared. But what was it in this valley they were so afraid of? This region has been subject to some of the most extreme climate disasters on the planet. These disasters were caused by the violent climate upheavals known as El Niños. Floods, sand storms, droughts – for the Lambayeque these climate disasters could only be understood as the wrath of the angry gods. When the pyramids failed to protect against catastrophe they had to be purged by fire and abandoned. And new and more pyramids built to replace them. It suggests this is why the valley is littered with the ruins of so many abandoned pyramids.”
http://www.explorebyyourself.com/en/peru/about_the_country/lambayeque_valley/
I saw a documentary (sorry have no link) speculating that every few generations the Lords & Priests were burnt along with their temples atop the pyramids, when their ‘models’ and ‘controls’ for El Nino failed to work. The pyramids are huge, early Spanish explorers thought they were natural hills (built from mud-brick, so slowly degenerating). Would have taken massive resource in society to build. Very fortunately we’ve moved on from burning the elite in such circumstances; one can’t help but wonder whether windmills and carbon obsession are the pyramids and sacrifices of a similar system.
… we perhaps still have these same climate priests among us now, high up in Western academia’s ivory towers.
Yes. From Professor Hans von Storch and cultural scientist Werner Krauss (‘the authors’):
The authors reveal how they feel about alarmist scientists. Since the early 2000s they felt “something was amiss”.
“Was the climate apocalypse really at our doorstep as we could read in the media? Or were they exaggerating in their depiction of the results coming from climate science? […]
The climate scientist [von Storch] had the suspicion that climate science was dragging around a ‘cultural rucksack’ that was influencing the interpretation of the data. The cultural scientist [Krauss], with regards to the appearances by some climate scientists in the media and the roles they were readily assigned, was reminded of weather-wizards and shamans of foreign cultures.”
And later:
“Without really being aware of it, climate scientists had taken over the role of prophets: They predicted the imminent end-of-the-world if society did not fundamentally change soon, reduced its emissions, and behaved more sustainably with the environment. The problem was not only the message, but also that they were often completely way in over their heads with the role as mediator between nature and society.”
And Van Storch is a climate scientist, so this is an inside view too!
The boldness with which misinformation has been promoted has made climate change warnings useless. The government-education bureaucracy appears to worse than worthless: they are not protecting us from harm they’re causing harm.
wegathon writes: “Kotov’s approach predicts cooling to 2030, then warming, and then 300 years of cooling beginning in 2100.”
But in Kotov’s 2001 paper I read: “Predictions based on the characteristics of the Holocene and extending into the future indicate that the present short-term warming trend may continue for at least 200 years and be followed by a reverse in the temperature trend.”
The projection is based on Bob Carter’s analysis of Kotov’s paper as reflected also in slide 59 of Lee C. Gerhard powerpoint presentation:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/LG59.JPG
Interesting too, in the above powerpoint Dr. Gerhard concludes that it would not matter even if a human influence on climate was verified (he says in slide 60 that “We have falsified by correlation that humans are a major cause”) because the current warm event is coming to an end — similar to the Roman and Medieval events — but, “perhaps a bit cooler.”
Mike;
You can read your tea leaves anyway. Just rip open your bag, and let them scatter where they may.
The results may well be spesticular.
Interesting. I don’t see this in the Climate Action Plan, but here are the facts. Will this be addressed as part of the hearing?
“Fifteen European refineries have closed in the past five years, with a 16th due to shut this year, the International Energy Agency said, as the U.S. went from depending on fuel from Europe to being a major exporter to the region. Nigeria, which used to send the equivalent of a dozen supertankers of crude a month to the U.S., now ships fewer than three, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And cheap oil from the Rocky Mountains, where output has grown 31 percent since 2011, will soon allow West Coast companies to cut back on imports of pricier grades from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela that they process for customers in Asia, the world’s fastest-growing market.”
Excellent opportunity Judith. Tell them the facts about CAGW and get them to accept them.
Then explain to them: if they want to help get USA back to its position of economic leadership in the world, as well as lead the world to reduce GHG emissions in an economically rational way – which is the only way that has any chance of succeeding – then they need to make a stand and strongly advocate dumping the massively expensive and useless policies on renewable energy and EPA regulation of energy supply and, instead, set about removing the impediments to the world getting access to low cost nuclear power.
One step they could take would be to lead the world to raise the acceptable limit on nuclear radiation exposure by a factor of 1200 – from 0.08 mSv per month to 100 mSv per month. Here’s some background: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15900
I’ll post another comment on how this could help to massively reduce the cost of nuclear energy.
“Tell them the facts about CAGW and get them to accept them.”
_____
Now, how exactly will Judith get people to accept her perspective on the “facts”? At the very most she might get them notice the little creature she brings along on tour with her which she affectionately calls the “Uncertainty Monster”.
The “Uncertainty Monster” is eating you up. And the pause is killing the cause.
I think Peter Lange mistakenly believes the U.S. can regain it’s economic leadership by out-polluting China. If Peter had a head for business, he would realize the only way we can regain our leadership is to quadruple our population and get Americans to work in factories for 50 cents an hour.
Peter seems terrified of renewables (wind power and solar power). I’m not sure I understand the basis for his fear. It would make more sense to fear nuclear power, something he strongly advocates. Peter’s paradoxical thinking is baffling.
There’s no “demanding” of anything under the rule of Obogus. He has the bit in his teeth, and is dancing as fast as he can.
Max,
China has problems as massive as its population looming on the horizon. Environmental and demographic ones topping the list.
And as far as them over taking the US as the economic engine of the world, the 2008 recession showed that the US economy in the tank is still preferable for investment than a growing China. It will continue to be, so long as China manipulates its currency.
The amount of government involvement and money that is going into to underwriting the added expense of alternative energy is ruinous much like chewing off your arm to get more protein in your diet.
I can understand why renewables alarm fossil-fuel fans and pollution advocates. Renewables (wind power and solar power) compete with fossil fuels, can’t be depleted, and don’t pollute. As the “new kid on the block” renewables are a threat to the status quo, so it’s no surprise renewables are met with envy, jealously, and hostility.
Is a fossil-fuel fan anyone who likes a hot shower in the morning?
Why tell us you like to play with yourself?
While Western academia and the UN continue to fail society in so many areas, their greatest disservice to humanity is the expensive avalanche of warnings about global warming – supposedly resulting from nothing but normal human behavior – that serve only to trivialize and undermine our ability to deal with the real dangers that humanity does face.
Wag,
Totally agree with you there. Astroid impact is a civilization or city destroying risk that is within our reach to impact but we dither about carbon in the air and minor or modest temperature changes. I keep trying to refer to B612 foundation efforts to detect and deter impacts to earth for the modest cost of $450,000,000 vs the global engineering studies and modeling costs of billions. Other big risks like volcanoes or tidal waves are harder to predict but we should have lots of other concerns.
Scott
Is B612 related to NEO?
Wag,
I never know if you are kidding but here is the link.
http://b612foundation.org/
Scott
I surely feel the need Scott. PHA is potentially more hazardous to your health than AGW.
Wag
PHA?
Scott
Potentially Hazardous Astroids!
From notes accompanying the Dr. Gerhard powerpoint presentation referenced above:
Lamb, H. H., 1995, Climate, History, and the Modern World: 2nd Ed., Routledge, NY, 433 p.
Past Climate history:
Moberg, Anders, Wibjörn Karlén et al., 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature Vol. 433, No 7026, pp. 613-617, February 10, 2005
“A number of reconstructions of millennial-scale climate variability have been carried out in order to understand patterns of natural climate variability, on decade to century timescales, and the role of anthropogenic forcing. These reconstructions have mainly used tree-ring data and other data sets of annual to decadal resolution. Lake and ocean sediments have a lower time resolution, but provide climate information at multicentennial timescales that may not be captured by tree-ring data. Here we reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the past 2,000 years by combining low-resolution proxies with tree-ring data, using a wavelet transform technique to achieve timescale-dependent processing of the data. Our reconstruction shows larger multicentennial variability than most previous multi-proxy reconstructions, but agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model. According to our reconstruction, high temperatures—similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990—occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7 K below the average of 1961–90 occurred around AD 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue.”
Waggy your 12.17
I quoted both your references in my article here the Long Slow Thaw. They both intrigued me and I subsequently wrote ‘noticeable climate change’ carried here and also this article;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/
If you go to Figure 2 you will see all the spaghetti paleos graphed. Moberg says;
‘Our reconstruction shows larger multicentennial variability than most previous multi-proxy reconstructions, but agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model.’
You can see clearly that Moberg had made the best attempt at variability but even his work shows only a fraction of the variation that actually occurs when measured against readings from one real world location.
tonyb
As Dr. Gerhard observed, “There is no flat line in climate.”
tonyb,
you made a comment that wind can’t be anything but a minor contribution to the energy mix. I think wind and solar have the potential to make 20% contributions each in the US. If you are interested I can find the two reports, one by Lawrence Berkely national lab on wind and one a business week article on putting solar on roofs and parking lots in the South west US. It may take some research but I can liink them at the end of this thread. I always appreciate the good work you do, especially the long slow thaw, CET records and the land links btwn England and France.
Scott
Scott
As regards wind and solar, I think I was referring to the UK situation. I believe in energy horses for courses. A 50 acre rural solar site is planned about 10 miles from me. It needs ludicrously high subsidies as the UK has many virtues, but being sunny isn’t one of them.
The problem with wind is that we often have periods of high winds when the turbines would close down or, especially in winter, long periods of often gloomy but very still weather when the turbines wont turn. Couple that with the reality that turbines often need to be sited in our finest upland areas AND that transmission lines then need to be constructed, I think that wind is too expensive too unreliable and too environmentally damaging in OUR situation.
We are an island with nowhere further than 70 miles to the sea and that is our obvious renewable source, but unfortunately wind energy is the main game in town and waves/tidal has been badly neglected.
I am always willing to read articles that might change my opinion (or reinforce them!) so if you can readily find them I will read them.
Don’t forget though that we are a small crowded island with insufficient space for large scale inefficient schemes, but agree that we should make more use of industrial sites, such as parking lots and factory roofs
tonyb
tonyb
As usual, an eminently sensible response. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-25/solar-energy-is-ready-dot-the-u-dot-s-dot-isnt
“Despite such breakthroughs, the U.S. economy is harnessing only a fraction of solar’s potential benefits. Based on U.S. Census Bureau data, about 100 million U.S. residential units could physically hold rooftop systems one day, generating by one estimate 3.75 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity a year. In 2011, total U.S. electrical generation from all sources was about 4 trillion kilowatt hours—42 percent of that from coal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The trouble is, many of the big,investor-owned utilities that provide about 85 percent of America’s electricity see solar as both a technical challenge and a long-term threat to their 100-year-old profit models. And the lack of a national energy policy means regulation of solar is up to states, public service commissions, and a wealth of local governments and bureaucracies—many of whom have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.”
The wind energy came from NREL not LBNL.
I will link it also
Scott
tonyb,
I got the threading wrong and put the wind link up at comment number 88 if you are interested still.
Scott
Scott
Saw it thanks
Tonyb
When did a city-destroying asteroid, let alone a civilization one, last strike a city? Work out the odds and you find it’s a very very small chance of happening in even the next 500 years.
On the otherhand if carbon emissions are left uncurtailed it’s very likely we’ll see 700+ppm in the next 200 years.
No, Waggy, a fossil fuel fan is an ill-informed or delusional person who thinks or wants to believe there is no substitute for fossil fuel, when obviously there are other sources of power for generating electricity, including renewables (wind,solar, and hydro power) and nuclear power.
If you were well informed you would know that some utility companies offer consumers the option to ensure all electricity used in their homes is from renewable sources and many people get their shower water from electric heaters.
I’ll swear, Waggy, sometimes I suspect you are an environmental extremist posing as a climate contrarian so you can say things that make contrarians look bad. If I were a global warming skeptic I sure wouldn’t want people associating you with me.
…it’s Ok, no one really expects Leftist ad hom attack dogs to understand where electricity actually comes from.
Max_OK: As the “new kid on the block” renewables are a threat to the status quo, so it’s no surprise renewables are met with envy, jealously, and hostility.
Mostly renewables are met with competition in the marketplace, and are found at present not to be competitive without subsidies, and good mostly for niche applications. Envy, jealousy and hostility apply mostly to the direct government subsidies directed to them.
True, true it would be impossible to build a Tesla without from the start employing a lot of fossil-fueled equipment to dig the raw materials out of the ground. And, when you trace back the source of the electricity a Tesla is plugged into, you are likely to find a coal-fired power plant.
I’m fine with subsidies that advance worthwhile causes. While I like the free market, I don’t place it ahead of everything. I’m not one to say “oh, we can’t subsidize because it violates market principles.”
BTW, I get a mineral depletion allowance. Don’t expect me to give that up just because it’s like a subsidy.
You are showing your economic ignorance again, maxie. You don’t even know what a depletion allowance is. Look it up. It ain’t a subsidy.
When it comes to economics Leftists really should stay out of the deep end of the pool. No one can expect much from those who pride themselves in their ability to live off of the hard work of others without providing any corresponding benefit to society that anyone voluntarily pays for.
Detroit Don, your knowledge of economics is even worse than your knowledge of cars. My mineral depletion allowance gives me 15% federal income tax deduction on royalty income, which is an indirect subsidy, similar to the way the deduction for mortgage interest payments is a subsidy to homeowners.
Before trying to discuss money or cars with me, do your home work.
Detroit Don, subsidies and tax deductions achieve the same results. Tax deductions for mineral depletion encourage investors to invest in mineral rights, just as subsidies for wind power encourage investors to invest in wind farms. The difference in the tax deduction and the direct subsidy is essentially a difference in names only. In both cases, it’s money that otherwise would go to government for other uses.
By this logic, the highest tax rate t-max on anything anywhere in the economy is the benchmark and the difference between t-max and any lower tax rate is a subsidy. Under this logic, we all live and keep our income at the pleasure of our government, and essentially have no rights to anything at all.
https://web.duke.edu/philsociety/taleofslave.html
Max – for your enlightenment, for you to take any deduction, whether it be for depletion allowance or interest on one’s home, you must first generate taxable income against which that deduction can be applied. A subsidy requires no such test, that is taxable or any income for that matter, therefore, they are not the same
Fellas, please don’t try to disabuse maxie of his ignorance. He is so amusing. He attempts to fill in his gaps in knowledge by creating analogies with things he thinks he understands. He thinks he knows what a subsidy is, so a tax becomes a subsidy. Maxie can make up a false analogy for just about anything. Just watch him go.
DM should fix the Wikipedia article on subsidy, which says
“Subsidies have a long track record and today come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans), indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates)”
DM doesn’t like the idea that an indirect subsidy is a subsidy.
I haven’t done oil depletion accounting since 1983, but in my opinion maxie has just schooled DM.
Percentage depletion can far exceed the actual costs of developing the resource for extraction. That’s a bare-naked subsidy; its junk fully exposed. It would be like taking 3 million in depreciation deductions on a 1-million-dollar building. Wouldn’t building owners love that deal?
I think most majors use cost depletion. Imo, they would love to get rid of percentage depletion as it would get rid of, well, maxie.
Barnes, I am aware that a tax deduction for mineral royalty income differs from a subsidy for a wind farm in that the mineral rights investor must have income to get the deduction but the wind farm investor can get the subsidy before having income. However, I believe the tax deduction and the subsidy are more alike than they are different. In both cases investment is required, which means no one is getting something for nothing, and there is the risk of losing money. Both the tax deduction and the subsidy result in the government not having money it would otherwise have.
BTW, there is no depletion allowance for wind farm income because wind, unlike gas and oil, is not a resource that can be depleted. A wind farm investment can be depreciated, which is similar to a depletion allowance, but not as good for the investor because any appreciation on the wind farm must be recovered but appreciation of mineral holdings is not counted against income deductions received.
I see the doc is just another silly leftish ivory tower economic ignorant. You can call business expense tax deductions “subsidies” if you want to, doc. That puts you in the flat taxer category with maxie and the other ignorants. You believe that we owe the gubmint 100% of what we earn and anything they leave to us is a subsidy.
You jokers are especially rapacious with the earnings/profits of the evil capitalist big business types. Hell, you don’t even want them to deduct the expenses of doing business, before you take their money to spread it around to the non-productive types.
If you don’t allow businesses to deduct their legitimate expenses from their revenues to get their taxable income, you will end up with little or no businesses left.
The home mortgage interest expense deduction is essentially a subsidy. It is not analogous to a business expense deduction. Depreciation is the one you are looking for as something comparable to a depletion allowance. But I don’t want to interfere with your foolishness. Carry on.
I don’t have a big problem considering the percentage depletion allowance a subsidy. It enables businesses to recover amounts that must be paid for an unproduced commodity. It applies to, for example, the mining of a wasting asset like coal. Since the amount of the deduction is based on a percentage of gross income without reference to the actual amount a business actually has invested in the asset, the percentage depletion is an example of incentivizing owners of wasting assets to continue engaging in that particular line of business.
But, I agree with you that it means nothing in scheme of things when government can, as easily as it does, ramp up taxes and fees on business profits and activities. Despite America’s example of such awesome power as was unleashed through the liberation of the individual and diminishment of the power of the state, the Left with the aid of Western academia is again embarked on the systematic ranking of society, harkening back to humanity’s darker past, with politicians and academicians as the chiefs and new priests ruling over their would-be Utopian global village.
Detroit Don says “If you don’t allow businesses to deduct their legitimate expenses from their revenues to get their taxable income, you will end up with little or no businesses left.”
______
Right, but what’s the point of stating the obvious.
Your blathering indicated that you didn’t understand that, maxie. You couldn’t run a lemonade stand.
Detroit Don, I’m writing this real slow because I know you read real slow and frequently misunderstand what I write.
OK, get ready to read and think over what I’m about to say:
I know about paying income taxes on profits, because I have paid income taxes on profits.
I am happy to see you have figured out income taxes are paid on profits rather than receipts. Have you thought about whether the Pope is Catholic?
I don’t have any more time for you, maxie. You are on your own.
A tax break is a subsidy, Don.
I didn’t see this one. Et tu, springy. You can call business expense deductions tax breaks/subsidies, if you want to. We should eliminate all those business tax break/subsidies and we will solve the debt problem, real quick. Why tax only profits, when you can get it all?
Just wear a heavy sweater with a turtle neck, some ear muffins and mittens.
Good one, ordvic ! Judy showing up at the hearing dressed like that would be hilarious, particularly if Washington was experiencing warmer than usual weather.
Yeah she could end up sweating as much as Hansen.
Looks like you’re outnumbered, but at least some will listen, if only to get prepped for the next regime change. Sigh…..
“Looks like you’re outnumbered…”
____
So long as Dems control the Senate, that’s the way the game is played.
Judith, here is a point you might be able to slip in (if you want to).
Question: How would increasing the internationally recommended safety limit for ionizing radiation from 0.08 mSv per month to 100 mSv per month affect the cost of nuclear electricity generation – over the short and the long term?
[The justification for such a change is based on changing from “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) to “As high as Reasonably Safe” (AHARS) as explained here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15900.
From the article:
[The current internationally recommended safety limit is 1 mSv per year (0.08 mSv per month).]
If the limit was raised the cost of nuclear power and the damage cost of accidents would be reduced.
I don’t know whether a 1000 fold increase in the allowable dose from 0.08 mSv to 100 mSv per month is justifiable on scientific grounds or not and I am not arguing that point. My question is: if it is justifiable on scientific grounds and is implemented what effect would such a change be likely to have on the cost of nuclear power, over the short term and the medium term (years to decades)? The question is relevant, IMO; it is another example of the many impediments to nuclear power that could be removed (if it is scientifically justifiable).
I suggest, if such a change was implemented, it would have a significant effect on the cost of electricity from nuclear power plants. It could, if well handled, change the public perception about the risk of nuclear power. Increasing the limit would reduce the cost of accidents (like Chernobyl and Fukushima), and the amount of disruption to people’s lives when they do occur. It could be the circuit breaker that is needed to start unwinding the public’s fear and paranoia. People may realise they’ve been conned by the anti-nuke activists, just like people are starting to recognise they’ve been conned, to some extent, over CAGW. Once the public begin to recognise that the risk of nuclear power is negligible and it is safer than any other electricity generation technology, then much of the financial risk premium would dissipate (over time). The cost of finance for nuclear plants would come down. The cost of electricity would come down. As they become cheaper they’d be rolled out faster. The learning rate would increase and costs would come down faster.
I don’t know if the arguments for such a change is valid or not, but the article seems persuasive.
For those concerned about CAGW and about reducing GHG emissions you’d think they’d take a serious look at it rather than just the usual, habitual denial we get.
So, Judith, could you slip something in along these lines? You might get them to sit up, take notice and think about it.
As a veteran of both naval nuclear power and commercial nuclear power, I don’t think eliminating radiation safety limits would make much difference.
In my opinion, nuclear regulations are important, mostly to protect the financial investment. Keep the core covered, no matter what, helps the bottom line.
Most of the work required can be performed without that high exposure, fixing leaky steam generators might be easier with relaxed limits, but I have been converted to the BWR faith anyway.
I am still opposed to any liquid or gaseous effluent releases from nuclear plants, so as long as plants are designed for zero emissions, you can raise the limits on personal exposure, but by a factor of 24? The limits for workers being 50 mSv/year.
I will always be opposed to internal exposure, especially that from alpha radiation. I read a study once and I don’t have the cite, but there was evidence that a cell death was 100% with two alphas, and a cell could recover from one, but that there was a chance of cancer from one alpha to one cell.
Which means to me at least that the linear no threshold model applies to internal exposure to alpha, but the hormesis theory may be valid to gamma and beta. Neutrons being a wild card.
Lets just say that I’m a firm believer in positive engineering controls.
Way before time distance and shielding.
Bob Droege,
Thank you for your comment and your valuable contribution from your experience.
However, I think you may have missed my main point. The impact of increasing the radiation dose limit that I suggest could effect the cost of electricity is the impact on the recognition of the relative safety of nuclear power compared with alternative forms of electricity generation. This could have a major effect on the cost of electricity because if the decrease in fear and paranoia about nuclear power. It is social science and social engineering rather than the hard engineering aspects your comments are talking about.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing for “eliminating radiation safety limits” as you said. I am advocating reducing them in accordance with what the scientific evidence supports. That is the equivalent of what the CAGW alarmists say they want to do in justifying the mitigation policies they advocate. So why shouldn’t we use scientific evidence to justify the limits for radiation exposure (as suggested here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15900) ?
As long as we continue to insist on irrational, unjustifiable, near-infinite safety for nuclear power but don’t put the equivalent requirements and constraints on the other technologies, investment decisions are not being given a level playing field. What we are doing by persisting with this approach is making nuclear too expensive so it can’t compete, so we are forced to buy much less safe electricity generation technologies. By “we” I mean all the peoples of the world, not just the 10% of the world’s population who live in the rich countries.
The excessive, unjustified regulations are having the opposite effect. They make nuclear power too expensive, the cost of financing them much higher than it could and should be, and gives seemingly never ending opportunity for the anti-nukes to find ways to increase operating and compliance costs, and in worst case to shut down plants before they have run their full anticipated operating life – so investors have to price in a high risk of default. That is increasing the cost of electricity from nuclear power plants and making them less viable
Your other comments are not really relevant to addressing the specific question. They are not a valid argument to set a limit that is 1000 times below the justifiable limit based on the scientific evidence (if that is the case).
I don’t think the regulations requiring nuclear power plants to able to safely survive a LOPA accident are excessive. They have nothing to do with why there haven’t been very many nuclear plants built in the US, that has to do with the large initial investment of time and money required to build a plant as compared to natural gas.
The budget of typical radiation safety departments at a typical us nuclear plant is small potatoes compared to the maintenance and engineering departments, so eliminating might get a 10% annual reduction in non fuel operating expenses, hardly enough to make nuclear much cheaper. And making the limits 24 times higher, not 1000 as you suggest, effectively eliminates them. When I was in the field, the average rad worker dose in the US was about 10 mSv. But that’s external exposure and doesn’t take into account the hazards of internal exposure which I note that your cite only talks about Cesium. It mentioned a girl whose internal dose was 1000 million Bq, which is only 3 times the typical diagnostic F-18 dose, yet she died. Different radionuclides have different dangers, and you can’t say radiation is safe or cleanup is not necessary based on the hazards of one nuclide.
We need to operate nuclear plants safely in order to convince those who would be convinced, rather than operate them as cheaply and as risky as possible. TMI caused more increases in regulation in the US than any other event, but obviously TEPCO didn’t learn the lessons the US industry had to. If those Japanese plants had the safety systems mandated in the US post TMI, there wouldn’t have been any accidents at Fukishima.
And that would have saved so much.
Bob,
You’ve completely missed the point.
Peter Lang wants Judith Curry to pose as an expert on nuclear power and ask questions for the purpose of helping Peter’s nuclear advocacy. If I were Judith I’m not sure I would think that’s a good idea, but she may.
Peter, nuclear power proponents should be glad they were tossed a bone in President’s Climate Action Plan. Unless I missed something, all I saw about nuclear power in the Plan is in the following statements:
“Unlocking Long-Term Investment in Clean Energy Innovation: The Fiscal Year 2014 Budget continues the President’s commitment to keeping the United States at the forefront of clean energy research, development, and deployment by increasing funding for clean energy
technology across all agencies by 30 percent, to approximately $7.9 billion. This includes
investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels and emerging nuclear
technologies – including small modular reactors – to clean coal.”
“Nuclear Power. The United States will continue to promote the safe and secure use of nuclear power worldwide through a variety of bilateral and multilateral engagements. For example, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission advises international partners on safety and regulatory best practices, and the Department of Energy works with
international partners on research and development, nuclear waste and storage, training, regulations, quality control, and comprehensive fuel leasing options. Going forward, we will expand these efforts to promote nuclear energy generation consistent with maximizing safety and nonproliferation goals.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf
Note how many times the words “safe” and “safety” were used in the paragraph above. This suggests the public is not convinced nuclear power is safe, a concern that’s difficult to overcome.
bob droege | January 13, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
“I don’t think the regulations requiring nuclear power plants to able to safely survive a LOPA accident are excessive. ”
You won’t move Lang’s opinion one tiny bit unless it’s to make him even more shrill by confronting him with facts he doesn’t like especially coming from a crufty old nuclear plant worker who knows WTF he’s talking about.
On the matter of social science and social engineering, I would expect those arguing against an increase from 0.08 mSv/month to 100 mSv/month would find a very receptive audience among the public, who I imagine would be unlikely to welcome a factor of 1200 increase in a nuclear radiation safety threshold, independently of whether the current threshold was unnecessarily low.
When it comes to nuclear radiation, even if technical arguments based on increased risk of cancer carried little weight, I would still guess that the public is likely to prefer nontechnical arguments based on caution over nontechnical arguments based on the irrationality of their caution.
Pratt,
So you argue for ideological belief over science, eh?
V Pratt, “who I imagine would be unlikely to welcome a factor of 1200 increase in a nuclear radiation safety threshold, independently of whether the current threshold was unnecessarily low.”
Of course they would be concerned about a factor 1250 increase. 1250 is a big number! That has to be bad. Then that difference is like not eating Brazil nuts or eating 7 ounces in a month. That puts Yucca Mountain on the one ounce per year Brazil Nut dosage which has been adopted by the Bikini Atoll descendants. That is of course assuming that consuming the radiation source results 100% exposure. High fiber intake could skew the data.
The good news: ““Nuclear Power. The United States will continue to promote the safe and secure use of nuclear power worldwide through a variety of bilateral and multilateral engagements.”
The bad news: Judging by the practical impossibility of jumping through all the hoops that the regulatory bodies of the US Government have required over the last 30 odd years to license, build, fuel, operate, and dispose of the waste from a nuclear power plant, nuclear power cannot be used safely and securely.
“Note how many times the words “safe” and “safety” were used in the paragraph above. ”
Exactly. Translated from Political English into Common English they are saying that our next new nuclear plant will go on line not later than five years after it has been reasonably ascertained that Hell has frozen over.
Jeez Dave,
Why did you have to go and say something like that?
I won’t comment on any of your posts until I can return the favor.
PEACE OUT!
Bob,
Pending the usual construction delays, hell will be freezing over the year after next, seeing that it’s on the schedule for this year (US)
@PL: So you argue for ideological belief over science, eh?
What, me argue? :)
Seriously, you were the one who argued for increasing the safety threshold for nuclear radiation by a factor of 1200. You mistake intuition for ideology. Where did I argue anything for or against your proposal? All I did was predict the likely outcome if Judith takes your argument seriously and passes it on to Congress. Unlike you I have no ideological axe to grind, merely an intuition as to how people are likely to react to proposals about relaxing nuclear radiation standards.
Do you seriously expect Congress to lap up a proposal to increase a nuclear radiation safety threshold by a factor of 1200? That wasn’t a rhetorical question, I’d be really interested to know if you’re serious about that, in fact fascinated. Given the Tea Party’s influence, maybe Congress would.
It will be interesting to see what you have to say Judith, though I think we all have a pretty good idea. With both “sides” lining up their witnesses, or “tapping” their witnesses, as you put it, I wonder what such hearings actually can now accomplish in the end. Both sides seem pretty entrenched, and with the Democrats getting their rather predictable set of witnesses and the Republican getting theirs, what will happen on the 16th that will be any different than what’s been going for quite some time? Dessler will give his perspective and you’ll give yours and not much will change.
Rgates
You are right.everyone is in their trenches and it is difficult to see where any movement will come from. They ought to invite those from outside the climate establishment, at least that would shake things up a bit.
Tonyb
Absolutely correct Tony. The usual suspects have been “tapped” to repeat fairly predictable well-worn and established positions. Neither Dessler nor Judith are likely to stray too far from the positions they’ve been “tapped” to represent– though I expect Judith may take a few more shots at the IPCC and the AR5 report than would be normal if a fresh report had not been so recent, and that will be a nice bonus for those who “tapped” her to testify.
@Tonyb: They ought to invite those from outside the climate establishment
You mean as in “I’d like a second opinion from someone outside the medical establishment?”
I imagine some people who’ve just been diagnosed with cancer might feel that way.
Vaughan
Second opinion? No, just other voices with varying perspectives. Unless you believe the 97% consensus?
tonyb
Vaughan Pratt | January 15, 2014 at 3:48 am |
“I imagine some people who’ve just been diagnosed with cancer might feel that way.”
You have a very active imagination that’s for sure.
Maybe just an opinion from someone who is both knowledgeable and doesn’t have a vested interest in the answer.
@tonyb: Second opinion? No, just other voices with varying perspectives.
A subtle distinction…
@DS: Maybe just an opinion from someone who is both knowledgeable and doesn’t have a vested interest in the answer.
A very reasonable request. But impossible to meet because whichever side of the debate is contradicted by that person’s knowledge is going to infer that that person must have a vested interest in the answer.
Vaughan Pratt | January 15, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
@DS: Maybe just an opinion from someone who is both knowledgeable and doesn’t have a vested interest in the answer.
“A very reasonable request. But impossible to meet”
Not at all. A professor who teaches oncology but does not practice medicine has no vested interest and is quite well qualified in his opinion nonetheless.
@DS: Not at all. A professor who teaches oncology but does not practice medicine has no vested interest and is quite well qualified in his opinion nonetheless.
Very good point, David. Finding a non-practicing expert on cancer who’s never encountered the patient should indeed be easier than finding a non-practicing expert on climate who’s never encountered the climate debate. +1 for incisive analysis..
Judith,
You might get some winning points from my brilliant submission to the Australian Senate Committee hearings on the repeal of the Australian carbon tax legislation. It’s listed number 2 of the submissions received, which I pressume is in order of merit, relevance and persuasiveness :)
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Clean_Energy_Legislation/Submissions
I am missing any Prophessor of Climate Change. How far behind Australia are we?
Try not to tell any senators you understand how propaganda works, and you should be fine.
Well, at least better than the last couple of times out.
Avoid getting trapped in Antarctic ice, if you can.
And maybe don’t call anything impossible that’s already been proven accurate or very nearly true. That one gets you a lot.
We’re rooting for you.
Only warmists get trapped in ice. You are a bitter little dude.
Getting trapped in sea ice is not uncommon. It can happen to anybody.
According to news reports, starting in early November 2013, the Aurora Australis, an icebreaker, spent 4 straight weeks trapped in the ice.
We know that getting tapped in ice is not uncommon. OK? It’s only amusing when people get trapped in ice who have gone to prove that the ice is not there any more. Get it now?
No, what’s ironic is that they wanted to investigate the loss of land ice, and found that same ice now floating all around them.
You should tweet that to Turney, bobby. He can use that spin, when he finally get’s back to face the music and ridicule.
DM,
‘Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.’
H/t Robert Frost.
Fer gettin’ stuck in,
Down in Antarctica,
Ice will suffice.
H/t Beth the serf.
Ice is nice
And does suffice;
Throw the dice
And run like mice.
===========
I avoid ice, unless it’s floating in a nice single malt scotch.
Nice Scotch icy, that akva vits,
They dabble in, their micey feets.
============
Bart R
Two facts
1. The Russian vessel got stuck in Antarctic sea ice
2. The Antarctic sea ice extent was at a record level for end-December, reaching 14% more extent than the 1979-2000 baseline value
Max
No gud Rashian put ice in Vodka
I would never put ice in single malt scotch.
Glad to hear it
Don Monfort, who thought or thinks there is no ice around Antarctic? What is truly ironic is when people attack strawmen and lose.
Antarctica is really Iceland, and Iceland is really a volcano.
===================
Is there a more complete way to lose credibility among adults than to speak of ice in scotch?
Likely best to mention nothing potable while testifying, Dr. Curry. Well, water might be okay. So long as it’s not in scotch. Be careful with the topic of orange juice, though; that one’s a career killer in DC. Milk is generally safe, so long as you don’t go into detail or appear to be siding with anyone too strongly.. but avoid discussing chocolate milk, and if you mention strawberry milk you’ll be perceived as a flake. Soy milk might raise questions you don’t want to answer, and I can tell you nothing about the topic of almond milk in public testimony, as that ground is yet to be broken in DC. Let the professionals handle that.
Maybe if you stick to observations and what is simply, parsimoniously, universally accurate or most nearly true without reference to propaganda or serving any particular special interest above the interest of the nation, you’ll do best of all; a few brave souls have tried introducing that approach on the outskirts of the US political world with great success. We call them scientists.
Don and kim believe in fairytales. The Russian crew had been to that exact place the year before, and probably several other times. They were completely aware that sea ice extent is at a record, and that sea ice to one side of the Mertz Glacier remains there throughout the summer. To suggest Russian sailors do not understand ice is just preposterous.
In 2010 a massive collision of huge bodies of ice, the B9-B iceberg and the tongue of the Mertz Glacier, resulted a complete transformation of ocean circulation and ice behavior in the area. Debris, small icebergs, remained trapped in place by the sea ice that survives the summer in that region. A bunch of it broke loose on 12-24-2013 and trapped the ship on 12-24-2013.
Winter versus summer, the ship was trapped on the right side of the niblet of sea ice that does not melt in the summer between the words “Ross Sea” and “Pacific Ocean”.
B9-B iceberg floating toward the tongue of the Mertz Glacier. The Mertz looked pretty much exactly like that when Mawson was there 1911 to 1914. The ship was trapped on the right side of Watt Bay, far left, and off the left side of Cape De La Motte, land outcropping just to the left of the Mertz.
B9-B dislodging the tongue of the Mertz in 2010.
They went there, in part, to study the consequences of that collision. Perfectly legitimate. The blog lynching of this expedition is disgusting: a glimpse into the moral fiber of certain individuals.
@MC: First the surface radiates at it’s temperature, it radiates to in this case the sky (under clear skies).
Correct. Supposedly about 6% of that radiation escapes directly to space, the rest is captured by GHGs and clouds.
I’ve taken the time to point a IR thermometer at the clear sky, on a 20 F day, the sky was -60F, S-B says radiating 506 kJ to the sky. I don’t know what altitude I’m measuring, maybe it below your 15 km, but -60F is 222K.
First, most of what you’re measuring is likely to be radiation from water vapor. IR thermometers only go down to about 14 μm in wavelength, thereby missing a considerable portion of the CO2 backradiation, for which you need a pyrgeometer, which typically covers 4.5-100 μm.
Second, as you noted yourself you’re measuring a composite temperature radiated down from many altitudes. Weather balloons give a more accurate picture of how temperature depends on altitude, even expensive pyrgeometers aren’t a great way to measure lapse rate.
Third, you can expect considerable variation with latitude. (You didn’t give yours.)
Fourth, -60F is really pushing it for those little IR thermometers because the thermometer itself is much hotter than that and so it has to pick out a very small amount of thermal signal in the sky from the considerable thermal noise generated by the instrument. The Wikipedia article on pyrgeometers says “To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile.” I don’t know how carefully the cheap IR thermometers do that, but I’ve noticed that they give more reliable readings after waving them around in cold air for a bit to cool them down. Storing them in the freezer when not in use may help as long as they don’t then overcompensate.
And from what I’ve heard the tropospheric hotspot is missing.
That should not be an issue for temperature profiles obtained using weather balloons, which supposedly simply report the temperatures they see as they rise.
The thermometer measures from 8-14u, and doing some digging this morning you’re right, limiting to 14u does cut a lot of the Co2 spectrum off (I’m going to have to see if I can remove the filter). But if you look at a 20F BB spectrum, 8-14u accounts for about 60% of the radiation upwards. @20F there’s a maximum 2.5-3g water vapor/kg of air, so there’s very little energy from water to be measured. To put this in perspective @77F there’s 20g/kg.
I was really interested in the amount of LWDR, so I don’t really care what altitude it’s coming from, just how much it is at the surface. Even if 40% of the the UWLR is reflected back (and my experience with clear sky night time cooling makes me question that) there is still a huge hole in the spectrum allowing energy to radiate to space, when there’s low humidity, and no clouds.
I have in other posts, I live @41N, on the edge of the snow belt of Lake Erie in NE Ohio.
It’s a 2000 to -58 F, and does have some sort of temp compensation, but it’s ineffective when measuring very low temps, at -10 F or so when I measured the sky, even standing in the door scanning the sky over whelmed the compensation causing the reading to drop to -90F, a quick scan while it was warm gave a reading of ~-64F. For -20F to -58F it’s rated at +/- 9F.
Having studied night time cooling (I do astrophotography, and it’s an important parameter to remove thermal noise from digital images), as well as studying the change in surface temps as seasons and therefore the ratio of day to night, I see no evidence of any kind of storage of surface heat due to Co2 in any of these records. I do see a slight change in the rate of temp change as the seasons progress over the last 60 years, so maybe it’s a little warmer a little longer into the season (though there is an inflection point about the same time the pause started, so it remains to be seen if it continues to go up or not), and no place for thermal energy to hide. Other than the ocean, but even that seems to mostly be a long term trend.
With everything I’ve seen(nightly,seasonal cooling, 122 million surface records, my IR thermometer and weather station), even if the sky is 0.8C warmer than it use to be, water vapor and clouds are the surface regulator, and surface measurements of Tmax haven’t changed over the last 60 years, Tmin has gone up and down, and therefore Tavg has gone up and down, maybe the integral of temp has gone up some, but not Tmax.
Mi Cro,
You can find out, what to expect using the University of Chicago MODTRAN application
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Choose as Locality 1976 U.S Standard Atmosphere and as altitude 0 km. Then you may play with the moisture changing it from the normal value 1.0 up or down. You may also vary temperature up or down from the standard value.
When you reduce moisture enough you end up with rather little DWLR. You can check from the drop menu at right, what the partial pressure of water vapor is in each case.
Your IR thermometer has that filter just because a distance of a few meters would affect the reading too much, if the radiation from CO2 were not filtered out. The reading would be some kind of average of air and the surface being measured. Just removing the filter distorts the calibration as the present expectation is essentially the intensity of a black body at the temperature of the filter over wavelengths filtered out.
Some of the responders are convinced that nuclear power is the answer because it is CO2-free. Nuclear power emits more than twice the total heat as its electrical output. Anybody willing to do the calculations will find that the heat emissions from energy consumption are four times the amount of heat that can be accounted for by the actual measured rise in atmospheric temperature. The “scientists” studying the cause/s of global warming should have noticed this and should have explained their reasons for totally ignoring this in their climate models. I hope Dr. Curry will bring this point up when she speaks before the Review.
Philip Haddad wrote: “Anybody willing to do the calculations will find that the heat emissions from energy consumption are four times the amount of heat that can be accounted for by the actual measured rise in atmospheric temperature.”
This sentence is ambiguous and I am unsure what significance the intended claim has. Most of the energy gained by the climate system goes into the oceans and, melts the cryosphere, rather than into the troposphere. In any case, the total World energy consumption currently is about 15TW (that is 15*10^12W). Assuming most of this is either from fossil fuels or nuclear fission, and hence ultimately results in near 100% heat waste however it is being used, then the Earth surface must warm a little in order to restore radiative equilibrium. But meanwhile the enhanced greenhouse forcing from CO2 alone, after 10 years of emissions at current emissions levels, amounts to 0.2 watts per square meter averaged over the whole Earth surface. This amounts to 1*10^14W. Hence the waste heat from human energy consumption is equivalent to 1.5 years worth of CO2 forcing. If we were (impossibly) able to reduce this waste heat production to zero (while not mitigating emissions at all), then the net effect would be to postpone by just one year and a half the expected future warming from the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Another point is that while future increase in energy production efficiency (i.e. reduction of the (waste heat)/(energy consumed ratio)) would immediately reduce the relatively small ‘waste heat forcing’, and allow the Earth to immediately start cooling down to a new equilibrium, CO2 emissions result in a much more long lasting forcing since we don’t have an easy mean to sequester it and natural sequestration processes are very slow.
@P-N: But meanwhile the enhanced greenhouse forcing from CO2 alone, after 10 years of emissions at current emissions levels, amounts to 0.2 watts per square meter averaged over the whole Earth surface.
How does this number (however obtained) contradict PH’s claim that “the heat emissions from energy consumption are four times the amount of heat that can be accounted for by the actual measured rise in atmospheric temperature.”?
If you take HadCRUT4 as the benchmark for “actual measured rise” over the last 10 years (your period) and fit a trend line as shown here you get a temperature decrease of 0.028 C!
So actually the 15 TW is far more than four times what can be accounted for by the “actual measured rise” since the latter over the past 10 years is negative.
That said, until PH shows his work how he obtained a factor of four will remain a mystery.
Meanwhile if you take the log of increasing CO2 and do a best fit of it to HadCRUT4 you get this curve which shows an increase of roughly 0.2 °C over the past 10 years. If instead you ignore CO2 and simply interpolate a smooth curve that irons out 60-year periods (which presumably are of natural origin) you still get somewhere in the rough neighborhood of 0.2 °C depending on how you smooth.
In either case, we can convert this temperature rise to a rise in radiant emittance M by taking the derivative of the Stefan-Boltzmann law M = σT^4, namely dM/dT = 4σT^3 = 4M/T. Taking M and T to each be roughly 280 in their respective units (use more accurate numbers if you have them), this says that each degree increase in surface temperature corresponds to 4 W/m2 increase in radiant emittance from that surface.
So the 0.2 °C increase in long-term global warming corresponds to 0.8 W/m2 increase over 10 years, not 0.2 W/m2.
One way to convert this to 0.2 W/m2 over 10 years would be to claim that climate sensitivity including feedbacks is 0.5 °C per doubling of CO2 and that therefore 75% of global warming is not attributable to CO2. That would be fine, though it would then raise the very interesting question of where that 75% comes from.
If you prefer some other fit, the factor of 4 conversion from temperature to watts/m2 still holds. In particular 0.2 W/m2 corresponds to an imputed temperature rise of 0.05 °C. One can get even more than that by changing “last 10 years” to “2000-2010” giving a rise of 0.085 °C. Which of course merely confirms the frequently made point that exactly where in HadCRUT4 you pick your 10 years has a big impact on what the temperature did over that period.
Philip Haddad,
Even better, the population in 2010 was around four times that of 1910.
It also appears that per capita energy use has increased exponentially during that century. The growth rate probably looks remarkably like a hockey stick, but I leave such metaphors to those who least understand them.
The Warmists claim remarkable accuracy and precision measuring global surface temperatures, but also claim hat they cannot measure the difference in anthropogenically generated heat varying by a factor of 100 or so over a century (my assumption).
It is also to be noted that thermometers in earlier years were manually read, which presupposes that they were sited in close proximity to human habitation.
For any person claiming that the influence of radiant heat from a distance is irrelevant, I suggest stepping out into bright sunlight. The radiant heat source is over one hundred million kilometers away, but a thermometer will respond by showing a clear increase in temperature when moving from shade to full Sun.
Philip, you are right. The Warmists are wrong.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Vaughan Pratt wrote: “So actually the 15 TW is far more than four times what can be accounted for by the “actual measured rise” since the latter over the past 10 years is negative.”
Maybe so but natural variability dominates over such short periods. And my point simply was that whatever the value for climate sensitivity might turn out to be, the roughly constant ‘heat waste forcing’ from nuclear and fossil fuel use just is a small fraction (15%) of the cumulative enhanced greenhouse forcing over just 10 years. Also, the 15TW power is quite insignificant compared with the heat gain rate by the oceans and cryosphere, which jointly account for the recent sea level rise trend (3mm/year). 15TW of heat suddenly applied (because of a vast increase of nuclear power use, say, or a sudden increase in TSI) would account for about 4.5mm of sea level rise and then no further rise would occur as the Earth surface Planck response establishes a new radiative equilibrium. This is quite unlike the constantly increasing greenhouse forcing (again, irrespective of climate sensitivity).
Vaughan Pratt wrote: “In either case, we can convert this temperature rise to a rise in radiant emittance M by taking the derivative of the Stefan-Boltzmann law M = σT^4, namely dM/dT = 4σT^3 = 4M/T. Taking M and T to each be roughly 280 in their respective units (use more accurate numbers if you have them), this says that each degree increase in surface temperature corresponds to 4 W/m2 increase in radiant emittance from that surface.
So the 0.2 °C increase in long-term global warming corresponds to 0.8 W/m2 increase over 10 years, not 0.2 W/m2.”
Your analysis is overly simplistic. A step function increases in forcing creates and imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. It isn’t compensated by an equal increase in surface upwelling longwave since, as the surface warms, the increase in surface upwelling radiation is mostly offset by a corresponding increase in downwelling longwave radiation from the warming troposphere and only some fraction of the (increased) upwelling radiation makes its way to space through the longwave atmospheric window. In order to restore radiative equilibrium the Earth must warm enough so that the temperature at the *effective radiation level* is restored to its initial value (before the forcing was applied) and the (roughly) constant Solar input is again balanced. It does not follow that the surface temperature must increase enough for the increase in upwelling radiation to equal the applied forcing. This would be the case only of there were no greenhouse atmosphere at all and the effective radiation level would therefore be the Earth surface.
Pierre-Normand, your argument misses that the tropospheric temperature, where the effective radiating level mostly is, is closely tied to (constrained by) the surface temperature via the convective lapse rate, and so the only way to raise the radiating level is to first warm the surface which warms the troposphere via convection.
Of course Jim D. But this does not affect my argument in the least. It’s just a detail that I left out. I was arguing, against VP, that the surface need not warm exactly as much as needed so that the increase in gross upwelling radiation (dictated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law) would exactly balance the external forcing increase. This would only be the case on a planet without an atmosphere. I think you are agreeing with me but just are supplying another detail of the greenhouse warming theory. In any case I merely picked up the 0.2W/m^2 over one decade from some published source and did not calculate it. VP argues that it must be wrong from first principles with the use of an argument that assumes no atmosphere.
Pierre-Normand, yes, just making sure it was understood. The lapse rate is an intermediary factor that does distort the amount of warming needed at the surface because it depends itself on the temperature, hence the negative lapse-rate feedback is a factor in addition to the surface temperature change and positive water vapor feedback, also tied to the surface temperature variation.
@P-N: VP argues that it must be wrong from first principles with the use of an argument that assumes no atmosphere.
It’s true that I didn’t explain why my argument works even in the presence of an atmosphere. Let me fill that lacuna here.
Compared to watching paint dry, global warming is painfully slow. In the time it takes for the global temperature to rise a twentieth of a degree the Hadley cells have turned over the atmosphere several times, thoroughly mixing it.
Furthermore the lapse rate does not change significantly over that time.
The upshot is that dM/dT can be assumed to be more or less constant everywhere in the atmosphere, namely around 4 watts/m2 for every increase in temperature of one degree.
If you believe that the presence of an atmosphere somehow changes this value of 4 significantly I’d be very interested to see the calculations bearing this out.
Vaughan Pratt: “It’s true that I didn’t explain why my argument works even in the presence of an atmosphere. Let me fill that lacuna here.”
Now you are arguing that the warming from the enhanced greenhouse effect is slow. Sure. This has no bearing on my initial response to Haddad. Whatever effect heat waste from human energy consumption might have on global average surface temperature is very small compared with the cumulative effect (slow or fast) of the enhanced greenhouse warming due to our emissions. That was my point and your arguments don’t seem to address it.
Vaughan Pratt: “Furthermore the lapse rate does not change significantly over that time.
The upshot is that dM/dT can be assumed to be more or less constant everywhere in the atmosphere, namely around 4 watts/m2 for every increase in temperature of one degree.”
The effectiveness of the greenhouse effect does not depend on a change in the lapse rate although, as Jim D pointed out, the invariance of the lapse rate provides a negative feedback that reduces the magnitude of the greenhouse effect (as the whole tropospheric column warms). Rather, the enhanced greenhouse concentration in the higher atmosphere increased the height of the effective radiating level to a colder level. The higher level is colder *because* of the lapse rate (and in spite of the warming of the column — which isn’t sufficient to cancel the effect). This creates an imbalance that is eventually restored as the surface warms and more upwelling from the surface finds its way to space through the longwave atmospheric window. As stated earlier, you must also remember that the increased gross power from the surface is largely offset by the increased downwelling power from the warming troposphere, so the gross change in upwelling power can’t restore the balance at that level merely though matching the magnitude of the change in forcing. In any case it is the TOA balance, and not the surface balance, that is relevant to the cancellation of the external forcing. The forcing change is, by definition, the magnitude of the temporary TOA power imbalance that occurs from some external cause before the surface and atmospheric temperature profile has had any time to adjust.
Vaughan Pratt | January 14, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
“So actually the 15 TW is far more than four times what can be accounted for by the “actual measured rise” since the latter over the past 10 years is negative.”
Use your imagination Vaughn and imagine that natural cooling is worse than we thought! I mean holy cow man the statue of liberty would be buried in ice if it wasn’t for anthropogenic global warming. That was a close call. A couple more Prius sales or a few more compact flourescent light bulbs and we can imagine that being the tipping point that ends the Holocene interglacial. Imagining is great fun, huh?
Vaughan Pratt | January 15, 2014 at 4:06 am |
“Compared to watching paint dry, global warming is painfully slow. In the time it takes for the global temperature to rise a twentieth of a degree the Hadley cells have turned over the atmosphere several times, thoroughly mixing it.”
So the difference between day and night temperature is not real because that’s way too fast for warming to happen?
You’re a funny guy Vaughn but you’re too cerebral for most of us to appreciate your sense of humor and really need to include a winkie or something to indicate that a collosally stupid assertion isn’t supposed to be taken seriously.
@VP: In the time it takes for the global temperature to rise a twentieth of a degree the Hadley cells have turned over the atmosphere several times, thoroughly mixing it.
@DS: So the difference between day and night temperature is not real because that’s way too fast for warming to happen?
How is global temperature influenced by the difference between day and night temperature? At all times the Sun shines on half the planet, a fact that doesn’t change significantly in the course of 24 hours.
@DS: [you] really need to include a winkie or something to indicate that a collosally stupid assertion isn’t supposed to be taken seriously.
Thank you. Happy to extend the same courtesy to you. ;)
Vaughan,
At least to half the planet, every winter any heat stored in the atm and the ground is lost to space. You can see the effect in surface temps as the seasons progress, as well as every night once the Sun goes down. I can accept this argument about ocean temps to some extent, but not in land surface temps.
@P-N: Whatever effect heat waste from human energy consumption might have on global average surface temperature is very small compared with the cumulative effect (slow or fast) of the enhanced greenhouse warming due to our emissions. That was my point and your arguments don’t seem to address it.
Sorry, I should have made it clearer that I was not complaining about your conclusion, which is absolutely correct, but only about the numbers in your reasoning behind it.
@P-N: The effectiveness of the greenhouse effect does not depend on a change in the lapse rate
If the lapse rate were zero (which is pretty close to true on Mars) the greenhouse effect would be inoperative because all altitudes would be at the same temperature and hence high altitudes would radiate as much heat as the surface.
The greenhouse effect works on Earth because the part of the atmosphere radiating the most to space is much colder than the surface and therefore does not radiate as effectively as the surface itself. In particular Earth’s atmosphere at 15 km, around 210 K, is about the same temperature as Mars’ at every altitude up to 40 km. Mars radiates heat as efficiently as though it had no atmosphere, making its surface temperature equal to its effective temperature of 210 K.
At first though this doesn’t pass the smell test. First the surface radiates at it’s temperature, it radiates to in this case the sky (under clear skies). I’ve taken the time to point a IR thermometer at the clear sky, on a 20 F day, the sky was -60F, S-B says radiating 506 kJ to the sky. I don’t know what altitude I’m measuring, maybe it below your 15 km, but -60F is 222K. And from what I’ve heard the tropospheric hotspot is missing.
@MC: At least to half the planet, every winter any heat stored in the atm and the ground is lost to space.
Sorry if I gave a different impression than that, if so it was not intended, at least not in the time frame of a single century, the time constant relevant to modern global warming.
On a time frame of 10,000 years however, if what you said were true then Milankovitch theory wouldn’t work. No amount of variation of the eccentricity, obliquity (axial tilt), or longitude of perihelion (the NH season of closest approach to the Sun, currently midwinter) can make the slightest difference to the total annualized top-of-atmosphere insolation in joules, though the obliquity (but not the other two Keplerian orbital elements) can affect the annualized latitudinal distribution of that insolation.
For Milankovitch theory to work, Earth needs some way to remember the extremes of seasonal fluctuations. One such mechanism is polar icecaps frozen in winter which raise the albedo in summer sufficiently to prevent the summer sun from melting them. I think it was Michael Tobis who counted 50 Milankovitch theories, although Carl Wunsch made coarser distinctions to arrive at only four basic Milankovitch theories.
[Reposting this in the correct thread (I hit the wrong Reply button). Hopefully someone will delete the copy umpteen paragraphs above.]
@MC: First the surface radiates at it’s temperature, it radiates to in this case the sky (under clear skies).
Correct. Supposedly about 6% of that radiation escapes directly to space, the rest is captured by GHGs and clouds.
I’ve taken the time to point a IR thermometer at the clear sky, on a 20 F day, the sky was -60F, S-B says radiating 506 kJ to the sky. I don’t know what altitude I’m measuring, maybe it below your 15 km, but -60F is 222K.
First, most of what you’re measuring is likely to be radiation from water vapor. IR thermometers only go down to about 14 μm in wavelength, thereby missing a considerable portion of the CO2 backradiation, for which you need a pyrgeometer, which typically covers 4.5-100 μm.
Second, as you noted yourself you’re measuring a composite temperature radiated down from many altitudes. Weather balloons give a more accurate picture of how temperature depends on altitude, even expensive pyrgeometers aren’t a great way to measure lapse rate.
Third, you can expect considerable variation with latitude. (You didn’t give yours.)
Fourth, -60F is really pushing it for those little IR thermometers because the thermometer itself is much hotter than that and so it has to pick out a very small amount of thermal signal in the sky from the considerable thermal noise generated by the instrument. The Wikipedia article on pyrgeometers says “To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile.” I don’t know how carefully the cheap IR thermometers do that, but I’ve noticed that they give more reliable readings after waving them around in cold air for a bit to cool them down. Storing them in the freezer when not in use may help as long as they don’t then overcompensate.
And from what I’ve heard the tropospheric hotspot is missing.
That should not be an issue for temperature profiles obtained using weather balloons, which supposedly simply report the temperatures they see as they rise.
Vaughan Pratt | January 15, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
“No amount of variation of the eccentricity, obliquity (axial tilt), or longitude of perihelion (the NH season of closest approach to the Sun, currently midwinter) can make the slightest difference to the total annualized top-of-atmosphere insolation in joules,”
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
Wrong.
http://earth.usc.edu/classes/geol150/stott/variability/orbitalchanges.html
Don’t feel bad. I missed that one on a test too, which is how I happen to know, so you’re in the best of company not realizing that total annual insolation at TOA varies by 0.2% in a 100,000 year cycle due to eccentricity change.
Write that down of course.
I suspect there’s more difference than that in total insolation absorbed by the surface because the greenhouse effect is greater in the northern hemisphere than the southern.
Why is the Northern Hemisphere Warmer than the Southern Hemisphere?
If you’ll recall I have written on many ocassions that there is little greenhouse effect over the ocean because longwave back-radiation drives evaporation higher without raising the bulk water temperature. Conversely rocks and ice don’t evaporate in response to longwave they instead warm sensibly. Given there’s twice as much land in the northern hemisphere we should expect it to be warmer than the southern. And it is.
Probably some, but land usage changes are far greater than any increase from GHG changes, and even this energy is most years lost during winter. You can see this on clear nights when it frosts, the grass and cars all get covered with frost, but earth(dirt), bricks, concrete, etc don’t have any. On such nights, if you measure air temps and the temp of the ground you can see that the earth is slow to cool, but the ground will freeze during winter, we have to bury posts and such > 36″ to get them below the frost line.
Vaughan Pratt | January 15, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
“Supposedly about 6% of that radiation escapes directly to space, the rest is captured by GHGs and clouds.”
Wrong again buddy. Way the heck wrong on this one. Maybe you should google what you think you know before you commit it to posterity.
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_06.htm
Top illustration the famous Trenberth global heat budget cartoon figure 5.6. The surface absorbs an average of 168W/m2 which is labeled as such. 4oW/m2 leaves through the “atmospheric window” which is also labeled. 40/168 is 24%.
Write that down.
You said 6% which is off by a factor of 4. Wow. Correcting you is like a full time job and it’s a thankless one too. Unless of course you care to thank me.
I’ve very skeptical of this chart, just saying….
Vaughan Pratt | January 15, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
@VP: In the time it takes for the global temperature to rise a twentieth of a degree the Hadley cells have turned over the atmosphere several times, thoroughly mixing it.
@DS: So the difference between day and night temperature is not real because that’s way too fast for warming to happen?
“How is global temperature influenced by the difference between day and night temperature?”
Global temperature is a red herring. The point in question is how fast the temperature of the atmosphere responds to a change in forcing. Over land the speed is in minutes and is dramatic. Over the ocean not so much but there is still a small dirunal response.
I think this is a great comparison of non-condensing GHG’s and condensing GHG’s, (land) surface temps are are controlled by clouds and water.
“If the lapse rate were zero (which is pretty close to true on Mars) the greenhouse effect would be inoperative…”
Of course. I said the greenhouse effect does not depend on a *change* in the value of the lapse *rate*. That is, the *rate* of temperature variation as a function of altitude need not itself vary as a function of surface temperature. The lapse *rate* can remain the same as the surface warms (as does the whole tropospheric column), but it of course can’t be zero for the greenhouse effect to work.
David Springer,
I am curious. Is it your contention that both the extremely high daytime temperatures and extremely low night-time temperatures are due to CO2?
Say a day temperature of 45C and a night temperature of -5C. Without the greenhouse effect, what would these temperatures be?
Would they both drop by around 33C, or only one? Which one?
If you can provide an answer, I would be most appreciative. Non greenhouse physics seem to explain things nicely, but maybe I’m wrong.
Please educate me – facts rather than assertions based on silly computer models would be appreciated.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn | January 15, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
David Springer,
I am curious. Is it your contention that both the extremely high daytime temperatures and extremely low night-time temperatures are due to CO2?
————————————————————————-
No. Thanks for asking.
@DS: Changes in insolation due to the eccentricity cycle are very slight, at most 0.2%.
Certainly there are changes in seasonal insolation. What I was pointing out was that the total insolation in the course of a year is independent of eccentricity.
@VP: Supposedly about 6% of that radiation escapes directly to space, the rest is captured by GHGs and clouds.
@DS: Wrong again buddy. Way the heck wrong on this one.
The Wikipedia article on “Earth’s energy budget” says “6% is radiated directly into space”, which is the figure I was vaguely remembering (hence the “supposedly”) though I wasn’t thinking about the denominator. Now that I look more closely I see that it’s 6% of the top-of-atmosphere insolation. You can raise that percentage to as high as you want by suitable choice of denominator (you picked 168 W/m2 which is the radiation from a surface at an unrealistically low 233.3 K = -40C = -40F).
@DS: Global temperature is a red herring.
This is starting to sound like an Abbott and Costello routine.
Bud: 2+2 = 4.
Lou: Wrong! 1+1 = 2. 2+2 is a red herring.
While what you said about diurnal fluctuations is fine, you appeared to be using it to contradict an equally correct statement I made about global temperature.
Maybe you should google what you think you know before you commit it to posterity.
If she’s ever seriously short of material for a sociology thesis, posterity might resort to scraping the bottom of the barrel for deranged arguments on the internet. Anything else is about as likely as identical snowflakes.
@P-N: the greenhouse effect does not depend on a *change* in the value of the lapse *rate*. That is, the *rate* of temperature variation as a function of altitude need not itself vary as a function of surface temperature.
Thanks for the disambiguation, sounds like we’re on the same page.
(Since a change in the value of the lapse rate would change the greenhouse effect, one would ordinarily infer that the greenhouse effect does depend on changes in lapse rate. By “depend” you really mean “need”. The unnecessary can still be influential, for example Donald Trump.)
The amount of LW emitted from the surface directly to space is not very well known. Recent (2012) estimates give a value 20 W/m^2 for all sky emission and 66 W/m^2 for clear sky case. These values are about 8% and 25% of the corresponding total OLR. (These numbers are from Stephens et al, which refers further to Costa and Shine as original source.)
@DS: Changes in insolation due to the eccentricity cycle are very slight, at most 0.2%.
@VP: Certainly there are changes in seasonal insolation. What I was pointing out was that the total insolation in the course of a year is independent of eccentricity.
I checked my work again and found a stupid error (getting sloppy). David Springer is right, total annual insolation does increase with increasing eccentricity e, namely as 1/sqrt(1 – e^2).
Currently e = 0.0167, corresponding to an increase of 0.014% over a circular orbit of the same total energy/semimajor axis. For earth e has been as high as 0.05 or so over the past million years for an additional 0.11% over the current annual insolation.
The stupid error was that after proving that the integral of sin(phi)/r^2 over one year was independent of eccentricity (where phi is the orbital longitude of Earth and r the distance from the Sun), I naively inferred the same thing for 1/r^2 without bothering to check, which is nonsense. The former gives the difference in insolation between the two hemispheres over a year while the latter gives the total insolation.
Judith,
Looks like the majority on the committee has made sure this will be little more than a CAGW affirmation, designed mainly to generate blaring headlines of doom. I hope it doesn’t turn out as bad as that list indicates it will; good luck presenting the rational POV.
Don’t worry, steve. Polls consistently show that AGW is last on the voting folk’s list of things to worry about. This hearing will not change that, at all.
Yes, Detroit Don, but just because something is last on a person’s list of things to worry about doesn’t mean they won’t do anything about that something. Retirement, for example, probably is one of the last things young people worry about, yet many are wise enough to contribute to retirement plans.
You can always be counted on to come up with a dumb analogy, maxie. I was expecting you to use the old flood insurance analogy. Has that one been retired?
My analogy is as sound as a rock. At first, I was going to use a personal analogy which is just as good. My allocation of investments between stocks and bonds is low on my lists of things to worry about, yet I re-allocate every January according to a pre-determined formula because it’s the prudent thing to do.
Steve,
It will be every bit as horrible as the propagandist panel list indicates, Dr. Curry will make a few rational remarks but avoid all the obvious inanity of the claims made regarding AGW from the panel and worse the brain-trust senate members.
Why exactly was the coal industry excluded from having at least one aggressive defender on the panel? That’s the purpose of this Soviet show trial, to attack the coal industry that produces better than 35% of the electricity in this country.
As it turns out, Kathleen Harnett White is the coal representative essentially. I stand corrected on a blundering web search.
Perhaps it will be more interesting with 3 warmers, 1 skeptic and Dr. Curry.
Hi JC. Had posted a submitting to the UKs energy and climate change committees AR5 review. Life becomes both easier and more difficult once you have pieced together how the whole climate thing holds together. Equitotial Atlantic insolation variability due to human factors affecting Easterly wave formation is the cause of cc
The first panel is all government apparatchiks. The second has one lukewarmer, Dr. Curry, and a skeptic, Kathleen Hartnett White.
The first panel can be ignored. The second might actually be interesting. I’m surprised the Dems let a token skeptic in the hearing room.
I think it’s a senate tradition that the ranking minority member of a committee gets to pick at least one expert, and those senate traditions are sacrosanct. I mean, were sacrosanct.
“…and a skeptic, Kathleen Hartnett White.”
—-
That is being generous in describing her as such.
My reaction—-Dr. Dessler and Dr. Curry., well best wishes to Dr. Curry.
I wonder if Dr. Dessler will have the team there as moral support.
Then we have the Honorables –as in Gina McCarthy, and circumventing congress, and in the background Czar John Holdren, (who I think is a closet eugenicist, based upon his book co-authored with Erlich) At least his prediction of a tsunami of cataclysmic proportions coming as the result of a giant chunk of ice falling into the ocean from the Antarctic did not happen.
The problem I keep seeing is that yes; we all might agree with several decades of various changes. Dwelling on that is how so many studies are financed.
The difficulty is putting on the table the centuries of change, much caused by human endeavors, but not by CO2 and in kind gases.
As an example of observations and what would be foolish conclusions;
Compared to when I was young; the following have moved into southern MN from north regions, White Tailed and other deer, Turkeys, Bald Eagles, Canada Geese (liike deer on my lawn) and many smaller species including both plant and animal. Could I use that as a conclusion that the North Central U.S. has been cooling? Of course not. But Those kinds of observations could be used as evidence of cooling by global cooling extremists. when there are other causes; and this is what concerns me When I see the names listed above and an ignorant audience. We used to say “Figures don;t lie but liars figure”.
(Red Noise? well not the best example)
So, Dr. Curry, I hope you can keep balance!
Dr. Curry:
Would this be the perfect time to wield Occam’s razor?
Thanks Gary M, I did not realize the Honorable Kathleen White was a skeptic on the AGW issue, I should have by title.
I forgot to mention two things (these days I am glad it is only two).
First John Holdren did come out to say that the Polar Vortex was a result of climate change. Most of those believing a significant ACC were wise enough to keep quiet. Of course, it does not prove or disprove anything, it is contrary to everything in the doctrine. What it does prove is that for some people anything goes.
Also, has anyone followed the recent outing of the BBC in its biased, and because of funds received IMHO illegal Climate change coverage over the last seven or eight years?
Eventually, honesty and integrity will prevail, and an objective analysis can be given, which at this point should be simply: There may be some anthropogenic influences on climate locally or on a larger scale; it is one of various considerations, but evidence shows that it is probably not significant. Attention should be given to all causes and the primary outcomes should be education and adaptation to the most likely scenarios.
Very glad you’re going to be there Doctor C. Give ‘em hell. Get mad if necessary. The uncertainty monster must be reckoned with.
As Willy Loman used to say….or was it his wife… “Attention must be paid!”
One of these days, Judy, to the Moon!
==============
Tell them to research the hydrosphere and the hot ball called Earth with far greater vigour and curiosity; to discard scripts, dogmas, political and revenue exigencies etc; to fake intellectual freedom till they can make intellectual freedom; to publish as little as possible…and to do nothing “about” the climate.
If anyone is wondering how statistics and models can mistake or distort reality, I can find them an aphid currently sucking on my lime tree. He will have sufficient intelligence to explain that point.
“publish as little as possible”…+1
My wife today asked me to heat a bucket of water to 150F. She poured it on her strawberry plants to kill the aphids. Wiped those little suckers out. You could faintly hear them screaming something about CO2. They are not very bright.
Thank you, Dr. Curry, for being there for the nation. We need level-headed scientists now.
The important thing to remember about the upcoming hearings is that no matter what is said or what evidence is produced, CO2 WILL be regulated and taxed and many coal plants WILL be shut down.
We can only hope, with little reason, that the regulatory carnage is confined to the coal industry. .
Apparently the goal is to achieve, as soon as possible, a night view from space of the US that matches the one of North Korea.
The part of the plan relevant to future projections is this.
“The 2015 climate conference is slated to play a critical role in defining a post-2020 trajectory.
We will be seeking an agreement that is ambitious, inclusive and flexible. It needs to be
ambitious to meet the scale of the challenge facing us. It needs to be inclusive because there is
no way to meet that challenge unless all countries step up and play their part. And it needs to be
flexible because there are many differently situated parties with their own needs and imperatives,
and those differences will have to be accommodated in smart, practical ways. ”
For this we need to know that business as usual ends up near 700 ppm and rising through 2100, while the most ambitious plans can stop us at 450 ppm. This amounts to a several degree C difference in climate, and shows the importance of a global agreement of this kind. It is right to focus on this being a global problem with a global solution. Judith is well placed to tell the Republicans about these tangible impacts of policies, and they will listen especially to her. It is an opportunity to make a difference, so she should grab it. The worst that could happen is that they won’t invite her back in the future.
Jim D, How are you so certain that ‘business as usual’ will end up at near 700 ppm C02, AND that it amounts to SEVERAL DEGREE C ? ? ? Citations? ANYTHING that is credible? . . . and, NO, GCM models do not count. THis is PURE ALARMISM at it’s best.
700 ppm is 5 W/m2 and is in the middle of the IPCC projections based on energy scenarios. The ones below it imply strong mitigation, and the ones above imply no effort at transitions from fossil fuels, so it is a documentable path. Each 100 ppm works out to be worth about a degree C, just based on recent measurements, so that is how that comes about.
You are insulting your hostess, jimmy dee. She will speak the truth, as she knows it, without worrying about being invited back again.
There is no point going if she just says what the Republicans expect of her. That would be like being a dupe. This is a chance to make some waves.
You doubled down on your insult, jimmy dee. I thought you had some class.
Don M, you know how these committees work. The outcome is planned the moment each side sends the invitations out. We can only hope for some tough questions on cross examination.
Tough questions for Judith on cross-examination, jimmy? You are implying that if Judith does not testify the way you want her to testify-which of course is to tell the alarmist truth-then she is a Republican dupe. You are really getting nasty. Like so many of the others, who come here to dog Judith for straying off the alleged climate consensus reservation. It’s really pathetic and desperate.
Don M, I am sure the Republicans will also want her to comment on why Mars is warming, as has happened before in these committees. These will be the softball questions, but they are a bit unpredictable too, and she may have to defend them from looking stupid at some risk to herself.
I believe witnesses are commonly frustrated by the posturing and theatricals of the Congressional Questioners.
“Have you ever been in the House of Commons and taken a good square look at the inmates? As weird a gaggle of freaks and subhumans as was ever collected in one spot. I wouldn’t mix with them for any money you could offer me.”
H/t not Threepwood, but Ickenham.
===============
Jim D at 11:11 PM . .
Oh, boy, IPCC projections – yeah, sure going to go with that . . how’s that worked out in the past 15 -20 years for temperature increases . . .?
. . “100 ppm = 1 degree C, based on recent measurements . . . ” ?
AGAIN, CITATIONS, PLEASE . . . what’s that, you have none . . ? Why shouldn’t I be surprised.
Tell you what, let’s what for about 5 years, until the end this solar cycle Or even another 5-6 years after that . . then, if temps are going up at the rate you say, I’ll give you credit for that. But IF NOT . . . well, let’s just wait and see. You know where I stand on that.
I won’t be reading your crap anymore, jimmy.
How about just measurements? Here CO2 is scaled to 100 ppm per degree C. It matches the temperature records since 1960, especially GISTEMP that includes more polar warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/scale:0.01/offset:-3.3/plot/gistemp/from:1960/mean:12
Interesting, isn’t it? Just data.
Jim D said on January 13, 2014 at 11:35 pm
“There is no point going if she just says what the Republicans expect of her. That would be like being a dupe. This is a chance to make some waves.”
______
I agree. This is an opportunity for Judith to (1) dispel the notion she’s a shill for the GOP, and (2) improve her reputation and standing in the climate science community.
Et tu, maxie? Judith is a saint to put up with you smarmy little clowns.
Detroit Don, I’m trying in earnest to give Judith sound advice. I don’t know what you are trying to do.
Max_OK sez “This is an opportunity for Judith to…improve her reputation and standing in the climate science community.”
The best thing about being old is not being young anymore.
In fact, Judith could show the graph I linked above and say that this is only 50-odd years of data, so it just looks parallel, but we have to wait some more years to be sure that they are because there is a lot of uncertainty about this. For politicians 100 ppm per degree C is a good rule of thumb, and easy to remember.
Jim D at 12:20 AM . .
Nice plot Of course, starting at a ‘relative low point’ of temps around 1970, AND scaling the CO2 to match, you can believe what you want from just seeing it . . you know, correlation MEANS causation, right . . ( giggle, do I need to add . . :-) ).
Take a look at this, back to 1900. ALL I did was take your plot, and change the date to 1900. . .
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1870/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1870/scale:0.01/offset:-3.3/plot/gistemp/from:1870/mean:12
Tell me, was the increase in temps from 1910 to around 1940 from C02?
You scaled the CO2 from 1970 to present just to match the temps. And in the past 15 or so years, temps have been flat, but CO2 still is increasing.
You really think that temps will continue to rise as much as you said ? To repeat, let’s see what happens in the next 10 – 15 years first.
Oh, Martin C. Shhhh! You are going to give jimmy away. He is trying to trick Judith. Ain’t it pathetic.
Martin C, 70% of the CO2 addition has been in the period I showed. Before that we had a solar increase and aerosol increases, but for 50 straight years now the CO2 part is the one that dominates because it is now four times faster than it was in 1950 and still growing. The other factors just can’t keep up anymore.
Anyway, Judith could also show Martin C’s version and warn them against thinking the last 50 years gives any idea of the future, even though it looks like there is a gradient consistent with 2.5 C per doubling AGW there. Carrying CO2 back it would go to -0.4 or -0.5 on the temperature axis by the time it hits 1870.
Don Monfort said on January 14, 2014 at 12:54 am
“You are a liar, maxie.”
______
No, I am not a liar for offering Judith advice, and your accusation is not on my list of things to worry about.
Odds are that the theory that Wyatt & Curry formulated on Stadium Waves (and which is a principle factor in the CSALT model) will get mentioned in the hearing.
The Stadium Wave along with other periodic and quasi-periodic forcing that have reversion-to-the-mean properties allow us to separate the natural variations from the secular trend, and thus isolate accurately the contribution of the CO2 control knob in climate change.
http://imageshack.com/a/img513/5006/m4x.gif
The problem Jim, is that isn’t what the measurement say, it is a fabrication, a model based on a small subset of the measurements.
If you want to see what the data actually says, follow the link in my name, educate yourself.
@ Don Monfort
“You doubled down on your insult, jimmy dee. I thought you had some class.”
Why?
Mi Cro, I would say a 50-year trend is more robust than a 17-year one that starts just after a massive step. Wouldn’t you? If these graphs were shown to the policy makers, they can make their own mind up about whether what happened in the last 50 years is a better guide than the last 17, but most of them don’t get shown these last 50 years during which 70% of the CO2 effect has happened, along with the CO2 rise scaled to it. They get shown a 17-year trend from HADCRUT4 or something or UAH that just doesn’t respond to the polar warming. Even GISTEMP would be an improvement, but the pause is harder to see there, so it is less popular.
50 years is better than 17, but my charts show that surface measurement Tmax anomaly is basically flat, Tmin anomaly has a number of negative drops, followed by a return to normal.
Anyone seeing this would have to come to the conclusion that climate science lost it’s way.
MiCro, Admirable that you think that you can single handedly debunk all the effort that went into creating practical mean global surface temperature records, but really you ought to present your results a little more cleanly
I realize a lot of work went into it. That is why you should make an incremental effort to clean up your charts so they are actually credible looking. As it is, they appear as if a few outliers have tainted the analysis.
There are several rationalizations written on how scientists have arrived at the approach of relying on temperature anomalies instead of absolute temperature analysis. Make sure you aren’t making the same mistakes that others have made in the past as science has moved up the learning curve.
The charts are all anomaly values. There’s a link to data which points to some Xls files, why don’t you down load them and take a look at the data. If you do, email me and I’ll help you understand what all is there.
MiCro said:
You do not seem to understand some of the deeper implications of what you are doing with what appears to be sloppy data manipulation. You said elsewhere that
If you used “daily max temp” then you are in the business of using absolutes. These are the localized temperature readings that are used to determine historical world records, right? If you then create an anomaly based on these, they are no longer max temps are they? To me they all seem to be normalized to some long-term maximum average for that locality.
I hope you realize why many of us don’t want to follow you down the rabbit-hole you have dug yourself. Something just doesn’t smell right, either in the way you are describing it or what you have done in your data manipulation.
I wonder if we will get a “never mind” from you at some point in the future?
Web, As I have written many, many times.
For each station’s data I take today’s Tmax (I also do the same thing for Tmin), and then subtract yesterdays Tmax. this “Difference” value is the day to day change in Maximum temperature(or minimum for the case of Tmin) . This difference has weather, seasonal, and site changes all rolled in it. Then I take a specific area usually by Lat/Lon and process the difference value for that area(usually average them together).
So for Lat >23N to <66N (ie the Northern Mid-Latitudes) I average all of the included station difference values together. For a single day I now have an average of the temperature change since yesterday for every station in that area. Weather should average out, site changes should be minimized because only a few sites will change at most, and the other sites will "overpower" them. So what's really left is the seasonal change, an average of weather for the area plus some amount of climate. When you average a years set of days you get as pure a climate signal as we have. I've looked at sequential yearly averages (most of the graphs are yearly plots), but I've also plotted the daily averages. I specifically looked at the rate of temp change seasonally for 60 some years, finding a linear trend for each years transition from maximum warming per day to minimum, and conversely the transition from maximum cooling to minimum, then graphed these trends.
In all of this processing, I log the stations in each average, the number of samples per station, average temp of that station, number of samples per daily and yearly average for an area, many other station readings(Tavg, Tmin, Tmax, pressure, humidity, rain), and create a google maps input file so you can see exactly where each station is located in a collection.
I don’t offset the values to some arbitrary average baseline, it starts at zero and goes up and down from there, it’s easy enough to move the baseline if you want something specific.
MiCro, So you do all that and you get the equivalent of NASA GISS gistemp temperature series. Since they are equivalent, I will use gistemp, and subtract one year from its preceding year to get the yearly temperature change.
I do all of that, and I get something completely different.
So everyone that uses GISS gistemp for any kind of historical analysis is getting bad results. Because MiCro proved that his analysis is correct, we should all use MiCro’s model.
Thank you, at least now we’re making progress :)
Since I’m not completely blind to sarcasm, Might I ask how you think I messed up subtracting two numbers, and then averaging a whole lot of them together?
BTW, if you really think I mess up, get my code, it’s published, point out my mistake (remember it’s not GAT, and I don’t interpolate between stations, that’s not a flaw, but as designed), do that and I’ll shut up and go away.
Just think, no more seasalt comments, prove me wrong, please, I’ve looked, and looked, and looked.
There is no way for an average to show an overall increase without the average max or average min to also show that increase.
Only through some pathological variant of Simpson’s paradox could that happen.
The onus is on you. This is a university blog and we don’t try to work your homework problems for you.
Diff Tmin has gone up and down, Diff Tmax has remained flat. Surface station mean is an average of Tmin and Tmax.
You couldn’t find anything could you.
It’s not my homework, it’s an Exposé of the difference between what surface measurements are and the temp series that are modeled from them. It also includes a unique look at the rate of cooling, which is what is argument is all about. Which BTW shows there isn’t anything to worry about.
I am a believer in nuclear, that the gov should clear the regulatory way to allow business to actually begin and finish new construction, Gov should encourage energy R&D, but stop betting on alternate energy, encourage alternatives to fossil fuels that make economic sense, if they do, people will switch willingly.
Expose? More of an expose on how you don’t understand the techniques of spatiotemporal averaging.
And why conclude by saying you are a proponent of nuclear? The fact that you mix a pseudoscientific explanation with policy statements indicates that you have an agenda other than basic science.
Are you slow? If you are, I’ll stop pointing out you’re either disingenuous or a fool.
Let me say one more time, I’m not constructing a GAT (where the G stands for global as in the spacial part of spatiotemporal, just in case your are slow). What I am doing is analyzing the actual measurements, and trying to show that they are completely different than the results of the spatiotemporal model of GAT that’s been produced.
This thread has many comments on the mix of energy, nuclear being one of them, I was just stating my opinion, so my intentions can be placed in context, ie I’m not invested in fossil fuels, but cheap energy.
@WHT: There is no way for an average to show an overall increase without the average max or average min to also show that increase.
What if the min were always 10 and the max always 20? Wouldn’t the average min be 10 and the average max be 20?
Meanwhile the average might be 13 for a long time, then later on increase to 16, without changing the min of 10 or the max of 20. The average min and average max would not have changed, only the average.
Or have I misunderstood the concept of “average min”?
Dr. Curry,
Congratulations on being selected, or ‘tapped’ / invited.
I sure hope ( . .more of a ‘wish’ . .) that you can refute John Holdren’s recent polar vortex video, and ‘politely’ tell him how full of . . . uh, . . . ( . . ummm . . . . never mind . . :-) :-) . .sorry, right now garbage like that video just get’s the better of me . . ! ).
Anyway, all terrible attempts at humor aside, I do believe your blog has helped a lot of people understand the true uncertainty there is with climate AND weather, and I trust your message will be along the same line. Thank you for all you do.
Vaughan Pratt and Peter Lang
As an observer a bit closer to the scene than either of you, I’d say that Angela Merkel’s popularity with German voters is totally independent of Germany’s electricity CO2 intensity.
Her party was the big winner in the last election. Big loser was the FDP (her coalition partner) who barely missed the 5% hurdle to even get in. Both the Left and the Greens also lost seats, with the Social Democrats gaining a few.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundestagswahl-2013-wahlergebnis-grafik-bundestag-wahlkreis-a-923496.html
The “Energiewende” (planned switch to “clean energy” to reduce CO2 intensity at the same time phasing out nuclear to appease the anti-nukes)has lost its glitter, with most voters realizing that it only means higher energy-related costs for the average household and many realizing that it could cost a lot of industrial jobs if it gets pushed any further.
Germans have a penchant for ideologically based, grandiose sounding schemes. These schemes are never killed outright. But this one will probably be allowed to die a natural death as German pragmatism triumphs over misdirected ideology.
Just my assessment.
Max
Fellow serf,
Re yer comment on German attachment ter grandiose schemes,
I’m reminded of a comment by t5hat master/mistress (?) of CE
denizen/ oracle /jester(?) mysterious kim,
“Ignore the millenial at your perennial.”
Herewith ter which I add a clumsy serf addendum gleaned from
me reading’ of that uther kimmean-voltarean, Nassim Taleb,
“Let’s separatethe perennial from the perishable.”
Some things there are that have withstood the test of time …
cooking pots, cathedral building, shoes, the classics, stored
energy. Not talkin’ blind custom here but stayin’ afloat like
Germany learnin’ ter distrust the grand scheme.
When I was young we used to say that Germans make very good cameras – but they have the most awful ideas. Still, as long as they are willing to buy the drinks for that sleazy bar called, for reasons unknown, the European Union, we should let Germany do its industrial thing.
Or do you want that Lend Lease gig all over again?
German electricity CO2 intensity hasn’t dropped in 25 yrs
Germany’s energy intensity (Total Primary Energy Consumption per Dollar of GDP) is around 60% less then the US.The US still being higher then Germany in 1990.
According to this spreadsheet, since 1990 US wind generators have delivered 383 terawatt-hours (1.3 petajoules) of electrical energy, broken down by year as follows.
Year….Megawatt-hours Annual Increase
1990 2,788,600
1991 2,950,951 162,351
1992 2,887,523 -63,428
1993 3,005,827 118,304
1994 3,447,109 441,282
1995 3,164,253 -282,856
1996 3,234,069 69,816
1997 3,288,035 53,966
1998 3,025,696 -262,339
1999 4,487,998 1,462,302
2000 5,593,261 1,105,263
2001 6,737,332 1,144,071
2002 10,354,279 3,616,947
2003 11,187,467 833,188
2004 14,143,741 2,956,274
2005 17,810,549 3,666,808
2006 26,589,137 8,778,588
2007 34,449,927 7,860,790
2008 55,363,100 20,913,173
2009 73,886,132 18,523,032
2010 94,652,246 20,766,114
——————————
TOTAL 383,047,232
The recent annual increases are particularly impressive.
All this pontification about the uselessness of wind generators puts one in mind of 19th century aeronautical engineers pontificating on the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight.
Dwelling on the drawbacks of an emerging technology has a long history that someone would have recorded by now had there been a market for it.
Correction: 1.3 exajoules (1.3E18 J), not 1.3 petajoules for total US wind energy since 1990. (Thought petajoules seemed a bit low.)
I would like to suggest that some type of panel be proposed to make a thorough assessment of all the pros and cons of wind turbines.
Wind is free
Wind is clean
Wind doesn’t deplete
Wind is intermittent
Wind turbines kill a few birds. bats, and bugs
Max_OK
Thanks for “Facts by Max” about wind – here are some more:
– Wind is intermittent (it blows when it wants to, not when the grid (i.e people)needs power)
– Wind turbines are not free
– Wind also requires investment in backup generation facilities to cover periods when they cannot operate (around 70% of the time)
– Wind backup facilities operate less efficiently as intermittent backup than they would in continuous operation, reducing the net savings in fossil fuel (and CO2) by around half.
– Wind farms take up lots of land
– Wind farms are nor very esthetic – they mess up the landscape and generally reduce land and home values in the vicinity
– Wind farms are scattered around like a dog’s breakfast – often in locations where there are few people and no demand for power – this requires long transmission networks
Max_not from OK
Canman,
This may be of interest:
Why wind power is so expensive
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-windpower.pdf
Wind energy needs …
prop up – subsidies, it’s a carrot and stick technology.
back up – intermittant, needs lotsa back up.
fix up – those heavy nascelles, big as a bus, and blades
100-150 ft long, jest ain’t good in icy ‘n stormy weather…
Anuther one bites the dust!
http://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/third-edition/
Max_CH, some of the shortcomings of wind power you mentioned are correct, although arguably unimportant.
I do, however, dispute your following statement:
“Wind also requires investment in backup generation facilities to cover periods when they cannot operate (around 70% of the time)”
Well, we had a windmill on the farm for pumping water and I don’t recollect that it was spinning only 30% of the time. I would say it was operating 70% of the time. Maybe you got it backwards by mistake.
You also said “Wind backup facilities operate less efficiently as intermittent backup than they would in continuous operation, reducing the net savings in fossil fuel (and CO2) by around half.”
I’m skeptical about the truth of that statement. Sure, any kind of backup power ( diesel or gas turbine) is going to burn more fuel immediately after start-up than it does after it gets well warmed up, but the claim this results in a 50% reduction net in savings in fossil fuels is hard to believe.
Max_OK
To your two points:
No “mistake”, Okie. Check the literature on wind generation intermittency. Turbines only generate around 30% of the time.
Peter Lang cited an Irish study which confirms this over the entire grid (at 17% wind power out of the total). The study suggests that this problem could become worse at higher % wind power.
Each time the standby plant kicks on and off it loses efficiency plus it operates at lower efficiency when not at full capacity and this happens each time the wind decides to blow or not to blow if there is a demand for power then.
There’s no free lunch, Okie.
Max_CH
Max_CH, I did check the literature, and just as I expected from observing the windmill on our farm, wind turbines produce electricity at least 70% of the time. I think you just made a mistake and got this backwards.
“A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed.”
http://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/
I doubt the Irish study you mentioned said “Wind backup facilities operate less efficiently as intermittent backup than they would in continuous operation, reducing the net savings in fossil fuel (and CO2) by around half.” But I could be wrong. Can you tell me the page number and provide a link.
Max OK,
You really haven’t the slightest clue what your are talking about, as usual. And given you are prepared to make such statements without checking, it suggest you do the same when talking about your CAGW beliefs too. So nothing you say has any credibiity what so ever. The amount of time turbines are turning is irrelevant. What is important is what is their capacity factor – i.e. what percentage of full power do they produce over a year or life or any time period you choose. The standard figure used for wind generation is 30% capacity factor as Manacker said. This varies from site to site, up to 40% on excellent sites. Last time I looked the World average capacity factor for wind generation was about 23% (from memory) (from IEA).
Why don’t you read the link I posted above and educate yourself before writing twaddle.
Or you could read David Mackay’s book “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air”. In the preface he states his purpose for writing the book “is to stop the emissions of twaddle”, so it should be ideal for you. You can read it online here: http://www.withouthotair.com/ You might like to read Chapter 4 “Wind” for starters”.
Max OK
You missed this sentence following the sentence you quoted:
[nuclear about 90% US average fro the past decade or so]
Did you miss that sentence, or think it not relevant or decide not to show it to try to deceive other readers? (If you don’t answer I’ll conclude the last)
Studies need to include those that show windmills frequently use more energy thsn they produce, but hey, wind is free!
Well, we had a windmill on the farm for pumping water and I don’t recollect that it was spinning only 30% of the time. I would say it was operating 70% of the time. Maybe you got it backwards by mistake.
Maybe the wind is different in different places. Maybe you notice it more when it is moving. Power from windmills is a small fraction of max capacity and some of the best wind occurs when demand is low.
The water can be stored for use later. It does not matter much when the wind blows. The storage of Electric Power does not work as well.
You get much of the stored water back for use. You get little of the stored Electric Power back for use.
The wind blows a lot in many places where water is needed. The wind blows best in a lot of places where the Electric Power is not needed.
For reliable power, wind sucks.
On the subject of wind power, I would like to recommend the chapter on wind in Ozzie Zehner’s book, Green Illusions. I can’t find a good summary on the web, but it is a remarkable example of investigative journalism. It details how an overhyped report was used by the Obama administration to push its green agenda.
Matt Ridley, a big critic of wind, has some classic columns. He owns some property with a wind turbine and is using the royalties to award a prize for a best skeptical environmental essay each year:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/search.aspx?search=wind&x=37&y=14
Where I live, Bay City, Michigan, there are a lot of these things going up (along with electric rates). There are a lot of flat rural areas and they do get windy. When I took a drive to go out and look at one of them close up, I was surprised at how far I had to go.
n this thread Peter Lang insulted me, misunderstood me, and misquoted Manacker, recommended a book sponsored by the hypocritical anti-science anti-wind power Global Warming Policy Foundation, and then inexplicably recommended a book by Donald Mackay, who unlike Peter is neither anti-wind power or pro-nuclear power. I hope Peter isn’t losing it.
Max_OK
Read the Irish study which Peter Lang cited regarding CO2 savings from wind power.
Read the many links to wind turbine capacity ratios / intermittency.
Use your head. Don’t just stick it in the sand.
Max_CH
Max_OK
Some info on wind plant capacity factors.
A study from Europe by Boccard shows:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CFwQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F46496785_Capacity_factor_of_wind_power_realized_values_vs._estimates%2Ffile%2F9fcfd50fdc02f05077.pdf&ei=qyvWUpXDG-rksAT7k4LoAQ&usg=AFQjCNF3ESlNk6kZT8-qUt3D6x1wYcE9Yw&sig2=IYW_nXktt_hp_8brATjkrw
U.S. total for 2012, as reported by the wind plants to the U.S. Energy Information Administration = 31.8%
https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/u-s-wind-capacity-factors-2012-preliminary/
And from this study by the “Partnerships for Renewables”, a developer and operator of onshore wind energy projects, primarily on public sector land, we read
The capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of the actual output of a power plant over a period of time and its output if it had operated at full capacity over that period of time.
And
A wind farm tends to have a capacity factor of between 25-30%, although there are wind farms in the UK with capacity factors in excess of 40% because of the good wind resource.
http://www.pfr.co.uk/pfr/3/Renewable-Energy/15/Wind-Power/119/Capacity-Factor/
Hope this helps.
Max
German electricity CO2 intensity hasn’t dropped in 25 yrs despite adding 60 GW wind & solar capacity. It’s been for naught.
@PL: German electricity CO2 intensity hasn’t dropped in 25 yrs
Angela Merkel’s age hasn’t dropped in 25 yrs. Somehow she doesn’t seem too fazed by this.
“It’s been a black Christmas for green thinkers as Germany, the world leader in rooftop solar and pride of the renewable energy revolution has confirmed its rapid return to coal. The past week has seen a media focus on Europe’s building “coal frenzy”. It all adds up to the renewable energy industry’s worst nightmare.” — Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 11 January 2014
I grew up in the Dakotas, and the wind blows a great deal of the time. The pastures where I played as a boy are now a wind farm.
In its first full year of operations its capacity factor was 46%. I doubt that is a great deal lower the huge hydroelectric facilities on the Missouri River.
In Minne we have a saying, “NoDak blows and Wisconsin sux”.
All this, worse than useless, wind power is powered by tax credits and subsidies. The cons for wind power are endless. The pros for wind power are really hard to find. Well, it does make some of the rich people richer, that is a pro for them.
JCH
SD reports the highest wind capacity factor in the USA at 42.9%. Max_OK’s OK is not far behind at 41.4%.
But heavily populated regions (where the power demand is concentrated) like NY, CA, PA, etc. average around 25%, and the national average is 31.8%.
.https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/u-s-wind-capacity-factors-2012-preliminary/
Max
Webby
It’s the old sentence in the Western movies [modified to suit today’s situation in North Dakota]
Git them sheep [turbines] outa here – this here’s cattle [frackin’] country.
Max
In a few years, NoDak will look like the ghost towns of the wild west.
The wind turbines will still be there, however.
“For reliable power, wind sucks.”
Um, wouldn’t “wind blows” be funnier?
Over the years these columns have yielded many examples of the mistakes of the UN’s IPCC. Those mistakes should be enough to disqualify it from prediction of future climate. The mistakes have been well cataloged in these columns. The present hiatus in temperature increase is only the latest. Their failure to recognize the 1940 to 1970 hiatus and actual fall in global temperature is equally culpable. Their ‘greenhouse gs’ theory for CO2 is only an analogy, not a scientific proof, and to present it to the Senate as such is an abuse of privilege. Since the beginning of the 20th century there have been two global temperature increases totaling about 1degree C. These were: 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 1997 and the IPCC has produced no credible evidence that further temperature increases will occur.
I would not presume to tell you how to present your case, as I am sure you you can best do that yourself.
Congratulations on another summons, Dr. Curry. You should enjoy pointing outnthatbthe pause which falsifies the models makes the Uncertainty monster much more certain.
Yes indeed, Wyatt & Curry’s Stadium Wave theory contributes as an explanatory factor to the the dynamics of past pause. Contrary to what you imply, it actually adds much more certainty to making attributions to the CO2 control knob.
The Cause of the Pause is due to thermodynamic Laws
which part of the models do you think it “falsifies”
1. the parts that use math
2. The inputs?
3. The parts that use gravity and other known laws?
4. the oribital mechanics?
5. raditaive physics?
what we know is that “something” isnt right. the real question is which thing.
Think of a model as a chain of statements
A=B+C
B= D/H
C= U-P
D= Y/E + M-N^2
……
Temperature = 14
Now you measured temperature and you found out that T = 13.
the model is wrong.
Does that justify denying every statement in the model? The rules of math it follows? what if B is an input ( aerosol forcing?) what if a statement is missing ( U= 1-Q)?
all you know, really know, is that some part is wrong or missing.
and further the experiment has only been done once. The models predicted
temperature and we observed the earth ONCE.
In short skeptics are not skeptical ENOUGH. they think they can jump to falsification without thinking through what is really known and what they hope to be true
Seriously.
Digital computer calculations are limited to computable numbers.
Weather appears to be chaotic. If it is chaotic in nature, it cannot be modelled in any useful sense by digital computation techniques, as real numbers are required to encompass arbitrarily small differences in initial conditions.
Real numbers are not digitally computable.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
@MF: If it is chaotic in nature, it cannot be modelled in any useful sense by digital computation techniques, as real numbers are required to encompass arbitrarily small differences in initial conditions.
That’s odd. I’d been under the impression that the difference between π and rational numbers could be made arbitrarily small. If you have a proof to the contrary I’d love to see it.
A couple questions, Vaughn.
What precision does nature use to represent PI?
What grid cell size does nature use?
What precision does nature use to represent PI?
Nice question. But it only has an answer if space is flat. If space has positive (resp. negative) curvature then for every circle the ratio of its circumference to its diameter is less than (resp. greater than) π, and moreover by an amount that increases with increasing radius of circle.
One should therefore first ask about the precision nature uses to measure curvature.
To make this more concrete, on the surface of the Earth treated as a perfectly spherical 2D Riemannian manifold with Gaussian curvature +1, π at the border of the Yukon Territory with BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan will be exactly 3. This is because the border is at 60 N, has diameter 1 (the distance along the surface from a point on 60 N through the North Pole and onwards to 60 N on the other side) and perimeter 3 (the length of the 60 N circle).
What grid cell size does nature use?
Prior to the publication of Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science, as Wheeler had long suspected Nature had been representing space discretely with cells scaled to Planck length. However Wolfram’s attitude in his book about whose idea this was so ticked her off that she switched to the backup system she had ready for emergencies based on the Hamiltonian mechanics of Lie group algebras, taking Planck’s constant to be the reciprocal of the area of the universe understood as a very big black hole, which completely avoided any mention of grid cells.
You can thank Stephen for our no longer having any way of knowing what nature’s grid cell size used to be. Nature even revised history to make that question meaningless today.
The questions were rhetorical.
Vaughan Pratt,
I apologise for my statement ” Real numbers are not digitally computable.”
More correctly : Almost all real numbers are not computable.
There is probably a rather large mathematics prize out there just waiting for you to challenge the proofs of this statement. Of course, many people do not want to accept where the non computability of almost all reals leads.
The following quote indicates where I was heading:
“Sometimes the equations that describe some natural phenomena have perform this same kind of stretching and folding. The equations that describe the weather are known to do this. This means that predicting the weather arbitrarily far into the future is impossible without knowing the current conditions (temperature, air pressure, humidity, wind speed, etc.) to arbitrary precision. Since the quantities that describe the weather are real numbers, they are uncomputable. No finite computer program can calculate the weather arbitrarily far into the future.”
If the universe is a machine where the future is uniquely determined by its present state, it would not be possible to calculate what the future will be.”
I leave it to you to accept the source as reliable or not. It is but one of many.
I also leave it to you to decide whether you believe that almost all real numbers are not computable. Your answer was not relevant to my statement. Pi is, of course, computable, unlike almost all of the reals. Your statement that one can of course find a number arbitrarily close to any computed value of Pi is irrelevant.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
@DS: The questions were rhetorical.
As were my answers. If you didn’t like them I have others.
I propose that we all halt commenting, until doc pratt has caught up and gets on the current thread.
@MF: Since the quantities that describe the weather are real numbers, they are uncomputable. No finite computer program can calculate the weather arbitrarily far into the future.
So would this imply that if future TV weather meteorologists are displaced by robots, and one of them is asked to testify in court, it would be unable to promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Sounds like an insurmountable hurdle for automation. What to do?
Look, on the horizon, who is that riding to the rescue? Is it a cowboy? A lawyer? It’s a physicist!
@MF: I leave it to you to accept the source as reliable or not. It is but one of many.
They’re reliable other than for the fact that they assume a classical universe. In the meantime physics has gone quantum. The uncomputability of classical dynamics, first proved rigorously by Marian Pour-El and Ian Richards in 1979 by giving a computable ordinary differential question having no computable solution, does not carry over to the quantum world, which is the one weather is stuck with whether it likes it or not. John Baez’s Ph.D. thesis gave a proof that in the quantum world all differential equations were solvable in polynomial time.
I propose that we all halt commenting, until doc pratt has caught up and gets on the current thread.
Unfortunately I have a deadline coming up, so I’ll be gone for a bit. (Or fortunately depending on your point of view.)
Don’t get me wrong, doc. I point out your occasional hilarious foibles and I kid you, but I look forward to reading your comments. You are a very smart guy and I wish I had a science teacher like you. I coulda been a contender. I would hate to miss a comment like your mention of Oprah and the foot long sandwich. But please try to keep up. It’s distracting watching you comment on threads that have already died a well-deserved death.
Thanks, Don. If we’re both going to the same place and I get there first I’ll put in a good word for you.
Tell them I like one cube of ice in my scotch, doc. Do you think we will get our share of the 72 virgins that they advertise in the brochures? Anywa, it’s too bad you aren’t upt to the current thread. You could explain to Herman about the ERL and disabuse Hadad of his waste heat foolishness. Your explanations of the basic physics are elegant. Just don’t bring up that quasi-sawtooth stuff.
They have ice? Why weren’t we told in Sunday School?
Scotch is for Presbyterians, likewise according to religion for other contracted amenities.
Over the entrance to your designated afterlife you will notice their slogan, “Welcome to eternity, where we put the number 72 into perspective.”
I didn’t know that scotch was for Presby’s. I am lost now in a spiritual wilderness. Are you sure you went to Sunday school?
This might be a useful in case “Social Cost” or “Cost/Benefit” come up:
Zycher, Benjamin. “Why the EPA’s ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ Fails – Energy and the Environment – AEI.” Opinion. American Enterprise Institute, November 5, 2013. http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/why-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-fails/
“The bureaucracy is an interest group, the implication of which is that OMB directives cannot yield analytic objectivity; the routes by which benefit/cost analyses can be manipulated are too numerous. Instead, only political accountability — a requirement for congressional approval of major rules — can impose discipline upon the bureaucracy and other political interests attempting to impose large costs upon the private sector in pursuit of political ends.”
Judith Curry
Looks to me like the panel members that have PhD’s are no longer considered to be “honorable”.
But looking forward to reading more about this after the fact.
Max
I was wondering about the “honorable” thing too. Were they Congressmen at some point? If not, I’m not getting the title. Are the liberals doing that to make them feel self-worth?
Maybe some will present actual data that does not agree with Climate Model Output and make a point that what Consensus Climate People say is happening is not supported by actual data.
Judith Curry the activist once again asked to testify. How does this and that of other misinformers such as Pielke Jr not qualify as advocacy?
Advocating for no or minimal action is still advocacy.
You can’t produce one shred of evidence that Dr. Curry has lied about anything. You might find examples of where she has been wrong from time to time, but that’s normal. She learns from her mistakes and moves on. That’s what real scientists do. I can’t say that for some of the more famous climate “scientists.”
Of course you cant say that jim2. You would need to know something about the subject and the scientists to say that.
Well, I know something about the Hockey Stick, and i know something about Michael Mann, but I can’t say that you do, Eric.
===============
Eric – I can say that and I do.
It didnt take long for me to see that Judith is a true scientist, in the best sense of the word. It also didnt take long for me to see a lot of the big name players did not deserve that moniker. I am convinced that if the data start going against her current views, she will, just as any true scientist would, change her mind. I am also convinced that many of the headliners will go down with the ship rather than admitting they were wrong.
Best wishes on your trip, Dr. Curry. I look forward to your thoughts of the proceedings afterwards!
Breaking news (from GWPF newsletter):
“Europe In Full Retreat On Unilateral Climate Policy
Green Fury As Europe Considers Scrapping Binding Renewables Targets
European commissioners are considering scrapping a binding target for renewable energy for 2030, a move that would please big utility companies but infuriate environmentalists. Discussions have been influenced by mounting concerns that the generous subsidies supporting renewable energy in the EU are driving up energy costs for European industry and undermining its competitiveness, especially compared to the US. –Christian Oliver, Financial Times, 13 January 2014″
Just remember, Judith, that when it comes to CAGW
the ANSWER is
you cannot measure climate sensitivity.
the Question is
pretty much irrelevant.
“Just remember, Judith, that when it comes to….”
___
How funny that you’d try to school a PhD on what to say. You are a very funny man.
I think it is pretty funny that Peter Lang believes that a one-trick-pony climate person would dare to approach the subject of pushing nuclear power.
The progressives on the committee aren’t stupid. Consider how the scenario would play out.
They would immediately be suspicious of: why the push for nuclear power?
Is it because the climate scientist actually believes strongly in AGW, and is pushing nuclear power as an alternative for GHG-spewing fossil fuels?
Point for the progressives on the committee and the science of AGW.
Or is because the climate scientist is concerned about the future of global fossil fuel reserves and is pushing nuclear power as an alternative to the finite and non-renewable hydrocarbons that the economies of the world depend on?
Point for the progressives on the committee and for the alternative energy industry.
Point either way.
Peter Lang has thus pushed an unsuspecting climate scientist into the trick-box of a No-Regrets policy of going the route of AGW risk mitigation.
Well done, Peter Lang !
BTW, This is the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works who are more concerned about argument 1. Don’t forget about the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, who are more concerned about argument 2. However each committee will listen to the supporting arguments of the complementary concerns — i.e. environment == natural resources == energy. So it really is a double own goal for Team Denier to keep pushing nuclear power. Way to go Peter Lang!
How about because nuclear power offers the cheapest, least polluting, available base-load electricity, which frees up methane and coal for conversion into liquid fuels, allowing the power of the Middle Eastern oil states to wane,
Which has exactly nothing to do with climate change, DocMartyn !
Why is Peter Lang even here?
More waste of time in D.C.
Hopefully you can convince Sen Inhofe that the whole of the scientific community is not in on a vast conspiracy. Sen Inhofe and others like him who claim the Earth warming is a fraud need to be shown how off base their extreme views are.
It might be hard to convince a man whose basket of bread has turned into roses.
============
Eric – hopefully you can get over the fact that many aren’t buying your global warming fairy tale.
No, the Fairy Tale is that the Bakken is some sort of savior.
Already the Bakken is starting to slow down, as the Red Queen exerts her influence.
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/06/bakken-projections/
Try out the interactive model. The projected rate of growth appears to be dropping. More and more it is looking that output will not come close to reaching 2 million barrels/day.
jim2, to deny the Earth has warmed is to deny reality. I hope Dr. Curry’s words can help people like yourself and Sen Inhofe to learn about reality.
Eric – show where I said the Earth hasn’t warmed. It is obvious to even the most casual observer that it has been warming since the LIA. What you have failed to show is that warming will become catastrophic. The Earth’s climate has built-in regulation. So, while CO2 will send more IR back to the surface, it doesn’t logically follow that there will be catastrophic warming. There hasn’t been and you can’t prove it will happen. That is your failure.
“to deny the Earth has warmed is to deny reality”
The problem is Eric, that the overly-simplistic (on purpose) statement “the earth has warmed” has no scientific value.
The same overly-simplistic statement “the earth has cooled” is also true.
Neither is useful, except for sloganeering purposes.
Andrew
Eric- All agree there has been warming.. The issue is what is the proportionality between AGW and natural variability. Dont oversimplify the debate. But as a public relations tactic, I understand why people do it.
The 26-year pause of post LIA warming means whatever it was, a natural variation of some sort,died dead as a door nail along with the last of the natural warriors, like Hahpehe Onahe, in 1876! The white man with his trains and tractors and heated houses was coming and nothing could/can stop it, including a congressional hearing in 2013.
jim2, you said “global warming fairy tale”
The common usage of calling something a fairy tale is to assert it not being real. Your useis somehow different?
Dennis Adams, many claim there has been no warming such as Sen Inhofe who claims global warming is a hoax. I hope Dr Curry will set him and those like him straight.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) said on January 14, 2014 at 8:44 am |
“Already the Bakken is starting to slow down, as the Red Queen exerts her influence.”
________
Yes, Web, and depletion is the reason mineral rights owners get a 15% federal tax deduction on production income. I think the deduction should be more.
I also would like a depletion allowance for me personally. I feel I am gradually depleting and eventually there will be no more me.
Is the Climate Action Hoax over yet?
Andrew
@Peter Lang
Yo, Peter. Hope you are doing well. Here is a fun post for you:
http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2013/12/the-future-of-nuclear-energy-let.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+curiouswavefunction+%28The+Curious+Wavefunction%29
Kick Dessler’s ass all the way back to College Station, Dr. Curry!
Hi Prof. Curry…
I doubt you have much time to read comments, but I thought I’d remind you of a couple hobby-horses of mine, in case you’re interested in mentioning them.
– A policy of encouraging investment in “renewable” replacements for coal, oil, and methane with carbon (originally) derived from atmospheric CO2 would offer multiple advantages:
– – Provide added long-term security for investments in power generating technology from these sources,
– – Provide major incentives to investment in (bio-)technology for removing CO2 from the air/ocean surface, which could then, later, be reused for purposes of sequestration.
– – Allow the leveraging of (reasonably) mature technology in creating a power generating system with strong energy-storage and transportation capacities;
– In support of development of all technologies for removing CO2 from the air/ocean surface, it would help if the “Climate Protection Act” were amended to explicitly exclude (from any “carbon pollution fee”) any fuel whose original source of carbon is the modern air or ocean surface. Personally, I’d like to see such an exclusion inserted at any point in the proposed bill where “carbon pollution” is mentioned. (Applying only to “fees” for dumping CO2 of course, particulate and other chemical pollution should, IMO, be restrained without reference to the original source of carbon.)
Good luck with this.
AK
Judith
Can I echo the comments of someone up thread. Sen Inhofe and others serve the sceptical view point poorly if they make sweeping assertions that those promoting CAGW are involved in a hoax.
It is difficult to believe that those involved in the science are deliberately creating a hoax a scam or are active participants in some giant and convoluted conspiracy.
Scientists tend to think in a linear fashion within their own ‘box’ of expertise and don’t always look at the historic context when making over confident assertions and perhaps have too much faith in the power of their computer projections. . There are also others with political and ideological convictions who may find it useful to exaggerate or in some other way encourage a viewpoint to develop around the notion of CAGW.
It would be useful if you can to put over that many of us have considered the scientific evidence in exhaustive and found it wanting and not that those producing it have some dubious agenda.
tonyb
“It is difficult to believe that those involved in the science are deliberately creating a hoax”
This is an issue for you because you have an incorrect view of people involved in the science. Scientists aren’t saints. They are as corruptible as anyone else. The hoaxers are banking on fools like you.
Andrew
Tony, you write “It is difficult to believe that those involved in the science are deliberately creating a hoax a scam or are active participants in some giant and convoluted conspiracy.”
I don’t often disagree with you, but on the issue of a hoax, I do. Ab initio, it must have been obvious to the scientists who looked at CAGW, that it would be impossible to follow the scientific method, and measure climate sensitivity. If it is obvious to me, it must have been obvious to them.
Nevertheless, they pursued a policy of prosletising CAGW, despite the fact that they must have known that they could never produce the science to show that it was true. That, in my view constitutes promulgating a hoax.
A madness.
========
Hey Tony are you making an absolute statement that no climate scientists on the planet are dishonest?
If not then what is the dishonest percentage range at a 95% confidence?
If you are making any kind of claim at all please show your work.
climatereason | January 14, 2014 at 10:17 am | Reply
“It is difficult to believe that those involved in the science are deliberately creating a hoax a scam or are active participants in some giant and convoluted conspiracy.”
Maybe take your believer in and get a tune-up on it?
It’s important to think carefully about what the “hoax” is.
The political (IPCC- which is a political body) argument is that CAGW is so certain and so gawd-awful that it justifies a specific set of policy responses- for simplicity sake, call it “no regrets plus lots of regrets.”
If the “catastrophic” part of AGW is reduced and the certainty is reduced, then the set of policy responses changes- for simplicity sake, call it “no regrets only.”
It is true that scientists don’t want to be wrong, that they are susceptible to confirmation bias, that this is natural and not evidence of “dubious agenda.”
That is not the case for the IPCC- the political body saw evidence that the “C” in CAGW was much less likely and the certainty of the C was very much less likely and reported, in AR5, the opposite. They did this because they are a political body wedded to specific set of policy responses- regrets plus lots of regrets.
I’ll put it even more simply- if AGW means building a few more nuclear plants and increasing fracking for natural gas- then European politicians and most of the warmy commenters here will toddle off to play with some other political issue- perhaps GM food (Kloor), anything else (Grist), income equality (Pielke Jr), politics and music (Revkin), economic development (developing nations), avoiding bankruptcy (Spain, Germany) etc etc and the IPCC will dissolve out of lack of interest.
“It is difficult to believe that those involved in the science are deliberately creating a hoax a scam or are active participants in some giant and convoluted conspiracy.”
It could also be that the is is enough evidence of late 19th century warming attributable to CO2 to justify a concern.
Correction: late20th century
Jim Cripwell
Here is the definition of a hoax.
‘A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.[1] It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax
Do you really believe that the vast majority of climate scientists are involved in DELIBERATELY fabricating evidence to prove their case? I think they are making ‘errors in observation or judgement,’ with some exceptions.
tonyb
‘I don’t often disagree with you, but on the issue of a hoax, I do. Ab initio, it must have been obvious to the scientists who looked at CAGW, that it would be impossible to follow the scientific method, and measure climate sensitivity. If it is obvious to me, it must have been obvious to them.”
when folks started to contemplate the speed of light, nobody said the speed of light isnt real because we cannot measure it. Nobody said it was indistinguishable from zero because we could not measure it. Even today we don’t measure it. we dont measure speed. We measure distance and we measure time and we COMPUTE the speed from these two quantities.
Climate sensitivity is a defined property of the climate system.
Speed = Distance/Time
Sensitivity = Change In temperature/Change in Forcing
That property can be measured. You just measure the temperature
and measure the change in forcing. There is nothing unscientific about it.
The problem is this: our methods of measuring temperatures are uncertain.
Our methods of measuring forcing are inaccurate.
Now go back in time when people were struggling measuring the speed of light. There wasnt a single scientist who argued that uncertainty in the measurement of distance or uncertainity in the measurement of time
made the speed of light a hoax. Not a single one. They all recognized that speed wass not directly measurable. the all realized that you had to measure OTHER THINGS in order to calculate or compute the speed.
And they all realized that imperfect measurements only gave them an estimate of the speed of light. And further, without doing ANY measuring they knew the speed of sound was less than the speed of light. Think about how they knew that without measuring.
Steve, that’s a bit disingenuous.
The speed of light turns out to be, quite literally, as far removed from zero as it’s possible to get.
On the other hand, when it comes to CS, we’re not even 100% sure of its sign – the only thing we’re reasonably confident of is that it’s more likely to be positive than negative.
Big difference.
Tony,
To be invitied to testify, one is expected to take a certain position on the issue. Judith, if she wishes to, could stray from that position, even greatly, but of course that would negate the possibility of future invitations from that side of the isle. To be continued to be “tapped” to testify, Judith can stray only in as much as it clarifies or amplifies the inviting party’s position. That’s the way Washington works.
Of course I meant that side of the aisle:
https://www.google.com/search?q=aisle&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&safe=active
But might as well be isle.
@ climatereason
Hello Tony,
You offered this:
“Can I echo the comments of someone up thread. Sen Inhofe and others serve the sceptical view point poorly if they make sweeping assertions that those promoting CAGW are involved in a hoax.”
Sen Imhof would serve it even more poorly if he didn’t.
It is statements like that that make make folks like Jim Cripwell and me scream: ‘LOOK AT THE DATA!’
As Jim points out–repeatedly, but with little apparent success–there is no actual DATA that demonstrates that there is an anthropogenic ‘signature’ in the long term plot of the ‘Temperature of the Earth (TOE)’, however defined. Sure, it is warmer now than at times in the past. It is also colder now than at other times in the past. HIs question is ‘How, demonstrably, is the TOE today related to ACO2?’. If he is answered at all, the answers can be boiled down to the ex cathedra proclamation: ‘We are Climate Scientists and we said so.’. It is worth noting that anyone who does not say so is, by definition, NOT a ‘Climagte Scientist’. See the treatment of our hostess by Real, Authentic Climate Scientists.
By the same token, LOOK AT THE DATA about whether CAGW is a hoax or not. Not to tar every single individual engaged in climate related research over the past 20 odd years, but EVERY action by the IPCC and Climate Science writ large is OBVIOUSLY focused on justifying political control over all energy production and consumption by certifying ACO2 to be an existential threat. They do that by hiding data, adjusting data, suppressing scientific papers that question CAGW, ‘Alinskying’ individuals and organizations who question CAGW, attacking those involved personally and professionally, and, in other words, behaving exactly as if they were engaged in a coordinated campaign (hoax? conspiracy?) to establish a meme that is not supported by actual data. You might also note that EVERY policy recommended by ‘Climate Science’ has the unquestionably ‘unintended consequence’ (Don’t believe me? Just question whether the consequences are unintended and watch the reaction.) of advancing the progressive agenda. And that ‘Just the facts, ma’am’ has never been a guiding principle in the never-ending progressive campaign to rule us all.
Bob
As you will sEe from my other comments now scattered through this article I place many caveats concerning my belief this is not a hoax, scam or some giant conspiracy.
What I find interesting is that whilst a dozen sceptics have taken me to task , only r gates has offered any sort of support. Which raises the very interesting question as to whether warmists themselves believe that not all climate scientists are above board.
Come of guys, are you actually siding with what appears to be the majority sceptic view here?
Tonyb
tonyb.
Thanks for speaking up against the hoax crap.
it takes integrity. Steve Mc exhibited the same when he spoke at heartland
and refused to use the fraud word.
Mosh
Thanks for your comment.
When watching my son receive his degree in physics at Cambridge university last year from his 800 year old college, from my seat I could see the Cambridge university press bookshop with its tens of thousands of books and papers and also the Newton statue ‘,standing on the shoulders of giants.’ it was quite awe inspiring to realise the amount of knowledge that had been created and stored in just that small area.
The idea that most climate scientists, with the wealth of knowledge accreting to them over the years, Is involved in a hoax, scam or conspiracy is faintly ludicrous.
We may disagree at their interpretation of the material but that is a different matter to wilful deceit
Tonyb
Tony & Steven Mosher,
Thanks to both of you for providing that much needed rational perspective– especially with regard to the “hoax” and “fraud” nonsense. The only thing it helps with is in giving me a quick way to skip past blog comments as soon as I see these kinds of allegations made in a comment, and it is especially helpful when these commenters use all caps on the words “hoax” or “fraud”. It makes it even easier for me to skip by. So I hope these commenters keep it up.
“Come of guys, are you actually siding with what appears to be the majority sceptic view here?”
tonyb
I do not believe climate science is about perpetrating some sort of hoax. You have to be deep into conspiratorial thinking to believe that idea. You are right to call out “skeptics” who call climate science a hoax, or climate modeling a hoax. If you are in the hoax camp wrt climate science, you will be forever on the sidelines of the debate. Having said that, there is evidence that not all climate scientists have played fair or in proper scientific fashion. Without question, politicizing climate change and scientific results is a problem wrt arriving at the magnitude of the ‘problem’ and the proper response to it. But in no way can the whole field of study be reduced to being a hoax. In no way can radiative heat transfer physics be reduced to a hoax.
Global warming isn’t a hoax. It isn’t a fraud. That goes almost without saying.
Global warming is a theory. It is a belief. It cannot be a fraud. It cannot be a hoax. Frauds and hoaxes are things that cause people to believe ideas. Ideas are just ideas. They are just mental constructs. They cannot be honest or dishonest. They cannot be hoaxes or frauds. Hoaxes and frauds can only cause people to believe an idea.
That may sound like tautological semantics, but it’s important. Realizing an idea cannot be a hoax helps one realize what is meant when people say, “Global warming is a hoax.” Taken literally, the sentence makes no sense. That means we should try to figure out what idea the sentence actually reflects.
That is not easy. It is clear that sentence reflects the view there is some measure of hoax involved in the global warming movement. It is not clear how much of one there is. A person who says that may believe a small number of people have perpetuated a hoax which has fooled the scientific community as a whole. Alternatively, he or she may believe the majority of, or perhaps even all, scientists are perpetuating a hoax. It is even possible the word “hoax” isn’t meant to reflect a literal hoax constructed by any individual, but rather, a hoax created by the community as a whole. That is, each individual’s action is not designed to be part of a hoax, but when taken together, the sum is a hoax. Or perhaps it is merely indistinguishable from a hoax.
Considering the actual meaning of sentences like, “Global warming is a hoax” shows people saying it should not be dismissed as easily as they often are. You can attack that sentence all you want, but you’ll just be attacking a straw man. The fact it is a straw man of their own creation is largely irrelevant. If you want to convince them they’re wrong, discuss their beliefs. Don’t focus on a straw man.
People often create straw mans of their own positions. Changing their minds requires getting past those straw mans. The only reason to focus on the straw mans themselves is to score points – You can use their straw mans to paint them as fools, and since you didn’t create them, there’s little they can do about it. That can help you marginalize them.
Think about that the next time you see someone say, “Global warming is a hoax.” You can try to change their minds by looking at what they actually believe and discussing that. You can disregard their actual beliefs and attempt to marginalize them. You cannot do both.
“Frauds and hoaxes are things that cause people to believe ideas.”
This perfectly describes AGW. AGW leads people to believe we need statist gubbermint policies.
Brandon, are you at the hooch tonite?
Andrew
Bad Andrew, you completely failed to respond to anything I said in my comment. Even worse, you repeated the logical construct I specifically condemned without doing anything to address my condemnation of it.
Quite frankly, there is no logical link between anything you said and anything I said. If I am “at the hootch tonite,” that makes your lack of sensible contribution all the more pathetic.
“You can try to change their minds by looking at what they actually believe and discussing that. You can disregard their actual beliefs and attempt to marginalize them. You cannot do both.”
Brandon, you can do both. Though the former choice is the better one in terms of trying to find common ground which may lead to changing minds, it does not mean common ground will be found. So it is possible to try to change minds by discussing beliefs, but if no common ground is found and no minds have been changed and if you repeat that iteration several times to no avail and no minds are changed you would probably move to disregard their beliefs going forward, move on and marginalize them. It becomes a progression in which both have been done. I’ve tried with Cripwell with no avail and moved on. I have marginalized him from my discussions after failing to find common ground and changing his mind. I now disregard his comments where I tried to engage before. I did both.
Judith
Reading through the comments that resulted from my stating that I did not believe CAGW to be a hoax, fraud, scam or some giant conspiracy, it strikes me that it would make for a very interesting stand alone thread rather than as part of your article.
tonyb
‘
John Carpenter, sure. That’s doing one one time and the other another. It’s like how you can swim and run. You can do both, just not together.
The point I was trying to make is once you start marginalizing people, you give up the chance to influence their views. You also give up that chance with regard to onlookers who feel marginalized along with your target. Doing that because you misinterpret a person’s beliefs can lead to missed opportunities. That happens a lot. Of course, some people are just incorrigible.
By the way, you technically can marginalize someone while trying to change their views. You’ll fail, but that doesn’t stop you from trying.It won’t work, but you try it.
Steven Mosher | January 14, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
“we dont measure speed”
Yes we do. Speed is defined as time over distance. Saying we measure speed is the same as saying we measure time over distance.
I can’t imagine anyone ever hiring you for anything that requires critical thinking skills.
@WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | January 14, 2014 at 8:44 am | said:
No, the Fairy Tale is that the Bakken is some sort of savior.
Already the Bakken is starting to slow down, as the Red Queen exerts her influence.
*****
The forecasts for oil production have failed time and time again. I won’t waste time trying to refute your claim. I predict it will be refuted by the ultimate judge, the data, as it has been every other time.
The issue is that one side of the committee is not going to listen to those types of cornucopian predictions of endless oil. They are realists, not believers in fairy dust.
Show me where I used the term “endless oil.” You can’t because I didn’t.
In his “Plan”, Obama mentions “Stakeholders”. In the list of people involved in discussion and planning, I do not find “Citizens”.
Don’t forget to mention the coming cooling. Feel free to use anything on
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Tell it like it is. Best Regards
Those who criticised me up thread obviously didn’t read my comment very thoroughly, I said;
‘There are also others with political and ideological convictions who may find it useful to exaggerate, or in some other way encourage a viewpoint to develop around the notion of CAGW.’
So yes, of course there are some who want to push the envelope and come up with material way beyond what is scientific. Unfortunately, these people also tend to be influential AND high profile. How many at a 95% confidence level? A few dozens? In the low hundreds?
There are scientists with sufficient authority to indirectly influence the others who don’t cry ‘foul’ at the mis-use of science as often as they should, but they remain silent.
A Moroccan proverb can be usefully applied to them, and to those who don’t dare to criticise
“if at noon he says it is night, will you say; behold, the stars?
Is there a wide spread deliberate and systematic hoax or scam? Is everyone in climate science involved in a giant convoluted conspiracy?
I don’t think so , if any of YOU do, please show your work. At this point lets separate out the IPCC and scientists. The former I have a far less generous opinion of than the latter
tonyb
fair enough, but please note that skeptics aren’t the ones who equate the IPCC with scientists. The activists did that and far too many climate scientists acquiesced in the ruse. When climate science is willing to “separate out the IPCC and scientists,” we’ll talk. That isn’t happening. In fact the opposite is happening. What word, other than “scam”, would you use for that fact?
Tonyb,
Agree with you on the majority of climate scientists going along with the leaders who control promotions and funds. They may have some misgivings but to challenge the leadership may cost them a lot. So only a few will stand for the absolute integrity of science and use their real names. So they do good observations and some play with computer models but don’t look at the clear implications of the body of work. Except for the few and the brave. Thanks Dr Curry for being a true leader and the informative blog.
Scott
Confused.
Think of it as evolution in action; one can only get papers, grants, Ph.D. students and post-Doc’s if one is successful at getting past referees. If the referees have a hot:cold bias then only researchers who have a belief in hot over cold have success in funding and Nature/Science articles. People who run hot get more funding and pass on their ‘hot’ memes to the up and coming generation of junior scientists. The medium rankers get promoted based on papers in high quality journals and funding, as they advance, they get to sit on review panel and get to review papers.
It is a positive feedback, warm equals paper and funding, more juniors are trained with warmists as PI’s, they write their grants from a warmist perspective, they get funding.
This is why the ‘gatekeeping’ role is so important; stop publications and block grant applications, and you distort the market.
Tonyb;
“It is difficult to believe that those involved in the science are deliberately creating a hoax a scam or are active participants in some giant and convoluted conspiracy.”
People form groups, in the later 20th Century and Early 21st it isn’t much different in scale than 1880’s or 1850’s. We are sharply divided. Scientists are predominately left of center. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a polling fact. The social conclusions of the NYTimes editorial board isn’t a “conspiracy” either but they reflect one skewed world view. So the term “hoax” is a strawman rebuttal to the actual reality of what agenda “science” AGW actually represents. It’s often taken out of context when skeptical pundits use the term which is why many skeptics criticize the use of it.
I would expect very little from the hearing and Dr. Curry specifically. She is exactly the political minimum level of dissent acceptable to the warming advocate community. Like the dialogue here it’s a false warming orthodox that drives discussions and Dr. Curry will support that orthodox even while addressing selectively the obvious science abuses on the margin. AGW dissent will reflect at least 15-20 years backwards or lagging ideas at the Senate hearing. It’s only political correctness and manipulation that freeze frames the existing talking points. When the Obama administration and socialist momentum are reversed (refuted) the ridiculous AGW talking points will collapse on themselves. Until that time we are in a dark age and the Senate meeting will reflect the sort of shilly-shaly “science” of the moment. For the leftist “science” community who steered the regulatory drive on carbon, they should be defunded and in some cases arrested. As for the middling Dr. Curry position of appeasing the AGW meme while introducing some level of rationality in small doses to cult members I have little sympathy. She should have done much more much longer ago, that’s her MO. There will be no pointed dissent at the table and that’s the point of contrived “skepticism” Dr. Curry represents. Talking to Dr. Curry and giving her the floor is that many minutes Dr. Lindzen doesn’t get or many other more exacting voices on the politically motivated, statist and totalitarian climate agenda. Once again, science qualifications or insight have nothing to do with it. Dr. Curry fills a particularly offensive political function, watered down “moderation” in the face of a wholly irrational and blood lust science proposition; AGW mitigation through carbon regulations. Government sponsored (Greenshirt) raping and pillaging that have forced millions into death already through carbon restrictions.
The Senate hearing will be the usual closed shop, “consensus” rehash one can predict with 95% certainty.
…and, incessantly crying wolf about dangers that never materialize and being admonished by hypocrites who at every turn undermine the seriousness of their warnings by their own actions, can only lead to undermining the usefulness of all warnings and interfere with society’s ability to assess and avoid real risks.
cwon14, you said “As for the middling Dr. Curry position of appeasing the AGW meme while introducing some level of rationality in small doses to cult members I have little sympathy. ” I think this describes your impatience more than anything else. But along with that, you are essentially asking Dr. Curry to give up her scientific credentials by becoming an advocate. This would be no different to James Hansen and all of the other warmist “scientists” that chose to leave science behind and abuse their credentials. They are as a whole one big appeal to authority (and Al Gore types are that plus special pleading). So because you are impatient you are at the core suffering from the same noble cause syndrome that Hansen et al also suffer from. No, Dr Curry should simply state what she knows as a scientist and what she does not know as a scientist and what we’re uncertain of – as a scientist. And let the politicians duke it out in the public square and at the voting booths. We need more Dr Curry’s in this debate. She is not “middling” or straddling the fence. She is simply operating her principles as a scientist should because it’s in her core being.
Dr. Curry is the false middle to a fraudulent AGW proposition. By treating the proposition as “reasonable” a basic falsehood is preserved. That makes Dr. Curry a consensus tool not an adversary.
Real dissent will be excluded from the Senate “expert” floor. AGW is contrived to rationalize carbon controls for state related supporters. Inhofe is the best that will be present but actual scientists who reflect his views will be excluded.
Would Dr. Curry acknowledge that co2 in no logical way can be construed as a “pollutant”?? No, it would not be allowed to be asked and she would not address the fraudulent claim directly.
Would Dr. Curry acknowledge there are no linear and empirical supports for the AGW theory? No, she would discuss smoke and mirrors.
Dr. Curry is an advocate of a false middle ground where warming advocates maintain a seat at the table of reason. AGW junk science needs to be terminated and every force that delays that termination is counter productive. Objectively, Dr. Curry is a sign of weakness in the consensus but also a doorstop to corrective science. She remains a useful foil in false talking points, that’s exactly how the Senate hearing will be conducted. No basic questioning of the motives of AGW political advocacy to expand government authority will be directly addressed. That the “science” is actually corrupted by like minded (politically) “consensus” will not be acknowledged by Dr. Curry.
They should all wear clown makeup and silly hats.
My curtain call?
========
Wind power costs 3 times as much as coal, is intermittent, the equipment lasts half as long, costs more to maintain, is unsightly, and it’s only economically viable if you’re spending other people’s money.
Aside from that, wind-power is great.
see: http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/13/germanys-bavaria-moves-to-kill-off-unsightly-inland-wind-industry-using-10h-rule-citizens-have-to-be-protected/
However – Trying to convince a bunch of US “tax and spend” Democrats that Wind Power is not the way? Good luck. Helping Sisyphus push the boulder up the mountain would be more gratifying.
The ever-efficient Germans are pulling back and quietly building more coal plants. China is building coal plants at an enormous rate. China caught us in 2006 and will double us in 2014. Soon it will not even matter how much CO2 we produce in the US. We could go to ZERO, destroy our economy, and the rest of the world would just keep plugging away.
see: http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/the-guardian-china-is-slowing-its-carbon-emissions-huh/
Coal releases tons of NOX and SOX, destroys mountain tops, builds massive slag ponds, pollutes and destroys streams and requires massive coal trains criss crossing over crowded rail systems. If you don’t count those external costs which the general public pay the cost comparison needs more evaluation.
Wind kills too many eagles, passerines and bats, is not proven in gear box life but has a potential to forever reduce the pollution problems not considering the carbon dioxide.
Clean coal or coal gassification is more equivalent but the the costs are higher.
Scott
@ Scott
“Coal releases tons of NOX and SOX, destroys mountain tops, builds massive slag ponds, pollutes and destroys streams and requires massive coal trains criss crossing over crowded rail systems. If you don’t count those external costs which the general public pay the cost comparison needs more evaluation.”
But it DOESN’T have any measurable effect on the Temperature of the Earth, which is what all the hoopla is about and the overt justification cited by the Obamunists in their drive to bankrupt the coal industry and the utilities that rely on it.
to Bob Lud…
Agree with you that it does not at this point have an measurable effect on earth temperature. Plus the US is not the major producer as per China, India and now Germany and Russia. Still fair cost evaluations should take into account the external costs of restoring the streams, slag ponds and controlling SOx, NOx and mercury emissions and open pit mine damage. Dumping that environmental damage on the locals is reason enough to move to remediate the damage and try clean goal combined cycle generation or underground gassification. We have plenty of problems on our plate before the CAGW meme over took common sense. This CAGW is a massive distraction from real problems.
Scott
Coal and other carbon emission sources are responsible for elevating CO2 levels to the highest they’ve been for millions of years. Not being able to measure future effects (no time machine!) is not a convincing argument that such carbon emissions are ok.
I quote
@@@@@
Steven Mosher | January 14, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
Even today we don’t measure it. we don’t measure speed. We measure distance and we measure time and we COMPUTE the speed from these two quantities.
@@@@@
Pedantically you are correct, but your inference is completely wrong. When it comes to climate sensitivity it is absolutely true that we can measure the change in the concentration of CO2, and we can measure change in temperature. What we CANNOT do is to prove that any change in temperature was caused by the change in CO2 concentration of CO2, because we cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere.
When in came to measuring the speed of light, it was possible to show that is was, in fact, light that was travelling a specific distance in a specific time. So, yes we measure distance and time and calculate speed.
What is obvious, and what no warmist, including yourself, will admit, is that at present it is impossible to measure climate sensitivity. It has not been measured. But warmists dare not admit that climate sensitivity has not been measured. That is why I keep on bringing up the issue. If only the warmist denizens of CE, like yourself, would agree to the obvious fact that climate sensitivity has NOT been measured, we could save an awful lot of bandwidth.
How about it Steven. Will you agree that climate sensitivity has not been measured, or will you produce a reference which details how the measurement was made, what the value is, and what is the +/- accuracy?
I’m quoting Pekka
“What we CANNOT do is to prove that any change in temperature was caused by the change in CO2 concentration of CO2, because we cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere.”
the inability to do controlled experiments does not render the findings unscientific.
We cannot do a controlled experiment on the age of the universe.
we cannot do a controlled experiment on plate tectonics
we cannot do controlled experiments on human evolution
we cannot do controlled experiments on the effects an asteroid strike would have.
Your problem is and has always been trying to redefine what scientists do.
Your problem is and has always been trying to confine our understanding
to only what can be directly measured and controlled.
Further science can never prove anything. read your feynman. no proofs
only the best explanation given the facts and theory we have.
In OR your hero never measured the effect that loss rates would have on the British airforce. he built a model. it was never tested. he gave his best estimate. It helped win the war.
Day in and day out in operations research we estimate things we will never measure and can never measure. Those “works” represent our best knowledge. Controlled lab experiments are a small slice of what we know.
@ Steven Mosher
“Further science can never prove anything. read your feynman. no proofs
only the best explanation given the facts and theory we have.”
Actually, given the facts of climate history, we don’t need a theory. The best explanation of the observable facts, citing the advice of good ol’ Bill of Occam’ , is: Climate has always changed; it continues to do so. No theory required.
But we do have a theory. It has been developed over many decades, it’s based on well understood physical arguments, and it remains the best available understanding until someone produces a better theory and provides evidence for its superiority. That theory has led to the development of large GCMs, but the models are not the essence of the theory, they supplement it.
The theory was developed before warming started in 1970s, and the theory is in good agreement with empirical observations since that time.
That theory is not accurate enough to tell the exact value of climate sensitivity or to provide regional projections in greater detail, but that theory and observations make it very likely that TCR is not significantly less than 1C, and most likely closer to 2C than 1C.
As in all fields of science, it’s prudent to consider the best existing understanding to be close to the truth until new evidence makes the new best understanding different from that.
+ 1
@ Pekka
……… and it remains the best available understanding until someone produces a better theory and provides evidence for its superiority.”
My theory explains the facts just as well as the theory that ACO2 is the primary factor that controls the climate of the Earth and has the advantage of not requiring that ACO2 be taxed and regulated. Neither does it require the massive expansion in the size and power of government necessary to do the taxing and regulating or the concomitant loss in freedom and personal autonomy for the ‘common man’ that will inevitably accompany it.
Explains the facts and does not require that I give the government more of my money and freedom while it grows in size and power.
I consider that to be overwhelming evidence of its superiority.
“the inability to do controlled experiments does not render the findings unscientific”
Yes does. The inability to “test” the AGW hypothesis renders it not science.
Andrew
Come up with a hypothesis you can test. Then, you will have science.
But you know that already.
Andrew
Pekka, you write ” but that theory and observations make it very likely that TCR is not significantly less than 1C, and most likely closer to 2C than 1C.”
Will you agree that these numbers have not been measured?
Mosher is, as usual, correct. However, I think for the purposes of brevity he neglects to add that there are two theories involved in the climate debate. The first, as Mosher describes, is utterly uncontroversial. Double concentrations of CO2 and voila, upward pressure on temperatures of about 1C.
The second is the new, untested and perhaps untestable hypothesis of high atmospheric sensitivity to this upward pressure of about 1C. This is not based on the same physics, is based on the conflation of several phenomena that are each very difficult to measure, let a lone predict and taken together are as radically new as any theory put forward in the 20th century, which saw among other theories Chariots of the Gods, the Aquatic Ape theory…
It’s a pity that when you disagree with the second theory you are described as disagreeing with the first. But then, that’s why we are having this debate, isn’t it?
Mosher,
+1
Tom Fuller, you write ” Double concentrations of CO2 and voila, upward pressure on temperatures of about 1C.”
Has the value of 1 C for a doubling of CO2 been measured?
Pekka
” theory and observations make it very likely that TCR is not significantly less than 1C, and most likely closer to 2C than 1C”
Oh dear oh dear.
You realize that you have now joined the ranks of the ‘denialists’ now. You have followed the path Luke Warmer and now David Appell et al., will claim that you dispute that the Earth is a sphere and that smoking is good for ones health.
I have noted the change in your position over the last few years, from Thermogeddonist to warmist to realist.
DocM,
AR5 tells that:
– warming since 1951 is 95% likely to be at least 50% AGW. That corresponds to a TCR of about 0.9
– best estimate is that warming since 1951 is about 100% AGW, or in other words that natural variability happens to have very little effect over this particular interval. Thar corresponds to a TCR close to 2.0C, rather less than more.
I agree with those estimates. If I would have to give my best estimate, it might be a little lower, but not much. On the lower limit I agree without such reservations.
The upper limit is well above 2.0C.
These values are empirical. Some theory is needed in interpreting the empirical results, but at a level that would make them dependent on full climate models.
===
Answering Jim C is totally futile. Everybody reading this site knows that.
===
What Bob L has is not a theory. Manabe and others used physics to derive results that tell about the operations of the atmosphere. That’s theory and the validity of that theory has been confirmed in really many ways by a huge amount of empirical data on the atmosphere as well as further theoretical work by atmospheric scientists.
Considering random declarations by skeptics as theory is ridiculous. (That’s true also for some declarations by those who are skeptic on main stream climate science in the opposite direction, i.e. real alarmists.)
Steven Mosher | January 14, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
“the inability to do controlled experiments does not render the findings unscientific”
Correct. It renders them theoretical science instead of experimental science.
Pekka, you write “Answering Jim C is totally futile. Everybody reading this site knows that.”
Thank you for not answering a simple straightforward question . Sometimes silence speaks louder than words. You know that if you answer the question, it would be very damaging for the CAGW Cause.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, is TCR what we expect or what we get?
My impression is that it is defined to be what we expect but that the calculations thereof have been fudged to make it what we got.
Have I misunderstood the concept?
(Although Part 3 of my AGU talk in December was about a method of relating TCR to ECS, I neglected to clarify there that I was using a definition of TCR that made it what we got, not what we expect. I should therefore have distinguished it from the standard notion by calling it TCR’ or something. My 2012 AGU poster used PCS, “prevailing climate sensitivity”,for that purpose.)
@PP: Answering Jim C is totally futile. Everybody reading this site knows that.
If you keep talking to him in Finnish you’ll never get started.
I quote
@@@@@
climatereason | January 14, 2014 at 11:30 am |
Jim Cripwell
Here is the definition of a hoax.
‘A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.[1] It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax
Do you really believe that the vast majority of climate scientists are involved in DELIBERATELY fabricating evidence to prove their case?
@@@@@
No, I do not believe that the vast majority of climate scientists are involved in fabricating evidence. What I believe is that when CAGW was first being studied, the scientists involved must have known that they could never use the scientific method to prove that CAGW was real. So they fabricated a pseudo-scientific approach, which they then claimed proved the impossible; providing proper physics to prove that CAGW was real.
Not only climate scientists, but people with names like Lord Reese, Lord May, Sir Paul Nurse, and I suspect our hostess, have not bothered to check this fabrication that was made by the original scientists. I have. That is the difference. I would be perfectly willing to argue this point with anyone.
“Do you really believe that the vast majority of climate scientists are involved in DELIBERATELY fabricating evidence to prove their case?
@@@@@”
My answer is: Vast majority of climate scientists? No
The ‘scientists’ at the pointy end of the climate science pyramid who are ‘driving the climate science boat’ and who are overwhelmingly the ones who make up the science half of the ‘Progressive_politician/Climate_science Complex: absolutely, based on observing them in action for the last 20 years. Could anyone watch Al Gore’s Nobel Prize winning video and the reaction to it by ‘Climate Science’ and NOT believe that CAGW is a deliberate, fabricated hoax?
climatereason | January 14, 2014 at 10:17 am |It is difficult to believe that those involved in the science are deliberately creating a hoax a scam or are active participants in some giant and convoluted conspiracy.
Tony, you have read the Climategate emails and yet you can still come to that conclusion, I am amazed.
Ac Osborn
No, that is not really what I said as there were caveats, as explained here
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/13/forthcoming-senate-epw-hearing-on-presidents-climate-action-plan/#comment-436613
Tonyb
So, my line has been:
Global warming is REAL in PRINCIPLE, but
global warming is a HOAX of EXAGGERATION.
Based on the last third of a century, we have a pretty good idea of the response to GHG forcing – around 1.4K per century.
That doesn’t seem to keep wild pronouncements about extreme scenarios, and ‘tipping points’ from cropping up and doesn’t stop Hansen from suggesting that half of all species will go extinct, or blue-eyed panic about ‘more intense storms’ or ‘more droughts’ or anything else which is contradicted by observations.
Tonyb,
Rather than consider the Grassy Knoll debate isn’t it enough to acknowledge that the core climate research community both domestically and internationally reflect general pro-state regulatory expansions and are largely left of the U.S. political center? It’s pretty basic and honest and never makes a formal appearance in consensus talking points. They’re still selling the “objective science” in a white lab coat which is of course NONSENSE. Climate science is dominated by “for the common good” authority beliefs right out of the 60’s Green movements. The current MSM is cut from the same cloth.
Large groups of people lying both to themselves on basic similar values with others doesn’t quite make it a “conspiracy”. Greenshirt ideology dominates the debate and “experts” but that isn’t a conspiracy it’s how politics creeps into everything and can saturate particular social enclaves like climate science or news media. Government workers, teacher unions, academia, Hollywood aren’t demographic and political conspiracies either. People tend to form groups and associations based on many factors and historic trends. What’s terrible here is that it isn’t widely acknowledged in the debate regarding climate. So much so it becomes a great distortion of evidence and reality. Much of this is largely the failure of the skeptic community that in fact is much more diverse politically and reluctant to splinter on political divisions. That’s why many don’t press the point. Since the actual science standard accepted resembles more of a humanities topic than a hard physical science with empirical expectations skeptical arguments are easily minimized. Then again others want theoretical science to be as validated as practical applied science for a host of reasons.
Hee-hee – I’d almost forgotten how this ‘Action Plan’ was introduced:
https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+climate+wipe+brow&client=firefox-a&hs=PDV&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=q4TVUungHOm2yAHhoYDQDQ&ved=0CDoQsAQ&biw=1680&bih=919
Only advice I have is
“watch your back”
If UK parliament has already set a debate about climate, the US senate could not elude this climatic debate.
Anyhow I do not expect too much about next senate hearing: many people talking and nobody listening.
“It is always difficult to persuade people that their views are wrong, particularly when they consider them to be not only intellectually correct but also the result of virtue.”
The author was writing about economic theory and policy, but the statement could apply to climate science.
Andrew Smithers, “The Road to Recovery, how and why economic policy must change,” page 126.
If queried about the California drought situation I suggest a bit of “in your face” testimony. Suggest that there is no way California has a drought as you know from the latest agricultural data that the number one crop by acreage is cotton. No State would be so insane as to be planting cotton in a drought. Besides, were there really a water shortage as suggested then water agencies would be refusing to hand out “will serve” letters to developers. As far as anyone knows that has not happened anywhere in California.
Rob Dawg, the California Cotton Ginners and Growers Associations has a different view. I take it you aren’t a California cotton farmer.
http://www.ccgga.org/newsletter/
If you want to sample some of the climate dogma planned for the Senate meeting try this;
Dan Lashof’s Blog
“Those who doubt the existence of global warming are ignoring the train that’s coming to hit us. It’s coming, and it’s our fault.”
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/those_who_doubt_the_existence.html
This is the quality “science” on the way.
Kathleen White is another Full Mooner;
http://www.polluterwatch.com/category/freetagging/kathleen-hartnett-white
No, this isn’t a spoof site or from the “Onion”. This is the same Congress that had Stephen Colbert testify in character.
So Dr. Curry is the token semi-rationalist?
Exactly the absurd framing of discussions I commented on above. Say Kim, you thought I was joking about clown makeup and silly hats?
I challenged Steven Mosher with the following.
@@@@@
How about it Steven. Will you agree that climate sensitivity has not been measured, or will you produce a reference which details how the measurement was made, what the value is, and what is the +/- accuracy?
@@@@@
At Steven Mosher | January 14, 2014 at 4:06 pm, he gave a response that was just all sound and fury, signifying nothing, but failed to answer the challenge.
How about it Steven?
There’s a pretty simple way to get you in the ballpark of transient climate sensitivity.
Just examine the temperature change in terms of the estimated GHG radiative forcing, which I’ve done here:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/TCR.html
Eunice,
That makes no sense. The units are nonsense.
Eunice, you write “There’s a pretty simple way to get you in the ballpark of transient climate sensitivity.”
Where is the proof that the change in temperature was caused by a change in CO2 concentration?
Jim-
As I’ve followed your debate with Mosher, I keep thinking there is something more complicated and nuanced in your point about climate sensitivity. But I think it is as simple as you have laid out….repeatedly. What bewilders me is that Mosher keeps swinging…..and missing every ball. Your whole argument is as basic as it gets in science.
Given Mosher’s very impressive credentials, I don’t get the disconnect.
Dennis, you write “Given Mosher’s very impressive credentials, I don’t get the disconnect.”
The disconnect is very simple. The whole basis for CAGW is hypothetical estimations, and the output of non-validated models. Such an approach is perfectly valid in science, if and only if, such estimations are followed up with actual measurements. That is what I understand is called the scientific method. I know this and I suspect Steven knows this as well.
However, it is simply not practical to actual measure climate sensitivity. So, CAGW remains a hypothesis, and the 95% certainty claimed by the IPCC for things about CAGW is a load of scientific nonsense. The warmists are determined never to accept this obvious fact. I have been trying for years to work out how to get Steven and the other warmist denizens of CE to agree that climate sensitivity has not been measured. Steven will duck and weave very successfully as he does what he can, not to admit that climate sensitivity has not been measured.
What you are witnessing is another attempt on my part to get Steven to agree. Whether I will be successful this time, I have no idea.
Jim, climate science hasn’t measured CS, but I’m not sure it can’t be measured. You just have to look at the data we have in a different way.
Everyday the Sun is up for a portion of a day, and we get the chance to see the response when the Sun sets. We also have seasons where the ratio of day to night changes slightly everyday.
I think the data needed to detect CS is in these measurements, mirrors react to light instantaneously, Co2 in the atm acts as if it’s a mirror to the wavelengths of absorption of Co2, in particular the 10-15u window. We shouldn’t need years to detect this.
I’ve been looking at this in the data, and the only thing I’ve found is a change in the rate surface temps change as the length of day changes. But it also looks like it change direction around the beginning of the pause, there just hasn’t been enough time to know for sure.
This seems silly to me. Jim Cripwell and Steven Mosher both agree we can “measure” the speed of light even though we don’t actually measure it – we measure distance and light then compute a result. Mosher uses this structure to claim we can measure climate sensitivity. Cripwell disagrees. He claims:
We cannot prove light travels because of time. We cannot actually prove light and time have any sort of causal relation. All we can say is the two are highly correlated in a way that fits our theories. The same is true of carbon dioxide and temperature. The only difference between these two is the certainty we have in the relationships.
Why has so much space been devoted to such a silly issue? Even if one doesn’t feel the word measure applies to what we’ve done with climate sensitivity, who cares? Why focus on the word choice? Why not focus on the issues the words reflect?
Mosher could agree the word measure doesn’t fit, and it would change nothing. Cripwell could agree the word measure does fit, and it would change nothing. Absolutely nothing hinges on this issue aside from who gets to use the word measure in what way. This is purely a matter of rhetoric.
There is no such thing as a true measurement. All measurements are estimates. All estimates are measurements. Arguing about what word to use is really just masking the argument about what certainty to attach to the measurement/estimate.
“All estimates are measurements.”
This is pretty silly, too. A measurement is a comparison to a standard. An estimate is a calculation. Different meanings require different words. Thus we have measurements over here and we have estimates over there. We have comparisons and calculations and they are not the same.
Andrew
Bad Andrew:
Both of these are true, but they are not contrary to each other as you suggest. A measurement is a calculation, and an estimate is a comparison to a standard.
If I measure an object as an inch long using a ruler, I compare that object to a standard given by the visual construct I see when looking at the ruler. If I simply estimate something is an inch long, I visually compare it to my impression of the same standard. In both cases, I’m merely using my eyes and mental constructs to estimate a length.
Estimation need not require any further calculations than measurements. If I compare the weight of an object in my hand to my memory of what a gram weighs, there is no real calculation involved. The same is generally true if I weigh an object on a scale. With some scales though, I might have to do more calculations.
Brandon, you write “Arguing about what word to use is really just masking the argument about what certainty to attach to the measurement/estimate.”
I disagree. What I was taught in Physics 101, is that when you make a measurement in physics you ALWAYS get a +/- accuracy. Can I prove this? No I cannot, but I am sure it is true. When you make an estimate, you do NOT get a +/- accuracy. That is a fundamental difference between making a measurement and making an estimate. And this difference is extremely important.
I don’t even know how to respond to that. I’ve never heard anyone suggest the fundamental difference between measurements and estimates is measurements come with precision values. If that were true, my ruler with faded marks wouldn’t measure the length of this piece of wood, but my eye would (e.g., one foot, plus or minus an inch).
I was taught something different. In my Physics 101 class, I was taught you always take note of accuracy when making a measurement. That’s not something intrinsic to the concept of a measurement. It’s just good practice.
Jim Cripwell once referenced building something with 2X4’s, which he carefully measured. I had to laugh. Framing carpenters use tape measures as little as possible because they introduce errors. They much prefer to use estimates, which is all a tape measure is, but there are far better and far faster ways to do the estimates they need. I learned to make a frame from Hutterite carpenters. None better.
Brandon, you write “I was taught something different. In my Physics 101 class, I was taught you always take note of accuracy when making a measurement. That’s not something intrinsic to the concept of a measurement. It’s just good practice.”
Fair enough. Do you have a reference where someone has actually measured climate sensitivity, however defined? And if so, what was the value and +/- accuracy?
Nope. I don’t know what sort of precision level I’d need to consider it a measurement instead of an estimation, but I don’t think it’s ever been met. Even the IPCC has a range about 3C wide. That’s crazy imprecise.
As for what I usually see get called a “measurement” of climate sensitivity (comparison of change in temperature to change in forcing), it’s a crock. There are too many confounding factors for it be anything close to a measurement. Not only are there major issues with endpoints, there are notable issues with the type of fit, uncertainty in the data, lags and internal noise. Not only do all of those issues decrease the precision of the calculated value, they introduce biases into it.
I can’t see calling the value a measurement if it can change by a degree or more based upon arbitrary choices. I don’t think I’d even call it an estimate.
Climate sensitivity should be 1 deg C. It could be higher, but it doesn’t seem to be anything at all.
==============
“Do you have a reference where someone has actually measured climate sensitivity, however defined? And if so, what was the value and +/- accuracy?”
Jim, if you take the time to do your own literature search you will find this can be done with ice core data, you will find that estimates have been determined, estimates that are akin to crude measurements. I will refrain from getting into another cyclic conversation with you about the differences between ‘estimates’ and ‘measurements’… that seems to go nowhere. Regardless, crude measurements of climate sensitivity determined from ice core data have been made and reported in the scientific literature. They have been compared to models. As I have done so many times before I will tell you again, it has been done. If you think someone is going to hand references to you on a silver platter, forget about it. I have the impression with you that ignorance is bliss. If you choose to not seek out the information in order to retain the position that ‘no one has ever shown me so it isn’t true’, then it is a disingenuous one. Please feel free to correct me where I am wrong in my impression of your position. Further, why don’t you provide us all with a reference where climate sensitivity has been estimated (crudely measured) using ice core data and explain how you do not agree with it instead of saying none exists because no one has produced one for me.
John Carptenter, it’s unfair to say:
Jim Cripwell had just conceded the issue of definitions to me. He provided a perfect opportunity to define the word measurement when he said, “[H]owever defined.” Why would you harangue him on the issue of definitions? Not only was his comment reasonable, you interrupted two people who had just reached an agreement to criticize one for things prior to that agreement.
And then you go on to make this completely ludicrous remark:
He did nothing of the sort. He asked a simple question, if I had a reference for something. That’s it. That is perfectly reasonable behavior. There is no reason to belittle him, and there is certainly no reason to misrepresent him in order to do so.
As for the rest of your response, I don’t believe you’ve had any negative experiences with me, and I’m with Jim Cripwell on this one. What you describe isn’t anything close to a measurement of climate sensitivity to me.
By the way, you just made yourself look worse in my eyes than Jim Cripwell. You might reconsider your marginalization plan.
Brandon, my discussion with Jim Cripwell on the differences between ‘measurement’ and ‘estimate’ precede this particular comment by a long shot. Jim makes the same tired arguments here weekly and makes the same reference requests weekly. My rebuttal to his argument is a long standing one that I can bring up anytime I choose. It is true you and I have not had any negative experiences together and I am not going to begin here, so I am sorry if you have already judged me to look worse than Jim based on only one or two comments. One can decide to engage with or marginalize at any time one wants, I chose to engage in this instance. One can choose to do one or the other based on circumstance presented at the time. I have read many many comments made by you over the years and have a very good idea of your argumentative nature. There are times I agree with your points and times I don’t… in either case I have never felt it necessary to express to you whether you have looked worse in my eyes compared to someone else, I find that comment of yours very odd since we have never really communicated directly much before. Very odd indeed.
John, you write “Jim, if you take the time to do your own literature search you will find this can be done with ice core data, you will find that estimates have been determined, estimates that are akin to crude measurements.”
I am fully aware of the estimates of CS from paleo data. These are NOT measurements since it is impossible to measure time with sufficient accuracy; as Hansen states in his paper on the subject. It is not even known whether the rise in temperature precedes or follows the rise in CO2 concentration. The data, in fact, indicates that first temperature rises, and then CO2 concentration rises.
John Carpenter, that is entirely non-responsive. No matter what history you and Jim Cripwell may have, there is no excuse for misrepresenting what he says and using that to attack him. If you want to criticize someone for things they’ve said, refer to those things. Don’t quote something different and simply pretend it is the same thing.
You quoted Cripwell’s comment then misrepresented it. I pointed out your misrepresentations. Instead of addressing them, you said you can bring up a rebuttal to other things he’s said whenever you want. That is a non-sequitur. While it may be true, it does nothing to address the fact you flagrantly misrepresented Cripwell’s comment (which you quoted).
This is simple. Look at the comment you quoted. Look at your response to it. Do you believe you can begin to justify it? I don’t. I think it was basically just a non-sequitur used to bash Cripwell over past disagreements.
If that’s correct, you deserve to be marginalized.
Brandon, read more carefully what I was responding to. I was responding to Jims insistence that no measurement of CS has been made. I was pointing out that there are studies that make that claim. My comment about ‘measurement vs estimate’ was a side comment to him. I totally understand how you have no idea what my side comment about ‘measurement vs estimate’ was because I had those conversations with him, not you.. unless you had read our discussions on previous threads. Jim likely knew immediately what I was referring to with that statement, just because you didn’t does not give you any leverage in stating I’m misrepresenting Jim. Saying I misrepresent him is flat out wrong based on your ignorance of our previous dialogues over the years. This is a blog… your, my and Jims conversations with one another and everyone else are all airing in the public… if I choose to insert my comment I can do so…. it is not a personal conversation between just the two of you, if you want that, get his phone number. I would have thought you would understand the nature of blog comments by now.
Tell me John Carpenter, which part of this comment insists no measurement of climate sensitivity has been made:
Is it the sentence where he accepts what I said about the definitions of measurement and estimate, or is it in the sentences where he asks me if I have a reference for something? I’m having trouble telling. That’s what you quoted in your comment, and you say:
But no matter how carefully I read those three sentences, I don’t see a word saying what you claim was said. Please, tell me which sentence it is I’m so badly misunderstanding. While you’re at it, please explain how you can justify saying:
When you quoted and responded to a comment that was three sentences long then told me to read those three sentences more carefully. Why in the world would my knowledge or ignorance of other exchanges matter for my ability to understand three simple sentences?
Sure. And if you had responded to what he actually said rather than some figment of your imagination, I wouldn’t have been bothered.
Brandon, All I can say is you have come to this ongoing conversation with Jim pretty late. If you understood the long history of Jim’s position as I do, you would find I do not misrepresent Jim in any way. Jim does not believe CS has been measured. Period. Full stop. I don’t think he would find that to be a misrepresentation of his argument.
You said,
“I don’t know what sort of precision level I’d need to consider it a measurement instead of an estimation”
I agree with this, however based on my conversations with Jim about the difference between the two, he would not agree. He has more recently begun using the caveat ‘however defined’ in order to avoid those conversations. Again, your ignorance of this ongoing dialogue blinds you to the reality of what Jims position of the measurement of CS really is. Jim would never ever admit that CS has been measured in any way. Jim… back me up on this. Do I misrepresent your POV?
John Carpenter, this is ridiculous. You quoted three sentences. You responded to those three sentences. Your response misrepresented those three sentences. When I pointed this out, multiple times, you told me to read those three sentences more carefully. When I read those three sentences and asked you to discuss them, you simply ignored everything I said.
Your defense relies upon referring to things other than what you quoted. Your defense relies upon referring to things other than what you responded to. Your defense relies upon referring to things other than what you told me to read more carefully.
Jim Cripwell posted three sentences. You quoted those three sentences. You responded to those three sentences. You’ve since claimed to have been referring to completely different things than those three sentences while still telling me to read those three sentences.
Please quit being ridiculous and address the fact you quoted and responded to three sentences which did not say anything like what you portrayed them as saying.
John –
God love ya”.
Brandon, if Jim replies and agrees that I have not misrepresented him, will you kindly conceded? I can guarantee he will not admit that CS has ever been measured. That has been what I have been responding to the whole time, if you want to turn it into something else that is fine with me, but I am done for now. I think any rational person reading this thread would find what I say to be accurate and true.
Joshua, I should have known better going into that one.
Heh, meant to say ‘concede’.
John Carpenter, if he replies you have not misrepresented him on the issue you asked him about:
I won’t concede anything because that is a total non-sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything I’ve said. You’re just making things up at this point:
That is not what you “have been responding to the whole time.” I am not turning anything into anything else. You quoted Jim Cripwell’s post containing three sentences from him. You then directly addressed that quote. I’ll quote you:
You were clearly responding to the three sentences from Cripwell I’ve been referring to all along. For some reason, you grossly misrepresented them and now you refuse to acknowledge you ever responded to them despite directly quoting and addressing them.
Nothing Jim Cripwell or anyone else could possibly say would make me concede this point. You can say:
But that just makes you a fool. Not once have you addressed my explanation of what you responded to. You have not made any effort to show it wrong. You have not even acknowledged what it says.
Anyone can see you quoted three sentences, directly addressed those sentences now claim to have been responding to something else all along. There is no way any fair-minded individual would agree with you.
Let me try and make the waters just a little bit muddier. I do not believe anyone has measured climate sensitivity, but I cannot prove a negative. So I ask anyone I can whether any number for the value of CS quoted has been measured. I am seeking information. So far, only John has suggested that paleo data is a measurement, and I have explained why it is not.
I would still be interested if Brandon has a reference to where CS has been measured. I will certainly concede that CS has been measured if someone will produce a reference showing how it was measured, what the value was and what the +/- accuracy.
“So I ask anyone I can whether any number for the value of CS quoted has been measured. I am seeking information. So far, only John has suggested that paleo data is a measurement, and I have explained why it is not.” – Jim Cripwell
Thank you for acknowledging and understanding what I was pointing out to you in my original comment Jim….
Brandon, you are lost in your own web of misunderstanding between Jim and myself. Good luck getting out, but like I said, any rational person reading this thread can understand what I was pointing out to Jim. He understood it as I expected he would and he responded. I except his response, I understand his reasoning, I don’t agree with him, but I am not going to pursue the topic any further with him at this time. You say,
“Nothing Jim Cripwell or anyone else could possibly say would make me concede this point.”
Well Brandon, that just about says it all when conversing with you, thanks for recognizing it.
John Carpenter, it has reached the point where one of us is basically acting delusional. I directly quoted you multiple times, provided clear references for what I said and addressed the points you raised. You typically didn’t quote me, provide any sort of references or address my arguments in any way.
You’re welcome to paint me as close-minded because I say nothing can change my mind. That’s your call. However, most people are like me. We won’t change our mind about readily observable facts. Suggesting this is unreasonable is akin to suggesting it is unreasonable that nothing anyone could say would convince me up is down.
You are epitomizing the very behavior I discussed before. You grossly misrepresent what people say while attacking them in order to marginalize them rather than address their views. It’s pathetic, and it’s a waste of everyone’s time.
Jim Cripwell,
/humour on
You silly man! Don’t you know climate sensitivity is scientifically derived from computer models? If the model is constructed to show that global temperature (whatever that is supposed to be because nobody has actually figured out how to measure it), depends on a proportion of CO2 (with magical warming properties never actually demonstrated or measured), then who are you to challenge it?
Believe, my boy, believe! Facts can never challenge belief. Believe and ye shall be saved!
/humour off
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Once more into the fray
It’s all models, all the way down.
When you take a measurement, you are making a comparison to a model.
When you take a measurement, you don’t immediately get a +/- accuracy.
That takes a little more effort, if using a tape measure, maybe you could say the accuracy was +/- 1/2 of the smallest graduation.
More complicated measurements would require a measurement of the precision by taking a series of the same measurement and calculating a standard deviation.
Not too many things have a reference standard.
Length, mass, time, current and temperature IIRC.
Are there others?
You just don’t automatically get an accuracy when you make a measurement, and I am in the camp that says you don’t know the true value of anything, you can however get pretty good constraints.
Except for the speed of light, we know that exactly, because we define length and time in terms of the speed of light.
We can’t do controlled experiments on dinosaurs so how do we know they walked the earth?
There is more to science than just theory controlled experiment data rewash, Rutherford called it stamp collecting, but Audubon was a scientist.
You can learn a lot from just watching.
Climate sensitivity is probably a variable anyway.
There are a lot of things that you don’t measure directly, but involve a measured input, a measured output and a calculated result.
So saying climate sensitivity hasn’t been measured directly is true.
I’ll agree to that if Jim will shut the front door.
Actually I’ll just concede the point.
Bob Droege, you write “So saying climate sensitivity hasn’t been measured directly is true.
I’ll agree to that if Jim will shut the front door.
Actually I’ll just concede the point.”
Just to be absolutely clear. You agree with me that climate sensitivity has not been measured. If so, can I quote you?
No, you can’t quote me, but you probably will anyway.
My wife knows what “shut the front door” means in this context, why don’t you?
If you understood my post, I stated as far as I know, only 5 things can be measured, and since climate sensitivity is not length, mass, temperature, time or current, it can’t be measured.
There are one or two I missed but nobody busted me.
But like a bunch of other things, it can be calculated from other measured variables.
Further more, I’m not following you down the road of since it can’t be measured, therefore it is zero yellow brick road.
Since both a change in temperature and a change in CO2 concentration are both non-zero values, it directly follows that climate sensitivity is a non-zero quantity.
Bob, you write “But like a bunch of other things, it can be calculated from other measured variables.:
Sorry, Bob, I misunderstood you. I have never heard the expression “shut the front door” before. I looked it up.
Can you give me the reference where climate sensitivity was ” calculated from other measured variables”, please. What was the value, and what was the +/- accuracy?
Jim, there is not one reference citing a calculated value for climate sensitivity, there are at least a hundred, do your own research.
But I’ll be nice and provide one
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025259/abstract
But it is pretty hard to put uncertainty on a variable.
And look up the difference between accuracy and precision, you have them confused.
Bob, you and I must have a completely different view of what words mean in the English language. The title of you reference is “Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity”
So, this reference does NOT MEASURE climate sensitivity, it ESTIMATES it.
The mind boggles.
Bob, I have no idea why you worry that CS varies. Most things we measure in physics vary. The boiling point of water varies with pressure. So we can measure this at different pressures, get the same +/- accuracy, and plot the correspondence between the two things. The acceleration due to gravity varies with location. We can measure this acceleration at different locations, and plot how the variations occur. The frequency of a tuning fork varies with temperature; etc, etc.
I presume you mean that CS varies with time. So if we could measure CS, which we cannot, we could measure it today, then next month, then next year, etc. If we used the same procedure we would get the same +/- accuracy, and plot the relationship between CS and time; or whatever CS is supposed to vary according to.
No problem.
You still don’t get it do you Jim,
Like I said before, you can’t measure pressure, you can only estimate it, and you never know the accuracy, only the precision.
I am not getting into the semantic argument of measurement vs estimation.
There are only 6 things that can be measured, and all things that can be counted, climate sensitivity and pressure not being in that group.
But chew on my CO2 is a control knob explanation.
In our atmosphere there exists CO2 fairly well mixed away from its sources and sinks at about 400 ppm. In each say cubic centimeter of our atmosphere their exists some CO2 in local thermodynamic equilibrium with other gases N2, O2 and others, at a certain temperature. Now this packet of CO2 radiates in the infared based on only two things, the local concentration of CO2 and the temperature. Some of this radiation hits the earth and warms the surface. It doesn’t matter if the CO2 absorbs infared or not, it radiates, it warms the surface. Therefore there is a non zero relationship between the surface temperature and the concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
You are right, climate sensitivity is not something that can be measured, it can only be estimated. And you are right, the cite I provided doesn’t provide a measurement of climate sensitivity, only an estimate, which they provide calculations for. I recall that was what you were asking for. You asked for pie, I provided pie, you complain that it is not cake.
Renewables are new kid on the block? Mmmmmm could have sworn that England had 5000 tide mills operating in Middle Ages us god knows how many wind mills. watermills Etc
Conor
Here is the eling tide mill.
http://www.elingexperience.co.uk/Elingmill.html
The times when you can see it working are listed which gives away the fundamental problem with renewables, they only work at certain times. They have a small place in the energy mix, but unfortunately they can’t provide cheap and constant base load.
Tonyb
One topic hotting up with each passing month is the growing divergence between Earth’s temperature and solar activity.
Solar activity has now collapsed below 1850 levels, and the lack of any cooling is fast becoming a problem for advocates of a significant solar influence on global temperature.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:132
If the collapse of solar activity below 1850 levels doesn’t cause any cooling, how can the Sun have caused any of the warming since 1850?
A few more years of this divergence and the idea that the Sun has a significant influence on global temperature might be finally put to bed.
I’m afraid someone would have to actually know what current albedo is and how it has varied in order to put anything to bed.
My post was a parody of “the pause” you understand, concerning a different “pause” that isn’t mentioned at all.
lolwot, that has been hot for a while. It seems that all sun spots sun spot cycles are not created equally. That means that the ssn to TSI conversion is iffy at best and the conversion from ssn to spectral irradiance is even mo iffy. A major part of the iffiness is the magnetic field orientation influence on the stratospheric circulation. As it currently stands, sun spot number needs a major do over to get folks in the same library.
For some reason Mosher is still talking about “measuring” the speed of light. That cannot be done because the speed of light is DEFINED.
That happened 30 years ago. Look it up.
Good point. A second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. A meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of exactly 1/299,792,458 of a second, or roughly 3.335640952 nanoseconds (close enough for government work). (Grace Hopper used to hand out foot-long pieces of wire to the audience to convey the notion of a nanosecond in terms of the speed of light. Oprah Winfrey could have used foot-long subs for the same purpose.)
So a meter is how far light travels during 9192631770/299792458 = 30.6633189885 or so periods of the said transition. You get almost 2/3 of the way through the 31st period and suddenly you’re on the lookout for 0.6633189885 of the way through that period, knowing that your job may be on the line if you overshoot and make the meter too long. Having to do it in a vacuum doesn’t make it any easier.
Standards are like this only because we developed technology that a) could tell that physical standards (bars of metal) changed under varying conditions. b) we could make a more accurate representation of these physical standards with our new technology.
Mosher should be ignored. He tries to win with semantic nitpickery. The speed of light wasn’t measured in the past? Only because it was so fast as to be indistinguishable from instantaneous. Even a caveman putting his hand in front of a fire at night could see how fast its shadow appeared and disappeared on an object some distance away. When I was two years old I marveled at how fast a room lit up and went when I flipped a light switch on the wall. It’s bordering on rocket science to determine how fast light travels with some precision but it’s a no-brainer to see that’s it’s bloody quick.
While spaghetti charts will fly and pointless industrial conspiracy theory is the order of the day at Senate hearings the NWO and totalitarian design never sleeps;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-13/top-global-emitter-china-best-on-climate-change-figueres-says.html
Who needs democracy anyway? The Climateocracy knows what’s best for all.
While spaghetti charts will fly
The flying spaghetti chart? You might be on to something. A new religion perhaps…
flying spaghetti charts – new religion
Oh I get it. Flying spaghetti monster. Pastafarianism.
You slay me, Vaughan. Yer so funny I forget to laugh.
Spaghetti charts are, of course, an Australian invention. The infamous chart by Barry Jones in the ALP’s innovation policy paper “Knowledge Nation” was widely referred to as “spaghetti and meatballs,” leading to the paper being referred to as “Noodle Nation.” The release was not a great success.
Re: Spaghetti charts:
“Labor’s climate change bureaucracy”
http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013/09/10/1226716/439140-130911-climate.pdf
33 programs, 8 agencies, 7 departments and costing the people $19 billion this year – similar to Australia’s entire Defence budget – and $22 billion per year in 2019-20 (Treasury projection).
Perhaps, preparatory reading about http://www.ctmirror.org/political-mirror/2014/01/13/murphy-new-senate-climate-group might be prudent.
Ready to die in their bunkers aren’t they?
Dr. Curry, please post a copy of your remarks — before or after — as soon as convenient. Thank you.
Give ‘me your best shot.
Can’t post prior to the actual hearing. If I have a internet link, I will post at 9 a.m. EST on Thurs
America’s Dwindling Economic Freedom
Regulation, taxes and debt knock the U.S. out of the world’s top 10.
By
Terry Miller
Jan. 13, 2014 8:05 p.m. ET
World economic freedom has reached record levels, according to the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom, released Tuesday by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. But after seven straight years of decline, the U.S. has dropped out of the top 10 most economically free countries.
For 20 years, the index has measured a nation’s commitment to free enterprise on a scale of 0 to 100 by evaluating 10 categories, including fiscal soundness, government size and property rights. These commitments have powerful effects: Countries achieving higher levels of economic freedom consistently and measurably outperform others in economic growth, long-term prosperity and social progress. Botswana, for example, has made gains through low tax rates and political stability.
Enlarge Image
Hong Kong continues to dominate the list, followed by Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand and Canada. These are the only countries to earn the index’s “economically free” designation. Mauritius earned top honors among African countries and Chile excelled in Latin America. Despite the turmoil in the Middle East, several Gulf states, led by Bahrain, earned designation as “mostly free.”
A realignment is under way in Europe, according to the index’s findings. Eighteen European nations, including Germany, Sweden, Georgia and Poland, have reached new highs in economic freedom. By contrast, five others—Greece, Italy, France, Cyprus and the United Kingdom—registered scores lower than they received when the index started two decades ago.
Those losing freedom, on the other hand, risk economic stagnation, high unemployment and deteriorating social conditions. For instance, heavy-handed government intervention in Brazil’s economy continues to limit mobility and fuel a sense of injustice.
It’s not hard to see why the U.S. is losing ground. Even marginal tax rates exceeding 43% cannot finance runaway government spending, which has caused the national debt to skyrocket. The Obama administration continues to shackle entire sectors of the economy with regulation, including health care, finance and energy. The intervention impedes both personal freedom and national prosperity.
…
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303848104579308811265028066?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303848104579308811265028066.html
Dr. Curry will be looking in the eyes some of the people who have stolen our freedoms.
Reflecting back on our discussions on scientists and advocacy, when scientific experts such as Judith and Andrew Dessler are “tapped” or invited to testify, they are of course acting as advocates for a certain position, and have only been “tapped” because they are expected to advocate a certain position– not a policy position– but a scientific one. That position then is used by policymakers as justification for advocating for or against certain policies. We understand this is the way the game is played in Washington. But knowing that, doesn’t it seem ethical to disclose who it was that invited you to speek in support of the science that supports their policy position? We all can all very easily guess the person or persons on the committee were who invited Judith and Andrew, respectively, but it would be nice in the actual agenda that it listed both the invited and who invited them. This is especially helpful years later if a transcript of the testimony is ever used in some other context. Thus if a quote from Dessler is used later on in some book or study, it can be accurately attributed to: “At a hearing in 2014, Dr. Andrew Dessler, speaking at the invitation of the Honorable XXX, said:”xyz…regarding climate change.”
Most likely, truth be told, it would be the staff to the respective committees. I doubt very many Senators and Representatives would be able to keep them all straight. Dont underestimate the power of the staff in keeping it all functioning in the way the Parties want it to function. A tremendous amount of staff work and contacts are involved before each hearing. The members would look even worse than they already do without the staff to brief them and prepare all the questions for them beforehand.
Well of course we know that a good staff is part of the success of any career politician, and that staff is always keenly aware of the general policy positions of both the party and the official they support. But in the end, when an expert is “tapped” to testify, they are there to support the policy position of one side or another. Judith’s been tapped to bring her uncertainty monster with her and create enough uncertainty to slow down any policy decisions. Don’t misunderstand me– even as a “warmist” I don’t necessarily think that’s always a bad thing, nor am I blind to the reasons why Judith’s been invited. Reasonable policies need the governance of a little uncertainty monster for a balanced perspective.
This is close to conspiratorial thinking:
Actually, it is conspiratorial thinking. It involves a group because a number of people are involved in the decision of who to invite to testify. It involves nefarious intent because inviting people only to support a specific policy position means the process isn’t designed to engender legitimate discussion. So forth and so on.
R. Gates is a conspiracy theorist!
Judith with her little uncertainty monster brings to mind something out of Game Of Thrones.
http://sighroll.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Emilia_Clarke_Queen_of_Dragons_Game_of_Thrones-630×200.png
“It involves a group because a number of people are involved in the decision of who to invite to testify.”
—-
Do you have any idea how each side get’s to select it’s experts in DC? Each party gets to choose some experts of their own. This is not a conspiracy, but simply business as usual in Washington. Judith will counter what Andrew Dessler has to say, she has done before, including right here on CE. I expect her to take some swipes at the IPCC and the level of uncertainty expressed in their latest report, and Dessler may point to “new research” (i.e. Sherwood) indicating sensitivity may be higher than some models were suggesting, and under business as usual scenarios we could be looking at 4C of warming by 2100. He may even mention the “pause” being well over for Australia. It will be entertaining in a predictable sort of way.
That’s perfect Jim! The caption for that pic could be “Dr. Curry takes her Uncertainty Monster everywhere she goes”
R.Gates, that’s a strange question. You say each “party gets to choose some experts of their own” as though that is responsive. It’s basically just a re-statement of what I said. I said a group is involved in the decision to invite a give expert. That’s perfectly in line with what you say.
Similarly, you claim what you described “is not a conspiracy, but simply business as usual in Washington.” That’s a non-sequitur. There is no reason business as usual in Washington cannot be conspiratorial.
Put simply, your response pretends to rebut what I said while actually saying nothing relevant. You completely failed to support your claim or rebut my criticism of you.
” It involves nefarious intent because inviting people only to support a specific policy position means the process isn’t designed to engender legitimate discussion.”
—–
Nope. There is no logical or necessary connection between these two. You bring your experts and the other side brings theirs, and they each rattle off their pre-ordained points of view. Judith has not been “tapped” because the
Republicans expect her to agree with Sherwood and suggest we could see 4C warming by 2100, nor has Dessler been “tapped” because the Dems think he’ll talk about the Uncertainty Monster. There is nothing nefarious in pulling in those experts who”ll support your policymaking point of view. It is the way business is conducted in DC.
“Climate melts off the US mainstream”
Back in November, ClimateProgress reported that climate coverage had dropped sharply at The New York Times after the paper closed its environmental desk.
The final numbers for the year are in and NY Times climate coverage – stories in which the words ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ appeared – has plummeted more than 40 per cent. That is a bigger drop than any of the other newspapers monitored by the University of Colorado, though the Washington Post’s coverage dropped by a third, no doubt driven in part by its mind-boggling decision to take its lead climate reporter, Juliet Eilperin, off the environment beat.
And remember, this drop happened from levels of climate coverage that were already near a historical low and in a year that was huge on climate news. We’ve had devastating extreme weather around the planet. In May, CO2 levels in the air passed the 400 parts per million threshold for the first time in millions of years. In June, President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan. And in September, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest alarming review of the scientific literature.
As the chart below shows, when the IPCC released its previous reports (2001, 2007), media coverage spiked at the major newspapers. These days, the media herd is not to be heard from.”
See the chart of media interest and the rest of the article here:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/1/15/policy-politics/climate-melts-us-mainstream
I don’t know to what extent these hearings are scripted but if you get the opportunity try to bring the conversation around to the halt, the cessation or or the hiatus of warming during this entire century and before it. Hansen in his PLoS-One article almost completely obliterated it and yet it is the most important climate phenomenon today. It bears on the raison d’etre of the IPCC and its political support.
Arno, the most important climate phenomena during this century are
the record low see ice volume in the Arctic
https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-volume
and the record high temps in Australia.
Pre-game predictions;
It’s a appalling cast of characters lined up on “Panel 2” where Dr. Curry will listen and I suspect largely let pass a whole host of Tin Foil hat quality warming “advocacy” as the euphemistic trendy word for Jonestown nuts;
A. Bill Ritter, former terrible Governor of Colorado and warming propaganda film maker and activist. A major Co2 emitter (blowhard, level 3 on the Joe Biden scale) in his own right. His fiscal mismanagement of state finances are legend. Wildly hypocritical “pro-life” (pro-abortion, funded Planned Parenthood and deregulated morning after pill) postures alienated almost everyone. Squeezed into office in the peak Bush backlash year of 2006, a major fluke. He’s there to pontificate fear dogma and run the clock down, truly a useless panelist.
B. Dr. Andrew Dessler, Grade B consensus hack. Expect 97% to be in the opening statement and then alluded to 20 more times in mind-numbing redundancy. Here’s a link bulling Roger Pielke Sr.. to resign from the AGU for not consensus conforming;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/12/quote-of-the-week-the-ayes-have-it/
Role; consensus enforcer. Dr. Curry might waste some energy on this torture.
C. Dr. Daniel A. LaShof; Close to Tin Foil Hat activist; Global warming “expert” and focused on the money and power; “mitigation” wonk. He’s the keynote of the panel, here to defend Obama totalitarianism on climate policy and dictatorial policy directives.
Dan Lashof’s Blog
“Those who doubt the existence of global warming are ignoring the train that’s coming to hit us. It’s coming, and it’s our fault.”
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/those_who_doubt_the_existence.html
D. Kathleen White, confirmed Tin Foil Hat;
http://www.polluterwatch.com/category/freetagging/kathleen-hartnett-white
She’ll be smearing industry in one breath one minute while calling skeptics “conspiracy nuts” and segue into the “Koch Brothers” and “Big oil” seconds later. This never gets called out on basic logic reasons and many here know why. She’s on the panel to be crazy and there by make the other nutter statements seem rational.
E. Dr. Curry
The token skeptic, the maximum level of dissent the panel and more importantly the invitation steering committee can stomach. It’s going to be full-tilt irrationality, anti-science dogma of the first order. Dr. Curry will nod her head 20 times to insanity for every semi-rational statement she makes. She’ll not debunk the consensus fraud statements, denounce CO2 sensitivity mythology or state regulatory collectivism all around her. She is part of it after all.
Conclusion; It’s a farce and Dr. Curry’s dissent stooge factor is more likely to rise than the appearance of being “heroic” against a panel of
largely lunatic warming activists. Everyone else on the panel is blocking and tackling for LaShof since that is the Obama and the warming agenda in policy practice. A little “precautionary principle” and “uncertainty” and the minions here will suck it up. The Senate of the U.S. is a total disgrace and this smacks of another AGW Soviet show trial.
One fantasy question that will never happen;
Y or N Dr. Curry; “Is co2 a pollutant”???
Dr. Curry, “Scientifically? No.”
Odds? As close to zero as you can come.
cwon14,
Wow. Thanks for that. It sure looks like a kangaroo court (i.e. stacked to get predetermined result).
As it turns out I appear to have made a grave error regarding an incorrect ID of Kathleen Harnett White. It now appears there will be one skeptic represented on the panel. My apologies for the error.
cwon,
Based on past experience, I think you’re likely right to a large extent. I respect Judith immensely, but in the past she’s not shown a lot of fight in these circumstances. She’s naturally polite and respectful, and it’s hard to fault that given all she’s done. She’s also in a very difficult position which I don’t think you fully appreciate.
That said, I share much of your frustration. My hope is that her distinct change in tone on this blog…be fair….there has been a significant change…might carry over in a live setting. Whatever she does, I support her wholeheartedly.
Pokerguy,
Time to think of the bigger picture of millions in energy poverty with many premature deaths in part rationalized by collectivist Greenshirt activity that Dr. Curry is a net supporter of. AGW “policy’ is perpetuated not just by extremists but by apathy, false moderation and gutless deal making/intellectual pandering to social radicals dressed in “Green” babbling about human caused climate change. A “science” without empirical evidence or quantification of any kind. She isn’t a Churchill but a Chamberlain in the face of totalitarian abuse of her field of research.
In that light, please explain what I don’t understand about “how difficult it is” for Dr. Curry and consider the scales involved??
They really should have asked a real systems-thinking climate scientist such as Raymond Pierrehumbert to give testimony before the committee. Whoever can read this article and not come away shaking their head about where the USA is heading is not thinking through the implications:
Raymond Pierrehumbert, “U.S. shale oil: Are we headed to a new era of oil abundance? – Slate Magazine.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html
Paul
Do you ever read your old writings about “oil depletion” vs. what you should have been addressing “fossil fuel depletion” and laugh at yourself for having been so wrong on the timing and the economics?
Pierrehumbert describes the frantic extraction process called the Red Queen whereby more and more drills have to be drilled to make up for fast depletion of fracked areas.
He also touches on the metric known as EROEI, whereby nearly as much energy is used to extract oil as the prospectors will eventually gain from their efforts.
The math behind that is covered in a book called The Oil Conundrum.
Many point to the chaotic behavior of weather to make some argument about climate models and reveal thereby ignorance about chaos theory. I suggest reading http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/chaos-theory for an introduction.
Let me note that some chaotic systems can have sufficient stability that computer predictions can be made with useful accuracy 100 years into the future — example is Newtonian mechanic applied to the solar system.
It is a topic of study for each model what the useful predictive power of that model. If those studies have been made, I’ve not seen them.
Edit for clarity:
Many point to the chaotic behavior of weather to make some argument about climate models and reveal thereby ignorance about chaos theory. I suggest reading http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/chaos-theory for an introduction.
Let me note that some chaotic systems can have sufficient stability that computer predictions can be made with useful accuracy 100 years into the future — example is Newtonian mechanic applied to the solar system.
It is a topic of study for each model what the useful predictive power of that model. If those studies have been made for climate models, I’ve not seen them. The study doesn’t need to determine whether a prediction is true, only whether nearby initial conditions lead to nearby predictions. All chaotic systems will fail this test at some point, the question of interest is at what time in the future can useful predictions be made. Then you can address whether a model is “true.”
Send my regards, and while you’re there Judith, ask them how you think your new blog-structure/moderation-policy is working out.
Curious to hear what you present- @orgcouncil
Re: solar activity and climate.
Solar activity is currently down to what it was at the turn of the 20th century. Is the climate the same? One way out of that pickle is to postulate that there is a long-term increasing ‘background’ on which the sunspot cycle rides. Personally, I don’t think there is, but we don’t really KNOW, so there is room for debate over this. Some of my thoughts [and some data] can be found here: http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
The paraphrase a well-known climate scientist: “it is a travesty that we do not know for sure how solar activity has varied in the past”.
Certainly solar output is just part of the changing mix of forcings that affect climate at any given time. The longer-term variation in solar output is of course quite interesting and it is indeed a travesty that we don’t have more data.
This is on CSPAN 3 RIGHT NOW!
ALSO ON THE WEB
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=e07101a7-0715-7690-b6e9-c39e56a3b468
@ Matthew R Marler & Wagathon
Matthew R Marler | January 14, 2014 at 12:51 am |
Wagathon: “Sergey Kotov used the mathematics of chaos to analyze a 4000 year Greenland ice core temperature record and found a pattern in the data. Extrapolating into the future Kotov’s approach predicts cooling to 2030, then warming, and then 300 years of cooling beginning in 2100.”
…….
Could you supply a reference? I would appreciate it.
Not really great deal of surprise. Some ten years ago I devised three equations as numerical approximation for past present and future solar activity; they agree with the Kotov’s climate trend prediction to every detail, except 22nd century cooling may be a bit shorter.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-PPF.htm
At the time when I wrote the equations the NASA’s top people (Hathaway, Dikpati and co) were telling everyone that solar activity is going into overdrive never seen before.
It is possible and even likely that both Kotovay and I are wrong, at least we may see 2030’s leg, but by the last one starting at 2100 most of us will be long gone and dead, and hopefully by then the NASA may be more competent in predicting solar activity and the its effect on the global temperatures.
@ Matthew R Marler & Wagathon
Matthew R Marler | January 14, 2014 at 12:51 am |
Wagathon: “Sergey Kotov used the mathematics of chaos to analyze a 4000 year Greenland ice core temperature record and found a pattern in the data. Extrapolating into the future Kotov’s approach predicts cooling to 2030, then warming, and then 300 years of cooling beginning in 2100.”
…….
Could you supply a reference? I would appreciate it.
Not really great deal of surprise. Some ten years ago I devised three equations as numerical approximation for past present and future solar activity; they agree with the Kotov’s climate trend prediction to every detail, except 22nd century cooling may be a bit shorter.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-PPF.htm
At the time when I wrote the equations the NASA’s top people (Hathaway, Dikpati and co) were telling everyone that solar activity is going into overdrive never seen before.
It is possible and even likely that both Kotovay and I are wrong, at least we may see 2030’s leg, but by the last one starting at 2100 most of us will be long gone and dead, and hopefully by then the NASA may be more competent in predicting solar activity and the its effect on the global temperatures.
Environment and Public Works Committee SD-406
Full Committee hearing entitled, “Review of the President’s Climate Action Plan.” Thursday, January 16, 2014 09:15 AM EST EPW Hearing Room – 406 Dirksen
Hearings Live Stream
Dr. Judith Curry PhD Professor and Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Institute of Technology
pdf Document 01.16.14 Judith Curry Testimony (11614HearingWitnessTestimonyCurry.pdf || 1.1 MBs)
Judith, I was able to listen to your opening statement, I believe it was very well done, good job! Though, you might have needed to talk just a little bit faster :)
Unfortunately I missed most of the back and forth afterwards, hopefully that went as well.
micro
Judith unwisely referenced this blog in her testimony. Lets hope none of the members decide to take a look during a coffee break and find one of the food fights CE is famous for in progress.
tonyb
Did Judith ever post a copy of her testimon? I would love to see that, and Dessler’s.
coming soon, hang on
Whitehouse, the tool, stepped on her lines.
=========
tonyb,
here is the report on 20% wind by 2030. Two 20% slices help the pie quite a lot. Much like current 20% nuclear in US.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdf
This one is big but useful if a little dated from 2008.
Thanks for all the information you provide.
Scott
tonyb
Here is the NREL reference to 20% wind by 2030.
All of the above kind of portfolio incl 20% nuclear.
Thanks for all the iformation you provide.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdf
Can’t wait to see SEA level II and III
Scott
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/230250
Pingback: Your Logic Escapes Me, by John Nielsen-Gammon