by Judith Curry
It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion.
-
Search
Denizens
Recent comments
- Five Reasons Why Climate Skepticism And Dissent Are Important – Issues & Insights on A bad recipe for science
- ganon1950 on A bad recipe for science
- Bill Fabrizio on A bad recipe for science
- burlhenry on A bad recipe for science
- ganon1950 on A bad recipe for science
- jim2 on A bad recipe for science
- jim2 on A bad recipe for science
- jim2 on A bad recipe for science
- David Andrews on A bad recipe for science
- David Andrews on A bad recipe for science
-
Recent Posts
- A bad recipe for science
- Net-Zero Targets: Sustainable Future or CO2 Obsession Driven Dead-end?
- Hansen’s latest overheated global warming claims are based on poor science
- Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role
- Climate Change: A Curious Crisis
- State of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the NE U.S.
- Arctic sea ice: the canary in the coal mine
- The ‘Holy Grail’ of social predictors of public attitudes toward climate change
- New Zealand grid
- Causality and climate
- Comment and Reply to GRL on evaluation of CMIP6 simulations
- Australian Electricity Generation – 2023 Update
- Controversy surrounding the Sun’s role in climate change
- Do CMIP5 models skillfully match actual warming?
- Geophysical consequences of celestial mechanics
Categories
Blogroll
- A chemist in Langley
- AndThenTheresPhysics
- Bill Hooke
- Cliff Mass
- Climate Audit
- Clive Best
- Ed Hawkins
- HeterodoxAcademy
- Kahn: Environmental & Urban Economics
- Paul Homewood
- Pragmatic Environmentalist
- Saravanan: MetaModel
- Science of Doom
- The Ethical Skeptic
- Watts Up With That?
- WoodForTrees
- Wx & Climate @ Reading
Archives
Email Subscription
Join 5,140 other subscribersMeta
I think its been about 1 year since you touched on the subject of ocean acidification. Has anything additional struck you as significant during the past year?
Article by Ken Caldeira today:
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Tailpipes-smokestacks-outproduce-volcanoes-5691612.php
Will Howard is the expert on ocean acidification, Just dare ask him.
I’ve been meaning to write some update on a synthesis report I led a couple years ago. You can start with this:
http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/index.php/2012/report_card_extended/category/ocean_acidification
It’s from 2012 but most of it still stands.
While maybe not published in the last year, you can start with a little refresher given that the article you cite is little more than re-hashed scare mongering.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scripps-paper-ocean-acidification-fears-overhyped/
Stephen – The “little refresher” that Barnes refers to is rather misleading. Check out the primary research articles, which specifically refer to the potentially negative effects of OA on calcifying organisms (that is, those organisms to which Caldiera refers in his article.)
Quite. The Hoffmann et al 2011 abstract starts
“The effect of Ocean Acidification (OA) on marine biota is quasi-predictable at best.”
I can’t disagree with that.
Going back to Murry Salby. Did he ever publish that idea about the carbon cycle?
Comment in moderation due to some innocuous word.
To add to my comment on another thread listing a number of lines of evidence for the recent decades’ CO2 rise being due to anthropogenic inputs. Colin Prentice, an expert on the terrestrial carbon cycle, has addressed this same question (in response to Salby’s suggestions ) from some of the same lines of evidence I listed, and adding a few other points I hadn’t covered:
http://climatefutures.mq.edu.au/files/file/How%20we%20know%20the%20recent%20rise%20in%20atmospheric%20CO2%20is%20anthropogenic.pdf
Cheers.
There’s a good article on how “ocean acidification claims are misleading – and deliberately so” here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/View-your-user-details.html
Is it wise for a ‘climate expert’ to come out with strong predictions in the near term with little or no caveats? I respect this man a lot, I wish there there were many others like him.
All the quotes above are from Professor Peter Wadhams.
I’m sure Dr Waldham is pretty smart, and he’s going to incorporate tweaks into his model, such as the probability that sea water exposed to the atmosphere in the dark cools very fast and turns to ice in winter, and will reach about 1.5 to 2 meters thickness by mid March. And that ice in the central arctic tends to be stubborn.
Prof Wadhams said: “His [model] is the most extreme but he is also the best modeller around.
That doesn’t say much for the rest then, does it?
New ice means latent heat release –> it’s worse than we thought.
Wadhams is willing to make certain assumptions that no one else is willing to make. Give someone like that a little power –e.g., the ear of a despot or… the Eurocommies — and, the death rate could be in the millions.
I would have thought he would have retired by now, to save himself further embarrassment.
In my years as a casualty actuary, I saw many prognosticators get it wrong by assuming that a short-term or medium-term trend would continue long-term. It seems to be human nature to jump to this conclusion. Even people who should know better made this mistake.
three lining up.
Antarctic new maximum, Arctic starting to improve. Total sea ice extent heading to top 3 for this time of year.
Antarctic ice is now ~ 3 sigma ABOVE 30 year mean
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 1,354,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. 148th daily record
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg>Global sea ice above average
Global ice anomaly 0.671 million sq km
Arctic sea ice recovering – at -0.667 million sq km
Arctic sea ice greater than 5 recent years
Which models predicted this?
3 sigma – statistics, well used.
Here is Professor Peter Wadhams again. :)
“The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.”
How does that compare with glacial loss? If there is an increase in ice mass, how much heat is emitted?
Glacial loss when, 2000 years ago or 4000 years ago or currently?
I was thinking currently, but it would be good to consider both.
It’d be nice if we had good ice mass data so we could see latent heat change better.
“If there is an increase in ice mass, how much heat is emitted?”
About 334 joules per gram.
By ’emitted’ it might be more accurate to say how much energy is removed. Christian Schlüchter understands what makes the glaciers fluctuate. The solar activity is the lever of change. In addition, tectonic movements and the shifting of the seasons in the northern hemisphere play a role. Even volcanoes can be a trigger.
On what basis is Wadhams still employed? Does the cost of tenure exceed its benefits? Maybe it should be “ten-year,” subject to renewal, or not as the case may be.
Faustino
As I think you well know, changing the rules mid-stream like that is called “sovereign risk” and by fiat is not applicable to public or civil servants :)
What we now know about the sun explains everything about late 20th century warming. As it turns out, “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19–23, i.e., 1950-2009),” says Ilya Usoskin, “was a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.” [Usoskin et al., Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity, A&A 562 (2014) – PDF]
Horrific Methane Eruptions in East Siberian Sea
http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/horrific-methane-eruptions-in-east-siberian-sea.html
(This is my first ever comment on Climate Etc..)
Ivan K, did you notice similarly horrific methane clouds over China and near Kursary in Kazahkstan? Whenever I look at these methane clouds over land I wonder if they may not be growing too much rice, or mining too much coal, or whatever does it. I’ve also seen suspicious clouds over the Middle East, and North Dakota, and believe or not over Kansas (I think that’s from pig farms). We do have to worry about methane, that’s for sure.
Aaron, the size of the industry in the former USSR wasn’t greater in 1999 than in 1989. The key parameter is simply the gas price paid to the oil producer. The amount of wasted associated gas in the USSR and OPEC nations was huge. I can’t comment here about the subject in depth, but it seems to me the climate modelers don’t get very good methane forecasts.
I repeat this message once in a while to make sure it gets picked up: the IPCC representative concentration pathway 8.5 is useless. It lacks realism, and the forcing they defined is unreachable. As such it should never be used as a “business as usual” case in climate models.
That narrative goes along well with my comment below about Russian oil in the 90s.
My comment disappeared into the void (it isn’t even in moderation). This is my second attempt at recreating it:
I remember reading Greenspan’s biography, he was very disappointed that Venezuela relied on oil price increases for revenue and did not bother to fix its inefficiencies. Resulted in lots of waste and pollution.
It was similar in Russia in the 1990s. The basically used IMF money like income and scammed foreign banks. They eventually cleaned up, for profit (as you point out). A good book is Casino Moscow by WSJ journalist Matthew Brzezinski. Very entertaining.
Casino Moscow
Very amusing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release#mediaviewer/File:Methane-global-average-2006.jpg
It’s a new observation, not an observation of something new. What these discoveries of additional methane sources tell us is that we know very little of methane sources and sinks.
Methane concentration increases are actually decreasing faster than CO2 growth, even as we discover more sources. This suggests that we have over estimated the residence time of CH4 in the atmosphere and the greenhouse potential of CH4.
Aaron, I suspect the fast rise in methane concentration was largely caused by Soviet Union and OPEC nation emissions. They used to vent methane from the well casing annulus because gas prices were either meaningless or too low for the operators to gather.
Methane residence is probably fine. What I sense is that we see more expeditions heading into eastern Siberia and making a big deal out of what we saw was pretty common place (and quite expected). I also have a faint suspicion we got Russians playing along to get more funding. I know the way that works from experience, I used to work on a committee funding ice expeditions in the past.
Thanks. That’s interesting.
I think your likely right about the methane increase. But still wonder, even with such waste in the past, wasn’t production also much lower back then.
If waste is less common, still the size of the industry is much greater. And as you pointed out, we have release from rice, dams, wetland expansion, pigs, cattle, etc. which have all increased markedly in the last 30 years. Yet CH4 concentration increase had been about zero up to 2006.
I think we’re under-estimating natural variability here.
I also thought methane wasn’t simply vented, but flared?
They vent gas from the well annulus. This is done with wells on pump, to reduce the back pressure. A more efficient hookup is to connect the annulus to the liquids flowline. But that increases the pressure faced by the pump. In Nigeria they vent to kickoff wells, and also to relieve pressure. In Venezuela they also vent to lower pump discharge pressure. It’s a mess. But as the gas became valuable they started learning to keep it in the piping, compress it, and sell it.
I remember reading Greenspan’s biography and he noted the problems in Venezuela. They relied on the price increases in oil for revenue and didn’t not bother to fix their inefficiency, he was very disappointed. Lots of waste and pollution.
Russia was much the same even in the 1990s. The used IMF funds as income and didn’t fix their poor infrastructure. Leaks and spills everywhere. They basically scammed the IMF and foreign banks. Eventually they did clean up their act to make profits. Casino Moscow is a good book by WSJ journalist Matthew Brzezinski. Very entertaining.
Casino Moscow
unfortunately, the word casino lands you in spam
Could someone put the event in context? Catastrophic in what way. Why now? Is it unprecedented? Is it being released in other oceans ? What do we know vs. speculation about impacts?
Right. How often have things like this happened in the past (I can’t imagine this would be the first time there is a huge methane release).
Personally, I kind of hope it happens just to see how things play out. Will 12X methane concentrations fertilize the world?
You really don’t have any proof there was a huge methane release in a particular area unless you put airborne sensors close to the spot. The problem with airborne sensors in that part of the world is the extreme danger one faces if the craft goes kerplunsky in the Laptev.
The preliminary logistics needed to run a survey are quite complex (for example, we couldn’t use the run of the mill Antonovs aircraft or the Mil8 helicopter workhorses they like to use. We had to arrange for Kamovs set up for marine overflights, had to make sure they had good engines, tested the fuel…and everybody was trained to attempt to survive out there. This was quite a few years ago, but I imagine it hasn’t got much better.
I do find it interesting to see all these giant seeps are being found in the Laptev but we read nothing about permafrost clathrates exploding in the Beaufort. I suspect it’s mostly hype.
Yes hype, but still interesting.
I wonder what it would take to trigger a release like in the article, maybe not quite as big, so we can observe the impact of global methane on the climate and biosphere.
Good Sam Carana gets data from a satellite flying at 6,041 meters.Then shows them in cylindrical projection, which makes anything in high latitudes look BIG. An old USSR view of the planet.
Ivan, I’d call that a comment-free link. From the link: “Horrific Methane Eruptions in East Siberian Sea. A catastrophe of unimaginable propertions is unfolding in the Arctic Ocean. Huge quantities of methane are erupting from the seafloor of the East Siberian Sea and entering the atmosphere over the Arctic Ocean.”
My comment: ho-hum, same old, same old, “horrific,” “catastrophic,” … How about some balance and equanimity? At least until the next “horrific, catastrophic” scare comes along.
Cynic? Moi? No need to comment, Joshua, thanks all the same.)
Ivan,
I was alarmed by this news until I read this article on Real Climate which discusses the scale of the measurements:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/how-much-methane-came-out-of-that-hole-in-siberia/
Rose
These “methane bombs” seem to come to life once in a while. I have seen both onshore and offshore shallow borehole data in Arctic Russia, and it seems to me those methane hydrate deposits are over hyped. The data does show a lot of hydrates (which are a mix of natural gas, mostly methane plus a tiny bit of other gases, and water). However, the hydrate ice is found in the pores of thin sandstones, mixed in a layer cake like structure with shales and mudstones. In some areas, for example the Yamal Peninsula, it´s possible to find solid ice sheets in the form of lenses. But I´ve never seen a “solid gas hydrate lens”. My guess is the bulk amount of sand and shale and mudstones in the layers containing hydrates can be about 70 to 75 % of the total. And that´s in the actual “gas hydrate bearing layer”.
The hydrates way below the surface don´t really make a difference, the hydrates which count, what you have to worry about are very close to the sea floor surface. And my guess is the ones which really count have to be in water around 200 meters deep. So there you are, find gas bubbling around the 200 meter isobath, send a bathythermograph to the sea floor in September, and you will get an idea of what it may be getting like down there.
Is it acceptable to refer to the current period of steady temperatures as a hiatus or pause, as seems general practice? It seems to me that both these words imply that we know that warming will resume, but we do not know that any more than we knew temperatures would stop rising 15 years ago. For the time being warming has ceased and we should use that word or equivalent.
The global average surface temperture didn’t “stop rising” 15 years ago. Cowtan & Way’s dataset shows 0.18 C of surface warming in that time:
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/series.html
And in any case, 15 years isn’t a climatologically relevant interval (it’s often dominated by natural variability).
And yes, warmng will resume, since physics demands it. It has already — the HadSST3 sea surface temperature for June was the highest of any month since 1850, and July’s was second-highest:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.0.0/HadSST3_monthly_globe_ts.txt
Cowtan and Way – isn’t that the ‘not real’ ideation of what the temperature would be if it was warmer than it actually is?
Cowtan & Way attempt to fill in arctic regions not well-covered by satellites or ground stations. “Attempt”. It is an unverified effort, unproven. Not like the satellite data. There are lots of ifs and or buts about their methods.
After how many years of no significant warming or even cooling, would you be able to bring yourself to say that global warming had stopped, David Appell?
>> Cowtan and Way – isn’t that the ‘not real’ ideation of what the temperature would be if it was warmer than it actually is? <<
No — it's a better model for measuring the Earth's average surface temperature.
The ” Earth’s average surface temperature” is a myth.
>> After how many years of no significant warming or even cooling, would you be able to bring yourself to say that global warming had stopped. <<
When there's no warming. Cowtan & Way shows there's been warming. UAH shows warming. THe the 0-700 meter region of the ocean has gained 70 zettajoules of heat in the last 15 years. Where did that heat come from?
>> The ” Earth’s average surface temperature” is a myth. <<
Wrong. Surface temperature is a scalar field defined at every point on the Earth's surface. That means it has an average. (Though it's not what data models measure.)
>> Not like the satellite data. There are lots of ifs and or buts about their methods. <<
That's false. The satellite data (UAH, RSS) are very complicated models, that require many adjustments convert microwave readings into temperaturs. Here's a document that analyzes some of the complexity:
Climate Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (C-ATBD)
RSS Version 3.3 MSU/AMSU-A
Mean Layer Atmospheric Temperature
http://images.remss.com/papers/msu/MSU_AMSU_C-ATBD.pdf
Here's a list of the major corrections to UAH's model (some of which were acquiesced to only after intense scientific combat):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made
It is by no means clear that satellite temperatures (which don't measure surface temperature in any case) are somehow cleaner than surface measurements.
Ask yourself this: if measuring temperature by satellite is so methodological, why do UAH and RSS's LT trend differ so much now?
“Ask yourself this: if measuring temperature by satellite is so methodological, why do UAH and RSS’s LT trend differ so much now?”
You mean, besides that fact that they are for different portions of the globe and use data from different satellites?
The final answer shouldn’t matter which yardstick you use (or which satellite).
Yes, RSS exclused about 3.5% of the globe, which is the part warming fastest. Why then do so many people here and elsewhere use it to claim there hasn’t been warming for “17 yrs 10 mths,” or whatever it is?
It may be a “scalar field” but it’s not “defined at every point”. At least not the same way. How do you strike a non-mythical average among “surface temperatures”, (measured how?), among grassland, snow cover, forest, ocean, etc.
You can take a bunch of numbers, and create an “average”, but it doesn’t have any physical meaning at all.
“Why then do so many people here and elsewhere use it to claim there hasn’t been warming for “17 yrs 10 mths,” or whatever it is?”
I would agree that the significance of the cooling trend is somewhat overstated – it may just mean that the 0.014K per year warming trend is being exceeded by natural variability, and that variability has something to do with fewer El Nino events.
Never-the-less, the lack of trend is real as evidenced by the land-ocean indices, the sea surface temperatures alone, and the MSU data.
>> You can take a bunch of numbers, and create an “average”, but it doesn’t have any physical meaning at all. <<
You can't measure the temperature at every point on a sphere, right. So you build a data model, like GISS and HadCRUT have done: you measure the temperature at as many points as you can, then use algorithms to correct for known biases. What you get is the average temperature of your model, which you assume (as with all models) that it's a close facsimile of reality. But what's really important is how the average temperature of your model is changing — and that's what GISS and HadCRUT do, and why they only report anomalies and not temperatures — which you assume is the change in the Earth's surface temperature, to the extent your data model is a good one.
David, I wonder if this work can’t be repeated using the actual sea ice coverage and other data to do a more sophisticated kriging? I have supervised geo scientists who did realizations using kriging, and they experimented a lot. Today we even use backwards realizations with the flow models influencing the geo statistical models. I wonder, what happened so that climatologists didn’t crunch into this issue with more intensity?
Craig you are wrong
“”. It is an unverified effort, unproven.
1. They estimated the temperature at locations where we have no measurements. ALL METHODS DO THIS
Hadcrut estimates the data at missing locations, Giss does, berkeley does. You cannot avoid it.
2. The TESTED their estimation by looking at out of sample data,
at bouy data.
3. I tested their method by looking at total different satillite datasets
(AIRS)
4. Their method is not fundamentally different that the work of McIntyre in antartica.. which
AK
“You can take a bunch of numbers, and create an “average”, but it doesn’t have any physical meaning at all.”
It does have a physical meaning in fact it has a testable physical meaning.
people have used the term “average” and its really not correct.
When you compute the “average’ what you are really doing is creating
an expectation or rather a prediction.
An example. I take the US and I use 1000 stations ( out of 20K +) to create a field in x and y. That field represents the temperature at locations where I dont have data. I use the data I have to create a prediction of the temperature where I dont have data.
My model says at position x1,y1 the best estimate of temperature given the data I have is Z. I can then test this prediction with the data I have left out of the prediction step.
So a global land “average” say 9.8 C is the best estimate of the temperature at any randomly chosen location. Go ahead try it.
You guess a number different than 9.8C. then we will select 100 locations
from the 2000+ old stations where data has recently been recovered.
See if your error is smaller than the error produced by a 9.8C estimate.
In other words the global average is the best estimate of the average annual temperature of locations that are not used in the construction of the average. It minimizes the error.
That is the physical and operational meaning of the term.
“You can take a bunch of numbers and average them…” And you can average the averages. Each reduction in the data loses information and fidelity. If you average global mean land temperature over 20 or 30 years you will not see any pause or hiatus at all. Why working with raw data is always best unless your goal is to hide and miscommunicate information.
David Appell, I asked you about a hypothetical situation, because propagandists cannot – would NEVER say the word “stopped”, no matter what.
Your reply was “when it stopped”, which does not say how many years it would take for you to admit such a thing.
Hypothetically, and supposing you lived long enough, after how many years of no surface warming would you be able to admit that it stopped?
30 ? 60? 400?
>> Never-the-less, the lack of trend is real as evidenced by the land-ocean indices, the sea surface temperatures alone, and the MSU data. <<
Again, wrong. RSS has a zero trend over the last 15 years. But you have to ask why is it so different from UAH, which shows 0.20 C of warming over the last 15 years for the lower troposphere.
GISS shows 0.12 C of warming in 15 years; HadCRUT4 shows 0.10. (Sorry, Stephen, I haven't calculated what BEST shows.) You have to ask questions about the quality of the data, and why C&W's number is higher. Is it a better data model?
When observations disagree with theory, you have to carefully examine both, not just the theory.
You also have to ask if a 15-year trend says anything important about climate. In 2007 GISS's 15-yr warming was an anti-pause: 0.45 C. (Of course, contrarians then disputed the validity of the data. Now, though, the data is good enough to show a pause. Except when it isn't.) Is the current 15 yr slowdown any more meaningful than GISS's anti-pause in 2007? Does it matter that there was a 15-yr slowdown in the mid-1990s that was actually slower than the current slowdown?
>> Hypothetically, and supposing you lived long enough, after how many years of no surface warming would you be able to admit that it stopped? <<
There is no number — It depends on what else is going on in the climate system.
If you're trying to ask what it would take to no longer "believe" in CO2's enhanced greenhouse effect due to human emissions, the answer is never. That's a fact, so what remains is to explain the details of climate change in light of that fact.
David Appell said
“There is no number — It depends on what else is going on in the climate system.”
So you do not accept surface temperatures as the metric to use, as the metric that has been used, and continues to be used to say “global warming is happening”?
“If you’re trying to ask what it would take to no longer “believe” in CO2’s enhanced greenhouse effect…”
Not at all. My question is the bare question: “How many years of no surface warming – or even a cooling – would it take you to admit that global warming stopped?”
If you deny the validity of surface temperature measurements in order to say “warming”, then fine.
David Appell — I’ve seen many references to what period is or isn’t climatologically relevant, but I’ve never seen proof of how one knows what a relevant period is. Mostly it seems to be someone using a POOMA standard to refute some opinion on the other side.
Can you provide links to journal articles demonstrating how long a period must be in order to be climatologically relevant?
Thanks.
But I would note that you used only surface temps such as Cowtan and Way to reply “still warming”.
The opposite, to say “stopped warming ” suddenly prompted you to change metirics.
David in Cal said
” I’ve seen many references to what period is or isn’t climatologically relevant, but I’ve never seen proof of how one knows what a relevant period is.”
The propagandists will not even admit a 30 year period, a whole period according to custom.
Mosher, so which of the data sets integrate the temperature-time curves over each year in order to get the average annual temperature? And which use a simple average of two data points per day (Tmin and Tmax) which are never taken at the same exact time globally, and uses this non-physical variable to give a result called the average annual temperature?
“And yes, warmng will resume, since physics demands it.”
No, physics does not demand it. Physics only demands a warming *effect* from CO2, not actual warming.
The ” Earth’s surface temperature” is a myth. Which one do you mean? The “temperature” of the top of the soil/ice/ocean, averaged in some way over space and time? The “temperature” of the non-fluid surface for land, ice/ocean surface for nonland, including trunks, boughs, branches, twigs, and leaves flowers of trees/shrubs/brush, stems and leaves of grass, etc.? The radiative surface temperature which includes the atmosphere up to the top, along with clouds, dust, etc.
Those are different animals, and most of the wild talk (including many “thermodynamic” expositions) manage to confuse the different definitions.
If physics demand it David, then what keeps temperatures from running away every time CO2 rises?
>> If physics demand it David, then what keeps temperatures from running away every time CO2 rises? <<
Physics.
Based on your discussion below, whatever “meaning” it has isn’t really “physical”. At best it’s statistical/computational.
OK, but so what? The “average annual temperature of locations that are not used in the construction of the average” is still a meaningless number in terms of its physical representation of the real world. The “surface temperature” of any point of grassland, however measured/estimated/computed, cannot be compared, or added to, the “surface temperature” of any point of forest, or ice cover, or ocean. They have non-commensurate definitions.
Let me give you an analogy:
Jack has seven watermelons. Jill has two lemons. The “Global Redistribution Agency” takes two of Jack’s watermelons, and gives Jill three lemons.
This “Global Redistribution Agency” is clearly a good thing because it has increased both the total and average number of fruit collectively held by Jack and Jill. Right?
Makes just as much sense as a “global average temperature” used in thermodynamic arguments.
David Appel said:
” ‘If physics demand it David, then what keeps temperatures from running away every time CO2 rises? ‘
Physics.”
You’re contradicting yourself, David Appell.
If physics keeps temperatures from running away every time when CO2 rises, physics also can wreck your idea that temperature must rise because of anthro CO2.
What you’re doing is confusing ” a warming effect” with measured temperature rise.
Better to call it a “warming influence”. That might help you, David Appell.
“Mosher, so which of the data sets integrate the temperature-time curves over each year in order to get the average annual temperature? And which use a simple average of two data points per day (Tmin and Tmax) which are never taken at the same exact time globally, and uses this non-physical variable to give a result called the average annual temperature?”
1. It doesnt matter whether you integrate all 24 hours or integrate every minute or every second. or whether to average tmax and tmin.
the trend is invariant.
2. If you use the average of tmax and tmin the what you are predicting is that variable.
3. It is physical. You can clearly go out and test the prediction.
AK
It clearly has a physical meaning since you can test it in the physical world.
WRT thermodynamic arguments. My hair has physical meaning, but I would not use it in thermo arguments.
So, if your REAL argument is that the global temperature average has no real use in thermo arguments.. then make that argument.
I might agree. But to argue that a prediction has no physical meaning
when you can clearly test it, leaves you to explain how you can test something that is non physical.
In short. understand the temperature index for what it is and pick a different fight.. a more better fight.. like the metric isnt the best measure of the thermo system. then I might respect you. but to make the “its not physical” argument is just silly. because we can test it and have.
@Steven Mosher…
Nope. All sorts of abstract mathematical concepts can be tested “in the physical world.” That doesn’t necessarily mean they have “a physical meaning”. But that’s just a semantic quibble, and we could get lost endlessly in one of those. I meant it in the same sense Lindzen did: it doesn’t do anything.
Euclidean plane geometry could be tested (in, say, the Nile valley) 2300 years ago. That doesn’t mean it has “physical meaning”. That’s a matter of semantics.
That is my fight. Saying it doesn’t have physical meaning is tantamount to staking a semantic claim, forcing people to get into exactly what it can and can’t be used for. Now we can address the thermodynamic questions.
Which are typically taken for granted by most alarmists, until they’re forced to confront the limits of their “metric”.
>> So you do not accept surface temperatures as the metric to use <>.My question is the bare question: “How many years of no surface warming – or even a cooling – would it take you to admit that global warming stopped?” <<
Same answer: it depends on what else is going on in the climate system. The average global surface temperature could even decline and I'd give you the same answer. CO2 isn't the only factor that determines climate.
>> If physics keeps temperatures from running away every time when CO2 rises, physics also can wreck your idea that temperature must rise because of anthro CO2. <<
No, because the physics says that CO2 makes a greenhouse effect, and more CO2 makes more of a greenhouse effect. There's no question about this at all.
the million dollar question is, how much more?
Mosher says
“1. It doesnt matter whether you integrate all 24 hours or integrate every minute or every second. or whether to average tmax and tmin.
the trend is invariant.”
Citation for the paper that demonstrates this?
“15 years isn’t a climatologically relevant interval”
but
“warmng will resume, since physics demands it. It has already — the HadSST3 sea surface temperature for June was the highest of any month since 1850, and July’s was second-highest”
15 years? Not relevant. Two months, proof of thermageddon.
While you’re trying to figure out the definition of ‘acidify,’ you might want to also look up ‘irony.’ The unintentional kind.
Gary, I call the unintentional kind “clothes irony,” whereby you inadverdantly add wrinkles rather than remove them.
(Hmmm .. I’ll get me coat!)
David Appell said
“>>’If physics keeps temperatures from running away every time when CO2 rises, physics also can wreck your idea that temperature must rise because of anthro CO2. ‘<<
No, because the physics says that CO2 makes a greenhouse effect, and more CO2 makes more of a greenhouse effect. There's no question about this at all."
David, you're talking nonsense. Accepting that CO2 has a warming influence, nothing about that is different from any other warming or cooling influence. CO2 is not magic.
What you're saying is that you have no regard for what the temperature actually is doing when you say "it's warming"
It doesn't matter, you have your propaganda to spread.
David Appell, moreover, you know you’re talking nonsense, because you also said
“CO2 isn’t the only factor that determines climate.”
which negates your claim that is essentially “temperatures must be rising because CO2”.
Jock, call it what you will, but in comments on policy, I tend to use the phrase “whether or not warming resumes,” rather than make an assumption that it will or won’t, which seems to be an open question.
Jock — Methinks you are WAY wrong. But my reasoning was mis-posted as an independent comment @ 7:53 pm downthread. Regrets.
Joule Unlimited/Fuels news:
08/15/2014
Bedford, MA
Overcoming the limitations of photosynthesis, Joule has successfully co-opted nature’s primary energy capture process at unprecedented efficiencies for direct, continuous fuel production. This includes the engineering of a photosynthetic biocatalyst able to divert 95% of fixed carbon normally converted to biomass directly to fuel, and the industry first improvement of its photon energy conversion efficiency. This means that Joule has not only effectively re-channeled photosynthesis, but improved its overall energy capture efficiency by nearly 100% in outdoor testing at Joule’s demonstration facility in Hobbs, New Mexico.
…
http://www.jouleunlimited.com/joule-achieves-industry-first-100-increase-photosynthetic-efficiency
From Norway:
http://www.jouleunlimited.com/joule-present-transformative-climate-change-solution-arendal-week-solar-conversion-waste-co2-fuels
On unwanted guests:
…
In the industrial biotechnology field, the challenge of contamination is all too familiar. Uninvited organisms will compromise production and therefore must be prevented from growing where they don’t belong.
In the case of Joule, the fuels being secreted by our catalysts may readily be consumed by other organisms, leaving precious little for the gas tank. We’ve recently conquered this challenge with a unique approach to achieving an axenic environment, meaning that ours is the only organism to take up residence and thrive inside our closed system.
…
http://www.jouleunlimited.com/blog/conquering-contamination
“No — it’s a better model for measuring the Earth’s average surface temperature.”
And you know this because…???
Because it agrees well with the observations that it’s better than?
Hee-hee.
For a few reasons:
1) it uses satellite temperatures as a constraint.
2) It uses more information to infill regions with no temperature stations; whereas GISS and HadCRUT4 do it rather crudely.
2) it agrees better with theory.
..because it fits better with theory!
Shouldn’t that be the other way around?
Both theory and experiment/observations help to explain one another.
“Experimentalists will be surprised to learn that we will not accept any experimental evidence that is not confirmed by theory.”
— Arthur Eddington
I was really surprised to find out Goddard was using such a crude technique. But in any case the world surface temperature sure seems to have stopped rising during this century. I suspect there are quite a few things we don’t really know how to model and this is why the current trend was missed.
“So then you conclusion is that it’s impossible to measure *anything,* even the length of your finger.”
Tell you what, measure your finger length to the nearest 1200km, which is the NASA GISS smoothing radius and report what you get.
Where did you get that Eddington quote from? I’d like to see some context
Re: Eddington — I saw it at a presentation. If you know anything about Eddington’s career, its meaning should be obvious. (And even if you don’t.)
I can’t find that quote attributed to him anywhere except in a powerpoint presentation, without context.
And it doesn’t fit with what I know about Eddington – which is why I asked.
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Eddington.html
Eddington’s quote accords well with what I know from reading “The Life of Arthur Stanley Eddington” by Douglas Vibert and “Einstein’s Jury” by Jeffrey Crelinsten.
After all, Eddington did make his career by doing difficult and important measurements.
His quote is hardly a surprising conclusion. Here’s physicist Sean Carroll:
“Science is not merely armchair theorizing; it’s about explaining the world we see, developing models that fit the data. But fitting models to data is a complex and multifaceted process, involving a give-and-take between theory and experiment, as well as the gradual development of theoretical understanding in its own right.”
http://edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement
>> David, tell me exactly how your favorite temperature data set computes today’s temperature at a single location. Does it integrate the data under the time-temperature curve? <<
You know as well as I do. If you have a point, get to it.
>> Why should she have to answer? <<
Because it was her argument, and the question was a good one.
>> To use temperature as a proxy for energy you have to have an equilibrium condition or close to it. <<
This is precisely why so many people now see changes in ocean heat content as a far better metric of AGW than surface temperatures.
C&W did as best they could with surface temperatures, and their validation shows their method has some skill.
David Appell, “Because it was her argument, and the question was a good one.”
It would be a good question coming from an undergrad, but not from a thermodynamic/climate “expert”. If C&W want to play climate “expert” then they need to consider what caused their Eureka moment. Sudden Stratospheric warming, part of the Arctic winter warming process, are indications of global heat loss not “global” heat gain. A stable polar vortex helps retain “global” energy.
This is why there has been a shift from “surface” temperatures to ocean heat capacity as a better metric for “global warming”. Instead of trying to “fix” surface temperatures it might be better to try and understand surface temperatures.
Eddington’s quote: “It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory.”
As seen by David Appell: “Experimentalists will be surprised to learn that we will not accept any experimental evidence that is not confirmed by theory.”
Right on, David, that’s how alarmists manipulate and decide what to accept.
PS: And your opinion on C&W is what? And why?
The first thing I’d want in a model which purports to be better than measurements is measurements by which to check the model.
What measurements would those be?
Cowtan and Way did do this:
“Then they [C&W] compared their method’s skill in interpolation with that of the NASA and Hadley approaches in the Arctic by systematically removing known data and using each of the three techniques to reconstruct the data set. Cowtan says his and Way’s approach proved the most reliable, and data from Arctic buoys and three weather models support it.”
— “Climate Outsider Finds Missing Global Warming,” Eli Kintisch, Science vol 344 (25 April 2014)
-“SkS Kidz Find Missing Global Warming,”
Eli Kintisch, Science vol 344 (25 April 2014)
What measurements would those be?
Ex-actly!
>> Ex-actly! <<
So then you conclusion is that it's impossible to measure *anything,* even the length of your finger. Right.
If you want to find missing global warming, look in the places where there are no actual thermometers; the frigid deep sea abysses and the icy poles. Ain’t it funny that the missing heat is in the coldest places. And we should worry?
Judith’s view on Cowtan & Way.
Let’s take a look at the 3 methods they use to fill in missing data, primarily in Africa, Arctic, and Antarctic.
1.1. Kriging
2.2. UAH satellite analyses of surface air temperature
3.3. NCAR NCEP reanalysis
The state that most of the difference in their reconstructed global average comes from the Arctic, so I focus on the Arctic (which is where I have special expertise in any event).
First, Kriging. Kriging across land/ocean/sea ice boundaries makes no physical sense. While the paper cites Rigor et al. (2000) that shows ‘some’ correlation in winter between land and sea ice temps at up to 1000 km, I would expect no correlation in other seasons.
Second, UAH satellite analyses. Not useful at high latitudes in the presence of temperature inversions and not useful over sea ice (which has a very complex spatially varying microwave emission signature). Hopefully John Christy will chime in on this.
Third, re reanalyses in the Arctic. See Fig 1 from this paper, which gives you a sense of the magnitude of grid point errors for one point over an annual cycle. Some potential utility here, but reanalyses are not useful for trends owing to temporal inhomogeneities in the datasets that are assimilated.
So I don’t think Cowtan and Wray’s [sic] analysis adds anything to our understanding of the global surface temperature field and the ‘pause.’
The bottom line remains Ed Hawkins’ figure that compares climate model simulations for regions where the surface observations exist. This is the appropriate way to compare climate models to surface observations, and the outstanding issue is that the climate models and observations disagree.
>> Kriging across land/ocean/sea ice boundaries makes no physical sense. <<
I remember this. Several people asked her why is was any better to interpolate across a physical boundary, as the models currently do (if they do that), than to do kriging. She didn't answer.
David Appell | August 16, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
“I remember this. Several people asked her why is was any better to interpolate across a physical boundary, as the models currently do (if they do that), than to do kriging. She didn’t answer.”
On that basis would it be consistent to assume that you accept Judith’s points 2 and 3 as you didn’t comment on them.
But that would be unreasonable wouldn’t it?
David, tell me exactly how your favorite temperature data set computes today’s temperature at a single location. Does it integrate the data under the time-temperature curve?
>> On that basis would it be consistent to assume that you accept Judith’s points 2 and 3 as you didn’t comment on them. <<
No. Frankly, what she said in #1 seemed so wrong to me that it appeared she was looking for any excuse to dismiss C&W.
David Appell, “I remember this. Several people asked her why is was any better to interpolate across a physical boundary, as the models currently do (if they do that), than to do kriging. She didn’t answer.”
Why should she have to answer? If you are using temperature as a proxy for energy then you have physical limits you have to consider, latent heat loss/gain for example plus using anomalies you have to consider the energy associated with the change in temperature. C&W found that kriging surface air temperatures across a sea ice boundary that there was about a 5 C increase in the Arctic temperatures during winter primarily, related to Arctic Winter Warming. The winter temperatures increased from roughly -30C to -25C. which energy wise would be close a 17 Wm-2 increase in the surface energy from 70N to 90N, most of which would be lost to space. That energy is transported poleward which results in an anti-phase relationship. The lower latitudes cool, warming the higher latitudes which is not an equilibrium condition. To use temperature as a proxy for energy you have to have an equilibrium condition or close to it.
That is the zeroth law of thermodynamics. So should she have to explain basic thermodynamics to the climate change geniuses?
“Because it agrees well with the observations that it’s better than”
we know its better because.
1. it can be tested against bouy data.. it verified
2. it can be tested with out of sample data… verified
3. cross validation
4. it can be tested with OTHER satillite data (AIRS) that is independent
of the data used to construct it.
5. Its trends are consistent with the trends in Ice surface temperature over the same time period.
6. It’s consistent with polar amplification theory.
next
“6. It’s consistent with polar amplification theory.
next”
Predictions do not validate observations.
Observations validate ( or invalidate ) predictions.
>> Predictions do not validate observations.
Observations validate ( or invalidate ) predictions.<<
Both validate the other. If theory and observations disagree, you have to analyze both to see what's causing the discrepency. (This is so obvious I can't believe anyone denies it.) Science has had more than one occasion where experiment was found to be wrong because it didn't match theory (the most recent example I can think of is the "faster-than-light" neutrinos measured by Opera at CERN).
Time let me explain.
in hadcrut they dont infill data. the OPERATIONAL outcome of this
is that they impute a warming trend to the arctic that is equal to the global
average. Their model says that warming increases from the equator to 70N and then this warming REVERSES.
in GISS they infill by extrapolation. they imput a warming trend to the arctic that is dependent on the data at 70N and the same trend gets “copied” to the pole. Their model says polar amplification STOPs at 70N
in C&W they use information from satillites to inform the estimate north of 70N.
So, you are not comparing observations with models. you have three models.
Hadcrut model says polar amplification reverses ( based on NO data)
Giss model says the amplification stops or plataeus
C&W says it continues to the pole.
Now looking at these three models of polar temp, only one is consistent with other theory.
Here’s a clue.. there is no sharp line between data and theory.
“Here’s a clue.. there is no sharp line between data and theory.”
And that, ladies and gentlemen, in a nutshell, is the core belief of CAGW progressives everywhere. What exists in their mind is indistinguishable, to them, from reality.
David Appell said:
“Science has had more than one occasion where experiment was found to be wrong because it didn’t match theory (the most recent example I can think of is the “faster-than-light” neutrinos measured by Opera at CERN).”
Oh, my, David Appell. *Theory* did not *invalidate* anything there.
What happened is this: it was found wrong by retest.
“Earlier this month, a test run by a different group at the same Italian laboratory recorded neutrinos travelling at precisely light speed.”
David Appell said:
“Science has had more than one occasion where experiment was found to be wrong because it didn’t match theory (the most recent example I can think of is the “faster-than-light” neutrinos measured by Opera at CERN).”
[sigh]
David, it was not found wrong by not matching theory, it was found wrong by RE TEST.
>> Tell you what, measure your finger length to the nearest 1200km, which is the NASA GISS smoothing radius and report what you get. <<
You get the same 30-year trend as UAH LT. And just a little higher than RSS LT. Same as HadCRUT4.
What would you do, in GISS's situation? Just throw up your hands and say you can't do anything? In climate science, you rarely get the data you want — you have to make due with the data you can get, and develop methods to deal with that. GISS did that in one way, and Cowtan & Way did in a better way.
Yes, and history is rife with scientists coming to incorrect conclusions because they used the best dat they had rather than pursing the dat needed to make the correct conclusion.
What I would have scientist do is work on understanding what dat is required to understand the causes of temperature variability and then work to build the needed devices and network to collect that data.
It’s really ignorant to say “it’s the best we have so it’s what we have to use.”
“You get the same 30-year trend as UAH LT. And just a little higher than RSS LT. Same as HadCRUT4.”
Good – it’s almost as good as observations then.
>> Good – it’s almost as good as observations then. <<
These ARE the observations, once you run them through your data model (GISS, BEST, RSS, UAH etc).
Check that — the “observations” are, of course, the raw readings of the temperature sensor. The “data” are what you get when you run them through you model.
“Without models, there are no data.”
– Paul N Edwards, “A Vast Machine”
>> It’s really ignorant to say “it’s the best we have so it’s what we have to use.” <<
I completely disagree. Obviously any climate scientist would love to have an Arctic and Africa that's covered in sensors. But there are budget constraints. James Hansen fought for years to get a satellite to systematically measure aerosols, but he couldn't, and so inferior data has been used. There are budget contraints.
There are no thermometer readings from before about 1850, just proxies, so scientists do with them what they can, and present their results with the corresponding uncertanties. Even datasets since 1850 have holes, where stations failed or had to be moved or whatever — scientists developed techniques to deal with gaps as best they could.
In climate science you almost never get the data you really want. It's an observational science, not an experimental science. There is only one planet, and time is going only in one direction.,
“There are no thermometer readings from before about 1850”
Wrong.
wiki
“Although best efforts have been made by Manley and subsequent researchers to quality control the series, there are data problems in the early years, with some non-instrumental data used. These problems account for the lower precision to which the early monthly means were quoted by Manley. Parker et al. (1992) [1] addressed this by not using data prior to 1772, since their daily series required more accurate data than did the original series of monthly means; MBH98 only used data from 1730”
Thisisnotgoodtogo
As you rightly say there were thermometers well before 1850
I wrote of the rise of thermos copes and thermometers in this article
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-–-history-and-reliability/
See the section ‘early temperature devices’. Samuel Pepys had a thermometer in the 1650’s and the royal society in 1660 devised a means of More accurately recording temperatures.
The manley series used thermometers from a variety of places to get back to 1659 but used monthly data with a level of accuracy of around half a degree. I met up with David Parker last year at the met office. They seek accuracy greater than half a degree hence the use of daily data from 1772 but manleys method of using thermometers AND observational data such as diaries and crop records provides a very good record to 1659 that is verified from several different sources.
In my own reconstructions I recognise lambs observation on temperatures that ‘We can understand the tendency but not the precision.’
There were many attempts to create a global temperature through the use of corresponding stations that adhered to a common code of practice so these predate Giss by several hundred years.
For whatever treason MBH used data from 1730 thereby avoiding incorporating the huge temperature increase seen in the period 1695 to 1730 . This caused Phil jones to subsequently investigate this period and admit that natural variability was far greater than he had hitherto assumed
Tonyb
One — HadCET — started before 1850. But you can’t use it to estimate a average global temperature, can you?
David Appell said
“One — HadCET — started before 1850. But you can’t use it to estimate a average global temperature, can you?”
No set has complete coverage.
What did MBH use it for ? :)
Did Cowtan &Way do the Antarctic?
>> What did MBH use it for ? :) <> Did Cowtan &Way do the Antarctic? <<
Read the paper.
“>> What did MBH use it for ? :) Did Cowtan &Way do the Antarctic? <<
Read the paper."
I know the answers, David Appell. The questions were for you, to prompt you to re-evaluate your claims.
David Appell and his doppelgänger, Mosher.
Who would have thought.
I have a theory that David may not understand science. The data he provides suggests I am wrong, but as he states, the data is not important if it disagrees with the theory.
So I must be right as David says when the two do not agree the data/ facts must be wrong.
Thank you for agreeing with your impeccable logic, Dave.
On the issue of the pause, which is for varying periods of time, in the long used satellite and thermometer records these are real and obvious pauses whether one uses raw data or infilled data by these systems. Very few people other than die hard warmists David, Tamino, C and W, and Mosher deny there has been a pause in surface and near surface temperatures for a decade in these systems.
Because it does not fit with Theoryworld where they live, a new theory is made which fortunately does not need to agree with observed facts.
Let’s take a bit of the world where there are no thermometers (Mosher note none) . Because if you had any you could not do this trick.
Let’s take up a method, based on horse racing probability or finding gold, what’s it called, k-rigging? Or Cringing? Darn, cannot get that spelling rite.
Let’s infill the model with modelled data based on our well known previous beliefs.
C and W, warming, what a surprise!
And even better, because there are no real data sites, facts cannot interfere with theory,
A win,win win situation.
David says “I completely disagree”.
Yup, I figures that. However, that kind of ignorance is why the consensus was that stress caused ulcers. And that the sun revolved around the earth. And that…
While O’bumbler frets over keeping up with China and Europe when it comes to solar and wind, the real energy workhorse remains underfed in the US.
…
The government of India’s Department of Atomic Energy has announced that the 500 MWe Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) being constructed at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu is at an advanced stage of construction and commissioning, but will miss its September 2014 deadline for first criticality.
A report from local media NDTV said that the reactor would be commissioned in 2015.
“Being the first of its kind reactor being built completely indigenously in our country, some delays on account of the requirement of rigorous testing and qualification of all major equipment and sub-systems are anticipated,” said Jitendra Singh, union minister of state for Science and Technology and Ministry of Earth Sciences, in a statement.
…
http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsstart-up-of-indias-pfbr-delayed-4340186
The country’s three-stage nuclear programme is based on closed nuclear fuel cycle and thorium utilisation as it has the largest thorium deposits. “Fast reactors and related fuel cycles will be important for the long- term sustainability of nuclear power,” Chidambaram said. Talking about the Fukushima nuclear tragedy, Chidambaram said that it did not have much impact on the nuclear industry. “Currently, 73 new reactors are under construction,” he said.China is building 28 new reactors, while Pakistan is building two. He said India has taken up design of an indigenous 900 MW pressurised water reactor the construction of which is expected to be started within five years.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/DAE-Plans-to-Triple-N-power-by-2022/2014/08/09/article2370755.ece
I would build smaller reactors. Common sense tells me it’s safer and less costly. Large reactors don’t seem to have the benefit of scale as much as a detriment from lack of modularity.
rls on Electrify Africa,
From this link:
http://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/releases/release/menendez-corker-coons-isakson-markey-johanns-introduce-energize-africa-bill
This proposal is ridiculously vague. The only definite thing that I can see that it does is create another bureaucratic position: “a new inspector general for OPIC”.
Jim2 — Tell us what President Obama should have done (be doing) on nuclear power compared to say, what President Bush did. The DOE loan program allocated about 1/3 to solar, 1/3 to auto engine R&D, and 1/3 to nuclear (primarily the 2 Georgia Power units). Please correct me, but I don’t remember President Bush doing anything like this.
Also, I know you hate subsidies — could you give us your thoughts on Price Anderson?
SS – what difference does it make what Bush did or didn’t do? He’s not the President. Try to keep up with what’s going on currently.
If you are asking me something about Price Anderson, be specific.
The nuclear program in the US needs to be stepped up. Nothing you said or asked changes this in any way.
Stephen: Start with a reading of National Energy Policy (2001) http://www.wtrg.com/EnergyReport/National-Energy-Policy.pdf
Then consider that prior to Bush there had been no nuclear power plant construction and the approval process was long and tortureous; his administration put in place an expedited approval process and there were many construction plans being implemented when he left office.
wiki
“The nuclear renaissance of nuclear energy in America denotes the time period where political legislation was passed to promote the expansion of nuclear power in the United States. This second age started with the passing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which made significant changes in nuclear policy and funding options for nuclear energy.[dubious – discuss] Congress hoped this act would help encourage utility companies to install more reactors and build more nuclear plants to meet the demands of the country’s growing energy needs.[28]
Energy Policy Act of 2005
August 8, 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law shortly after it passed in the Senate by a 74-26 margin and in the House by a 275-156 margin. Its focus was to provide funding and tax breaks to producers and consumers alike.”
Jim2 — I think your links to what the U.S. “should” be considering with nuclear power were good & informative. I also believe your (and others like rls) constant comments on Liberals and Obama don’t show objectivity. For example,
(1) As you’ve challenged me on and I’ve previously provided info on, federal tax credit goodies on wind energy and new nuclear projects are very similar.
(2) You (and others) go crazy on Solyndra — but one-third of this DOE loan program goes to advance nuclear power (primarily Georgia Power’s 2 nuclear units).
(3) You don’t like subsidies for renewable energy, but are silent on subsidies to nuclear power — including perhaps the biggest subsidy through Price Anderson (although there are others, like tax credits and guarantees for cost over-runs).
(4) While there is much criticism (rightfully deserved) by CE Bloggers on CAGW Alarmists, very little is mentioned that Industry and Republicans do the same thing (as they’ve done previously on so many things like Acid Rain, ozone hole, etc.). Obama’s GW regs have not even been written yet and here we go with Alarmism: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/aug/14/fact-checks-obama-coal-rules-carbon-politics/
(5) Obama has done some “positive” things — like playing hardball with the auto industry to double MPGs (by I believe 2025?)
@Stephen Segrest | August 17, 2014 at 7:45 am |
(1) As you’ve challenged me on and I’ve previously provided info on, federal tax credit goodies on wind energy and new nuclear projects are very similar.
*****
You haven’t “provided” me with anything I didn’t already know about subsidies.
(2) You (and others) go crazy on Solyndra — but one-third of this DOE loan program goes to advance nuclear power (primarily Georgia Power’s 2 nuclear units).
*****
PROVIDED the US implements a 0% corporate tax, there should be no subsidies for oil, coal, solar, wind, or most other forms of energy.
(3) You don’t like subsidies for renewable energy, but are silent on subsidies to nuclear power — including perhaps the biggest subsidy through Price Anderson (although there are others, like tax credits and guarantees for cost over-runs).
****
I am for the Federal government streamlining the evaluation and licensing process. I am OK with the Price Anderson indemnity Act. And I can live with the contradiction.
(4) While there is much criticism (rightfully deserved) by CE Bloggers on CAGW Alarmists, very little is mentioned that Industry and Republicans do the same thing (as they’ve done previously on so many things like Acid Rain, ozone hole, etc.). Obama’s GW regs have not even been written yet and here we go with Alarmism: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/aug/14/fact-checks-obama-coal-rules-carbon-politics/
*****
Barry should leave coal alone. It’s already on its back due to cheap and plentiful nat gas. The last thing we need is more Federal regulation. It is already beyond ridiculous.
(5) Obama has done some “positive” things — like playing hardball with the auto industry to double MPGs (by I believe 2025?)
*****
This will just make transportation more expensive for the poor and middle class.
Stephen: I have never mentioned Obama and have only described liberals/progressives in terms of factual demographics. But I will not sue you for libel.
One thing that the Federal government should do to promote nuclear power is to buy a couple of islands out in the middle of nowhere. One island would be the “control room” island and the other the test bed.
Then build a dozen inexpensive containment vessels. These would be used as test beds for new designs. One regulatory requirement would be to physically demonstrate a meltdown won’t occur. How to do this would depend on design. But for water cooled reactors, which I don’t like, it would be to shut down coolant with the reactor running flat out.
This way, we would have practical, empirical assurance that a meltdown isn’t possible.
Stephen: Regarding your question on electrification, I’m not knowledgeable about third world needs and solutions but a quick search shows that a bipartisan bill passed the house in May and is now in committee in the senate. It’s the Electrify Africa Act of 2014. Also the World Bank has the Africa Electrification Initiative. The house bill is cosponsored by many Democrats but allows for least expensive energy sources; let’s see how this plays out in the Senate. Is CAGW going prevent third world progress?
Jim — Why the snide @ BHO? Axlerod & Co. were thick with the nuclear industry in their region, got loan assistance for Vogtle & Summer in the ’09 recovery $, and both Chu and Monitz are N-fans. The president is a pol, and has to dance with them what brang him, to a degree.
Better than the R’s, who live in mortal fear of that primaried Carolina Congressman, and are cowed to utter silence. And the lilly-livered Wall Streeters. Mark Twain said a cat what once sat upon a hot stove would never set on another, hot or cold, but they have disproportionate influence upon both our politics and investment architecture. I agree we’ve been stuck on stupid since 1979, and appreciate your cite on Indian doings, but find that first crack off target.
Dave, you don’t seem to realize that by and large what you call “Wall Streeters” are Dimowits. I know it seems incongruous, and I personally don’t understand why for the life of me, but it’s an unfortunate fact. This is demonstrated by the donations of record to the two parties.
I don’t believe my comments vis a vis O’bumbler are off the mark. He and the Dimowits have been in power for eight years. They own the tepid economy, the various disasters in the Middle East, the soaring debt (and they have contributed more than any other), the health care socialist mess, the militarization of the police, the IRS political crimes, and the NSA spying on everyone.
They own it.
Dave: The Republican party, with influence from the maligned tea party movement, is turning against crony capitalism and against “too big to fail” wallstreet. It’s a new road and will be slow going, but the first step will be to allow the Ex-Im Bank to die this September, a move that is upsetting to Democrats.
It’s way past time to get rid of the Ex-Im Bank.
Jim2 — Under your logic then, does Obama then”OWN” the fact of dramatic increases (unparalleled in U.S. history) in domestic oil production?
Jim2 and rls — What would then be your ideas on how the U.S. should help the financing of electrification projects in poor developing countries?
SS – O’bumbles does partially own the oil and nat gas boom – by way of at least staying out of it regulation-wise. I’ll give him credit for that.
As far as helping bring electricity to poor countries, we need to get our debt in order before we “help” anyone else.
So…
How ’bout that El Nino bust?
What happened in years past when El Nino terminated pre-maturely?
It would depend on the nature of ENSO neutral.
Nothing has terminated. The prediction has been for an EL Nino in NH fall. It’s August. ONI has negative most of the year. It’s now positive, barely. The PDO is positive, and the AMO has been moving sharply positive. Which is why the SAT for the first 6 months of the year is very warm. If ONI remains positive for the rest of the year, but short of EL Nino, it could be record warmest year. Getting to that does not require an El Nino.
Well, the westerly wind anomalies switched back.
It sure looks to have aborted already.
What is the jet stream doing? I’m wondering if the fizzled el nino/positive PDO (warm northern pacific) might lead to arctic ice forming due to weak polar vortex/jet stream anomalies moving precip to the arctic.
NOAA PDO through August I think:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/pdo-5-pg.gif
Is JISAO the better index?
El Niño still a possibility for 2014
Issued on Tuesday 12 August 2014 | Product Code IDCKGEWW00
The Pacific Ocean has shown some renewed signs of El Niño development. Some warming has occurred in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean in the recent fortnight, due to a weakening of the trade winds. If the trade winds remain weak, more warming towards El Niño thresholds is possible. – BOM
‘The Bureau’s ENSO Tracker remains at WATCH status. This means the chance of an El Niño developing in 2014 is at least 50%, which is double the normal likelihood of an event. Five of the eight climate models surveyed by the Bureau suggest El Niño is likely for spring. However, if El Niño were to occur, it is unlikely to be a strong event.’ http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Still a likelihood? LMFAO
The pause is at an end?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2014_v5.png
In what freakin’ sense?
JCH heat is the cause of the positive AMO , not the AMO causing heat. Why that area, who knows. Cold is the cause of the Antarctic record extents again why is it so cold down South, no one knows.
The ONI is only part of the equation, If the Antarctic and Arctic freeze up even more for the rest of the year we could equally see a result of 2014 not making the top 10.
Currently I think it is 5th or 6th on most scales and unlikely to move up to challenge 1st place and slightly more likely to drop down a couple of notches.
The pause thickens.
How has potential for el Nino changed. If there is an el Nino this winter and polar vortex anomalies, will weather behave differently? How will the el nino jet stream forcing and weak polar vortex interplay?
I wonder if this is how arctic sea ice periodically recharges.
Could change, of course, but it’s looking dead or dying for this year:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/jsdisplay/plots/gif/uwnd_sst_iso20_anom_mon_nocap.gif
Or perhaps an el nino isn’t even necessary, maybe the warm waters in the north pacific are enough to fuel arctic precip if the jet stream does the right thing. Where do the remnants of a fizzled el nino go anyway?
I’ve been wonder if sea ice might have a saw tooth pattern, a few super charging events followed by slow decrease.
I also wonder if co2 may do something similar reverse, which wouldn’t get picked up in ice cores.
there are no remnants of an EL Nino
El Nino conditions have not existed on earth since the early months of 2010. There was a brief period of positive ONI in the summer of 2012.
For most of 2014 ONI has been closer to La Nina. It’s now +0.1, which is a long way from El Nino.
Despite all of these factors working against warmth, 2014 is warm to date.
I was thinking of the kelvin waves that we supposed to initiate the el nino,
Rob could do this better but
We were on track for an El Nino this year, 3 consecutive overlapping 3 month series >0.5 but it fizzled. So no El Niño this year at the moment.
The odds on an El Niño occurring starting in the next 4 months at 50% is a bit of a swizz by the bureau of meteorology.
The ONI is currently 0.25 degrees above the mean. The Bureau of Meteorology converts that into a 50% chance of an El Niño in the next 4 months. We have had 5 such levels in the last 5 years and none of them turned into an El Niño.
The April 2010 level was in an El Niño that was settling down.
We have had 15 or 16 -0.25 events in that time which would predict a 50% chance of a La Niña in the following 4 months and only had 2.
The Bureau seriously needs to adjust its algorithm as the odds 2 out of 20 strongly suggest it is only a 10 % chance of developing an El Niño at 0.25 positive anomaly but that is alarmism and the need to over report risk to make a living for you.
I need help with a debate I am having in which the other guy is pointing to what he says is proof that Dr. Curry is not on the level. In a post in “Ocean heat content uncertainties” Dr. Curry said “The only data set that appears to provide support for ocean sequestration is the ocean reanalysis…”
But my friend says that Lyman and Johnson 2013’s dataset is observational, not a reanalysis, and contradicts this. From that study:
“In recent years, from 2004 to 2011, while the upper ocean is not warming, the ocean continues to absorb heat at depth (e.g., Levitus et al. 2012; von Schuckman and Le Traon 2011),here estimated at a rate of 0.56 W m-2 when integrating over 0-1800 m.”
Any comments?
This might help:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/22/are-the-deep-oceans-cooling/
Deep ocean and abyssal ocean are not necessarily the same thing.
It doesn’t, really. I’m looking for some reason why Lyman and Johnson does not provide observational support for ocean sequestration, supporting Dr. Curry’s statement.
I think this chart at what I linked to some wind out of some sales:
Hansen 2005 1993-2003 0.86 +/- 0.12
Lyman 2010 1993-2008 0.64 +/- 0.11
von Schuckmann 2011 2005-2010 0.54 +/- 0.1
Wunsch 2014 1992-2011 0.2 +/- 0.1
Notice that Wunsch has the largest error bars when compared the change number. His error bars are 50% of the change.
As usual this week, the news conforms to the Standard Model of Climate Science”:
Perhaps the most significant finding this week in support of the Standard Model of Climate Science is
Conclusion Evidence for the Standard Model of Climate Science continues to strengthen.
*THAT’S* obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
Yes there is now a standard model of climate. The evidence for it is very strong. The real questions to be asked are, given AGW, why is the climate changing as it is — questions like why is Antarctic sea ice increasing in an AGW-world, why has there been a 15-year slowdown in surface warming in an AGW-world, what is the value of climate sensitivity, how will clouds react etc etc.
The theory isn’t going back in the bottle, any more than is quantum mechanics, general relativity, or classical thermodynamics. These form a base from which you move forward. Same with AGW.
One of the standard models of atmospheric physics was created by the skeptics fave Richard Lindzen. But now the model that he built his reputation on over 40 years ago is being called into question:
http://contextearth.com/2014/08/15/change-of-tide-in-thought/
fan
Linked to your item on Antarctic ice mass loss was this later study
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~lenae101/pubs/Wouters2013.pdf
It points out that natural ice sheet variability is the most likely reason for the small variation and that the GRACE record is too short for any meaningful data to be gleaned from it.
As for sea level temperature I would point out that I heard Thomas stocker say at a climate conference organised by the Met office that we do not have the technology to monitor the temperatures of the deeper oceans.
Sea levels reached a high point around 1550 to 1600 then ice was locked up until around the last few decades of the 1700″s when it started to melt again following the temperature rise we can observe from the first few decades of the 1700’s.
Arctic Polar ice melts frequently and this can be observed during the !WP, the early 1500’s, the mid few decades of the 19 th century and the period 1920 to 1950. It possibly melted in the first few decades of the 1700’s but that requires a further visit to the Scott polar institute in Cambridge to confirm or refute this.
So climate changes rather frequently throughout history without pause or obvious limit.
It is a pleasure to provide these weekly history lessons for you Fan.
Tonyb
@ Tonyb
“So climate changes rather frequently throughout history without pause or obvious limit.”
And, more to the point, without any noticeable global catastrophe.
Tonyb
Also a pleasure to read the history lesson from a more objective perspective.
Thanks.
Scott
Standard model of climate? There is a dinosaur model of AGW and the new climate paradigm of abrupt climate change. The 2 are utterly incompatible. One is right and one is wrong.
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.
The theory of abrupt climate change is the most modern – and powerful – in climate science and has profound implications for the evolution of climate this century and beyond. Small changes in greenhouse gases, solar intensity or orbital eccentricity push the system past thresholds. The climate response is internally generated – with changes in cloud, ice, dust and biology – and proceeds at a pace determined by the system itself. The old theory of climate suggests that warming is inevitable. The new theory suggests that global warming is not guaranteed and that climate surprises are inevitable.
The ability to predict the future reliably is massively overstated. Both models and climate are multiply coupled, nonlinear systems. Climate prediction is theoretically impossible. Attribution of recent – and indeed ancient warming – is impossible without understanding the changeable role of clouds, dust, ice and vegetation.
The empirical proof is that climate chaotically shifted last around the turn of the century – and the planet is thus is unlikely to warm for 2 to 4 decades at the least. Beyond that the only guarantee is surprises – and in the mean time the continued science denial insanity of the three amigos above and their ilk.
Our real sin however – steeped in rational political and economic theory – is a fundamental opposition to energy taxes and caps. Taxes and caps are – at any rate – much more clearly a failure than a success. The alternative is and always has been fast mitigation and adaption options using development and economic growth strategies ultimately linked to population, land use, ecological restoration, building organics in agricultural soils and reducing methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone and black carbon emissions. Along with investments in energy innovation.
The only important questions left – it seems to me – is where the real denial, delay and obfuscation is coming from and why?
Rob, I fear that it will be some time before politicians catch up with any paradigm shift.
You say that “Climate prediction is theoretically impossible,” “the planet is thus unlikely to warm for 2 to 4 decades at the least” and “beyond that the only guarantee is surprise.” I’m not qualified to assess your comment on the next four decades, but I strongly agree with the difficulties in prediction and the certainty that the future will surprise us. Given that, I’m not clear as to the basis of your comment that “Our real sin however – steeped in rational political and economic theory – is a fundamental opposition to energy taxes and caps,” especially as you then say, sensibly, that “Taxes and caps are – at any rate – much more clearly a failure than a success.” The implication of the first sentence is that energy taxes and caps are required as a prerequisite for your mitigation/adaptation approach. I can’t see the logical link, nor am I sure what you are implying with your sentence on “real denial, delay and obfuscation.”
Note that I am not questioning your approach outlined as “The alternative … energy mitigation,” I’m just a bit confused about the points I raised.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Michael,
If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades. Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing. However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained. The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature. https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
The science is utterly obvious. We are in a cool mode and these persist for 20 to 40 years. Nor is it guaranteed that the next shift will be to yet warmer.
I meant to suggest that sin of sceptics against climate orthodoxy was to reject taxes and caps.
And that the science has moved on actual science denial is from the three amigos, actual progress on mitigation and adaptation results from progressive intransigence of the climate religion and that obfuscation is their only recourse. The last seemingly self delusion founded in cognitive dissonance.
Rob — Thanks for that one. A rather powerful bunch of words.
Objective Polls vs Biased Questions
Poll Shows People Just Don’t Care about Global Warming
If it is properly explained to Americans that the next logical step would be to enforce vicious sweeping restrictions on car use, then we probably don’t need an opinion poll to gauge their reactions.
michael hart
Yes. Then eliminate all swimming pools, air conditioners, freezers, and refrigerators towards achieving 80% reduction in CO2 emissions –
Then rid the land of all those “dark satanic mills”, including all oil refineries and all gasoline/diesel powered transport.
Consequently, no $ for social security or Obamacare.
Otherwise put the $ into RD&D in to develop sustainable liquid fuels and power that is cheaper than oil and coal fired power.
Simple calculation on the Earth’s core magnetic data shows that the Earth’s rate of rotation increases between peaks of even and odd sunspot cycles, and vice versa. i.e. slows down between peaks of odd and even cycles, forming ~ 22 year cycle, synchronous and in phase with the solar Hale cycle (the LOD change is inverse to the above).
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/01/05/59/16/PDF/LODvsSSN.pdf
Other significant periodicities are those of the ENSO and Indian monsoon.
https://github.com/mjbommar/scotus-predict
Big oil? No. Koch Brothers? No. “1%ers” looking to rule the world? In someone mind perhaps;
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/16/billionaire-climate-activist-wants-to-educate-all-of-you-stupid-unsophisticated-hicks/
“Koch brothers group vows more anti-Common Core spending in Tennessee,” The Tennessean, 8/13/14
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2014/08/13/koch-brothers-group-vows-anti-common-core-spending-tennessee/14012641/
The more, the better.
Thanks Koch brothers.
But left-wing billionaire propagandist hacks are o.k. David? Where is the class-war meme for them?
DA Common core: Thank god for small favors and thank the Kock brother for having the courage to oppose such a vicious, obnoxious, authoritarian stupidity as Common Core.
You’re not a fan of discourse, you are a fan of ignoring information that doesn’t fit CAGW. For example, why have ice ages and interglacials begun and ended for millions of years without any human contributions? If you can’t answer that simple question, you cannot be certain that any climate change occurring now is natural or man-made. The documented contributions of man-made CO2 on global temperature are trivial in quantity, at least three orders of magnitude less than daily and seasonal temperature differences everywhere in the world. That they have caused any effects at all would be regarded unacceptably speculative in any other field of science. This is not an uninformed opinion, but is based on 30 years as a biomedical scientist with more than 115 peer-reviewed publications. My concern is that the lack of objectivity and the advocacy practiced by some climate scientists will decrease public respect (and funding) for all science.
Corrections, criticisms and comments would be appreciated on this one-page concluding note:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/The_FORCE.pdf
A short description would help the appropriate audience decide to click the link.
Thanks, “The Life Force”
The conclusions are ancient:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ7pSQCE22I
This is the correct video for the center of our galaxy:
Oliver, I’ve often commented on the fact that all existence consists of sub-atomic particles arising and passing away at great rapidity (10 pwr 22 times per second from Luis Alverez’ “bubble chamber” experiments); that there is at core only energy and vibration.
I can see no reason to conclude from this that “We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind.” Nor can I see any need for such an assumption. Reality is reality, why add layers of speculation?
What you can conclude is that existence is a process of constant change, nothing to cling to, no ego, no ongoing entity, no reason for attachment. And a minor point, that climate, like everything else, is part of this changing process.
I agree, “there is only energy and vibration at the cores of atoms, stars, galaxies and the universe.
“Climate, like everything else, is part of this changing process.”
CHAOS and FEAR of nuclear annihilation frightened world leaders into assuming for themselves the power of total control of the world in late August 1945
Their chance of success is absolute zero ! We can’t defeat them, but we can assure them absolutely that they will be defeated.
Faustino sees no reason for the discoverer of energy quanta, Nobel Laureate Max Planck, to conclude in 1944: “We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind.”
It is intriguing that Bill Wilson independently arrived at much the same conclusion five years earlier in 1939: “When, however, the perfectly logical assumption is suggested that underneath the material world and life as we see it, there is an All Powerful, Guiding, Creative Intelligence, right there our perverse streak comes to the surface and we laboriously set out to convince ourselves it isn’t so.”
Does Faustino agree with Bill Wilson’s conclusion: “Were our contentions true, it would follow that life originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere.”
People are ornery and willful critters, harder to herd than cats. It is important for the climate change policy formulators to keep this in mind. While viewing the many intelligent comments on “The Precautionary Principle,” in the posting this week, I was reminded of several facets of the related “Law of Unintended Consequences”. Those are the Peltzman Effect and the Forbidden Fruit Syndrome. Both concepts are founded on observations of common human behavior and can be highly relevant to the success of climate change policy decisions, both for the regulator camp and the mitigation camp.
Inadequate summaries of the two concepts might be, “Risk reduction policies can lower people’s perception of risk, leading them to take actions that increase their risks, often shifting the risks to others,” and “Tell people something is bad for them and the behavior becomes more attractive to a certain segment of the population.”
I guess that might explain why so many climate activists have to fly such great distances to conferences in toasty places like Rio.
Re Cowtan and Way.
Back in 2010 when it was widely heralded by CAGWers that the Arctic ice was about to disappear completely – yawn – Verity Jones (2010_ wrote this article. It seems odd that actual measurements of Arctic temps don’t show something we could call a persistent increase. Furthermore, it seems the current rebound of Arctic ice was actually predicted. A rarity in “climate science.”
From the article:
Arctic Ice Rebound Predicted
Guest post by Verity Jones, Watts Up With That
Man is not the primary cause of change in the Arctic says book by Russian scientists.
Forget the orthodox view of Arctic climate change – this book has a very different message. (h/t to WUWT commenter Enneagram)
Published last year, this is a synthesis of work by the Russian Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI). It sets out the data and experience of scientists over 85 years, drawing together much already published in the area. For a book that is billed under a climate change heading, this is actually more an antidote to the hype usually associated with warming in the Arctic. A few pages of each chapter are available on-line and even that is well worth reading; no doubt even better in its entirety.
…
It is particularly interesting what they say about Arctic air temperatures (Chapter 4). “Periodic cooling and warming events are evident in air temperature fluctuations in the Arctic during the 20th century, similar to changes in ice cover.” A cool period at the beginning of the 20th century was followed by what is commonly referred to as the “Arctic Warming Period” in the 1920s-1940s. Relative cooling was widespread between the late 1950s to late 1970s, followed by the current warming period peaking in recent years. Gridded average temperature anomalies for 70-85N produce a curve that fits a polynomial trend to the sixth power and the cycle periodicity is 50-60 years (Figure 4.1). Other indicators in Arctic and Antarctic support this cycle and show its global nature. On the subject of polar amplification, whereby weather and climate variability increase with latitude, a number of models and explanations are discussed. None of these involve CO2.
…
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/arctic_ice_rebound_predicted/
If Cowtan and Way found the “missing” warming, then poor poor Kev, eh?
Were not the same propagandists heralding Kev’s “discovery” of the missing heat?
What’s amazing is that none of these things used to be mysterious. Receding Arctic ice in the 1920s, thin ice at the pole in the late 1950s, temp plunge in the 1960s, much ice in the 1970s…everybody knew it. I know that since the Hockeystick the wildest revisions of history are possible, but, really, where did this notion of a stable Arctic come from? It was an impossible sell – but they sold it, and not to the least educated. Just read the Guardian on any day.
(One notes also that certain Russians have renewed their interest in warm-water ports. Maybe the poor silly luvs don’t have our state-of-the-art climate science.)
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
That sums up left-wing media and academic history departments rather well.
“There are only three places that Russia can directly trade with the wider world: the Pacific (Vladivostok), the Baltic (St. Petersburg) and the Black Sea (Crimea). It is this Russian obsession with warm water ports that has driven its expansionism for hundreds of years. Even the post-World War II expansion into eastern Europe was less an advance of communism than a way to make those vital trade routes more secure.”
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/russias_aggression_is_really_a.html
Back in the 70s, this was one of my high school history teacher’s points.
Besides increased economic efficiency and reduced shipping fuel usage, Arctic ice loss might lead to world peace.
Check out the Russian Data on warming in the Arctic.
That ol’ see-sawing climate, so inconvenient..
H/t tony brown.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Arctic_1920_40.htm
Interesting.
As one of those “best modellers around” might say: Don’t be a girlie climatologist!
I love it when climate experts take it to the edge and use powerful terms like “ocean acidification”. None of your sissy “ocean pH”.
Of course, a super-expert (we’re talking upper-upper echelon of topness and bestness) will eventually come up with terms like “ocean vinegarification” or maybe “ocean lemonification”. It’s why they’re paid the big grant dollars.
Climate experts these days also have to be great ” science communicators” – as we know.
>> I love it when climate experts take it to the edge and use powerful terms like “ocean acidification” <<
The ocean is acidifying. So why not use that term?.
What about citrifying?
Seriously David, I accept that our vast, if understandable, ignorance of oceans will never keep the climatariat from their dogmatising. In fact, the ignorance makes the dogmatising effortless.
Long term study of ocean pH – free of the computer based religious hysteria called, mystifyingly, climate science – would be mighty handy, as would lots of other things. But you need adults for that.
There are good reasons not to.
1/ it often results in misuse
National Geographic
“The Acid Sea”
The carbon dioxide we pump into the air is seeping into the oceans…”
2/ The terms are not well understood, terms such as “alkaline” as opposed to “acidic” in pH. Easily morphed into Acidity/Alkalinity. Alkalinity, though, is not about pH.
Merriam Webster:
acid·i·fy verb \-ə-ˌfī\
1: to make acid
2: to convert into an acid
Oxford English:
verb (acidifies, acidifying, acidified)
Make or become acid:
thefreedictionary.com
a·cid·i·fy (-sd-f)
tr. & intr.v. a·cid·i·fied, a·cid·i·fy·ing, a·cid·i·fies
To make or become acid.
The Climatologists’ Lexicon
acidify verb
whatever the hell we want it to mean
What is the pH of the ocean David? When will it be below 7.0? What has to happen for it to be below 7.0?
Will that happen in a year? In 2, 10, 25, 50?
So, David Appell. Is the pH of the ocean less than 7? If not, it ain’t an acid. (Hint: it’s a base – and one might say you are off base.)
David’s just an ascerbic Appell.
Or did I mean to spell ascorbic?
Perhaps I should learn to be more neutral with my comments.
…and less vitriolic.
I looked up “acidification” on Wikipedia and found a link to “soil acidification.” I wonder what why those soil scientists are trying to scare everyone with such an alarmist term?
Why would they talk of soil acidification, I wonder? Mmmm…
Because some soil is acid, acidic or acidified….unlike the ocean?
Not that ocean pH, like temp, doesn’t go up and down. Weird claims from models aside…surface sea mildly basic, blurry average around 8.1? Varying maybe 0.3, from place to place and time to time?
I’m sure that, wherever and whenever the pH is down rather than up, our climatariat will be right on the case. It’s what they do.
Have no fear. If they start to get higher readings from somewhere, I promise not to write a book called Our Caustic Oceans.
David Appell: “The ocean is acidifying. So why not use that term?”
This is a perfectly appropriate usage.
“Acidification” simply means an increase in [H+]. You all remember from high school chemistry that the pH scale is defined as -log10[H+]
So an decrease in pH from one level to another, at any point along the scale, is “acidification.”
It’s a bit like saying “the ocean is cooling.” This may describe a trend or process, not a state. The ocean may go from 28C to 25C, so it has “cooled.” But is it “cold?” Depends what you define as “cold.”
This is a common problem – confusing a process (addition of acid) with a threshold “state” (pH of 7).
The ocean, even under the most extreme estimates of future emissions trajectories, is highly unlikely to reach a pH of less than 7. It will acidify, but not be “acid,” if that makes sense to you.
But many of the biological and geochemical shifts we anticipate are likely to kick in at well above that pH of 7. This is one of important insights of the work of experiments like those of Chris Langdon, Jean-Pierre Gatusso, Jelle Bijma, and others.
Again I have to stress describing phenomena, and understanding the underlying processes is not the same as making the value judgement that they’re “good” or “bad,” much less “catastrophic.” I think a lot of commentary gets hung up on words like “catastrophic”, “dangerous”, “threat.”
That’s a discussion that I think should be separated from “what’s happening and what’s causing it?”
“Acidification” simply means an increase in [H+].”
Of course it does. Just drop a spoonful of bicarb into a vat of hydrochloric and you’ve acidified it.
“Acidification” is also an example of “science communication”. Science communicators study ocean acidification. Scientists (remember those old guys?) study ocean pH.
mosomoso “Long term study of ocean pH – free of the computer based religious hysteria called, mystifyingly, climate science – would be mighty handy”
Here are three recent studies that come to mind just off the top of my head.
You’re welcome.
Dore, J. E., R. Lukas, D. W. Sadler, M. J. Church, and D. M. Karl (2009), Physical and biogeochemical modulation of ocean acidification in the central North Pacific, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(30), 12235-12240, doi:10.1073/pnas.0906044106.
“We document a significant long-term decreasing trend of -0.0019 ± 0.0002 y-1 in surface pH, which is indistinguishable from the rate of acidification expected from equilibration with the atmosphere. Superimposed upon this trend is a strong seasonal pH cycle driven by temperature, mixing, and net photosynthetic CO assimilation. We also observe substantial interannual variability in surface pH, influenced by climate-induced fluctuations in upper ocean stability.”
Olafsson, J., S. R. Olafsdottir, A. Benoit-Cattin, M. Danielsen, T. S. Arnarson, and T. Takahashi (2009), Rate of Iceland Sea acidification from time series measurements, Biogeosciences, 6(3), 2661–2668
“surface pH in winter decreases at a rate of 0.0024 yr−1, which is 50% faster than average yearly rates at two subtropical time series stations, BATS and ESTOC.”
Midorikawa, T., H. Y. Inoue, M. Ishii, D. Sasano, N. Kosugi, G. Hashida, S.-i. Nakaoka, and T. Suzuki (2012), Decreasing pH trend estimated from 35-year time series of carbonate parameters in the Pacific sector of the Southern Ocean in summer, Deep Sea Res. Part I, 61, 131-139, doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2011.12.003.
“mean rates of pH decrease over the 35-year period were 0.0011 to 0.0013 yr−1 in the zones north of the Polar Front and were larger in the polar zone (0.0020 yr−1)”
Oh dear, ocean acidification sounds so scary
but, but, if the average pH of the ocean drops to 7.8
from 8.1 by 2100 as has been predicted, it will still be
well above 7, the point where alkaline becomes acidic.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203550304577138561444464028
No, Mosomoso.. Here is the definition:
Another realm of discourse where quantitative exactness clarifies: ocean pH is about 7.7 +/- 0.3 (different figures emerge from different studies, but it is not constant, and it is slightly alkaline.) More CO2 may change it to about 7.4 +/- 0.3. Still slightly alkaline. Nowhere will ocean pH match the vinegar that the director of EPA used in her famous presentation to Congress. Other acids cause deeper drops in pH, especially sulfurous compounds in runoff and from the deep vents, but those are localized.
Because its alkaline.
If you call the salty ocean acid why should I trust aanything you ever say?
Because it’s a lie? That might be too strong a word. How about because it’s propagandistic? To the general public, acidification means becoming an acid and that is associated with battery acid and acid burns. It carries a connotation of terrible things even though the use of the word might not denote those things. If CO2 is being taken up by the ocean it is not becoming more corrosive or acidic but more neutral. Completely different set of connotations and not of the alarming kind which is why True Believers in the Church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming love using acidification. It’s yellow journalism at best.
Yes, I knew a few people were taking an interest in ocean pH, some even for reasons of scientific curiosity. Let’s hope that Publish-or-Perish and the dictates of the climatariat don’t hold them back. I dare say after many decades of observation they’ll know a little bit. Of course, in the Age of Hockeystick, they’ll have to be careful what they observe.
mosomoso “Just drop a spoonful of bicarb into a vat of hydrochloric and you’ve acidified it.”
The bicarb would tend to neutralise the acid, not “acidify” it. “bicarb” or bicarbonate ( HCO3- ) is what known as “amphoprotic.” Can accept or donate a proton.
Pronoun confusion, Will. I meant the hydrochloric would acidify the bicarb. Repeating your own point, but with spoons and vats. That was just to inform that most of us already know what pH involves.
Of course, drop a spoonful of vinegar into a vat of caustic and by your own reasoning you have acidified the caustic. (I’d settle for saying you have lowered the vat’s pH to a very tiny degree.)
Of course, this is just mucking about over terms, but it’s sometimes worth mucking about. The almost pointless expression “climate change” (climate IS change, right?) has been hijacked by people who know they only have to get those words said or inserted into discussion – because the words are now so well loaded. (And if the discussion is not going well, they can just fall back on the original common meaning and say nothing was implied beyond that.)
There are certain terms which alarmists like and repeat signal-fashion, the verbal equivalents of polar bears. Acidification is a good’un, and you’d have to take it from their cold dead hands.
So, bicarbonate *neutralizes* an acid, but CO2 acidifies the oceans. Be careful, your bias is showing. Because, in reality, CO2 is neutralizing the oceans just like bicarbonate neutralizes your acid.
One cannot acidify something that will NEVER become an acid.
The proper way to say this is the hydrochloric acid will NEUTRALIZE some or all the bicarbonate.
” is what known as “amphoprotic.”
You seem to be mixing two words, WR..
do you mean amphoteric?
do you mean amphiprotic?
thisisnotgoodtogo: good catch on my spelling error: I meant “amphiprotic”
“amphoteric” is a related term. Amphiprotic ions and molecules are also amphoteric.
Bicarbonate (HCO3=) is amphiprotic. In the ocean and in your bloodstream.
k scott denison “So, bicarbonate *neutralizes* an acid, but CO2 acidifies the oceans. Be careful, your bias is showing. Because, in reality, CO2 is neutralizing the oceans just like bicarbonate neutralizes your acid.”
CO2 reacts in water to form a weak acid (carbonic acid). One neutralisation process is CO3= -> HCO3-
So, no CO2 does not neutralise the oceans.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83380&tid=3622&cid=131409
“One cannot acidify something that will NEVER become an acid.”
That’s incorrect. See my other comment in this thread for explanation. The ocean is highly unlikely to “become an acid”, that is cross the threshold ph=7, but it is being “acidified” by the addition of CO2.
If you prefer, you can say the ocean is becoming “less alkaline” rather than is “being acidified”.
“De-alkalinization” perhaps doesn’t roll off the tongue.
Nor does it dive into the abyss of the subconscious as does ‘acidification’.
I second your proposal of ‘de-alkalinization’. Actually, I’m more like the second millionth voice. Let it be so designated henceforth, or let the bad faith be obvious.
===========
wrhoward, how would you respond to this?
“The Acid Ocean – the Other Problem with CO2 Emission”
Would you think that is over sold?
:That is the title of a July 2005 post on Realclimate, the source of the real unbiased nothing but the truth climate science.
My Missouri Grandmother did not ask me to de-alkalinize her azaleas, she told me to acidify them. This is as old as gardening.
JCH, Azaleas like a soil ph range of 4.5 to 6.0 which is acidic. Your granny knew her stuff. Hydrangeas are neat since you can acidify for pink flowers or add alkaline for blue flowers which really changes the uptake of aluminum.
I too will second de-alkanization. Much more accurate and far less emotional.
Adding H+ is not the same as removing OH-. It is chemically called acidification, like it or not.
“It is chemically called acidification, like it or not.”
It is. However, the talk usually does not end with that. The talks often mention “becoming more acidic” and then we get National Geographic headlining “The Acid Sea”.
captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | August 17, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
“wrhoward, how would you respond to this?
“The Acid Ocean – the Other Problem with CO2 Emission”
Would you think that is over sold?”
capt, I thought I’d responded to this, but looks like the post didn’t go through.
On Dave Archer’s summary of the chemistry and geochemistry I wouldn’t change a word. I would differ in that I try to avoid value laden terms lime “terrifying” and “detrimental”
Since 2005 our understanding of OA has evoked mainly in that the biological responses are now seen to be more complex. More of a mixed bag of “winners” and “losers” that will likely change the functioning and structure of ecosystems – for good or ill.
Also we have a better appreciation of the high degree of variability in coastal settings like estuaries and reef lagoons, and of the possible interactions among OA and other shifts in the marine environment (temperature, oxygen).
Our 2012 synthesis paper goes into these issues (cited elsewhere in this thread), but there’s been a fair bit research since then as well.
I would not underestimate the risks of OA because of its pervasiveness (essentially everywhere the ocean is in contact with the atmosphere any time of the year) and persistence (long time lags to buffering processes). Thus the urgency to understand OA’s implications.
see also :
Ries, J. B., A. L. Cohen, and D. C. McCorkle (2009), Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification, Geology, 37(12), 1131-1134, doi:10.1130/g30210a.1.
Kroeker, K. J., R. L. Kordas, R. Crim, I. E. Hendriks, L. Ramajo, G. S. Singh, C. M. Duarte, and J.-P. Gattuso (2013), Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming, Global Change Biology, 19(6), 1884-1896, doi:10.1111/gcb.12179.
Kroeker, K. J., R. L. Kordas, R. N. Crim, and G. G. Singh (2010), Meta-analysis reveals negative yet variable effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms, Ecology Letters, 13(11), 1419-1434, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01518.x.
Hofmann, G. E., J. E. Smith, K. S. Johnson, U. Send, L. A. Levin, F. Micheli, A. Paytan, N. N. Price, B. Peterson, Y. Takeshita, P. G. Matson, E. D. Crook, K. J. Kroeker, M. C. Gambi, E. B. Rivest, C. A. Frieder, P. C. Yu, and T. R. Martz (2011), High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison, PLoS ONE, 6(12), e28983
McCulloch, M., J. Falter, J. Trotter, and P. Montagna (2012), Coral resilience to ocean acidification and global warming through pH up-regulation, Nature Climate Change, 2(8), 623-627, doi:10.1038/nclimate1473.
Hi Capt Dallas. I think that your hydrangeas example may be bassackwards. Acid gives blue and alkaline give pink blooms?
wrhoward
Looking at your Woods Hole link that micrograph of conch shell is produced under 2850 ppm CO2 and done in artificial sea water which is not at all like living sea water.
Having read your 2012 paper some time ago I was curious as to how you arrived at your preindustrial argonite distribution as there are no preindustrial pH measurements at all as there was no method to measure ocean pH or the derived argonite levels prior to the 1930’s.
It should be derived pH above. There is much discussion of the complexity of sea water, This would be good for you to address as a service Dr Howard. Nick Stokes and a chemistry professor had a highly interesting exchange.over this issue of buffering. Tell us why your curve is correct.
mosomoso: “Long term study of ocean pH – free of the computer based religious hysteria called, mystifyingly, climate science – would be mighty handy”
Here are a few more. Any time.
Byrne, R. H., S. Mecking, R. A. Feely, and X. Liu (2010), Direct observations of basin-wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37(2), L02601, doi:10.1029/2009gl040999.
Bates, N. R., M. H. P. Best, K. Neely, R. Garley, A. G. Dickson, and R. J. Johnson (2012), Detecting anthropogenic carbon dioxide uptake and ocean acidification in the North Atlantic Ocean, Biogeosciences, 9(7), 2509-2522, doi:10.5194/bg-9-2509-2012.
Midorikawa, T., M. Ishii, S. Saito, D. Sasano, N. Kosugi, T. Motoi, H. Kamiya, A. Nakadate, K. Nemoto, and H. Y. Inoue (2010), Decreasing pH trend estimated from 25-yr time series of carbonate parameters in the western North Pacific, Tellus B, 62(5), 649-659, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0889.2010.00474.x.
Santana-Casiano, J. M., M. González-Dávila, M.-J. Rueda, O. Llinás, and E.-F. González-Dávila (2007), The interannual variability of oceanic CO2 parameters in the northeast Atlantic subtropical gyre at the ESTOC site, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 21, GB1015, doi:10.1029/2006GB002788.
Why are you trying to pretend that climate catastrophism is not an hysteria to a good extent?
Better to accept the truth.
Whew, those sound like ripe ones.
Let me guess…Is it worse than we thought?
mosomoso | August 17, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
“Let me guess…Is it worse than we thought?”
You could always just read the papers themselves rather than guess.
“It” (the long-term downward trend in ocean pH) just “is”.
not worse than we thought, not better than we thought.
You asked for “Long term stud[ies] of ocean pH ” you got ’em.
Enjoy.
Is it worse than we thought?
to be taken with a grain of salt.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02207828#page-1
The last paper sounds like it might be sane.
The others sound like seek-and-you-shall-find. Sadly, we’re getting used to that.
wrhoward
Isn’t upwelling lower pH waters at the locations in your cites more likely the cause of pH changes they are describing? Certainly in the north Pacific.
dalyplanet
How do we get at pre-industrial ocean chemistry including carbonate mineral saturation states? Good question. You are correct we don’t have direct measurements from prior to the industrial revolution. Briefly,
Main approaches to getting at this question:
1) Back out “anthropogenic” DIC
Orr, et al. (2005), Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms, Nature, 437(7059), 681-686, doi:10.1038/nature04095.
Feely et al. (2004), Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans, Science, 305, 362-366, doi:10.1126/science.1097329.
Using estimates of the inventory of anthropogenic dissolved inorganic carbon e.g.:
Sabine et al. (2004), The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2, Science, 305, 367-371, doi:10.1126/science.1097403.
Sabine, C. L., and T. Tanhua (2010), Estimation of Anthropogenic CO2 Inventories in the Ocean, Annual Review of Marine Science, 2(1), 175-198, doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-120308-080947.
We used this approach for our paper on calcification in foraminifera:
Moy, A. D., W. R. Howard, S. G. Bray, and T. W. Trull (2009), Reduced calcification in modern Southern Ocean planktonic foraminifera, Nat. Geosci., 2, 276-280, doi:10.1038/ngeo460.
2) Run an ocean model into equilibrium with know preindustrial atmospheric pCO2, e.g.
Cao, L., and K. Caldeira (2008), Atmospheric CO2 stabilization and ocean acidification, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35(19), L19609, doi:10.1029/2008GL035072.
Kleypas, J., R. Buddemeier, D. Archer, J. Gattuso, C. Langdon, and B. Opdyke (1999), Geochemical consequences of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on coral reefs, Science, 284, 118-120
And check it fits constraints above (inventory of dissolved carbon, alkalinity).
3) Another constraint is to measure pH geochemical proxies in corals and foraminifera, and check that the preindustrial and/or Holocene values fit with the chemistry of an ocean in equilibrium with a ~280 ppm CO2 atmosphere:
Pelejero, C., E. Calvo, M. T. McCulloch, J. F. Marshall, M. K. Gagan, J. M. Lough, and B. N. Opdyke (2005), Preindustrial to modern interdecadal variability in coral reef pH, Science, 309(5744), 2204-2207, doi:10.1126/science.1113692.
Hönisch, B., and N. G. Hemming (2005), Surface ocean pH response to variation in pCO2 through two full glacial cycles, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 236, 305-314, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2005.04.027.
Foster, G. L. (2008), Seawater pH, pCO2 and [CO32-] variations in the Caribbean Sea over the last 130 kyr: A boron isotope and B/Ca study of planktic foraminifera, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 271(1-4), 254-266, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.04.015.
Thanks for the links. It seems to me to be difficult to estimate the human contribution from airborn CO2 compared to the self correcting and widely varying effects of the living ocean, mixing of lower pH deeper waters from ocean current oscillations, and runoff of fertilizer and other acetic compounds from river mouths.
A climate research plan? Perhaps regardless of what one may think of the current level of confidence in AGW/CC science, I am wondering if there is consensus (forgive the word) or much debate on what research work and data collection should be done over the next 10 to 20 years? Do we have adequate systems in place and mainly just need to keep watching the data come in? And how much difference will, say, 15 more years of data make if recent slow-to-flat trends continue?
(For examples/insight into my frame of mind on this question: We have the relatively recent ARGO and USCRN systems. Should there be others? New satellite measurements? And what topics? I understand aerosols are still a big question, and ocean circulation/oscillations, etc. And what physics or parameterization improvements to add to the climate models?) If anyone can point me to a link discussing or outlining this, I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
CS
Google CLIVAR program to see the planned thrusts in climate research. There are other ones as well linked to that.
Scott
BREAKING NEWS
National Review shows its briefs!
Kudos to National Review (and the trial judges) for summarizing the facts of the case so clearly!
How many Climate Etc readers believe that National Review’s statements (and Mark Steyn’s) were deliberately and skillfully crafted with a view toward generating in their readers’ minds a belief that “in fact [Michael Mann] dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda” … in irresponsible disregard of the absence of factual evidence that Mann’s scientific publications were in fact “fraudulent” or “dishonest”?
Summary The “fruit of the loom” of NR’s brief amounts to a flimsy defense of assertions that were crafted and published, with scant regard for factual evidence, purposefully with a view to damaging Mann’s reputation and inflicting emotional distress upon him.
Verdict The Common-Sense Court of Public Opinion finds for the plaintiff, Michael Mann.
Recommendation Now would be a good time for National Review to apologize and retract its statements.
oh dear,you really do not get where steyn is going do you fanny.
A fan of *MORE* discourse: Now would be a good time
Now would be a good time to quote Steyn’s words, and the words that he quoted, exactly.
FOMD is FOND of verbatim quotes!
Thanks for asking, Matthew R Marler!
Poor ol’ professor Dr Mike thought he was the cat but discovers he is the mouse.
@FOMBS…
This is really over the top! The blockquote you excerpted from NR’s brief is actually a quote, by them, of “Judge Combs Greene’s conclusion that the speech at issue is not protected as a matter of law”:
Will anybody ever trust FOMBS to provide accurate links and quotes again? The world wonders!
Unexpected melt down occurring at Arctic sea ice blog with a few fellow travellers getting hot under the collar with each other. Not sure if it is all the Hiroshima bombs of heat trapped in the deep ocean or the fact that the Arctic sea ice extent is slowly calving off from their expectations. Great fun reading at the moment as the unexpected cold creeps into the joint/s.
Could someone explain to them that if the heat is trapped in the deep oceans then the surface must be having a pause or scientifically getting colder?
Not David Appell, he says there is no heat trapping at all because the SST are rising in places where they cannot be measured.
Perhaps Gatesy.
Jock — By September of 1998, surface warming of 0.55 F. registered from the prior twelve months, exceeded 35 times the average secular annual warming from 1907 to 1997 (0.015 F./yr). Surface infra red was up by nearly half a percent, trying to cool it back down. If you ponder these two goodies a bit, it should be apparent that temperatures ought be expected to fall for a couple-three decades following such an aberration.
The fact that the pause has instead paused us to the warmest ever surface for the past 100 days, preceding an El Nino (which is now forecast as a 65% likelihood for this fall/winter), implies that the secular warming has about doubled from that registered across the Twentieth Century.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140804-harmful-algal-bloom-lake-erie-climate-change-science/
Driven by Climate Change, Algae Blooms Behind Ohio Water Scare Are New Normal
I encourage you to read the comments. Much despair, people are developing PTSD from reading this tripe.
Phosphorous. Introduced by man is contributing to the blooms to some extent. Run off is also a problem as we pave land, and build curbs and gutters that lead to water. The title could have also said, Driven by Phosphorous and Development. In Minnesota we don’t usually respond by ringing our hand about global warming. We target Phosphorous. Your lawn doesn’t need it.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Fact Check takes on Oreskes and Conways’ new book: The End of Western Civilization.
Lol.
https://xanonymousblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/naomi_oreskes_hss_2008.png
The empirical climate pattern is usually correct:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:300/plot/hadcrut4gl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:300/offset:0.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:300/offset:-0.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.00001/offset:2
=> No warming for the first three decades of this century!
Girma: Dr Wyatt on the Stadium Wave “one can note that the stadium-trend is consistent with a slowing in the warming of the Northern Hemisphere surface average temperatures, and that extrapolated forward, it would be consistent with the stadium wave if those temperatures continued a decline, albeit with inter-annually paced ups and downs, into the early 2030s.”
Scalia’s dissenting opinion in massachusetts v EPA states that the National Research Council Report “Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001)” says the following:
“The NRC also observed that there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of [GHGs] and aerosolsí (p. 1). As a result of that uncertainty, the NRC cautioned that current estimate of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward.)”
The NRC was skeptical in 2001. Is it still skeptical? What’s going on?
It has been incredibly cold where I am, SW Ontario, the furnace has been coming on, overcast and about 20d F below normal. Noticed that Wisconsin had an early frost yday. 2 years ago, we had a nice summer, seems that the MSM was saying hottest summer ever, new records, etc etc every other day, despite being nice, but not really hot to me. Dont hear anything about the cold records being set daily……Hope I dont have to go through another winter like the last :(
Yep, but it’s regional. Note the last UAH global temp didn’t change much. In the US, the East has been cooler, the West still warm.
A new physical model: Underlying dissipative structure of debate at climate blogs…sort of drifting faux limit cycles peppered with occasional catastrophes:
This is what needs to be streamlined at the NRC:
221 general categories of regulation:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/power-reactors/rg/
And here is the Charlotte’s web of regulations that hold back development of new reactor designs.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/non-power.html
A while back, you commented on Murry Salby’s research that carbon dioxide levels are impacted by temperature and moisture rather than the other way around, and there are others making similar arguments (Humlum et al. (2012), Pehr Björnbom). One of the observations about the Vostok ice core data is that carbon dioxide also largely follows temperature in those records, too, both rising and falling. I know there have been some rebuttals by the mainstream criticizing these theories, as well. I’m wondering what you currently think about the idea that carbon dioxide levels are largely a reaction to temperature and other climate factors (such as moisture) rather than a cause of temperature change.
On Salby’s research, does anyon have a link to Salby’s papers about the half life of anthorpogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Using carbon 14 half life compared to carbon 12 since the bomb pulse in the 60’s it should be possible to determine how long before new fossile carbon dioxide lasts in the atmosphere. Fossil carbon has essentially no C14.
Scott
As I understand it, determining how long a particular molecule remains is not the important question.
It’s how long the concentration level of CO2 remains
It indicates if the particular carbon molecule was of fossil origin or from the environment. So if fossil carbon washes or is incorporated into ocean or soils quickly out of the atmosphere, perhaps the increase in carbon is related to increased temperatures in the long slow thaw and not to vehicle exhausts or coal emissions.
Scott
As I understand it, both reduce at the same rate.
The problem is that “one particular molecule down” does not equal “one down” in concentration.
The above baseline co2 in the atmoshere is largly fossil in origin (vast majority likely being anthropogenic), but other process may drive the concentration. Temperature determining atmospheric concentration at the ocean surface and precipitation determining the rate of removal throughout the troposphere.
It probably works both ways. Assume the atmosphere and ocean are in equilibrium WRT CO2. If more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the equilibrium between air and ocean is now out of balance. So, the ocean will absorb CO2. OTOH, if the temperature of the ocean warms for any reason, CO2 becomes less soluble and it will escape into the atmosphere.
Obviously, the longer climate cycles have nothing to do with CO2. Whatever moves the temperature drags CO2 along with it due to the fact that CO2 solubility varies inversely with temperature.
And if we increase the co2 above equalibrium and the temperature happens to rise, the ocean will simply take in less co2 rather than outgas. The co2 in the atmosphere will remain fossil even though temperature is responsible for part of increased concentration by raising the equalibrium concentration.
Coincidentally, there’s a brand-new piece on Salby at City Journal:
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_global-warming.html
Not coincidentally. That’s what led me to ask about him, since there doesn’t seem to be much new commentary about him since last year.
My guess is that he’s right about the icecore proxies, but mostly wrong about modern concentration attribution. His reasons only explain part of the rise in co2 concentration.
I don’t think icecores capture decadal variation in co2 or methane and concentrations probably decrease over time as Salby describes.
Cook has yet another survey, this time showing 90% agreement with AGW:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e
According to the abstract the survey included experts in “impacts” and “mitigation.” Of course these are the true believers since their work assumes AGW. Typical Cook work — cooked.
Weren’t Strauss’ disciples the ones who developed neocon politics and drove the USA into the mess in Iraq? I think I read about this link in “American Conservative” magazine.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-iraqwarphiloshophy/article_1542.jsp
We conducted a very detailed survey among a broad group of scientists studying various aspects of global warming. The article segregates some of the main results in different subgroups, including e.g. by self-reported expertise fields. There is only a marginal difference in responses between those with self-reported expertise in impacts or mitigation as opposed to WG1 expertise fields (see e.g. the Supporting Information, Fig S5).
See also the accompanying blog post about this survey: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/survey-confirms-scientific-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming/
Bart said;
‘The answers to the survey showed a wide variety of opinions, but it was clear that a large majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of global warming’
Regional warming would be more accurate than ‘global’ warming, but leaving that aside, do a large majority of climate scientists yet agree what caused major episodes of warming (and cooling) in the past?
tonyb
Hiya Bart! Glad to see you finally got that survey done. Is the data available to the public? In SPSS, maybe?
So this warmish patch of the holocene is okay, considering cooler alternatives…but the science is worse than we thought.
Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?
===================
Heh, aerosols got in their eyes.
==========
Bart, thanks for highlighting this, I have it flagged to incorporate in a future post
This accords with my impression of the opinions of the scientific community. It’s important to remember that most scientists working in a field accept the current paradigm. The numbers and agreement reported here seem to me in good accord with similar numbers for other paradigms under challenge, such as pre-continental drift ca. 1960, innate deep structure in language (N.B. I regard the “blank slate” challenge to this paradigm as baseless), the existence of a dark age separating the Late Bronze age in the Eastern Mediterranean from the Early Iron Age, and the notion that the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees/bonobos, and gorillas was basically “built like a chimp”.
The most important challenge to the current “climate paradigm” involves the characteristics of hyper-complex non-linear systems, as studied in Chaos Theory over the last couple decades. I find it disappointing that the survey respondents weren’t given a practical test on the implications of that recent research, as I suspect there would have been a strong correlation between skepticism for the current paradigm and that understanding.
If they weren’t?
Bert?
Anybody?
Pardon me! Bart?
Surveys of this kind rarely get anything much to go on with because the nature of the questions usually presupposes that AGW is a reality and the academics usually toe the party line. I call it the Lewandowski effect.
Peter, having mounted the lamentable spectacle, they were bound to applaud.
Saw an interesting article this morning that might hold answers in the climate debates: Leo Strauss’ Political Philosophy: Reviled But Redeemed
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/16/leo_strauss_political_philosophy_reviled_but_redeemed_123642.html
Strauss was a notable professor of political philosophy but was much maligned by many contempory colleagues and post contempory academics. The artticle says, at the core, it was because those who dispised him were relativists whereas he believed otherwise. Put another way, he believed in moral standards and they thought such standards were inappropriate.
Does it seem that some in the climate debate are relativists? Do some believe that the end justifies the means? Might this be connected to their university education?
Great reference ris.
bts
Breaking News
Moral Relativism Exposed
• The moral judgment of an obscure liberal rabbi (Yeshua) “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
• The moral judgment of an obscure prominent conservative pundit (Mark Steyn) “[slain teenager Michael Brown] was just another cr***y third-rate vi*l*nt teen n’er-do-well.”
• Moral Lessons for Climate-Change “Human action which is not respectful of nature becomes a boomerang for human beings that creates inequality and extends what Pope Francis has termed ‘the globalization of indifference’ and the ‘economy of exclusion’ (Evangelii Gaudium), which themselves endanger solidarity with present and future generations.”
Conclusion The contrast is plainly evident to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
It’s a catastrophe that Mark Steyn’s vicious brand of faux-conservative slogan-shouting wins disastrously many primary elections … and yet it’s heartening that vicious faux-conservatism loses main elections.
We can *ALL* “splice hands” on *THAT*, eh Climate Etc readers?
The video of Michael Brown threatening and intimidating the store manager (who’s less than half his size) while allegedly stealing a box of cigars certainly seems to show he was a first, not a third-rate hoodlum.
No wonder Obama’s DOJ soughto suppress it while at the same time encouraging videos of the street protest so that “the entire story could be told”
Steyn should correct this.
And nothing shows working for social justice more than looting a home electronics store.
There’s a juvenile faux-conservative moral code that’s been crafted by professional political operatives to appeal specifically to folks like *YOU*, harkin!
Strong arm robber shot and killed while assaulting a police officer. Family, friends, and community thankful that officer not injured in altercation. Details at 11.
Good link, thanks.
Where does Climate science go from here?
What will it take to discredit the models? Will the length of the pause or global cooling cause a crisis for the models?
Will endless adjustments keep the models in use and will this save them?
Are climate models only falsified after a long period of geological timescale or will political reality kick in more quickly? Don’t hold your breath.
We are already running two experiments. One in Texas, Penn and North Dakota with fracking and energy from fossil. One in California and New York restricting fossil and subsidizing solar and wind. Plus raising energy costs and the price of gas. Let them run for some time. Dr Santer said 17 years and Dr Curry said 20 to falsify the models. Have to let that run as well.
Scott
New York and California’s experiments are flawed if they import fossil fuels across their state boundaries. The experiment should include special steel plates be installed in all pipelines crossing their borders. It would also require they isolate their electric grid. Once we have these minor fixes the experiment can proceed.
New York and California climate experiment refugees will be processed in football stadiums and distributed into public housing built to hold them in states outside the experiment’s boundaries. Donations for the refugee assistance ministries should be identified with the tag “For Deposit to the Climate Experiment Refugee Relief Fund”
Scott — Near term, TX, PA, & ND obviously benefit through their linkage to comparatively elevated fluid hydrocarbon prices. There is a school which holds that oil has permanently tipped bullish–as required investment simply cannot outrun Chindian growth against degrading development prospects. Forever. But this is not a political constraint.
Policed combustion sets up another experiment: southern acceptance of new nuclear (Watt’s Bar, Vogtle & Summer–with Bellefonte in the wings), vs. CA’s solar mania & NY’s new regime of dispersed energy investment contrived via utility rates and mandates.
A glance at France v. Germany/Spain ought lend a preview.
Scott: The warmists will never give up, the public has no knowledge or interest, and governments are becoming skeptical. The game is over, there was no audience in attendance, the referees picked the winner, and the losers will not leave the field.
The Resolution will not be Currently Televised.
===========
No victory party.
No trips to Stockholm.
> Belgian energy company Electrabel said its Doel 4 nuclear reactor would stay offline at least until the end of this year after major damage to its turbine, with the cause confirmed as sabotage.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/8/17/belgium-shows-us-the-way.html
Affirmative action, no doubt
If liberals can’t get their way via politics, they will cheat, steal, and destroy property. Look at OWS. Bill Ayers. Saul Alinksky. Etc, etc.
Oh, those annoying *%$#@^&* liberals! Society would be *FAR* better off if liberals were simply “cleansed” of its liberal elements, eh Jim2?
Cleansed. Yes, that’s exactly what came to my mind when I read jim2’s comment. In my wildest spittle-flecked dreams.
At least I gave some examples.
Putting on my tinfoil hat: I’d say if sabotage is true, probably Russians using eco-terrorists or posing as eco terrorist recruited someone inside. Or a disgruntled or emotionally disturbed employee.
From the article:
…
It’s like an 800-pound gorilla in the room, worrying everyone including growers, suppliers, livestock operators and consumers alike. According to the Western Regional Climate Center, October-December of 2013 was the driest on record in California. Other western states are also experiencing drought to varying degrees (note the U.S. Drought monitor map for the west below). Current predictions are for zero to slight chances of rainfall for the rest of January for most of California.
…
Price. Corn grain prices have gone down in recent months, which tends to have a depressing influence on hay prices. Additionally, alfalfa acreage has gone up slightly, which also tends to suppress prices, but it should be noted that locally and nationally, these are not historically high acreages for alfalfa, and miscellaneous hay acreage is quite a bit down. The slightly higher acreage may be more than offset by reduced productivity. The improved dairy situation and anticipated increases in export demand, as well as demand from beef operators and horse owners should continue to create demand for forage crops. With the drought conditions likely to continue, feed will remain in short supply and prices pushed higher than would be expected under normal conditions.
Some Historical Perspective. California has experienced numerous droughts in the past, as shown on statewide yearly precipitation graph below. However, this drought is unprecedented in that it has been so dry since January of 2013, making it tough, if not impossible to establish winter forages. Many growers rely on rainfall for crop emergence and then on water from irrigation districts for subsequent irrigations. However, with our reservoirs at a fraction of capacity (around 20% in many cases), many districts are facing zero water allocations at this time, or severe cutbacks. Many growers are putting in new wells, but this means more pressure on our limited groundwater resources.
For now, let’s all hope for rain to try to get the gorilla out of the room. However, we should probably start planning for what appears to be a drought of momentous proportion that we will likely be talking about for years.
http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=12645
If you look at the chart referenced above, it looks like the worst years were ’20s and ’30s. Of course there was probably less demand back then.
Jim2,
Actually the worst years were 900 to 1200 years AD. Long droughts dried up rivers and lakes. Fallen leaf lake near Lake Tahoe had trees three feet thick hundreds of feet tall that are now submerged in 100 feet of water. The question is really what caused that drought and are conditions today similar. Look for natural variation as a simpler answer rather than complex theories until we understand the causes of natural variation. Ice ages are still subject to uncertainty as to causes. Is it the slight variation in summer temperatures caused by orbital and precision variations or is it more complex? Lots of discovery to be found before the science is settled.
Scott
Back in March, I was watching CA a lot, & saw a video of a descendant owner of a ranch we used to camp on, as Boy Scouts in the sixties. In the foothills along the Consumes. He said something scary: the grass species were so burnt by then, that adding water did not revive them. He warned that the foothills may require man-made restoration, as natural species may be decimated by now–this event is already so off-scale.
‘Calcium carbonate minerals, present on the deep ocean floor below what is called the saturation horizon, constantly dissolve and thereby increase the alkalinity of seawater, which offsets the decline in pH. But there is a problem: these minerals dissolve much more slowly than the current
uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans, and that leads to increased ocean acidity and lower pH. Furthermore, CO2
uptake occurs at the surface of the ocean, far from the deep ocean floor, so this critical zone experiences the most rapid increase in ocean acidification.’ http://spice.wa.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Researching-ocean-buffering.pdf
Oceans are basically a calcium reactor – e.g. http://americanmarineusa.com/pages/calcium-reactor-theory-and-setup
Calcium carbonate is the fifth most abundant material on Earth. It exist in oceans as shells, limestone, diatoms, carbonate ooze, corals and as a supersaturated solution. Precipitation it is suggested is inhibited by phosphorus and organic compounds.
Increasing carbonate concentrations from increasing CO2 increases the dissolution of calcium carbonate which gives calcium ions which react with carbonate in a neutralising reaction – the reaction gives water and CO2 which bubbles off as a gas to the atmosphere.
So there is a balance between a pH decline and calcium carbonate held in solution – leading to a decrease in solution concentrations of aragonite and calcite mitigating pH change. Aragonite and calcite are calcium carbonate polymorphs involved in shell formation. .
But there is a balance between calcium carbonate dissolution and biological and chemical sequestration – and there is an immense source of mineral calcium. Diatoms especially in open oceans. Dead diatoms dissolve as they sink. Increased dissolution and decreased sequestration seem an inevitable consequence of CO2 increase mitigating against both pH and calcium carbonate saturation changes.
The problem of understanding ocean chemistry is in the obscure processes governing saturation chemistry. It seems unlikely that a simple narrative of slow dissolution of calcium carbonate comes near to describing the chemical dynamics. It is overwhelmingly unlikely that much of anything can be concluded from data given background variability.
Colour me sceptical on ocean acidification but cautious – the rational carbon emission response is fast mitigation to restore ecosystems and agricultural soils along with energy innovation.
Rob,
See my other posts on this for more info.
“Dead diatoms dissolve as they sink. Increased dissolution and decreased sequestration seem an inevitable consequence of CO2 increase mitigating against both pH and calcium carbonate saturation changes.”
Diatoms precipitate opaline silica, not carbonate. (along with radiolaria, and sponges which create silica spicules)
Open-ocean calcifiers are mainly coccolithophorids (calcite plates) foraminifera (calcite tests), pteropods (aragonite shells). Dissolution of these carbonate phases is a consequence of CO2 increase, and will tend to drive the ocean back up the pH scale, increasing its ability to absorb more CO2. Problem is, a lot of the minerals are on the sea floor, the CO2 is coming in from the surface, and dissolution response may be slow once the shift to undersaturation occurs.
“The problem of understanding ocean chemistry is in the obscure processes governing saturation chemistry. It seems unlikely that a simple narrative of slow dissolution of calcium carbonate comes near to describing the chemical dynamics. It is overwhelmingly unlikely that much of anything can be concluded from data given background variability.”
Read the papers I suggested to mosomoso on observed changes in pH. The processes governing saturation chemistry are the least obscure part of this problem. Dissolution kinetics, pore-water processes, biomineralization – those are areas where understanding is still obscure.
‘Coccolithophores have influenced the global climate for over 200 million years. These marine phytoplankton can account for 20 per cent of total carbon fixation in some systems. They form blooms that can occupy hundreds of thousands of square kilometres and are distinguished by their elegantly sculpted calcium carbonate exoskeletons (coccoliths), rendering them visible from space. Although coccolithophores export carbon in the form of organic matter and calcite to the sea floor, they also release CO2 in the calcification process. Hence, they have a complex influence on the carbon cycle, driving either CO2 production or uptake, sequestration and export to the deep ocean. Here we report the first haptophyte reference genome, from the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi strain CCMP1516, and sequences from 13 additional isolates. Our analyses reveal a pan genome (core genes plus genes distributed variably between strains) probably supported by an atypical complement of repetitive sequence in the genome. Comparisons across strains demonstrate that E. huxleyi, which has long been considered a single species, harbours extensive genome variability reflected in different metabolic repertoires. Genome variability within this species complex seems to underpin its capacity both to thrive in habitats ranging from the equator to the subarctic and to form large-scale episodic blooms under a wide variety of environmental conditions.’
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23760476
That should be coccolithophores if we are talking specifically about calcium carbonate cycling and not more broadly carbon cycling in phytoplankton. The calcium minerals are recycled even in open oceans – with the excess disappearing below the calcite compensation depth as the calcite plates sink. The primary source of calcium for dissolution and acid neutralisation is held in solution – leading to ideas of aragonite under saturation in the Southern Ocean towards the end of the century. The primal source of calcium is rivers, coasts and upwelling which is mixed through the worlds oceans. Phytoplankton are extremely efficient at recycling nutrients in the photic zone in open oceans.
I had a quick look at some of your references earlier. Always – these are short term exercises in areas that have multi-decadal variability in wind, currents and/or upwelling. This is the same problem as ever – hundreds of years of data are required to detect changes against vigourous natural variability. We simply don’t have it.
Colour me sceptical still.
wrhoward. I was able to read some of what you cited and some was behind paywalls.
I read this abstract which sounded promising but it confused me more than enlightened me. Could you decipher it for me.
RECORDS of past changes in the pH of the oceans should provide insights into how the carbonate chemistry of the oceans has changed over time. The latter is related to changes in the atmospheric CO2 content, such as that which occurred during the last glacial-interglacial transition1. Previous studies2,3 have shown that the fractionation of boron isotopes between sea water and precipitated carbonate minerals is pH-dependent. This finding has been used to reconstruct the evolution of ocean pH over the past 20 million years by analyses of boron isotopes in the carbonate shells of foraminifera4. Here we use the same approach to estimate changes in ocean pH between the last glacial and the Holocene period. We estimate that the deep Atlantic and Pacific oceans had a pH 0.3±0.1 units higher during the last glaciation. The accompanying change in carbonate ion concentration is sufficient to account for the decrease in atmospheric p co2 during the glacial period1. These results are consistent with the hypothesis5 that the low CO2 content of the glacial atmosphere was caused by an increased ratio of organic carbon to carbonate in the ‘rain’ to the sea floor, which led to an increase in carbonate ion concentration (and thus in pH) of deep water without a corresponding increase in the lysocline depth.
Evidence for a higher pH in the glacial ocean from boron isotopes in foraminifera
ABHIJIT SANYAL*, N. G. HEMMING*, GILBERT N. HANSON† & WALLACE S. BROECKER*
Half of it sounds like the pH should go down but they are saying it went up. I must be missing something.
Rob, good point about calcium. Calcium is not really the issue and is not affected in and of itself by OA. We tend to drop it out of the solubility product for carbonate minerals because [Ca++]/[Ca++]sat is close to one, and express mineral saturation as Omega = [CO3+]/[CO3=]sat
By the same token the calcium released by carbonate dissolution isn’t really much of a factor either. It’s the carbonate ion that’s important there in the buffering.
‘Here is a simple sketch with the simplest caricature of carbonate and calcium carbonate reactions.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/carbonatebuffer_zpse97712b0.jpg.html
Mineral CaCO3 – solid or in solution – dissolves to yield the calcium ion which reacts with carbonate to yield mineral CaCO3 water and CO2.
The issue is the availability of mineral calcium carbonate which acts to maintain the pH of the system and the saturation state. Calcium carbonate will continue to dissolve until a stable state is achieved given effectively unlimited availability.
I see Chief has done the service already wrhoward. What about the calcium reactor?
Calcium reactor; yeah not a bad analog for the ocean in many ways. In the context of current ocean acidification the problem is with time scales. In the aquarium you’d get more-or-less a real time response. In the ocean the time scale for sedimentary buffering is likely to be millennia (if not 10s of millennia). That’s for deep-sea carbonates (sediments now just above calcite lysocline).
Wild card is shallow shelf carbonates and how fast and how much they’d kick in. Might be a faster response.
e.g.
Morse, J. W., A. J. Andersson, and F. T. Mackenzie (2006), Initial responses of carbonate-rich shelf sediments to rising atmospheric pCO2 and “ocean acidification:” Role of high Mg-calcites, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 70(23), 5814-5830, doi:10.1016/j.gca.2006.08.017.
Problem is there’s now a question of how much there might be dolomite (relatively resistant to dissolution) vs. high-Mg calcites (relatively vulnerable to dissolution) in these sediments:
Nash, M. C., B. N. Opdyke, U. Troitzsch, B. D. Russell, W. H. Adey, A. Kato, G. Diaz-Pulido, C. Brent, M. Gardner, J. Prichard, and D. I. Kline (2013), Dolomite-rich coralline algae in reefs resist dissolution in acidified conditions, Nature Clim. Change, 3, 268–272, doi:10.1038/nclimate1760.
So there’s an interesting space to watch.
There is a much faster calcium cycle in the photic zone involving phytoplankton. Increasing CO2 should result in lower sequestration rates -decreasing the biological carbon pump and increasing the alkalinity pump.
The source is rivers and groundwater – and upwelling in coastal areas – which is mixed in vast oceanic gyres.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/51/20344.full
It is highly unlikely that this is properly accounted for.
Don’t forget the biological component. Plants and animals will consume more of these molecules over time. Shell fish will grow bigger shells etc.
Thanks fellahs. I’ve bookmarked the thread, given all these citations (I’ve long yearned to grasp the “magic moment,” or epiphany, which Dr. Revelle found, to pencil into the publication which lifted the curtain upon the era of modern climate science–but was simply overwhelmed by the complexity of oceanic carbon chemistry). But….bringing it all back home.
Tomales Bay is maybe a 12 mile dagger of shallow sea, where the San Andreas runs out into the Pacific an hour north of S.F. Maybe two miles from the mouth, erodes away Hog Island, complete with its own oyster works. My family fished and crabbed there for forty years. Three months ago, I encountered a video, wherein the partner who runs Hog Island Oyster Co., discussed his strategy for continuing, given that “ocean acidfication” had eliminated his source of babies, from somewhere up near Seattle. He was attempting to raise his own young, and managed to combat unhealthy pH by pumping and tanking water from particular tides. My question is, how does this fit with 400 ppm? I’ve been enough of a warming freak, that I took six months out to try and save a local nuclear plant from post-Chernobyl hysteria, so my impulse leans toward dot-connecting. Would your guess run more towards a very location specific set of challenges further north? Presumably, were one in the oyster baby business for several decades, one would presume they must be grappling with something, er, pretty reduced alkalinic.
★★★ MASSIVE BREAKING NEWS ★★★
Energy Storage Problem DISSOLVED !!!
Greens Find Energy Storage SOLUTION !!!
★★★ GAME OVER FOR BIG CARBON ★★★
Seriously, regardless of the merits of Lovins’ researcher, this class of research is providing a huge economic boost for wind-hydro-and-solar power hence the radical acceleration in carbon-neutral energy sources and regulated-market energy economies
Oh those Green STEM researchers, and those Liberal Enlightenment Economists, and those foresighted common-sense family-interest voters!
Is there ANYTHING they can’t accomplish, working as a team?
The world wonders!
Yawn.
Can’t wait for the follow-up:
GREENS SAY RENEWABLE ENERGY SUBSIDIES NO LONGER NEEDED
The *RIGHT* economic idiom is carbon-energy externalities rationally accounted!
*THAT’S* obvious to *EVERY* thoughtful citizen, eh harkin?
Energy storage problem solved, because … Amory Lovins has turned to computer modeling!
LOL
The real world to FOMD and Amory Lovins: \F (thumbed nose emoticon)
It a beautiful dance alright. Spain is said to have a rate of 50% fraudulent solar installations. Solar has been getting 6x the going rate for electricity .
Even running generators at night is good business.
No wonder the return on investment is so enticing!, eh Fan?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air-25017031
Roasting the Turkey in the air- there is nothing Solar CAN’T do, eh FAN!?!
We should put a floating thermometer right where the birds are burning up in mid-flight then use the readings to infill and adjust all US temperatures. That’ll fix this “pause” business once and for all.
Well, there is some truth to the headline…energy storage problem is not solved, it’s dis-solved, eh, fanny?
captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | August 17, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
“wrhoward, how would you respond to this?
“The Acid Ocean – the Other Problem with CO2 Emission”
Would you think that is over sold?”
capt, I thought I’d responded to this, but looks like the post didn’t go through.
On Dave Archer’s summary of the chemistry and geochemistry I wouldn’t change a word. I would differ in that I try to avoid value laden terms lime “terrifying” and “detrimental”
Since 2005 our understanding of OA has evoked mainly in that the biological responses are now seen to be more complex. More of a mixed bag of “winners” and “losers” that will likely change the functioning and structure of ecosystems – for good or ill.
Also we have a better appreciation of the high degree of variability in coastal settings like estuaries and reef lagoons, and of the possible interactions among OA and other shifts in the marine environment (temperature, oxygen).
Our 2012 synthesis paper goes into these issues (cited elsewhere in this thread), but there’s been a fair bit research since then as well.
I would not underestimate the risks of OA because of its pervasiveness (essentially everywhere the ocean is in contact with the atmosphere any time of the year) and persistence (long time lags to buffering processes). Thus the urgency to understand OA’s implications.
see also :
Ries, J. B., A. L. Cohen, and D. C. McCorkle (2009), Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification, Geology, 37(12), 1131-1134, doi:10.1130/g30210a.1.
Kroeker, K. J., R. L. Kordas, R. Crim, I. E. Hendriks, L. Ramajo, G. S. Singh, C. M. Duarte, and J.-P. Gattuso (2013), Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming, Global Change Biology, 19(6), 1884-1896, doi:10.1111/gcb.12179.
Kroeker, K. J., R. L. Kordas, R. N. Crim, and G. G. Singh (2010), Meta-analysis reveals negative yet variable effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms, Ecology Letters, 13(11), 1419-1434, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01518.x.
Hofmann, G. E., J. E. Smith, K. S. Johnson, U. Send, L. A. Levin, F. Micheli, A. Paytan, N. N. Price, B. Peterson, Y. Takeshita, P. G. Matson, E. D. Crook, K. J. Kroeker, M. C. Gambi, E. B. Rivest, C. A. Frieder, P. C. Yu, and T. R. Martz (2011), High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison, PLoS ONE, 6(12), e28983
McCulloch, M., J. Falter, J. Trotter, and P. Montagna (2012), Coral resilience to ocean acidification and global warming through pH up-regulation, Nature Climate Change, 2(8), 623-627, doi:10.1038/nclimate1473.
wrhoward, “terrifying”, “detrimental”, “Acid Ocean (and seas)” are all attempts to over sell the issue in my opinion. Archer also never mentioned what the pH of the acidifying oceans was or might be expected to become. All parts of the sound bite age we live in.
Lovins has a reputation for overestimating benefits and underestimating costs.
More about Amory Lovins, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute:
Lovins has been wrong on numerous fronts. Four of Lovins’s claims are worth investigation.
1. Renewables will take huge swaths of the overall energy market. (1976)
2. Electricity consumption will fall. (1984)
3. Cellulosic ethanol will solve our oil import needs. (repeatedly)
4. Efficiency will lower consumption. (repeatedly)
http://www.energytribune.com/974/green-energy-advocate-amory-lovins-guru-or-fakir#sthash.nEzR0UdE.wOs4kQC9.dpbs
Ries, J. B., A. L. Cohen, and D. C. McCorkle (2009), Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification, Geology, 37(12), 1131-1134, doi:10.1130/g30210a.1.
If one says we don’t know enough, or that there are winners and losers then, fine. To over-reach as have others, i.e., speculate upon an outcome seems not only premature, but fraught with innuendoes not really justified by the data.
Evolution of these organisms in a changing environment is in part dependent upon the speed of such changes, the intensity of the environmental changes, and the variance of on-again off-again environmental change. Much to be learned. So little regard for the cornucopia of possible responses.
Of course, we have seen this before.
It could have been only yesterday…
“He was Rome’s first and arguably greatest emperor, a fine soldier and wise administrator who boasted that he found Rome built of bricks and left it cloaked in marble.
But as the city prepares to celebrate the 2000th anniversary of Augustus’s death on Tuesday with a series of events and exhibitions, officials have admitted that extensive stables built by the emperor and recently discovered during excavations are to be reburied due to lack of funding.
The reinterring of the stables, which once hosted horses raced at the Circus Maximus, is another blow to anniversary plans after Rome failed to find funds in time to restore Augustus’ mausoleum, a city block-sized monument which has been used as a toilet by tramps since falling into disrepair, and now stands mouldering behind fences in the centre of Rome.”
historians might say.
It’s often found that species adapt far faster than evolution would predict. Likely, many species have already adapted to these conditions genetically and simply await envornmental cues which will turn on traits and promote or inhibit the transfer of some genes.
Green scientists with the Big Heart, have found a neo-way of evolution…
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air-25017031
streamers. The little bang.
Heh, the company offers to neuter cats in reparation. Perhaps they should try tutoring cats.
===============
Judith Curry,
On the basis of your recent topics I understand that you question the results of climate model simulations adopted by IPCC scientists. Instead – according to the logic expressed by John Dewey in his book Reconstruction In Philosophy – you follow a logic of pragmatic intelligence. That means you prefer empiric observations to hypothetical climate simulations adopted by IPCC. As far as I am aware, instead of the deeply uncertain climate sensitivity of 6 – 1.5 C expressed in the two latest IPCC reports you assess it to be about 1.5 C. On the basis of additional empiric observations of Scafetta, Lindzen, Arrak, Wojick and Cripwell it can be still lower, even indistinguishable from zero.
The climate sensitivity above concerns any total increase of CO2 content in atmosphere. As I have expressed in my comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 , increase of CO2 content in atmosphere follows natural warming; trends of increasing CO2 content in atmosphere are taking place as sea surface warms by lag on areas where sea surface sinks are. In addition, recently a share of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in total increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has been only 4 %. This should make anybody understand why during the last 17 years the global temperature has not increased although the CO2 content in atmosphere has even exponentially increased: the global warming caused by increasing CO2 content in atmosphere is so minimal that it can not be distinguished by empiric observations. Because any global warming can not be empirically proved to be caused by total increase of CO2 content in atmosphere, it is still more impossible to claim that the minimal share of anthropogenic CO2 of total CO2 content in atmosphere could have caused the recent global warming like IPCC expresses.
As anthropogenic CO2 emissions cannot be accused of the recent global warming, there is no reason to curtail CO2 emissions. Further research must be focused on actions how to produce energy clean and competive enough, and how to adapt life of mankind to natural events of weather and climate.
Lauri,
Thanks for the cogent discussion. 17 years is long, Dr Curry postulated 20 years is time to reexamine the models. Don’t get the recent paper comments now saying the models do explain the hiatus or pause or cycle.
When data deviates from models one adjusts the models. However in the US they seem to be adjusting past and current temperature records.
Scott
What is the ratio between the “empiric” secular trend, and the wildly aberrant event YOU choose as a basis for drawing causal inferences therefrom? The “17 year ago,” event?
I reckon it to be 35-to-1. What manner of logic permits one to select a bit of noise, as close to two orders of magnitude in excess of the signal, as one, and to infer from the failure of the trend to re-manifest, during half the shadow interval of said ratio, an inference that the signal is mis-measured?
‘Three months ago I asked this question:
Are American civilians so different from Europeans or Aussies or Kiwis or Canadians that they have to be policed as if they’re cornered rebels in an ongoing civil war?
A startling number of American readers wrote to say, with remarkable insouciance, that the US could not afford the luxury of First World policing. Large tracts of America had too many illegal immigrants, drug gangs, racial grievances, etc. Maybe. But the problem is that, increasingly, this is the only style of law enforcement America’s police culture teaches – not only for the teeming favelas, but for the leafy suburbs and the rural backwaters and the college-town keg party, too.
Which is to say that one day, unless something changes, we will all be policed like Ferguson.’
This is the true conclusion to Mark Steyne’s article. Steyn is a remarkably civilized and acute observer – very unlike FOMBS who seems only to think in one dimensional partisan terms.
There is a very insightful doco on why America’s police evolved in this way – How to make money selling dr_gs. It is availbale on Australia’s ABC iview for a few days yet – I can’t link as it seems to cause comments to be eaten entirely by the spam filter.
Here is a link – however – on why free markets, classic liberalism and traditional capitalism are much better at civil peace than the alternatives.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/free-markets-and-civil-peace.pdf
It helps not to have massively liquid shadow markets.
The doco makes the observation that America’s police are armed and equipped for the trillion dollars war on d…. Most of their funding comes for equipping paramilitary units designed for urban warfare and that spills over into everyday policing.
It is an arms race fueled by the immense amounts of money to be made from d….. answered by the sort of policing that should never be seen on civilized streets. Neither side of politics has been particularly adept at stepping down the rhetoric. The Rockefeller d… laws stepped it up several notches and across the country resulted in incarceration rates not seen anywhere else in the world – with a lamentable impact on black America.
It seems more than time to say no to the war on d…. I followed up with viewing another doco on d… growing in California. There is a civil war in the hills of Humboldt County fueled by confusion in the law on growing d…. and the impossibility of stopping transport across the country. Heavily armed police are heavily outnumbered by cartels and gangs. Even the police officers are despairingly talking either outright bans or complete legalization. Not the unworkable no man’s land.
The way back is through legalization to remove the money link and treatment of the issue as a social health problem. Refocus American policing – put people in rehab just like rich white Americans instead of jail. A classic liberal path to policing sanity.
Rob: Swat teams are a small part of the police forces in the US and those swat teams are used in many circumstances that are not drug related.
Rob and tonyb, Ferguson MO is a good example of the power of the sheeple. Any death is a tragedy for someone, but a person of afro-american descent at the hands of a police officer not of Afro-American descent is always a front page kind of tragedy. The US department of justice doesn’t keep statistics on deaths by police shooting. They do keep stats of deaths while in custody. Since deaths by police shooting is not a stat, there is an automatic controversy due to more creative Googling requirements.
NBC new had a report following another incident where police shot an afro-american male 41 times because the victim was reaching for his wallet. This is similar to the EPA firing 21 shots at one of their most wanted acidifiers across the street from me only the acidifier was white. According to that report, 2002 individuals die in custody in the US during the three years from 2003 to 2005. This was interesting:
“Investigator: These are unusual cases
The study finds that 77 percent of those who died in custody were men between the ages of 18 and 44. Approximately 44 percent were white; 32 percent black; and 20 percent Hispanic.”
With 2002 over three years that is about 700 per year (some states didn’t report). There were almost 40,million arrests over the same three year period or a tiny fraction of people confronted by police are killed. There were though 40 MILLION ARRESTS. While less lethal means might be part of a solution, leaving more people that are actively harming anyone alone, might be a better solution.
that should be are not actively…
Hi Rob,
I am absolutely with you that drugs and prostitution should be legal. It would put a stop to some violent drug cartels and also incarceration of poor (and other) youth.
The fewer laws we have, to a point, and we are nowhere close to that point, the better.
On the unfortunate incident in Mosu. As the facts come out, the person had already started a fight with the c*op. During the struggle, the c’s piece discharged. The person tried walk away, was ordered to freeze, then the person charged the c, whereupon the c fired 6 times.
And then some cr*m*nal elements in the community took advantage to r*b, burn, st*al, and commit other cr*m*s of v**lence. It’s unfortunate, but this situation does not justify that at all. Peacef*l prot*st, OK, but not this.
jim2 | August 18, 2014 at 8:32 pm |
On the unfortunate incident in Mosu. As the facts come out, the person had already started a fight with the c*op. During the struggle, the c’s piece discharged. The person tried walk away, was ordered to freeze, then the person charged the c, whereupon the c fired 6 times.
———
Better wait for the details to emerge Jim. As of this time it sounds as if the suspect may have rushed the officer.
Argh, hit post before finishing… However, Jim, these details seem to be very fluid so one never knows where it will end up.
The details are fluid – but the initial story was an innocent with his hands up got sh*t by a c*p. I was extremely skeptical of that story and I’m pretty sure the version I recounted will be fairly close to the truth.
jim2 – looks like your skepticism is panning out….
The cop was pretty badly beaten. This is why cops in the US carry guns. There are people big, strong, and stupid enough to beat another person to death. This was a justified sh**ting.
Rob asked, “Are American civilians so different from Europeans or Aussies or Kiwis or Canadians that they have to be policed as if they’re cornered rebels in an ongoing civil war?”
Apparently so. “Getting tough with crime.” has been a popular political plank in the US since the first newspaper. Thanks to that, the US has the highest percentage of its population incarcerated in the world. We are number one. To keep the trend going we even have started incarcerating people that might possibly commit crimes. An ounce of prevention and all that.
Police though are people also and commit just as many crimes as the average population. For some reason, the police, even though there is a supreme court backed hiring policy to make sure police are not above average intelligence, are thought to be above average morally and ethically. That is the fantasy land mentality of the US and the ROW.
captndallas
I was shocked to see the armoury the Ferguson police were packing.
Has this level of aggression got anything to do with an attempt to combat the high level of gun ownership and gun crime in the US by the authorities producing even more armoury than those they face might possess?
tonyb
Tonyb, violent crimes in the US are committed by about 0.45% of the general population and 0.43% of the police population. Since 100% of the police have guns versus about 40% of the population at large, I doubt that gun ownership is much of a factor. The majority of the guns used by the general population in violet crime are illegal to begin with, so it is more likely that a very small percentage of the general/police population are just whack jobs.
As for the heavy armor that local police departments have, the US federal government tends to give surplus equipment to police departments. And thanks to over hype in the media, just about every department in the government state, federal and local has an armed police division including SWAT teams. Even the EPA has gun toting agents which are not particularly good shots unless shooting holes in defenseless boats is a sign of good marksmanship.
tonyb, a response is in moderation :)
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_global-warming.html
And if human emissions were behind rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, he argues, then the change in CO2 each year should track the carbon dioxide released that year from burning fossil fuels—with natural emissions of CO2 being canceled out by reabsorption from land sinks and oceans. But the change of CO2 each year doesn’t track the annual emission of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, as shown in Figure 1, which charts annual emissions of CO2, where an annual increase of one part per million is approximately equivalent to an annual growth rate of 0.25 percent.
Only 140.000 sq K til the Arctic reaches 16,000,000 well ahead of schedule.
Continues to be biggest thorn in AGW as until explained it suggests temperature measurements are inadequate (freezing occurs at lower temps) and makes the GRACE measurement of land ice palpably wrong.
The number of theories put up by warmists is starting to get very crowded and laughable.
I suggest everyone here turns off their lights and stops using their cars until this record is achieved, Only 2 more sleeps, an early Xmas present.
What is in your soup? PIOMAS assesses that 2/3rds of the boreal float ice from the mid-20th Century is now melted away. I’ve read other estimates that only 20% remains. And this is the “biggest thorn” in AGW, how?
Dave
Have you got a link for that so we can see the context? Thanks
Tonyb
Tony — You may have caught me a bit short. I’ve been repeating this figure off the top of my head now for many months.
The 2013 September average ice volume is assessed @ 5,500 cubic kilometers. A September 1979 value (my eyeball) of 16,750 km^3 yields a 67% decline. The 2012 value was 3,900 km^3, a 77% loss.
Maximal monthly floats occur in April, and on that basis, the loss to date from the beginning of the PIOMAS record is 30%.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
My personal mental junk on this one, stems from an enthralling evening I spent at the home of a girlfriend in the seventies, as her Dad recounted skippering the first N-sub under the cap in the fifties. They crawled. They dodged what I imaged as very fat stalactites. They searched long and hard for rare spots where they might safely surface. In my mind, his descriptions anchor impressions of an entity which simply no longer exists. But those impressions date back two decades further into the melt than the satellite enabled PIOMAS metric, and were second hand. Were the Captain still with us, I rather believe he would regard what’s left as so much slush. I appreciate how unscientific such attachments are, even anti-scientific. Nonetheless, many agnostics hereabouts personally are convicted, that we ought wait about for decades before their ACT thresholds are surpassed. I cannot imagine my own tergiversation, without someone first putting the ice cap back atop the boreal ocean.
Hi Dave
I wrote this on Historic variations in Arctic Ice last year
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
My 90 year old neighbour sailed the arctic convoy during the war and came across little ice . As the article notes there was a low point then. 10 years earlier and the route was in deep ice. Same thing in the middle of the 19th century. The two warmest consecutive decades in Greenland remain the 1930 to 1940 period. These things appear to be cyclical
tonyb
Tony — Much appreciate your latest.
I dipped into your web page briefly, day before last, but have been engaged with a back and forth w/ Lord Monckton on another thread. I can see you are dug in with your vantage as deeply as I, likely a conviction which reaches across a long stretch.
My activism, such as it is, is episodic. During the past year, I’ve mainly been commenting upon what I regard as very abusive use of the El Nino Grande by the entire minimalist tribe, including the host here. (Beating us warmists up with a nostrum composed of thirty-five parts noise, to one part signal–the shame of it!) More than once, with persistent opponents, after about volley number five, I’ve ended with the exasperated challenge: “Oh yeah? Well put the damned Ice Cap back atop the Arctic Ocean, I’ll be all ears. Barring that, I want balls-to-the-wall nuclear substitution, wherever practicable, now!”
I used to occasionally visit a modest NOAA library in Silver Springs, D.C., back when I was in the government (’70’s). A climatologist there once gave me a cartoon graph, depicting a meandering temp/time trace, with a band of shading labeled “noise”, which lead to a prolonged rising departure to starboard, depicting the emergence of some future detectable human signal. No one, and I mean no one, thought of early century 20 decades as “CO2 signal.” This was pre-Vostok and pre-Ramanathan, so getting anyone to move against something at least a century out, was enormously difficult (at the time we were struggling to enact Dr. Schlessinger’s mandated shift to an all-coal power sector, and one of my few successes was helping secure funds to keep Mauna Loa funded!) The MBH Nature graph, actualized that cartoon. If your work can indeed shake my conviction that deteriorating polar float ice is anthro, it will be a profound, if humbling relief. I,of course, am eyeing these modern conceptualizations of the Pacific as a multi-decade thermal capacitor, as a way to sneak CO2 into that early century causality.
Lastly, I’d surely appreciate your thoughts on the contribution offered by Rutgers’ Dr. Jennifer Francis:(two U-2bs)
(for dummies:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4spEuh8vswE
(&, full monty:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg
At monty, 29:50, she is queried about natural cyclicity, quite possibly based upon your scholarship.
Also likely, if she is onto actual causality (if Earth is even capable of “actual causality”), the subjunctive mood will abruptly lift from our long-running tug of war. Forget the swelling Hadley Cell’s threat to Phoenix/Vegas, the wolf is right at the door in California. That big warm spot in the Gulf of Alaska, and recent elongation of jet meanders, possibly
getting persistently sticky with the Rockies…? If so, California might as well pack up life. And I’m talking making it through next summer.
Dave
Thanks for your very interesting comment. As it happens my greatly extended piece on arctic ice variations was published just last night.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-two/#comments
It now contains hundreds more references than the version I posted here for you a couple of days ago.
We can detect periodic melting of arctic ice at least every hundred years or so (to a greater or lesser extent). I wrote about the 1820/1860 melting and there was a melting around 1730 and around 1530 it appears-according to information at the Scott Polar institute in Cambridge that I visited- that the Northern sea route became navigable around 1540. (It then became navigable again in the 1930’s.) T
The book ‘The Viking World’ gives ample evidence of the relatively ice free Arctic that the Vikings enjoyed. It can be traced from the 9th century when King Alfred was asked to sponsor an expedition to the Far North to hunt bowhead whales
As regards MBH, I carried out a reconstruction of CET to 1538 and took the opportunity of examining the reconstructions of Dr Mann and Hubert Lamb to the same date.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
This idea of a relatively static climate for a thousand years until modern times bears little scrutiny. Climate can be highly variable as numerous historical observations can confirm. Such proxies as Tree rings fail to find any changes in climate as they are ill suited for this task. The sudden uptick in modern times only occurs when a highly variable instrumental record is grafted on to the static paleo proxies.
Incidentally I make reference to meandering and stuck jet streams in this work. They are apparent when you look at the historic record and weather becomes stuck in one mode or other or alternatively changes rapidly.
The huge increase in population in California and the resultant upsurge in demand for water is certainly not helping your drought
I will listen to the Dr Francis’ piece later.
Good luck with Monckton. He is an interesting character but he does not speak for me.(nor does Heartland or the GWPF)
tonyb
Dave
Ok, I listened to the first 45 minutes of the talk then had to go back and listen again to the first 20 minutes as I didn’t believe what I was hearing.
According to Dr Francis ‘around 1950 was the start of the industrial revolution.’ Really? Newcomen and others thought they were in on the start of it in the first decades of the 18th century. Then Dr Francis says that from 1900 the sea ice levels were basically static until modern times. NO!
Have you had a chance to read the revised piece I posted yesterday? There are hundreds upon hundreds of reports by scientists, naturaliststs, whalers,, explorers, journalists etc that showed there was a very dramatic downturn in ice in the period 1920 to 1950. We even have newsreel film of the events. How could she say these two wildly inaccurate statement within 20 minutes and not get picked up by someone?
According to her ‘in the good old days there was [lenty of ice. The start of satellite observations in 1979 constituted ‘the good old days’.As far as I was concerned her credibility was shot by then.
Do climate scientists do a module on climate history so they can understand context? Climate didn’t begin in 1950. Dr Mann has the same problem of context in believing in an unchanging climate. I gave numerous examples of a changing climate here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/a-short-anthology-of-changing-climate/
As regards Dr Francis’ ‘Arctic paradox’ we have plenty of evidence through history of a changing climate and that weather can become static.
I wrote this three years ago in my piece ‘The long Slow Thaw” that I referenced you several days ago which demonstrates our climate has been warming for some 300 or more years.
“Due to its geographical location British weather is often quite mobile and periods of hot, cold, dry or wet weather tend to be relatively short lived. If such events are longer lasting than normal, or interrupted and resumed, that can easily shape the character of a month or a season. Reading the numerous references there is clear evidence of ‘blocking patterns,’ perhaps as the jet stream shifts, or a high pressure takes up residence, feeding in winds from a certain direction which generally shape British weather.”
Are you aware of past climate states and that today is by no stretch of the imagination unique? Would knowing that today merely fitted into a long procession of climate change events we can trace through thousands of years of history change your view on things?
All the best
Tonyb
Tony — The Sunday news just ended here in Colorado. I’ve blocked out the entire day for your assessment of early Arctic times, and the beginnings of human thermometry. And look forward to both very much. Thank you for these efforts. We probably agree that this conundrum is as important as they come. Dave.
I just saw this article this morning…
“Study vindicates climate models accused of ‘missing the pause’ …”
Climate models can recreate the slowdown in global warming since 1998, as long as they correctly factor in crucial variables such as the state of the El Niño system, new research has shown….
see: http://theconversation.com/study-vindicates-climate-models-accused-of-missing-the-pause-29477
So is this post-hock reason #31 for the pause, is this cherry-picking models that happen to match reality, or are they onto something here?
It is odd that a boundary value problem requires adjustment of initial conditions. Some would think there could be a problem with parts of the theory.
A boundary could be a forcing defined by a periodic process. This periodic process is usually phase aligned on some initial condition and this propagates from that point creating a bounding constraint.
Of course you won’t understand this because it is your nature not to understand. We call your kind “know-nothings”
No Webster, the ensemble mean has already bit the dust and model conditions have to be reset due to the discrepancy. That doesn’t make long term predictions/projections/forecasts/swags with the current model generations very reliable.
The GFDL though has made a good deal of progress with their aqua and ridge world models that consider ocean heat transport a little more seriously. The Woods Hole model runs that happen to have that pesky century scale pacific “oscillation” are also looking a bit more pertinent. All of this tends to favor the lowest of the lower end “sensitivity” to CO2 estimates. My estimate is part of my handle doncha know.
Of course Cappy has to try to wiggle out of his ineptitude by trying to change the subject.
” My estimate is part of my handle doncha know.”
Dealing with people holding VoTech degrees gets tiresome, doncha know.
Well then Webster, why don’t you point out the subtle differences between a boundary value problem and a boundary value problem forced by longer than anticipated pseudo-periodic processes that vary the initial conditions on which the boundary value problem is dependent. Keeping in mind of course that “forcing” has to be external relative to the modelers choice of system boundaries.
The mean daily temperature cycle is a boundary value problem. The mean seasonal temperature cycle is a boundary value problem. The +33C discrepancy is a boundary value problem. Face it, your lack of abstract math skills continues to make you appear the klown you are.
Webster, ” The +33C discrepancy is a boundary value problem. Face it, your lack of abstract math skills continues to make you appear the klown you are.”
Which assumes a fix albedo and that the oceans are in “equilibrium” with the lower atmosphere which are in “equilibrium” with the upper atmosphere. Manabe has already suggested that the “discrepancy” could be as much as 100 degrees. Try again.
What a weak strawman argument, Cappy. Anybody could say that if CO2 had 3X the GHG potential the discrepancy would be 100C or 3 X 33C. But it doesn’t because the theoretical process already includes compensating factors such as the negative feedback lapse rate. That’s why it is 33C and not 100C.
You either know this already and you are arguing out of some agenda, or you really don’t understand physics and you ought to wear the dunce cap, Cap.
Webster, “You either know this already and you are arguing out of some agenda, or you really don’t understand physics and you ought to wear the dunce cap, Cap.”
The estimated albedo is 30% with a small portion reflected by the actual surface and the majority reflected by clouds that are a response of the liquid portion of the surface. If the distribution vary from 100% at the actual surface to 100% at some atmospheric “surface” there would be around a 2 C variation in the impact at the true surface. Even if albedo remains constant, there is a +/- 1C margin of error in the 33C “discrepancy”. What is used to determine the 33C discrepancy is a mixture of subsurface ocean temperature and land “surface” temperatures averaged from a range of about -80C to 50C at altitudes from below sea level to kilometers above sea level. That makes the reference, as in frame of reference, unreliable as an indication of change in “surface” energy.
Since you tend to pick the most unreliable of the unreliable reference, land surface temperature to predict thermodynamic doom, you obviously have little understanding of the thermodynamic portion of the physics.
“Study vindicates climate models…” Why not if you get well paid for it? Very well paid, I hope.
i paid a visit to the conversation once .
Did you notice how many comments were removed by the moderator? My guess is that no one is allowed to dispute the claims. Can’t have people challenging the groupthink.
The linked paper also shows that the models equally underestimated the actual heating in the 15 years prior to the pause, 1984-1998, making it probably quite a good 30-year estimate overall.
JimD, possibly but not likely. The problem is the “surface” being modeled. The models assume that that “surface” is close to some “equilibrium” with the upper atmosphere and the oceans. The “surface” is not and likely never will be in any quasi-steady state condition close enough to an “equilibrium” for very long, making it a modeling nightmare. The models have a zeroth law problem. It is still thermo 101 Frame of Reference, KISS and ASSUME. Ocean models on a 71% ocean world are the way to go.
captd, so you’re saying the observed pause isn’t a real thing anyway? There are skeptics who don’t believe in the whole concept of a surface temperature, but these have been quiet lately.
JimD, “captd, so you’re saying the observed pause isn’t a real thing anyway?”
I am not saying it isn’t real, just it doesn’t mean much. It is likely that at least 50% of the less than useful “global mean temperature” increase is due to “other” than atmospheric co2 “forcing”. Instead of the little ice age recovery ending in 1900 it more likely ended or came as close to ending around 1995, so now we can actually start “seeing” the impact of CO2 “forcing”. That 1900 date was just one of many questionable “assumptions”.. .
captd, so when the models and observations both have 0.2 C per decade for 30 years, and 0.7 C since 1950, your preferred view is that it is just one long-term coincidence rather than just a scientific success.
JimD, ” long-term coincidence rather than just a scientific success.”
Pretty much. The trend in energy balance models tends to agree. In a few years, 2C will probably be the higher end estimate and 1C the central estimate.
captd, it has been tracking 2 C per doubling along with the models for the last 60 years, and that is just the transient rate, but these are matching up well with the kinds of rates the IPCC has been stating all along.
No it hasn’t. It ‘tracked’ 0.08 degrees C/decade in 20 odd years between 1979 and 1997. The extreme were periods of ENSO extremes. The same in a complete warm/cool multidecadal regime form 1946 to 1998.
Most of the increase in 1979 to 1997 – the data quite unequivocally shows – was cloud radiative forcing caused by cloud changes associated with changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation.
So what do you get with a hundred years of 0.08 degrees C increase per decade? An utterly unlikely assumption that all other things will remain the same.
Rob Ellison, 3-4 C per doubling for land stations in the last 30 years too, don’t forget. This is not tropospheric satellite-derived stuff, but thermometer temperatures where people actually live and grow things, which after all is what matters when you think about it.
Surface warming was what I was discussing – it is 0.08 degrees C/decade.
But – just what are the physics of the land/ocean difference? Jimbo seems to have forgotten again.
‘Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.’ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
There have been some advances in decadal prediction based on initialised SST. So I suppose that those models that accidentally mimic SST will show improved decadal skill.
It must be remembered that this is no surprise. It was this element of natural variability adding to and reversing warming that was central to doubting the AGW collective. The expectation is that the current cool mode will persist for 20 to 40 years based on past behavior. Beyond that yet cooler modes seem more likely than not as cold deep water upwelling intensifies to pre 20th levels – with a biological boom as nutrients are brought up from the deep. This is the pattern of the past 1000 years.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=193
Like the notion that ENSO sums to zero – the boundary problem meme is a myth of the AGW collective. Which was of course the point of the joke that ‘know nothing’ webby failed to get as usual. It is simply wrong. Models are coupled, nonlinear chaotic systems and solutions diverge unpredictably with time as a result of small changes – within a range of feasible inputs – in both ‘initial’ and ‘boundary’ conditions.
‘AOS models are members of the broader class of deterministic chaotic dynamical systems, which provides several expectations about their properties (Fig. 1). In the context of weather prediction, the generic property of sensitive dependence is well understood (4, 5). For a particular model, small differences in initial state (indistinguishable within the sampling uncertainty for atmospheric measurements) amplify with time at an exponential rate until saturating at a magnitude comparable to the range of intrinsic variability. Model differences are another source of sensitive dependence. Thus, a deterministic weather forecast cannot be accurate after a period of a few weeks, and the time interval for skillful modern forecasts is only somewhat shorter than the estimate for this theoretical limit. In the context of equilibrium climate dynamics, there is another generic property that is also relevant for AOS, namely structural instability (6). Small changes in model formulation, either its equation set or parameter values, induce significant differences in the long-time distribution functions for the dependent variables (i.e., the phase-space attractor). The character of the changes can be either metrical (e.g., different means or variances) or topological (different attractor shapes). Structural instability is the norm for broad classes of chaotic dynamical systems that can be so assessed (e.g., see ref. 7). Obviously, among the options for discrete algorithms and parameterization schemes, and perhaps especially for coupling to nonfluid processes, there are many ways that AOS model equation sets can and will change and hence will be vulnerable to structurally unstable behavior.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Capt’n — I’ve been a warmist since about 1978. The underinstrumented early decades (of the last century) warmed inexplicably. Then there followed the multi-decade hiatus. Both linger as mysteries across the decades. Of late, increasing emphasis has been given to comprehending the endeavors of the Pacific, as it is demonstrably capable of episodically disgorging tens of times as much energy to the air, as our thermometers measure to have accumulated, as a steadily building secular trend. Further, the clustering of such episodic discharges, across multi-decadal frames, seems to at least render suspect, a physical system with the obvious capacity to dominate the atmosphere for several decades (i.e., the Pacific).
What is the basis for your favoring an altogether different “story”? It is still mostly the Pacific, in your interpretation, which records a putative solar excursion from centuries ago, and times its rhythmic regurgitations of energy to give us our thermal trace. In both conceptualizations, the “how” which the oceans employ, in undertaking such energy accumulations, storage, and peculiar release tempos, eludes human grasp. Rather like the wizard’s machinations behind his curtain.
What I find most disconcerting, in wrestling with minimalist perspectives, is the fact that typical Americans accumulate a 6X loading across their 78 year longevity, were it not smudged across the whole of humanity’s available surface. Immanuel Kant rather securely instructs us, that our acts must be conceded to serve as moral examples. Chindia built 25 million cars last year, so they now know where the cookie jar is. Confined to our share of the world, the Standard Portrayal would yield a mid-range hike of 24 F. (5.4 F. x 2 for 4X CO2 = 10.8 F.; x 1.5 for the 5th & 6th X CO2 = 16.2 F.; x 1.5 for the heating upon land to the total surface ratio = +24.3 F.) Death Valley’s Furnace Creek is + 19 F.
The SP has been stuck on its three-fold uncertainty since Charney, in 1979. Unamplified brute spectroscopy gives us +8 F. But high end amplification would give us +36 F. Your view of what the wizard is really up to, asserts the rather comforting, clairvoyant ASSURANCE, that there is no amplification. With what, to me, seems no commensurate explanatory resolution. And the BIG problem of explaining the Pleistocene. Lastly, the minimalists have by now written volumes on their multifarious bases for doubt. But they have yet to offer any basis whatsoever, for undermining Clausius-Clapeyron. And that, after all, is the very heart of the concern.
Your tax payer funded Propaganda filtering into the school system;
http://www.projectgreenschools.org/
Try the Bill Mcgibbon….”Scientist”. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad and pathetic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-zfinOCgRQ0
“Do the math”???
The dream team v climate change
Ten pointers for harnessing sport to tackle climate change in the age of social media
http://www.theguardian.com/connect4climate-partner-zone/2014/aug/18/dream-team-v-climate-change
Brent
It is difficult to think of any other aspect of our social lives that produces as much co2 as sport. Take football. In the uk there are hundreds of teams playing every week with literally millions Of supporters travelling hundreds of miles to see their team play, mostly by car. Hundreds of tons of food and drink are trucked in to the football stadiums for the fans. Many teams play in overseas leagues and their fans travel thousands of miles to follow them, usually by train.
Grand prix, the Olympics etc all require huge numbers of spectators and athletes to move around the globe. How on earth can this vast outpouring of co2 in pursuit of sport be considered green?
Tonyb
Well, at least the traditional English batsman puts out very little CO2 – especially when required to do a spot of fielding.
Ditto for baseball in the US. There’s probably a net consumption of CO2 at a baseball game in the form of hot dogs.
@Tonyb
It’s about harnessing the “Cult of Celebrity” in support of the cause.
NHL has already signed up to the CAGW propaganda scam it appears
NHL warns hockey’s future threatened by climate change
Hockey is taking steps to reduce its carbon footprint, for good reason: more than other pro sports, it depends on cold weather and clean water
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2014/07/23/nhl_warns_hockeys_future_threatened_by_climate_change.html
I love your comment about soccer “athletic supporters” travelling overseas by train :: )) I guess you were referring to the Chunnel : )
cheers
brent
P.S. Maybe they could start feeding some deniers to the lions at intermission : (
Sport is the modern equivalent of the circus of “bread and circus” fame
Brent
I started of saying plane but it ended up as train! Yes, feed deniers to the lions, that would make a great spectacle for the half time entertainment!
tonyb
mosomoso
According to my robustly adjusted and smoothed modelled data I can say with 97.5% certainty that Australia hasn’t won a cricket match for 27 years.
tonyb
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/18/6031219/how-to-profit-off-of-global-warming
My suspicion is that it closed down because there is no/little correlation with greenhouse warming and weather and climate change.
More climate change alarmism:
10 countries that may be hit hard by climate change
…
U.S. President Barack Obama pushed climate change up the global agenda last month, with his offer of $4 billion in government loans for projects that avoid or reduce greenhouse gases.
This move and others reflect a growing acceptance in Washington, and around the world, that global warming exists and will hamper economic growth unless combated. The OECD, for instance, forecasts annual damages from climate change will knock 1.5-4.8 percent off the global economy by the end of the century.
The economic hit will not be equal across countries however. Floods, typhoons, droughts and landslides all take a heavier toll on poorer countries with fewer infrastructures to cope, and where the majority of the populace still work on the land.
With that in mind, click below to see which places could be worst affected by climate change—both environmentally and economically.
….
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101912925
From the article:
…
Mexico Officially Opens Up Oil Industry
…
Summary
The Mexican Congress voted Wednesday to open the domestic energy market to foreign investment.
Pemex is losing its monopoly on the industry, though it will still retain a large share.
“Possible” reserves contain a huge opportunity.
Impact on large oil companies could prove to be a windfall.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2427005-mexico-officially-opens-up-oil-industry
“Possible” reserves …
Sorry, there’s no such thing
The definitions of Resource and Reserve are very precise. Deliberately confusing/conflating them in public statements attracts a jail term
Mining Geology ain’t “climate science”
Your comment got my curiosity up, so I checked. My emphasis.
From the article:
…
Estimation of reserves is done under conditions of uncertainty. The method of estimation is called deterministic if a single best estimate of reserves is made based on known geological, engineering, and economic data. The method of estimation is call ed probabilistic when the know in geological, engineering,
and economic data are used to generate a range of estimates and their associated probabilities. Identifying reserves as proved, probable, and possible has been the most frequent classification method and gives an indication of the probability of recovery. Because of potential differences in uncertainty, caution should be exercised when aggregating reserves of different classifications.
…
http://www.spe.org/industry/docs/Petroleum_Reserves_Definitions_1997.pdf
If climate scientists classified their results as proved, probable, or possible; that would be a giant leap from “unprecedented.” :)
Well, that explains why the oil industry is in massive collusion to “HIDE THE DECLINE” in new discoveries.
They redefine crude oil to include other products just so the production numbers stay on a plateau and so as not to spook BAU.
WHT – this chart tells the story. The WTI chart looks similar. You can claim all the hide the decline you like, but when the price of oil falls when the Middle East is on fire – it’s no lie.
http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/%40LCO.1
The oil spike that wasn’t: Prices defy global turmoil
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101917448
From the article:
…
Total retail sales in July likely took a hit from falling gasoline prices, but those lower prices at the pump are likely to give consumers more spending power for back-to-school shopping in August.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101915117
Some people have never heard of the concept Demand Destruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_destruction
Vehicle Miles driven chart
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/DOT-Miles-Driven.php
Can’t blame this on the climate change greenies, eh buddy?
Wow, down from 3.04 trillion miles to 2.97 trillion. That’s a relief.
jim2 that’s about 110 billion vehicles miles, almost as good as the CFLB effort.
@ jim2
“Wow, down from 3.04 trillion miles to 2.97 trillion. That’s a relief.”
So can we assume that the reduction in miles driven is primarily due to the fact that people who have gone from employed to unemployed are no longer driving to work every day?
Quite a coincidence that peak miles driven per capita coincided with the predicted global oil production peak of 2005. Markets always react to scarcity independent of what the cornucopian pundits say.
Hamilton reported:
http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/oil_history.pdf
This is always fun because deniers remain deniers whatever the topic being discussed.
Abnegation is a psychological defense mechanism.
Yes, VMT is a good indication of what the “real, real” economy is doing.
Interestingly, around 2005 if noticed that my commute seemed to be getting longer and fuel economy went down. A couple years of that and I started looking at the gasoline consumption and VMT data. I noticed a decline in VMT/gasoline consumptions at the end of 2004 to the recession at the end of 2007. Unfortunatley I don’t know whether the trend was real. It disappeared after a periodic re-analysis of VMT.
I have a couple hypothesese, 1) Bad information led drivers to responded poorly to rising gas prices. Slow acceleration is both less mechanically efficient and increases congestion. 2) increased cell phone use caused congestion.
The recession, of course, cleared the roads.
totally clueless. The scarcity of oil and the ensuing price shocks are the reasons for the recessions. I really don’t care about your personal anecdotes
read James Hamilton’s analysis
http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/oil_history.pdf
Traffic data revised
High Gas Prices are Causing High Gas Prices
Popular Mechanics, smooth, quick acceleration if more effecient than slow acceleration
How old are you?
Anyone, is this the most ridiculous gibberish that you have ever seen?
Emotionally, about twice as old as you.
Who are you talking to?
I thought what I wrote was pretty clear. What don’t you understand?
What you wrote was clear, and it is clear that you are ignorant.
Pulling cell phone usage and drivers’ acceleration habits into the discussion is the work of a poorly developed thought process.
Actually, it’s an excellent example of “thinking out of the box”. This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right, but it certainly doesn’t make it wrong. And if you’re looking for an excellent example of “the work of a poorly developed thought process”, dismissing “out-of-the-box” thinking like this certainly qualifies.
jim2
you said;
‘Wow, down from 3.04 trillion miles to 2.97 trillion. That’s a relief.’
Unless Obama is keeping much closer surveillance of motorists than previously thought, how on earth did anybody come up with such a precise figure as this? This seems to come direct from the ‘Dept of impressive sounding guesswork.’
tonyb
You digressed from oil production to economy and used VMT as an economic indicator. I affirmed your good choice of indicator and, as an asside, went further, describing the productivity of our fuel usage and suggested some good reasons why our transit productivity likely went down.
Whether our productivity went down during that period may be uncertain (I didn’t do a statistical analysis, just divided monthly VMT by gasoline product supplied and smoothed 13mon for seasonality), but the trend looks likely significant for the early data and the trend for the adjusted data still exists but doesn’t look significant. I also described likely mechanisms which are solidly supported by research (texting and cell phone use are known to delay starts at intersection and cause people to increase following distance wasting road space. Engine efficiency is highest at 3000-4000rmp with heavy (increasing) load (like during acceleration). Quick acceleration also increases throughput at intersections and coming out of other bottlenecks.)
Thanks, AK.
Tony, if you’re feeling masochistic: FHWA Guide to Traffic Reporting
It’s much like global temperature data. Data is collected using many different methods and calculated States report monthly data, but usually with incomplete data, data continues to come in over several months. This is compiled and reported in TVT reports. Every 2 years a comprehensive report is done collecting data again from the states over 6 months analyzed and adjusted over 1.5 years (the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)). The data is adjusted with complex algorithms for various economic factors, weather conditions, and changes in sample locations and sample method.
In the “revision” link I posted above, I took the TVT data from 2009 and divivided it by the EIA data for monthly Finished Motor Gasoline Supplied. In the second graph, I used the data for the same time period using the adjusted data.
I think there is good reason to believe the adjustment algorithms may have introduced bias in that report. There were big changes to our economy and driving behavior over that period. In addition, the financial crises and recession struck during the compliation and systhesis of the 2 year report. When I called the FHWA, I was told that revisions are often higher, but they were much higher for that year. I believe the stimulus caused a bias for higher reporting.
the comment thread was about Mexico’s prospects with respect to oil. They don’t have much of a future considering that their oil reservoirs are past their prime and no discoveries in the pipeline.
Jim2 and WHUT,
WHUT is correct that Mexico oil reserves are past the prime. However US reserves were down to 20 billion barrels and production down to 6 mBD in 1980 ro so. Now production is up and to the highest level in 30 years and reserves up to the highest levels in 40 years thanks to free markets and technical innovations. US reserves were past the prime then.
Mexico old production may benefit from the same technology and market forces if allowed to by the government.
Scott
WHUT, many national oil production systems are very inefficient. There are gains to be made there. See comments above from me and Fernando Leanme.
You’re absolutely right about mexican production being past it’s prime, and Hamilton is spot on (as usual– I’ve been a fan of his for years and follow him closely). In addition, Steven Kopits analysis is excellent. He believe that there are also major constraints on production the physical capital to increase production of oil. Yes, production is peaking, we don’t have the capability produce the capital to needed to increase production much/quickly. We don’t have the talent or infrastructure/industrial base to produce and operate enough equipment and the finance doesn’t work out for many of the major producers (they are using debt to refinance, paying out dividends, and (I assume) like most corporations buying back stock and at the same time selling off capital assets).
That said, I believe production can be increased significantly in the medium term to bridge the gap to transition to other resources over the next few decades. We can educate and train more people to increase production. US policy is likely preventing us from discovering more reserves. There are inefficiencies to fix many nationalized systems, like mexico, venezuela, nigeria…
Now, venturing into the realm more of fantasy, I think that it is possible that there may be oil in places we haven’t traditionally looked. Also, I think we could stir competition to increase inefficiency and discovery globally to boost production growth over the next several decades. I think that a dynamic like Paul Krugman describes here likely exists. I don’t think it is implausible that we could drive competition by aggressively pursuing oil in the US. We could announce that we expect cheaper alternatives in the next 30-50 years and announce that we will aggressively pursue oil while it is still worth something.
Sorry for the too soon, badly edited post. I’ll try again later (often my edits end up making things worse though).
Sorry for the nearly unreadable post. Writing is my weakest suite and I have chronic pain problems, when it gets bad my writing gets very sloppy (skip words, wrong words, and miss-edits). Plus wordpress comment entry is buggy (as is the copy-paste from it). Hopefully this is better.
WHUT, many national oil production systems are very inefficient. There are gains to be made there. See comments above from Fernando Leanme and me.
You’re absolutely right about mexican production being past it’s prime, and Hamilton is spot on (as usual– I’ve been a fan of his for years and follow him closely). In addition, Steven Kopits’s analysis is excellent. He believes that there are also major constraints on production of the physical capital to increase production of oil.
Yes, production is peaking, we don’t have the capability produce the capital needed to increase production very much or quickly. We don’t have the talent or infrastructure/industrial-base to produce and operate enough equipment. And the finance doesn’t work out for many of the major producers. (They are using debt to refinance, paying out dividends, and (I assume) like most corporations buying back stock. At the same time they are selling off capital assets).
That said, I believe production can be increased significantly in the medium term to bridge the gap to transition to other resources over the next few decades. We can educate and train more people to increase productive capital. US policy is likely preventing us from discovering more reserves. There are inefficiencies to fix many nationalized systems, like mexico, venezuela, nigeria…
Now, venturing into the realm more of fantasy, I think that it is possible that there may be oil in places where we haven’t traditionally looked. Also, I think we could stir competition to increase efficiency and discovery globally, to boost production growth over the next several decades.
I think that a dynamic like Paul Krugman describes here likely exists. I don’t think it is implausible that we could drive competition by aggressively pursuing oil in the US. We could announce that we expect cheaper alternatives in the next 30-50 years and announce that we will aggressively pursue oil while it is still worth something.
According to the comment of ianl8888 you are going to jail because you are exaggerating crude oil resources. That’s what happens when you are a cornucopian … you live in fantasy land, by your own admission as well..
I was wondering why Arctic ice took a jag down. I think this is the answer:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicespddrf_nowcast_anim30d.gif
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif
It’s sort of funny to read the Brad Plumer article in the link, about migration of peoples– all poor–displaced by global warming (and the burden that developed countries would face as a consequence), and see no mention of the greening of the Sahara, nor any mention of the fact that the same things could be said about what we might expect if we are a decade into the next 300 years of global cooling.
The only way to beat the disastrous consequences of Leftist-inspired AGW alarmism is to be so poor that when the economy crashes, the depression will come and go and you’ll never notice.
This is from today’s WSJ – sounds very familiar
http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-salt-libel-1408406010?mod=Opinion_newsreel_5
http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-salt-libel-1408406010?mod=Opinion_newsreel_5
is paywalled.
try this: http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-salt-libel-1408406010
Oh well, the rub is–e.g.,
Aussie Climate High Priest says we must follow diktats of the “Scientism” Priesthood !
Climate change scientist calls on colleagues to speak up on global warming debate
”To pretend that science, and in particular environmental science, can remain at the side of that debate is simply no longer tenable,”
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-scientist-calls-on-colleagues-to-speak-up-on-global-warming-debate-20140819-105qtu.html
BREAKING NEWS
Faux-Conservatism Fails Again
YET ANOTHER MARKET FAILURE
Climate Etc readers are familiar with the utter failure of faux-conservative market fundamentalism to grapple with the scientific, economic, and moral realities of climate-change … now faux-conservative market fundamentalism is failing similarly to grapple with the the scientific, economic, and moral realities of health-care:
• Faux-conservative politicians promise market-fundamentalist solutions to climate-change … but deliver NOTHING.
• Faux-conservative politicians promise market-fundamentalist solutions to health-care … but deliver NOTHING.
Question Why would *ANY* STEM professional *EVER* vote for/campaign for faux-conservative politicians whose juvenile market-fundamentalism delivers *NOTHING*?
The world wonders. STEM professionals wonder especially!
Prediction The moral, economic, and political failure of faux-conservative market fundamentalism is as inexorable as rising seas,
heating oceans, and melting polar ice … *ALL* of which are accelerating without pause or obvious limit.
*THESE* realities are obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
STEM professionals especially!
@FOM
Looks like STEM students have too many other things on their plate to be thinking much about climate
http://www.technicianonline.com/news/article_9173d976-5d6d-11e3-92e7-0019bb30f31a.html
and
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9249838/For_half_STEM_degrees_lead_to_other_jobs
Geez — Again, just a total lack of objectivity from the usual blog folks saying all our ills come from “Liberals” wanting to regulate everybody to death.
Chevron (not exactly a “fan” of the EPA) makes the following statement in the 1st of their 3 part story on diesel engines:
“Surprisingly, many of the changes that help engines run cleaner are basic to making diesels run efficiently and produce higher levels of horsepower.”
Things like this are rarely brought up in the (Tea Party type) blog comments.
http://www.delolubematters.com/2014/06/04/the-history-of-diesel-engine-design-part-1/?utm_medium=cpcsyn&utm_campaign=Taboola&utm_source=Taboola&utm_term=novalue
Stephan,
Almost everyone can support engines running cleaner and reducing diesel emissions of particulare matter and hydrocarbons and NOx.
Valid technology development and economic sense in implementation bring widespread support across the political spectrum. Tea party type blogs don’t complain because it seems ok.
It is when greenhouse controls raise the cost of gas by $.50 a gallon and the price of coal fired electrical generation and create power blackouts in those areas that depend on coal that people get hot under the collar and cold feet.
When this seems to be based on models that don’t match reality and won’t make any difference with China and India continuing to emit that the support disintegrates. Specially when the BRICS demand reparations from the weak economies in the EU and US.
Those are the arguments.
Scott
Stephen: “Things like this are rarely brought up in the (Tea Party type) blog comments.”. What a treat; from a person that has no clue of the meaning of “Tea Party type”. Here’s a hint: Having worked with automotive mechanical and electrical engineers my entire professional life, a safe assumption would be that almost all such engineers in the US Midwest are tea party types. Most are also in favor of good, clean engine design; engineers like good engineering. On the other hand the EPA in the 1970s tried to assist the engineers in engine design and the result was hastily put together and sloppy engineering, drawing scorn from my colleagues.
“’Workers at the state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — “streamers,” for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair,’ the Associated Press reports this week.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385723/dead-bird-steamers-california-solar-plant-jillian-kay-melchior
The law of unintended consequences, a l’orange. Best served with a nice Beaujolais.
From the link to Quadrant:
“…In the extract above, the range is shown in square brackets following the calculated trend, which is shown as 0.05°C/decade (oddly, Chapter 9 gives the figure as 0.04°C/decade). For the period 1998 to 2012 the range is from a slight cooling (0.05°C/decade) to a slightly stronger warming (0.15°C/decade). What this range means is that no one can be certain whether temperatures rose or fell over the 15-year period. ~John Mclean (emphasis added)
Wag,
Good references and excellent point. When models don’t match observations we need to go back to the models and modify them. Plus create a better observation network that measures temperature changes. Maybe stop adjusting the past temperatures. Enough changes have been made and we should published un adjusted temps and adjusted temps with rationale for the changes. It would become obvious when the past cools too much. Zeke and Moshpit provided informative dicussions but the Steve Goddard graphs remain as arguments in one direction and we need to see the unadjusted graphs with the adjustments showing how we change history as we learn more.
Scott
@ Scott
“When models don’t match observations we need to go back to the models and modify them.”
The models are apparently just fine–once the data is properly adjusted.
Bob,
It is great to see the error bars in the Quadrant paper. Given a .05 increase with a -.05 to +0.15 value,we can’t measure within the margin of error whether we are heating or cooling. All these claims should be bracketed with error bars. Plus the past temperature changes to cooling.
Scott
From the article:
Iceland volcano eruption risk level raised to orange for aviation
Intense seismic activity at the Bardarbunga volcano indicates the potential for a disruptive ash event similar to 2010
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/18/iceland-volcano-risk-raised-to-orange
China, Saudi Arabia to cooperate on renewable energy development
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/china–saudi-arabia-to-cooperate-on-renewable-energy-development_100016140/
News on the downed Malaysia air liner:
Passengers on flight MH370 died of oxygen starvation hours before the pilot performed a controlled ditching in the Indian Ocean, according to a new study into the disaster.
Analysis by a veteran air accident investigator suggests all 239 people lost consciousness up to four hours before the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 disappeared beneath the waves.
The most likely scenario is that pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah deliberately depressurised the cabin, thereby depriving those on board of air, the research concludes.
Although oxygen masks would have dropped down automatically from above the seats, their supply was limited to just 20 minutes.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/expert-claims-flight-mh370-pilot-4075954
My question is: Is there a natural source of carbon tetrachloride?
From the article:
Ozone-depleting compound persists, new research shows
20 August 2014
Joint Release
WASHINGTON, D.C. – New research shows Earth’s atmosphere contains an unexpectedly large amount of an ozone-depleting compound from an unknown source decades after the compound was banned worldwide.
Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), which was once used in applications such as dry cleaning and as a fire-extinguishing agent, was regulated in 1987 under the Montreal Protocol along with other chlorofluorocarbons that destroy ozone and contribute to the ozone hole over Antarctica. Parties to the Montreal Protocol reported zero new CCl4 emissions between 2007-2012.
Satellites observed the largest ozone hole over Antarctica in 2006. Purple and blue represent areas of low ozone concentrations in the atmosphere; yellow and red are areas of higher concentrations. New research shows Earth’s atmosphere contains an unexpectedly large amount of carbon tetrachloride, an ozone-depleting compound, from an unknown source decades after the compound was banned worldwide. Credit: NASA
Satellites observed the largest ozone hole over Antarctica in 2006. Purple and blue represent areas of low ozone concentrations in the atmosphere; yellow and red are areas of higher concentrations. New research shows Earth’s atmosphere contains an unexpectedly large amount of an ozone-depleting compound, carbon tetrachloride, from an unknown source decades after the compound was banned worldwide.
Credit: NASA
However, the new research shows worldwide emissions of CCl4 average 39 kilotons (about 43,000 U.S. tons) per year, approximately 30 percent of peak emissions prior to the international treaty going into effect.
http://news.agu.org/press-release/ozone-depleting-compound-persists-new-research-shows/
A Marshall Plan for Energy
[…]
[…]
AK comment: And while they’re at it, some well-designed enabling laws for sea-floor methane hydrate extraction.
Why academics really use twitter (no offense intended, just humor):
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1737
Sir Ian Wood: 15 years of oil left before independent Scotland spending cuts
The North Sea’s most eminent industry leader comes out against independence and warns rapidly depleting reserves means a separate Scotland could end up importing gas from England.
The North Sea most eminent oil and gas tycoon has delivered a devastating blow to Alex Salmond’s independence campaign by warning there are only 15 years of reserves left before its decline starts wreaking major damage on the Scottish economy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11046740/Sir-Ian-Wood-15-years-of-oil-left-before-independent-Scotland-spending-cuts.html
The US needs to take a lesson from Europe and NOT emulate it!
From the article:
When Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz was asked in Germany this week if the country and its neighbours would suffer a lost decade, his response was unequivocal.
“Is Europe going the same way as Japan? Yes,” Mr Stiglitz said in Lindau at a meeting for Nobel Laureates and economics students. “The only way to describe what is going on in some European countries is depression.”
…
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/64217ffa-2946-11e4-baec-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3B7r9oRo4
Scotland had a shale oil industry in the Victorian era.
http://www.scottishshale.co.uk/
open thread type stuff to be sure…. if this question on Stackexchange Mathematics, gets answered and proven affirmative, it will provide significant new insights into the climate. If you have an interest in advanced mathematics, take a look….
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/907120/can-we-rotate-a-3d-lattice-of-deformed-spheres
What is the justification for constructing plots of observed ocean warming in terms of joules rather than temperature anomalies as is done for atmospheric temps? I can speculate one obvious reason why, but how do you justify it? (And for one layman perspective: unlike temp anomalies, Zetajoules have no intuitive meaning to people. If anything, scaling the heat increase by total heat in the subject ocean layer at some reference year would seem to be more meaningful than plotting the change in joules, no?)