by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
Michael Levi: Why climate change policy won’t hinge on international talks http://for.tn/1DypLLt
Andy Revkin: Koonin followup: Climate Certainties, Uncertainties & Choices: http://nyti.ms/YjakWC
ClimateWire’s @gayathriv profiles controversial #climate scientist #JudithCurry, whose views diverge from @IPCC_CH’s
http://eene.ws/1yu73Vf
“Climate change could be slower than forecast”
@bwebster135 of The Times reports on the new Lewis & @curryja paper http://t.co/DN0qBwA8WC
Climate Change Communication: Taking the Temperature – Part 5 with Gavin Schmidt @ClimateOfGavin http://go.shr.lc/1rmtF3C by @kirkenglehardt
Interesting interview with Gavin, not sure I buy the ‘pre bunking’ idea:
Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981 · Sep 23
.@curryja denial http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/22/judith-curry-an-unsettled-climate-for-climate-summit/ … pre-bunked here http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing … here http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/22/wall-street-journal-downplays-global-warming-risks … and here http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/02/global-warming-making-weather-more-extreme …
Scientists seen as competent but not trusted [link]
Game of thrones weather [link]
Physics Today: Neil DeGrasse Tyson accused of “the science of smug condescension” [link]
Physics Today: Physicist Steve Koonin impeaches scientists’ climate consensus [link]
What is up with Physics Today? Whatever, I like it!
West coast (US) warming linked to naturally occurring changes [link]
Scientific American: Trust in science reduces concerns about climate change [link]
Ilan Kelman: The IPCC with its consensus approach no longer suited to new challenges posed by climate change [link]
The science behind the numbers from Global Carbon Budget 2014 [link]
On the Path Past 9 Billion, Little Crosstalk Between U.N. Sessions on Population and Global Warming [link]
Robert Stavins in NYT: Climate Realities [link]
Nisbet study: Expertise in an age of polarization: evaluating scientsts’ political awareness & communication behavior [link]
NYTimes: Bottom up climate fix [link]
“Disruptive Ideas: Public Intellectuals & their Arguments for Action on #ClimateChange” new study [link]
Jean S at ClimateAudit: Why did Jones attribute the trick to @MichaelEMann? Here’s the evidence [link]
There’s Physics: Curry for dinner http://wp.me/p48oug-1am
Mark Steyn: “The @MichaelEMann on display…is such a thorough top-to-toe fraud that it can only be defended by further fraud” [link]
Tamsin Edwards: My @TEDxCERN talk: how to love uncertainty in climate science. Event starts in 20mins here: http://tedxcern.web.cern.ch
Related essay from Tamsin: There is some uncertainty in climate science. @flimsin says that is a good thing: http://bit.ly/Zd2gbt
Quote of the week tweeted by God: “DiCaprio: ‘Climate Change Is Real’.” Almost convinced, but I’ll still need verification from Clooney.
Joke of the week from John Kennedy:
Climate Scientist walks into a bar, says, “A pint of…
…
…
…
bitter”
Barman: “Why the long pause?”
Climate Scientist: <sobs>
Cartoon of the week:
From the open letter cited in the Revkin piece authored by CMU folks:
In his editorial Dr. Koonin states in categorical terms that climate is changing, and that burning fossil fuels is the cause. We highlight that when climate scientists say the science is “settled,” that is precisely what we mean – no more and no less.
Just wow. So the only reason that the climate changes is CO2 emission, and that fact is universally accepted. I had no idea!
The don’t even understand why the statement is ridiculous.
Sarcasm?
Previously natural underground coal fires?
You conclude that “the only reason that the climate changes is CO2 emission, and that fact is universally accepted”
That does not follow from what Dr Koonin says
Logic and reading comprehension do not seem to be your strongest skills
“bob droege | September 27, 2014 at 12:48 pm | Reply
You conclude that “the only reason that the climate changes is CO2 emission, and that fact is universally accepted”
That does not follow from what Dr Koonin says
Logic and reading comprehension do not seem to be your strongest skills”
bob, i think that you missed something…
Koonin uses the weasel-word “influencing”. It is a way of neither accepting nor denying the mainstream view that it is the main cause of warming since 1950. Other favorite non-denial words are “contributing” and “affecting”, or simply the 97% statement that “humans are causing” global warming, not some or most, just causing.
The Focus on Uncertainty
Fascinating:
Steven E. Koonin
Tamsin Edwards
Unlike the Left that sees capitalism as a disease, what about the rest of the world? They understand the benefits of free enterprise even if they do not subscribe to the American ideal of the individual’s God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They see things their way and their plan is to use more energy to create more not less economic wealth–e.g.,
What a week. Congratulations for your parts in it.
Agreed. Eric Holder even threw in the towel.
“Climate change could be slower than forecast”
@bwebster135 of The Times reports on the new Lewis & @curryja…”
Anyone know the politics of The Times? Is this reportage significant?
pg, I assume that that’s the Times of London. It’s an excellent paper, the one I read in the UK, I was an online subscriber but they stuffed up repeated attempts to continue. It is – or was, I haven’t been in the UK since 2011 but the Australian carries a lot of Times pieces – the best paper I’ve come across in the world. The standards are very high, it’s a Murdoch paper so is definitely not of the left. It is the UK’s most influential paper and carries weight internationally, so, yes, it is significant that it publishes J&N’s findings.
Thanks Faust…Good to know. Come to think of it, I might have asked this question once before. I get mixed up between the Times of London and the Sunday Times which I’m given to understand are two different papers. One of these days…or likely years…we’ll see something in the New York Times that opens the door just a crack. That will be a good day indeed.
The Times and Sunday Times are stablemates. I don’t know what the current level of separation is, the ST is probably separately edited but will be very close to the Times. I flew Brisbane-London immediately after the 9/11 attacks, and The Times coverage was large-scale and superb, with every shade of opinion presented, very high quality articles.
I worked for a newspaper in the Times group in the 1960s, pre-Murdoch era, the ST was then essentially the Sunday version of The Times though with dedicated staff. I knew some of their Insight team, hard-hitting investigative journalism at its best; disbanded when Murdoch bought it, but it’s probably a better paper now. Overall, I found journalism too dishonest for my taste – generally, the story was the thing rather than the truth.
Faustino,
Read yr letter in ‘The Australian’ today re attracting credible
leaders with honesty, wisdom and integrity …Sigh, U wish serf,
u wish. (Certainly wasn’tso with our last OZ Guvuhmint.)
Beth;
Yes, it would be a miracle for such a one to make it through the gauntlet of “qualifying” appointments and selection committees etc. The ones who look best are generally the ones who have best learned and applied the Grifter’s Motto: “Once you learn to fake sincerity, everything else is easy.”
There’s Physics: Curry for dinner http://wp.me/p48oug-1am
So that’s where our little gaggle of trolls hang out, when they are not here chewing on Judith’s ankles. They seem to be a lot happier there.
If I disappeared, I wonder what the poor dears would have to talk about
Me. I’m mentioned twice.
Some of them also hang out at Hotwhopper. Sou has a particular down on Anthony Watts, but Judith is coming up fast on the rails.
tonyb
They could talk about climate justice. )
Almost all of the posts at ATTP are not about you. But since there are so few prominent scientists on the “skeptic” side, your name does come up occasionally.
There is no sceptic science – there is just science and eventually it leads somewhere real. The purpose of the Borg collective meme factory that is ATTP is just that – gatekeepers inculcating groupthink. It is the reason dissent is not permitted.
The science is not as Joseph imagines – because it is not as portrayed in these echo chambers.
There are very few climate scientists with the integrity and courage to be on the skeptic side.
What I mean by “skeptic: is being skeptical of AGW and its effects as described by the IPCC.
More of the “evil scientist” meme* *yawn*
Joseph, “What I mean by “skeptic: is being skeptical of AGW and its effects as described by the IPCC.”
Most here aren’t skeptical of AGW, just the way it is described by the IPCC. We tend to notice the errors and additions that just don’t fit with AGW, like models that are no where near ready for prime time. I think just about everyone on this blog would be delighted to support reduction in black carbon/particulates and improve land use remediation, plus most are aware that productive things are being done in spite of the IPCC.
The IPCC basically has lost most of its credibility.
Rob,
You are right. Scientist should be skeptical and not accept that any particular paper is the final word on a subject. But scientists work in a theoretical framework where certain assumptions must be made. If the assumptions or theory ends up being disproved,then they must accept that as well.
Capt,
I don’t think most people here have the expertise to criticize the science. I know I don’t. For example, have you ever worked on a GCM? How much of the literature have you read on GCM’s?
I am a hydrologist with a Masters in environmental science – I have run models for a lot of my life.
Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
I have read quite a lot – and above is a couple of other names – Tim Palmer and Julia Slingo. Tim Palmer is head of the European Centre for Mid-Range Weather Forecasts and Julia Slingo is the head of the British Met Office.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F2.large.jpg
Work it out – you need more than memes and prejudices to play here Joseph.
Rob, well go ahead publish something in a reputable journal since you seem to have all the answers.
Joseph, “I don’t think most people here have the expertise to criticize the science. I know I don’t. For example, have you ever worked on a GCM? How much of the literature have you read on GCM’s?”
There are quite a few here that are qualified actually. Myself, I can just compare the ensemble mean to observation and see things aren’t following the game plan and it is not hard to compare region “projections” with regional observations. It isn’t really rocket science. Most here were mentioning the Pause, Hiatus, Slowdown or stand still long before it was even acknowledged by the modelers. The Himalayan glacier melt “not a typo” was pretty obvious. When there is a glaring error and one of the authors admits that it was left in order to stimulate action, you would have to be pretty blind not to notice doncha know.
Joseph | September 26, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
Rob, well go ahead publish something in a reputable journal since you seem to have all the answers.
You may – just as a suggestion – go to the source instead of posting empty snark. This is a tactic that works only in the sheltered workshop of ATTP and ilk.
Here’s another one – http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Try to work out just what it means – and not what you imagine it should mean – or what you were told it should mean.
‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’
Damn and double damn.
Joseph | September 26, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
Rob, well go ahead publish something in a reputable journal since you seem to have all the answers.
You may – just as a suggestion – go to the source instead of posting empty snark. The latter is a tactic that works only in the sheltered workshop of ATTP and ilk.
Here’s another one – http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Try to work out just what it means – and not what you imagine it should mean – or what you were told it should mean.
‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’
If it is so simple, then why don’t Gavin and the rest say the models do have skill? I won’t accept nefarious intent without proof and incompetence is not an acceptable reason for something “anyone” should be able to see.
evil scientist meme? Who said lemmings were evil.
Joseph, “If it is so simple, then why don’t Gavin and the rest say the models do have skill?”
Some of the rest are and there are new PhD candidates working hard on cloud Parameterization. Oddly, with correction to cloud parameterization, in particular mid-level liquid-layer topped stratiform clouds the modeled “sensitivity is just about exactly what Lewis and Curry published.
. http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~gc903759/phd/ABarrett_Thesis.pdf
You know Joseph, there is a lot of stuff going on other than the Gavinator.
joey, joey
I didn’t say anybody is evil. You made that up. And it’s your crowd’s meme. You are struggling here, joey. Your little bootay buddies are sipping Kool-Aid and toasting marshmallows back home on attp. Don’t miss out.
Capt, you have failed to explain why if it is so simple to see, Gavin and the “others” who agree with him think the models have skill. I don’t think anyone including Gavin has said they are perfect or can’t be improved.
Joseph, from that thesis I linked.
“Whilst the models employing a temperature-dependent diagnostic split of
liquid and ice are clearly more able to produce and sustain supercooled liquid water, the structure of the simulated clouds is not the same as the observed structure. The liquid is in larger concentrations near the base of the cloud where the temperature is warmer and the ice is distributed fairly
evenly throughout the depth of the cloud. This error in cloud structure is shown to be significant when calculating the radiative influence of the clouds and the cloud radiative forcing is less negative by 18.60 W m−2 at TOA for mixed-phase clouds when the liquid and ice is partitioned as a
function of temperature in this way.”
Remember that 18.6 Wm-2. The original K&T energy budgets ASSUMED that there was a 40W,m-2 atmospheric window. That window is actually about 18 Wm-2 less than they assumed. Stephens et al. published a newer Earth Energy Budget, not really their job since that was already done serval times by Trenberth with other authors, but still they published ans included an ~ 18 Wm-2 to the K&T energy budgets. There just isn”t enough window available for CO2 pressure broadening to close with respect to the “real” surface, to have as much impact as model “project” at the “real” surface. All because of cloud parameterization and limits with pre-ERBS and CERES satellite data. Amazing how new data tends to be corrected with estimated balloon velocity changes and other such happy horse hockey instead of actually figuring out where models might be wrong.
These are your heroes Joseph.
Don, what do you mean by “few climate scientists with the integrity?”
Capt, was that supposed to be an answer my question?
Joseph, “Capt, you have failed to explain why if it is so simple to see, Gavin and the “others” who agree with him think the models have skill. I don’t think anyone including Gavin has said they are perfect or can’t be improved.”
They (Gavin and the old guard) aren’t exactly busting their butts making improvements from what I have seen. the GFDL is a bit of a different story, but then they had a lower estimate to begin with, din’t they, 2 C per doubling back in 1979.
Joseph, “Capt, was that supposed to be an answer my question?”
The part that I can answer yes, I am not a shrink capable of figuring out why people do dumb chit, I just know that they do from time to time.
I know Capt and that’s why have trouble with questioning the experts. I think in most cases the disagreements are complicated and highly technical, not simple. It could be the case that the models are fundamentally flawed in some way. But that won’t be decided in the blogosphere.
joseph, “. But that won’t be decided in the blogosphere.”
I agree with that 100%. If you get time though take a look at Barrett’s thesis, pretty technical for the most part but he is very clear in the rest.
Me, I am more of a measurement kinda guy and know how hard it is to use some data. The nuts though is if you model all clouds as ice topped where there is a good percentage that are liquid topped, you have a problem. Perhaps Barrett is the insider that will finally turn some heads. dunno
Oh and Joseph, CO2 forcing should increase the percentage of liquid topped clouds which is a negative feedback just like Troy Masters, another citizen scientist with peer reviewed work seems to have “discovered”. Odd that that discovery took so long.
Wow, captd, how much do you have to warm the atmosphere to liquefy the ice clouds? Surely by then the negative feedback will be too late.
Joseph: If it is so simple, then why don’t Gavin and the rest say the models do have skill?
That is a good question, and I do not know the answer. Nevertheless, Gavin and the rest say that the models do have skill despite their errors. I think that part of the answer may be that they do not have a definition of “skill”, and they are happy that the models avoid idiocies such as arriving at a mean global temp of 350K, or that they no longer produce obvious errors like dividing by 0, floating-point overflows, or other pathologies.
Another possibility is that they are wedded to the belief that the equilibrium calculations are really and truly accurate, so intermediate indeterminacy does not matter. Some of them, Gavin included, frequently right that the models will be accurate over long runs, despite the inaccuracies over the short run.
Whatever, the models have demonstrated wretched skill at forecasting the future, and the present global mean temperature is outside the range of all the model predictions.
“curryja | September 26, 2014 at 7:52 pm | Reply
If I disappeared, I wonder what the poor dears would have to talk about”
Yet, we’re also told that CA is the height of rational scepticism and is great for science.
What’s sauce for the goose is, apparently, not sauce for the gander.
‘It could be the case that the models are fundamentally flawed in some way. But that won’t be decided in the blogosphere.’
‘In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.’ TAR14.2.2.2
The frustrating thing is that can spoon feed them but they still don’t get it. There are two types of ensembles. The kind the TAR discuss – perturbed physics models. PDF’s generated from 100’s or even thousands of runs using changed inputs to generate a solution space. Models are intrinsically chaotic – ‘the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.’ (Slingo and Palmer, 2011) The spread in the solution space – systematically evaluated through model families is irreducible imprecision.
The other is an opportunistic ensemble – of 55 models in the AR5. All providing a single realization of a possible future from amongst many feasible solutions. The fatal flaw is that there is no a priori means of deciding between feasible solutions other than qualitatively.
This is the schematic again.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F2.large.jpg
It is a matter of arbitrarily choosing one of these solutions and mapping it with other arbitrary choices from other models – 55 in total.
‘Nevertheless, I advocate the hypothesis that plausible, chaotic AOS models have important levels of irreducible imprecision due to structural instability resulting from choices among a set of modeling options that cannot be clearly excluded. The level of irreducible imprecision will depend on the context, and this level is likely to be greater the more chaotic and multiply coupled the targeted flow regime is…
In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.’ McWilliams 2007
I do not doubt that Joseph studied at the feet of Gavin – who is an AGW groupthink gatekeeper. A far more realistic and comprehensive understanding of the intrinsic limitations of models emerges from the wider modeling community.
Michael | September 27, 2014 at 12:59 am |
“curryja | September 26, 2014 at 7:52 pm | Reply
If I disappeared, I wonder what the poor dears would have to talk about”
Yet, we’re also told that CA is the height of rational scepticism and is great for science.
What’s sauce for the goose is, apparently, not sauce for the gander.
And Michael – So bitching about Judy on ATTP like little bitches has something to do with CA? Do you imagine – Michael – that referencing the personal and professional bitching and adolescent gibes justifies another – if immensely incoherent – dig? The world wonders indeed.
The writer of this sentence is either totally ignorant of how atmospheric convection works, or totally dishonest.
Jim D:
Which part of, “increase the percentage of” did you not get?
Rob Ellison | September 27, 2014 at 2:01 am |
“And Michael – So bitching about Judy on ATTP like little bitches has something to do with CA…”
Indi,
Cast your mind back to Judith’s motivation for blogging – the terrible, terrible behaviour of scientists refusing to engage with their ‘skeptic’ critics. It was undermining the confidence in science, even it’s very Integrity.
Fast forward and we have Judith snarking at criticisms of her new paper.
Heck, she won’t even engage with Gavin Schmidt’s recent critique.
Judith has developed a distinct preference for ditto-heads.
JimD, “Wow, captd, how much do you have to warm the atmosphere to liquefy the ice clouds? Surely by then the negative feedback will be too late.”
Since liquid already exists in clouds well below -20C, not much. What percentage of clouds are liquid topped now?
You might want to check out chapter three.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~gc903759/phd/ABarrett_Thesis.pdf
According to the old school Bergeron process, the liquid topped cloud should only last about 30 minutes, but they seem to persist quite a bit longer for some reason. Could be one of those kinetic and microphysical deals that aggravate the hell out of people. Maybe you should sic webster on the problem?
“climate justice”
I’ll say it again, these people are half way to nuts. I see they’re still denying the pause. I used to think, back in my starry-eyed days, that objective reality meant something. The capacity of the human mind for self-delusion appears almost limitless….and deeply depressing.
The top half of every thunderstorm is ice, and all the cirrus clouds and lots of polar clouds. How much of that significant percentage of the world’s ice clouds would captd want to liquefy to have an effect? How warm does it have to be to liquefy that percentage? It’s just natural skepticism of his remark given these facts as background. Seems his feedback requires significant warming before it even can start doing anything.
I call BS! Prove it with peer-reviewed links.
Quote from the link:
Joshua:
I question Judith Curry’s motives. She makes money from oil and gas contracts.
Case closed.
That’s physics all right!
AK, I will leave captd to answer that for you. Your clue is that to have lightning you have to have ice particles and lots of them.
JimD, “The top half of every thunderstorm is ice, and all the cirrus clouds and lots of polar clouds. How much of that significant percentage of the world’s ice clouds would captd want to liquefy to have an effect?”
Since learning something new is not your cup of tea, this will be another waste of time, BUT about 7.8% of stratiform clouds are liquid topped. That changes the radiative cooling properties of the clouds plus the sw radiation they absorb/reflect. Since the liquid tops are supercooled, added CO2 forcing should reduce the rate the cool slightly increasing the time the liquid layer exists.
Barret is describing a model resolution problem both spacial and temporal. Since the liquid top is theoretically only supposed to last 20 to 40 minute (Bergeron Process) and the typical model daily interpolation is about 8 or every three hours, the liquid top impact is underestimated by a factor of up to 200% or so. Since the layers can be as thin as ~100 meters, spatially, the models cannot include that fine a resolution vertically.
Modeling clouds is a bitch basically. To adjust parameterization you can cheat by using RHice instead of RHwv and tweat the temperature range somewhat to allow the observed in nature liquid topped clouds that persist as long as days to exist in the models. Evidently, if you are looking for job sercurity, climate/weather modeling is the field to be in, provided of course you at least attempt to keep up with the progress.
Like I said:
captd, as you may have noticed, that thesis is about model mixed-phase parameterization, not climate change. You are reading your own needs into it.
JimD, “captd, as you may have noticed, that thesis is about model mixed-phase parameterization, not climate change. You are reading your own needs into it.”
It is way too early here to be drinking Jim. Since most of the “climate change” of dire amounts is in failing models, try connecting the dots a bit better.
captd, since adding his improvement to a GCM is future work in that thesis you are connecting dots that don’t yet exist.
JimD, “captd, since adding his improvement to a GCM is future work in that thesis you are connecting dots that don’t yet exist.”
I noticed this problem about 7 years ago. 2 Years ago Troy Masters publish a paper on part of the issue,
http://troyca.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/my-esd-paper-on-cloud-feedbacks-was-published/
In my opinion, staying ahead of the curve is what you want to try and do especially since idiots tend to ignore the obvious for some egotistical or political reason. So yes, you might find that I tend to focus on the future instead of the past.
Great quote TJA.
wonder why you didn’t quote the immediate challenge to it below.
@Jim D | September 27, 2014 at 11:07 am | …
You mean this:
Well, I’m probably wasting my time (WRT you anyway), but it’s worth the trouble to say a few things, given your abysmal ignorance. I do, after all, know a bit about thunder.
You also have to have hail:
If condensation nuclei are present. And unless they are present in large quantities, only a fraction of the smaller droplets will contact them.
Thus, hail forms though interaction with supercooled water droplets. Which must therefore be present for thunder to take place.
AK, the whole anvil cloud that you see is ice particles. You can only find water in the updraft cores deep inside when looking at those upper-half parts of the thunderstorm. For the influence on radiation, which is what captd was talking about, that supercooled water is not doing much being below rather a lot of ice that dominates the clouds at those levels.
Link?
And just why is it anvil-shaped?
“Joseph
If it is so simple, then why don’t Gavin and the rest say the models do have skill? ”
Dowsers believe they can find water with a stick, clairvoyant’s claim to be able to see the future and almost all religious professionals believe they can help subscribers to evade the perils of a presumed afterlife.
Oddly, dowsers are not employed as hydrologists, clairvoyant’s do not rake it in through sports betting and religious leaders fail to agree with each other as to the best way to live in this world.
The claims of ‘skill’ by climate modelers are as real as N-Rays, having a common source.
@ Dr. Curry
I followed Don Monfort’s link:
There’s Physics: Curry for dinner http://wp.me/p48oug-1am
And came away with the following: If anyone is not ALREADY terrified by CAGW, they will be once they visit the above link.
Nothing to do with the effects of ACO2 on the temperature of the Earth, of course (should any be detected in the future), but because of the realization that the folks who post there represent the ‘thinking’ of the lunatics who are setting the energy policies of Western Civilization in general and the US specifically.
If that doesn’t scare you, you aren’t paying attention.
Bob Ludwick, you can rest assured that the House Science committee is on top of it. Go to 3 minutes of this.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8q3nmm/burn-noticed
AK, here.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_is_an_anvil_cloud.htm
Any questions?
@Jim D…
Yeah! See that thing sticking up from the back-right of the cloud? What do you suppose that is?
http://www.weatherquestions.com/thunderstorm-from-the-space-station.jpg
I made a point of demanding peer-reviewed links because sites like yours too often simplify – and get it wrong. Or fail to provide enough information to keep you from getting it wrong.
AK, you don’t need peer-reviewed science for this. It has made its way into cloud-spotter guides and school books. Be specific what you are saying. Are you saying anvil clouds are not made of frozen particles? Also it is easy to Google these things on the WWW, and I predict you won’t believe any links I send you anyway. Research for yourself. Here’s a start.
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~baum/Cirrus/TropicalCirrus.html
Actually, I don’t need anything. I’ve understood the basics since I was in high-school, and kept up. I was hoping you’d realize how abysmally ignorant you are, for instance in saying:
Perhaps, to give you the benefit of the doubt, your idea of “top half” is the cirrus shield that often forms through detrainment.
I’ve looked around a little, and haven’t found anything specific about the time-frame involved in conversion from supercooled liquid droplets to ice crystals during detrainment, but certainly your original simplistic idea that the water droplets that make up cumulonimbus clouds freeze and turn to hail demonstrates your ignorance.
If you want to correct your ignorance, a little, you might might do worse than to start here. I haven’t had a chance to fully review it, but it comes well recommended from other peer-reviewed sources, and provides the basics.
JimD, So are you in denial of liquid layer topped clouds? Does negative cloud forcing cause problems in your linear no threshold world?
ftp://ftp.cira.colostate.edu/ftp/Seaman/CLEX_10/papers/zhang_wang_liu_2010.pdf
Perhaps Dr. C can put together a post on mid-level liquid-layer topped stratiform clouds? They seem to becoming the rage during the past decade. One of those little surprises that make things interesting.
captd, no there are liquid topped clouds too, just thunderstorms aren’t and they are the major ice-topped ones, hence my remark. How much warming does it take to make a lot of the ice-topped clouds liquify was the question. Must be a lot, no?
OK, so it was the words “top half” you were complaining about. It may be more. The anvil base is at the freezing level (look up radar bright band), maybe 10000 feet, and the tops are 50000-60000 feet, so maybe the top 80% is more accurate.
Actually, the freezing level is usually more like 4-5000 meters for tropical hot towers. But that doesn’t matter: just because a rising cloud of water droplets reaches the freezing level doesn’t mean it freezes.
Don’t you know anything?
AK, the bright band for US storms is more where I said it was. In the tropics it may be higher, but so are the tops. The bright band is where those ice particles I mentioned in the anvil fall and melt into raindrops, so it is actually from melting.
That Overshooting top I was trying to get you to notice in the picture you linked to is the top end of the main updraft of the storm. The cloudy air that makes it up is usually mixed-phase, AFAIK.
If the top is colder than -40 C, there is unlikely to be much, if any, water even in those clouds due to homogeneous freezing.
“I question Judith Curry’s motives. She makes money from oil and gas contracts.”
Someone other than Joshua wrote the above.
VTG then said to someone, words to the effect of, you can do better:
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/curry-for-dinner/#comment-32059
Energy future contracts can help smooth out natural gas supplies. It’s sort of an insurance market. Futures markets exist and distribute valuable price data, that help with the distribution of energy. Same as with the Corn futures market that helps with the distribution of corn and perhaps indirectly ethanol.
Perhaps Dr. Curry is helping forecast future shorter term temperatures and therefore natural gas demand. These could cause better supply with demand matching, which is about efficiency. The quality of these forecasts if high, arguably improve efficiency. Poor forecasts can cause a number of problems. Gluts, shortages, higher shipping costs, higher storage costs. Being against the efficient operation of future markets is like being against farmers.
thx, this is part of what my company does. we also forecast renewable power generation, e.g. wind and hydro. We also forecast weather disasters, so regional power providers can minimize downtime for the grid.
“wonder why you didn’t quote the immediate challenge to it below.” – Verytallguy
What difference does it make? The quote is funny, risible, in and of itself.
The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about! – Oscar Wilde
WebHubTelescope says:
September 24, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Talking about Strong Aromas and Very Tall Guys, I noticed that the skeptics that get on my nerves share last names with some former NBA basketball players
Judy “Dell” Curry — shooting guard
Tony “Slick” Watts — point guard
Bob “Wayman” Tisdale — small forward
Rob “Pervis” Ellison — power forward
throw in Peter “Marvin” Webster or Ed “Connie” Hawkins at center, and David “Tiny” Archibald at 6th man and you have a balanced lineup, but mediocre at best.’
Yes – the usual trolls hang out in the Borg collective echo chamber that is ATTP learning the memes, whining about sceptics and making ‘humourous’ observations.
Why is this monster of misinformation so persistently allowed to abuse and insult here – and then spread his calumny in the usual haunts? Baffles me and has for a long time.
Self deprecating humour becomes an opportunity for the Master of Malice and Misinformation?
Go away – webby – no one’s impressed and you will never recover from your Bose-Einstein meltdown.
Don –
Now c’mon, you have to admit. That there’s some beeeaaautiful unintentional irony. Plus he even added some whining to m*mmy. ‘
A work of art and a thing of beauty.
We can certainly count Joshie to be a persistent little pratt. New material Joshie – the old stuff is threadbare. Josh – masquerading as mini-webnutcolonoscope – has a song and dance he repeats incessantly – here and elsewhere it seems from my recent brief and unlamented forays into the Borg collective.
Webnutcolonoscope had an opportunity year ago to behave in good faith – he certainly blew it with his Bose-Einstein meltdown. He purpose is merely to abuse and malign – and then to prattle about it on Borg collective blog sites. It is too pathetic for words and serves no purpose whatsoever. Josh as well it seems. Just what is the point in allowing this to go on and on and on?
I realise Joshie has little in the way of knowledge to judge – but the Bose-Einstein fiasco is typical of the level of superficiality webnutcolonoscope brings to everything he touches. He is profoundly incompetent – it is all egregious misinformation – it is triple plus unscience leading with malice and resentment.
There is certainly no hint anywhere with these two that scientific truth – or even communication in good faith – is their purpose. I repeat – what is the point of this silly song and dance?
Again – self deprecating humour – perhaps he just doesn’t understand the concept.
He then drags in Tasmanian devils – the loony tunes version – and drag queens in an unfortunate antisocial gibe. Careful – webnutcolonoscope – they’ll ask for your Space Cadet badge and decoder ring back.
Besides – if I am disabled –
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/img_0098.jpg
g@y, Christian and educated – it makes me both trustworthy and competent.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4/13593/F1.large.jpg
Webnutcolonoscope on the other hand is both tricky and dickey.
The leg – btw – is pretty scary. It literally glows in the dark.
I know I shouldn’t – it’s O/T – but P – Q – 0 – t – D, so
goddam funny, except, there’s a scene with Terence
Stamp, trans-vee with gravitas.
We will all remember Webby when we run out of hydrocarbon fuels.
Just running around clearing up the messes he leaves behind – Judy? You missed a few.
Wow! What a back-slapping, high-fiving echo chamber that is!
Just about the only voice of reason there is Pekka.
phatboy, the host is actually pretty reasonable, but a bit hung up on the status quo defense initiative.
Pekka does not insult people but voice of reason he is certainly not. The host has moderated his extreme views from his anti Watt days but is still quite nuticelli in them. WHT compared Rob to a power forward, I thought he would be happy but the divide is too deep.
Pekka apparently is ok being treated with contempt when he’s not looking. Nice of you to take advantage of someone that can’t pick up the subtleties of the English language.
Joseph | September 26, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
Rob,
You are right. Scientist should be skeptical and not accept that any particular paper is the final word on a subject. But scientists work in a theoretical framework where certain assumptions must be made. If the assumptions or theory ends up being disproved, then they must accept that as well.
Science and the Borg collective echo chamber that is ATTP – are 2 very different things.
Rob, I am sure most people that go to ATTP get their information on climate science from other sources as well. It isn’t the Branch Davidians with David Koresh (ATTP) holding the chains ya know.
Yes – they get their information from gatekeepers of the groupthink dynamic.
‘Although it has failed to produce its intended impact nevertheless the Kyoto Protocol has performed an important role. That role has been allegorical. Kyoto has permitted different groups to tell different stories about themselves to themselves and to others, often in superficially scientific language. But, as we are increasingly coming to understand, it is often not questions about science that are at stake in these discussions. The culturally potent idiom of the dispassionate scientific narrative is being employed to fight culture wars over competing social and ethical values. Nor is that to be seen as a defect. Of course choices between competing values are not made by relying upon scientific knowledge alone. What is wrong is to pretend that they are.’ http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchandexpertise/units/mackinder/pdf/mackinder_wrong%20trousers.pdf
Science progresses to something real – the Borg collective cult of AGW groupthink space cadets are chasing anomalies down a rabbit hole with overweening – but doomed – ambition to transform economies and societies. An onanistic psycho-sexual wannabe revolution that is converging up it’s own arse at the same time. Overall – a neat trick – but not one we want to witness. .
Joseph | September 26, 2014 at 9:27 pm |
Capt,
“I don’t think most people here have the expertise to criticize the science. I know I don’t. For example, have you ever worked on a GCM? How much of the literature have you read on GCM’s?”
You have to believe that climate is deterministic and or that climate science is sufficiently understood to include all salient natural variables (e.g. clouds, water vapor, carbon cycle) for it to matter whether anyone has worked on GCMs. Perhaps the problem is that given the current state of climate knowledge, GCMs are the wrong approach. Or perhaps it means that they aren’t mature enough to be useful in determining policy. Given the current state of knowledge, GCMs are at best of academic interest only.
Here is an interesting article about trolls and sadism:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/tech/web/online-trolls-sadists/
This might explain why some people spend a lot of time commenting on the blogs of people the don’t like – they actually derive some pleasure tormenting others.
I took a look, quite a clown convention over there. It reminds me of (un) RealClimate
sorry, long thread
http://wp.me/p48oug-1am
Little jimmy dee is a pause denier. Someday, he will be on trial at the Hague.
I paid Andy a visit in his blog. The “Curry for Dinner” post was written by a guest whom I corrected using my homily about RCP8.5…but I also left them a reference to my latest paper.
One of the participants seemed to think the site was too high brow for me, told me to go downstairs to Rabbets’. They do require patience, but I already recruited two to join me in the resistance.
One regret about the new book is that I did not do an essay on RCP8.5. Your homily is excellent. Keep recruiting.
After talking about how biased JC is, how it’s the science what matters, how the data is clear etc, we get this:
“Plus, FWIW, if your 5 – 95% interval for the ECS includes 1 degree, that always makes me think that the method is clearly an underestimate.”
Note that the result being unexpectedly low indicates the method is biased low – “clearly” so. No mention of checking the methods sensativity to several factors, or any other means to confirm the truth or otherwise, just a simple appeal to authority – “everyone else get a bigger number, therefore you are wrong”.
Is it possible that radiative physics equations are susceptible to unknowns on immeasurable timescales? False positives et al.
Sincerely, a sincere question,
Proposition (i)
Are the radiative equations enumerable?
I don’t think so.
Those silly charts the ipcc puts out about ‘level of scientific understanding’:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol6/v6n12/figures/feature_fig1.gif
are probably accurate – the radiative physics are well measured, reproduceable in a lab, and pretty well understood.
What’s missing is the understanding and more important unpredictability of the general circulation which can modify net shortwave as well as outgoing longwave.
The “temperature change” Y axis includes an undocumented concentration or “degree of occurrence”. This is one of the IPCC document´s biggest flaws. They built their castle upon weak, poorly documented foundations.
Luci :), “What’s missing is the understanding and more important unpredictability of the general circulation which can modify net shortwave as well as outgoing longwave.”
Aerosol indirect effects and that little “albedo only” note on land use are my favorites. For the albedo only, try comparing Astro-turf with natural grass.
http://aces.nmsu.edu/programs/turf/documents/brigham-young-study.pdf
You mean like the breakdown of big bang as it gets closer to singularity? I suspect it’s quite possible.
@Revkin dortEarth,
“Predictably, the piece by Koonin … was quickly hailed by fossil fuel defenders.”
It’s those Eeevil Koch Brothers AGAIN!!!
And yet, I don’t see how that weakens Koonins assertions one bit. It’s a lousy, nasty, CAGW’r thing to say.
To use Revkin’s own word, “predictable.”
I suppose in fairness I’ll now have to go read the rest of what he said. Yech.
I thought Robert Kennedy Jr had them arrested and sent to the Hague for Climate war crimes?
Naah, The Hague won’t execute people.
wrt:
“Michael Levi: Why climate change policy won’t hinge on international talks”
As I recall, after the “Battle at Seattle” , Bill Clinton commented to the effect that if they couldn’t get a wide ranging all in international accord, the the agenda would still go forward via multiple smaller deals , Bi-Tri-lateral etc.. In effect just a different trajectory , but the end goal is still the same.
@ Koonin consensus article, “Physics Today”
Comments are interesting. Here’s a catchy one:
*Didn’t realise the American Institute of Petroleum published ‘Physics Today’.
Now I’m waiting for,
“THE HERETIC: She Blinded Us with Science!”
Film at 11.
From SCIENCE:
A woman in the eye of the political storm over climate change
Curry thinks paleoclimate proxies “are garbage. Not all of them, most of them.”
You got that right, and are being polite, actually. Some are so torqued as to be borderline fraudulent. See Richard Muller’s “before and after” charts of “hide the decline.” Remarkable.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/22/black-tuesday-of-climate-science/
Muller: “I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read any more. You’re not allowed to do this, in science. This is not up to our standards. I get infuriated with colleagues of mine, who say “Well, you know, it’s a human field. Do you make mistakes?” And then I show them this. And they say “Err… no. That’s not acceptable.”
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20101001_m3
http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/26/mikes-nyt-trick/
Note Jean S comment 26/09 @ 11.48am re Mann’s
comment to Jones about MBH98 trick.
Correction. @ 12 .51pm.
I wonder about the “common effort” mentioned by Mann. Somehow, I don’t think it was the search for truth.
@ Richard Drake,
“What a week. Congratulations for your parts in it.”
Indeed, and seconded.
Nolo permittere illegitimi carborundum!
(sign on Barry Goldwater’s Senate desk)
Judith Curry
You seem obsessed by self punishment mentioning Gavin again and again.
A masochistic tendency perhaps? There is cognitive therapy available of course.
A reminder to me of the religious flagellates of yesteryear.
He is totally unbelievable for ANYTHING he says. He has lied before. There is nothing stopping him from lying again, and again, and again…..
Referencing him is just, to me, a throw away. Waste of time and effort.
Found this in one of the comments at physics today:
Koonin has an annotated version of his article at cusp.nyu.edu
At the bottom of the page click people, then Koonin,, then the + on the publications bar
rls: Koonin has an annotated version of his article at cusp.nyu.edu
At the bottom of the page click people, then Koonin,, then the + on the publications bar
thank you for the link.
The link to Steyn doesn’t work.
http://www.steynonline.com/6576/the-mann-act
From the article:
…
Usually when there is trouble in the Middle East, oil prices spike. However, despite recent airstrikes on oil refineries in Syria, that wasn’t the case Thursday. Crude held steady in choppy trading, and Dennis Gartman said the reason for the muted reaction is twofold.
“We are, in fact, creating a lot more, finding a lot more, producing a lot more crude oil here in the United States than anyone would have guessed a mere two years ago,” Gartman, editor and publisher of “The Gartman Letter” said in an interview with “Closing Bell.”
In addition, he said, demand for gasoline is down and that had been the real product driving prices to the upside.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102034060
Oops!
…
“Demand is falling not because the economy is weakening but because we’re simply learning how to use our cars better … and we’re doing more and more of our shopping online.”
…
(From the previous link)
I am sure it is all covered in WHUT’s peak oil model. Low oil prices are a crutch for the weak minded!
No doubt. I think the fact that we do more shopping on line is having an impact on gasoline prices is interesting. I know I make a lot fewer trips to get stuff than I used to.
Now that you mention it, online shopping is a backdoor mass transit system. Instead of everyone driving to the mall with their acres of parking lots, the mall’s goods come to them, usually in a delivery truck. We are moving towards less gasoline use and I don’t think this particular reduction was caused by government fiat.
But OTOH, think of all the gigawatts sunk into server farms, the cloud, PCs, and mobile devices. Mobile devices use the most expensive source of power: batteries. They are also the dirtiest form of electricity when you consider the mining and energy used to make them. No one ever thinks of that, apparently.
Heck, batteries might be dirtier even than coal!
From the article:
…
Summary
Continental Resources made a bold prediction that recovery factors in the best areas of the Bakken may ultimately exceed 20%.
Using a more conservative assumption of ~15% recovery, Continental estimates the Bakken’s recoverable reserves in the 62-96 billion barrels range.
Even after applying some risking to these estimates, the Bakken should sustain production at 2-3 million barrels per day for multiple decades.
Continental Resources (NYSE:CLR) unveiled its new recoverable reserves estimate for the Bakken play last week. The company estimates that the Bakken Petroleum System’s original oil in place is in the 413 billion barrels (P50 estimate) to 643 billion barrels (P10 estimate) range.
…
Despite a considerable reduction in the OOIP estimate, Continental’s new resource appraisal shows a real breakthrough on the recovery factor side. The company raised its recovery factor estimate to ~15%, a steep change from the 3.5%-10% range that was often used by the company and the industry in the past. For example, Continental’s previous presentations have focused on a recovery factor range of 3.5%-5%, as one can see on the slide above.
Moreover, Continental commented that the 15% recovery factor assumption may prove to be conservative for full-field development mode. The company’s extensive reservoir simulation analysis for its Hawkinson density pilot suggests that recoveries as high as 20%+ can be achievable with density drilling using the company’s traditional completion techiques and, likely, may be further increased with enhanced stimulation designs.
…
The Bakken is currently producing ~1.1 million barrels of high quality light sweet crude per day. Assuming that the play’s current annual growth pace of ~250,000 barrels of oil per day can be sustained over the next three years, then slowing down to only half of the current rate, one would arrive at ~2.1 million barrels per day of oil production from the Bakken in 2020
…
Under the most optimistic scenario, assuming Continental’s OOIP P10 estimate for BPS materializes, the recoverable resource is fully extracted, and the recovery factor ultimately exceeds 20%, the Bakken could potentially plateau at ~4 million barrels a day for a multi-decade period. However, such a deep recovery of resources across the entire play would likely reflect substantially higher than current price levels for crude oil.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2510885-the-bakken-how-long-will-the-resource-last
Continental is hyping its stock. Don’t rely on seeking alpha.
Oil and Gas journal has the present average Bakken recovery factor at 1.5%, and that figure accords with North Dakota’s data for 2013.
And the most recent 2013 USGS TRR is 7.4Bbbl. The newest revised EIA TRR estimate is 8.1Bbbl.
Rud, I’m pretty sure you are pulling that out of your backside. How do you know that “Continental is hyping its stock.” ? Proof?
Companies have been known to exaggerate, but they are a public company and companies that mislead get sued on a regular basis. So your innuendo is weak and, again, not supported by proof.
Technology has time and time again proved predicted production “estimates” wrong. Even a blind man can see that. The article does point out that lower numbers were used previously by both Continental and the industry in general.
Do you seriously believe that technology WON’T increase recoverable oil from shale?
And as far as relying on Seeking Alpha goes, typically the authors have either spoken to the company or done other research. Can they be wrong? Yes. But this information is more up to date than yours, unless you have spoken to Continental reps lately.
In short, the numbers you have quoted will be out-dated. And if history is any guide, it will happen sooner than later.
Jim2 you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. I have been to the Bakken. And the numbers cited are the best current official estimates. For what it’s worth, the North Dakota consulting geologists had a whisper number of 7.8Bbbl before the revised USGS and EIA estimates came out.
Two years ago Continental was saying 40 and Maugeri said 45-I guest posted here on how and why Maugeri was wrong. Now Continental has upped their ante to 90 using a ludicrous argument about TRR.
The average recover factor of about 11000 conventional oil fields studied by IHS is 26%. Those are high porosity, high permeability sandstone and carbonate reservoirs, not source rock.
The middle Bakken drilling target has porosity of 4-5% and permeability averaging at or below 0.04millidarcies. Both numbers are an order of magnitude below a typical conventional reservoir, and have direct negative consequences for recovery rates.
Yes, multistage fracking and the use of more propant has resulted in better initial well yields. But has not changed their steep decline curves. Technology undoubtedly will continue to advance. But saying recovery factors in the middle Bakken will ever reach 15 or 20 percent shows (willful?) ignorance of petroleum geophysics.
Rud, the fact that you have been to the Bakken doesn’t mean you know about every technological development. I used to work in the oilfield. Companies typically don’t disclose details about their technology, so your information cannot be current.
You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
Rud and Don are spot on here. Molecular diffusion is a very high hurdle to overcome.
Right, Howard. That’s why the peal oilers have missed the mark time and time again.
Your argument about molecular diffusion is similar to the warmist’s missives about Arrhenius and the simple CO2 back-radiation idea. It’s right as far as it goes, but it does not describe the entire complex process. More is at work here than diffusion. It’s hard to see how smart people can oversimplify so much, but it seems to be a common problem.
SeekingAlpha is not a reliable source of information, period. Do a little research on the SeekingAlpha self-serving “authors”, who promoted Chinese reverse merger stocks. Do a little research on Chinese reverse merger fraud. I made a fortune shorting that crap.
Don, I take everything I read with a grain of salt. But the positive articles on shale oil production in Seeking Alpha comport with more official production numbers. So you can say what you like, I’ll keep reading Seeking Alpha and other news sources, thank you very much.
I didn’t tell you not to read it, jim. I know you amateurs are hardheaded. If you look through the SA comment sections on many of the scores of “articles” promoting Chinese reverse merger frauds, you will see me warning naive amateurs against buying into that crap. They fought back mightily. Bunch of losers.
Do, Don. I suppose you deny that the US is producing much, much more petroleum that anyone ever thought possible? That’s the bottom line, Don. When it comes to global warming, how many just flat out wrong articles have been published in Nature and other journals.
Unlike you, I know that wrong information will be put out there from time to time, but I don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Sheesh.
I haven’t made any comment on U.S. oil production, jim. I have told you that SA is not a reliable source of information, period. If you have managed to sort out some little tidbit of correct data from the all BS there, good for you. Enjoy yourself.
Continental is either hyping its stock or it uses voodoo reservoir engineering. The bakken is a low quality reservoir rock (this is why it couldn´t be produced until we saw the oil price spike in the early 2000´s). A low quality reservoir rock produced by fractured horizontal wells doesn´t achieve those 20 % recovery factors . To do so it would have to violate known physical principles. If you wish I can explain what those would be.
Hi Fernando. I was a chemist in the oilfield on the production side for several years. Given the connection, I am interested to hear your explanation. Hopefully, it will be more than just the word “diffusion.”
Judith –
==> “Scientists seen as competent but not trusted”
Well golly, gee, I thought for sure with your oft’ stated concern about the “crisis” in public trust of climate scientists, you were going to quote this part from the article:
Guess you musta just missed that part, eh?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/tech/web/online-trolls-sadists/
Judith didn’t like the obvious implication that climate scientists are not pure. Sorry to ruin it for you, joshie. Take that crap over to attp, where it is appreciated.
==> “Take that crap over to attp, where it is appreciated.”
Sorry, Don, I’m having too much fun here:
I thank you for being so compliant.
What you are having here is entirely in your own little mind, joshie. It’s called self-serving self-aggrandizing self-gratification. Keep whippin it, joshie.
“Sorry, Don, I’m having too much fun here:” – Joshua
Ha, and we thought you were just here to entertain us with your character’s complete lack of self awareness.
Climate sensitivity is in free fall with the pause
That reminds me:
According to Jesse Jackson:The pause…is killing… the cause.
What would be curtains for the so-called pause would be a record warm year without even an El Nino, which is on the cards for 2014 and probably has some skeptics now hoping for an El Nino to use as an excuse.
Well, this is an interesting year which did start with El Nino which appeared to end in July:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/tlon_heat.gif
But even though the equatorial Pacific has been the indicator, it appears to be patterns of global cloudiness ( and lack of clouds ) that give El Nino years the global temperature boost.
This year may be effected by increased shortwave even though the El Nino signal terminated early.
Jim D: What would be curtains for the so-called pause would be a record warm year without even an El Nino,
What would be curtains for the pause would be a sustained (17 years or so) period of warming of at least 0.04/decade. A truly stationary process at the present mean will set new records from time to time, so a record is not indicative of a change. Of course, if that were to happen now it would eventually put the kibosh on some of the explanations for the pause, such as the increase in the thermohaline circulation transferring surface heat to the depths.
I dare say that whatever its theoretical implications might be, every skeptic in California is hoping for an El Nino (or anything else, for that matter) to bring rain soon. fwiw, the last time California had a drought this bad the CO2 concentration was about 280 ppm.
Jim D, what data set are you using?
I believe Tisdale was using several of them when he said that there was a chance of a record year in 2014 in at least a couple.
I’m hoping for el Nino to protect SE Michigan from winter weather.
The new Beckett -like production, ‘Waiting for the Pause
to End.’
A record warm year without an El Nino? Don’t know the time-frame or precision of “record” – who does? they just like the word – but for Australia 1939 was the La Nina who thought she was a boy, and a very bad one. Deaths from 1939 heat alone (there were also catastrophic fires) constitute our most lethal natural disaster, just ahead of the 1896 heat. Not only was 1939 a La Nina year, but it was flanked by neutral years.
Nag about it forever, but you can’t stop a certain type seeing a rough observations set like ENSO as a super-mechanism. The 1998 whopper El Nino did little to those parts of Australia deemed most vulnerable, whereas the weak El Ninos of 1902 and 2002-3 were shockers.
Keep repeating and it might help: not a mechanism, not a mechanism…
By the way, count me among those who see nothing in the pause and would see nothing in some continued warming. Both would be completely unremarkable.
Both would be completely unremarkable.
Bears repeating.
>Scientific American: Trust in Science Reduces Concern About Climate Change
Hmmm… I’m sceptical of the claims made in that article. :) I’d like to see someone try to reproduce those results.
Justin
The easiest way to understand why it is not radiation to the surface which is determining the mean global temperature is to think about the thin surface layer of the oceans, especially in non-polar regions where most of us live. There are published measurements of solar radiation entering the water and penetrating at least 20m. Let’s define the water surface as having that thickness which absorbs the first 10% of the energy in the incident solar radiation. (This is quite thick enough to determine the surface temperature.) So the other 90% of the solar radiation warms colder regions below. Thermal energy in those colder regions below the surface cannot rise to the warmer surface above it. Instead it heads for the poles and so has no effect on the temperature in the non-polar regions of the oceans.
Now, to calculate the surface temperature you would have to use only 10% of the solar flux in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, and obviously that gives temperatures way below freezing point, even for the direct flux of 650W/m^2 at noon in the tropics on a clear day. For example, for emissivity of 0.984 for ocean water, 65W/m^2 gives only 185K. So you have a very obvious and huge different between observed temperatures in non-polar ocean surfaces and the temperatures derived with radiation calculations.
So let’s focus on this issue Judith and all ye who still believe in radiative forcing.
Doug, your ocean reasoning is problematic for at least two reasons. The upper 200- 300 meters or so of the ocean is called the mixed layer, resulting from surface wave churning. This is above the major thermocline which is why nuclear submarines like to operate below it (the ‘boundary’ messes up sonar). Roughly the first hundred meters is called the euphotic zone. That is where all photosynthesis occurs. The depth varies with turbidity, but is obviously how far light penetrates. So you use all the flux.
Are you a sky dragon? Because radiative forcing is well understood. The ‘grey earth’ sensitivity to CO2 is either 1.1 or 1.2 depending on calculation details. Prof. Lindzen uses 1.2. What is uncertain are the feedbacks, not the radiative physics.
Rud. There is most definitely a slightly cooler region at least by 5m down, even No if only by a fraction of a degree. And ocean churning is not mixing all that depth perfectly. Even if you consider the whole region 200-300m it is warmer than the main thermocline below and so it must lose energy downwards by diffusion. Any upward transfer towards warmer regions will not happen adiabatically, because entropy would decrease, and churning in that region will do nothing but cool the surface layer, because none of the deeper water is warmer in normal circumstances.
Back radiation can only slow that portion of surface cooling which is itself by radiation. The cooling downwards and upwards by conduction, diffusion and convection, as well as evaporative cooling are not affected by radiation from a cooler troposphere.. They will accelerate and thus compensate for any slowing of radiative cooling. In any event, the incident radiation cannot raise the surface to the observed temperatures in the first place.
No I am not a member of PSI, but I have a far more correct understanding of thermodynamics than any of their vocal members, I assure you. It is the gravito-thermal effect which sets the surface temperature. The only radiation you can count is direct solar radiation. That has a mean of only 161W/m^2 at the surface, and even if the whole surface (including the oceans) were covered in asphalt paving (which has emissivity 0.93) the temperature would average about 235K – more than 50 degrees below actual means.
You cannot add the radiative flux from colder regions of the atmosphere to the solar radiative flux when using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to determine the surface temperature. That’s physics.
I suggest you read my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” and my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
Rud, you obviously do not know about submarines…
‘Any upward transfer towards warmer regions will not happen adiabatically, because entropy would decrease, and churning in that region will do nothing but cool the surface layer, because none of the deeper water is warmer in normal circumstances.’
Yeah – like I said – expelled from the skydragons.
Heat transport vertically in the oceans is a balance between turbulent mixing and warm water buoyancy. The surface is of course warmed by the Sun and the depth varies with turbidity. I have been in water where it was pretty murky at 3m – and water that was brilliantly lit at 30m. In the daytime in relatively still conditions – especially in the tropics – there is warm layer a few metres deep.
But warm water mixed turbulently into deeper water will tend to want to rise again.
I have been at a depth in excess of 125M an taken rolls at 20+ degrees on either side of zero. I have been at periscope depth and dropped in excess of 150M in seconds. We happened to move from cold dense water into a warm current. So.. I can attest that there are warm water “rivers” in the ocean.
Almost real time.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-133.66,-3.22,279
Winds driving currents that is.
Rud, Rob and others:
The two main points it seems I have to repeat are …
(1) Direct solar radiation with mean flux of 161W/m^2 cannot raise the temperature of even black asphalt paving above about 235K, which is over 50 degrees below the estimated mean of 288K. Have you never noticed such road surfaces near the beach get somewhat hotter than the water? So go ahead and use all the solar flux getting into the top 300m if you wish but don’t add the back radiation because, as even Roy Spencer has admitted, that from a cooler atmosphere does not even penetrate more than a few nanometres. Your calculations are fiction as explained below.
(2) The Stefan Boltzmann calculations apply only to black and grey bodies. They cannot be used for calculating the temperature to which absorbed radiation will raise the transparent thin surface layer.
(3) With all your mixing (which can only lead to a cooler mean temperature on average over the whole globe) you are implying that most of the thin surface layer is being warmed by diffusion from deeper layers, because, however you look at it, the vast majority of the thermal radiation passed through that surface layer. So you cannot possibly calculate its temperature using Stefan Boltzmann calculations because a black or grey body is not transparent by definition and does not gain or lose thermal energy by non-radiative processes like conduction, diffusion and evaporative cooling.
The reason PSI no longer publishes my papers and articles is that their core group (P’Sullivan, Postma &,Latour) would be very embarrassed to have to admit that all their radiation papers and articles were working within the wrong paradigm. Hence they, like climatologists, have not even looked into the thermodynamics which I have explained based on specialised study over 5 decades. They are way off track and cannot answer questions relating to other planets – and nor can you.
Just 2 points Doug? Easy. No and no. There – didn’t even have to read it.
The mixed layer still gets cooler as depth increases, as shown here.
The main supply of thermal energy to the thin ocean surface layer is not from the radiation which mostly passes through it, and which could not even raise a black asphalt surface to more than 235K on average.
What none of you understands is the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You don’t understand thermodynamic equilibrium or entropy or the need for there to be no unbalanced energy potentials when entropy is a maximum. Hence you are still a long way from understanding how downward convection can and does occur. That’s why you have no understanding of what is happening with the thermodynamics and non-radiative heat transfers in planetary tropospheres and surfaces, including Earth’s.
So what I have written in my book still stands, and I back every word therein and continue to put my money (and huge amounts of unpaid time) where my mouth is, because I know what is the truth of the matter, and very, very few others in the world do.
What is in my book is correct and ground-breaking physics. No other document in world literature sets out an alternative and yet accurate explanation of the thermodynamic processes which are the primary determinant of all planetary surface temperatures in any planet with a significant atmosphere – from which observed temperatures can also be determined computationally.
All the models and radiation calculations assume that there would be an isothermal troposphere in the absence of water vapour, CO2 etc and that radiation is instantaneously raising all temperatures to what is observed. The reality is that thermal energy from the Sun has been trapped under the gravitationally induced temperature gradient over the life of the planet, and the whole thermal profile is maintained at the level where radiation balance occurs. But it maintains the temperature gradient (because that is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium) and so the surface end is warmer.
I can vouch for Rud´s comment. This photograph shows the results of sunlight penetrating to around 15 meters of water in Hawaii
http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2014_20/438566/140513-scuba-attack-01_3324ff01c9ede5f05de81852c3b61dfe.jpg
So strictly speaking, this result says that climate scientists by themselves are distrusted less than the distrust-scale midpoint, whereas the earlier result says that generic scientists are trusted about at the warmth/trustworthiness-scale midpoint. People are inclined to trust other people on average, usually scoring above a positive scale’s midpoint (18, 19), so neither result is cause for celebration.
In these ratings of climate scientists (all items being derived from pilot work on scientists’ alleged motives), the seven survey items reflecting distrust include alleged motives to lie with statistics, complicate a simple story, show superiority, gain research money, pursue a liberal agenda, provoke the public, and hurt big corporations. Among these individual distrust items, the only one averaging above the midpoint—gain research money (M = 3.58)—stands out as the Achilles’ heel: the public’s clearest reported reason to distrust climate scientists’ motives. Nevertheless, none of the distrust ratings are at the floor.
Turning to the scale of reasons to trust, climate scientists seem to fare well, at least among this online sample (which is slightly better educated, slightly more liberal than the US population). On a three-item, five-point scale of trust, climate scientists averaged 4.35 on motives to educate the public, save humanity, and save the environment. Clearly, these reasons for trust suggest a constructive approach to the public, balancing expertise (competence) with trustworthiness (warmth), together facilitating communicator credibility.
The literature on climate science communicators supports these recommendations to focus on trust-inducing approaches such as education, humanity, and the environment. The public tends to trusts impartiality, rather than persuasive agendas (38). Although scientific communicators may stress persuasion, deliberation would be better (39). Communicating uncertainty is essential to building credibility (40, 41), and trust best predicts attention to scientific experts (42).
I guess Joshie missed this bit.
What it is really is a training manual for climate science communication. It suggests that conservatives need to focus on their positive agenda for education, humanity, and the environment – rather than being reactive.
Yup
From the article:
…
I have been living with someone from the Millennial generation for the last four years (he’s now 27) and sometimes I’m charmed and sometimes I’m exasperated by how him and his friends—as well as the Millennials I’ve met and interacted with both in person and in social media—deal with the world, and I’ve tweeted about my amusement and frustration under the banner “Generation Wuss” for a few years now. My huge generalities touch on their over-sensitivity, their insistence that they are right despite the overwhelming proof that suggests they are not, their lack of placing things within context, the overreacting, the passive-aggressive positivity, and, of course, all of this exacerbated by the meds they’ve been fed since childhood by over-protective “helicopter” parents mapping their every move. These are late-end Baby Boomers and Generation X parents who were now rebelling against their own rebelliousness because of the love they felt that they never got from their selfish narcissistic Boomer parents and who end up smothering their kids, inducing a kind of inadequate preparation in how to deal with the hardships of life and the real way the world works: people won’t like you, that person may not love you back, kids are really cruel, work sucks, it’s hard to be good at something, life is made up of failure and disappointment, you’re not talented, people suffer, people grow old, people die. And Generation Wuss responds by collapsing into sentimentality and creating victim narratives rather than acknowledging the realities of the world and grappling with them and processing them and then moving on, better prepared to navigate an often hostile or indifferent world that doesn’t care if you exist.
…
http://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation-wuss-by-bret-easton-ellis/15837
My daughter is 18 and son 16. Their cohort is really rather wonderful.
My kids are 30 and 32. IMO, their generation rocks as they generally believe in fact-based analysis (as a rebellion to boomer magical thinking) and do not indulge in endless bickering over preconceived notions using motivated reasoning. The reference to generation wuss is just another vain, myopic arm-waver transporting the $hit-birds (Hi Springer) on the tail to the mean. It’s an even more pathetic debate trick than the straw man.
My son is 21.
“Worse yet, Prof Curry gets her facts wrong, claiming that global temperatures have not risen since 1998(3). This is untrue; both the surface temperature indexes from NASA and the Met office in fact show a rising trend since 1998”
Do the two datasets really show a statistically significant rise since 1998?
HadCRUT4 does not. See the recent McKittrick paper.
Jim D, in most environments borehole data reflects heat loss from below. The surface temperature changes suck heat from the earth at variable rates, the rock properties change, but the heat sink for this process is outer space.
I use borehole temperature data for work and I’ve wondered why climatologists didn’t use it under much better control conditions? Improving the technique would cost a lot less than a solar power plant.
Fernando
How reliable would you say borehole data is then? Can we rely on it for global estimates of temperatures going back to 1500?
Should we discard and ignore them?
tonyb
Wouldn’t the burden be to show that the pause is statistically different from the last 45 years?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend
That is a quite different question. I wished to know if there was statistical evidence to support the claim that Judy had spoken a mis-truth.
The linear trend from HADCRUT4 since 1998 is +0.05 C per decade, and for GISTEMP it is +0.07 C per decade.
JimD, you know what is meant by the term ‘statistically significant’?
I know that longer sampling periods are more statistically robust than shorter ones because the uncertainty in means reduces by the square root of the number of samples. Similar uncertainties would apply to trends calculated, so it is very hard for a short trend to disprove a longer trend, especially if it hasn’t been outside a standard deviation of that slope yet.
Jim D: The linear trend from HADCRUT4 since 1998 is +0.05 C per decade, and for GISTEMP it is +0.07 C per decade.
You have another end point problem: 97-98-99 produced a huge oscillation in global mean temp. A slightly less arbitrary method is to start with the most recent month’s mean, and trace backward in time and see how far back you can get a near 0 slope; doing that, there has been no warming since 1997, about 17 years.
Wouldn’t the burden be to show that the pause is statistically different from the last 45 years?
The burden of proof discussion is endless. Who has the “burden of proof” to show that the TCS to a doubling of CO2 is non-zero, and how is that burden of proof to be met? Every calculation is based on dubious assumptions, so there is no unambiguous way to establish a p-value (or anything else of interest such as a Bayesian credible interval), without making an assumption for which there is evidence to the contrary. Plenty of people have produced statistical models of background variation according to which the estimate of TCS is nearly 0.
Who has the burden of proof to show that 400 ppm of CO2 has produced a worse climate than 280 ppm of CO2 produced, or to show that there is no disruption produced by the increase of CO2? Consider polar ice coverage: compared to the means of the satellite era, Arctic Ice Cover is low, Antarctic Ice Cover is high, and the aggregate polar ice cover is close to the mean. Who has the burden of showing that the ice cover changes indicate anything? Who has the burden of showing that changes in the rates of growth of boreal and tropical forests are or are not statistically significant, are related to CO2 or temp changes, or have policy implications?
Climate scientists and other alarmists swung rapidly from asserting that cooling had disastrous implications to asserting that warming has disastrous implications; they announced in both cases that they were correct; and since introducing the concept of burden of proof have claimed that the “burden of proof” rests with those who remained unalarmed by the lack of evidence for much of anything.
I only chose 1998 because that was the question about Judith’s statement. Statistically, the current period has stayed within a standard deviation of the 45-year slope as much as any other part of the 45 years with only short excursions outside as happened before.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend/offset:0.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend/offset:-0.1
Jim D: Statistically, the current period has stayed within a standard deviation of the 45-year slope as much as any other part of the 45 years with only short excursions outside as happened before.
Again with the endpoint problem: for every claim, there is a subinterval of time for supporting the claim. Here is another aspect of the burden of proof problem: who has the burden of proof to justify the choice of interval, proponents or skeptics? Lewis and Curry provided a justification for their choice; you provided a different justification, sort of, for a 70 year interval; now you have a 45-year interval presented with no justification, except that within the period the two non-warming episodes (early 70s, post 1997) are not statistically distinguishable from the warming episode.
I am only arguing that 15 years is not as reliable as 45 years. If you want to complain, aim it at those who use 15 years, or 17.5. Yes it is correct that the trend since 1975 is double that since 1940, and I don’t expect longer trends to be as large, but there is a reason for that. 75% of the CO2 addition has been since 1950 which accounts for 2/3 of the total manmade CO2 forcing change since the preindustrial era. Clearly there are other forcing changes going on, and because 1940 is at a peak in 30-year means, I would not use that as a starting point for a trend that ends now. 1970, on the other hand, is the start of the long trend that we are currently on, so if I want to see what the most robust trend is, I would start there.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from/mean:240/mean:120
Jimd
What percentage of co2 has been added in the last 17 years?
Tonyb
Jim D – What is doing what?
JCH, it looks like you added 0.6 C of trend to your ones, so I took those out and replaced them with something that really is trending. Hope this helps.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from/mean:240/mean:120/plot/jisao-pdo/normalise/mean:240/mean:120/offset:-0.3/plot/esrl-amo/normalise/mean:240/mean:120/offset:-0.4/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-330/scale:0.01/mean:120
Here’s one prepared earlier.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/pdo_zps89a7b4c1.jpg
Tonyb, this one is scaled to 1 C per 100 ppm so you can compare long-term trends. This scaling is about 2.4 C per doubling. If you use Lewis and Curry’s 1.33 C for scaling you get about half this CO2 gradient as the temperature prediction for this period. Seems a bit off.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-330/scale:0.01/mean:1/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12
Rob Ellison, so if we are in the same PDO phase as 1955, why are we so much warmer this time around? Clearly something else added 0.6 C in the meantime, right?
Jim D: I am only arguing that 15 years is not as reliable as 45 years.
Not exactly — you are arguing for a particular 45 year period, after previously arguing for a particular 70 year period. How about two 45 year periods: 1925-1970, 1970-1995? Or three, adding in 1880-1925?
Taking all the relevant data, I don’t think you can improve upon the TCS estimate of Lewis and Curry, and that confounds CO2 with any natural variability with other anthropogenic effects, producing an over-estimate of sensitivity to CO2.
Choose your epochs. Choose your estimate of background variation . Choose your estimate of other anthropogenic effects. Choose who has the burden of proof. With all of these free choices, you get to pick your results. Unless there is credible justification for all of the choices.
This comes back to the excellent choices made by Lewis and Curry: their choices were based on careful review of IPCC AR5, a widely respected and widely cited document. Anybody who expresses respect for that document has a long row to hoe if they want to discredit the result that L&C calculated — at least without self-contradiction.
Getting back to the 17 year period at the most recent end of the record, that is the best test of whether the predicted “global warming” is occurring as predicted. “Most recent” and “17 years” are among the least arbitrary reasons for choosing an epoch.
Jimd
Here is the global data from boreholes back to 1500
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
Temperatures have been rising since 1700 with substantial scillations annually and decadally. So you would expect that rise to continue.
If we could backtrack a few centuries the temperature would rise from around 850ad reach a peak around 1200ad and with a number of oscillations decline from around 1380
Tonyb
Tonyb, as I have said, borehole data is too diffused to see any details. You can tell by the curve that this is just heat diffusing down from the surface. The further down you go, the longer the averaging time it represents. At some deep level around 100 m down you are converging to millennium-scale averages that wash out anything less than that time scale.
Duh – it is 0.4C from the peak of the warm regime – cycle is the wrong word – to 1998 – the end of the last warm regime.
Was even all that anthropogenic?
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/loeb2012-fig1.png
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png
Somehow I don’t think so.
whoops
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/tsireconstruction_zps3db52059.png
The solar trend looks downwards since 1950, if anything, so that isn’t it. Try again.
The solar grand maxima persisted over the last half of the 20th century. It is odd that you can think that a CO2 forcing can be lagged through the oceans but not a solar forcing.
The CO2 lag is because the forcing stays there after the emissions cease and the imbalance is only removed by further warming. The solar forcing goes down after the max and removes its own imbalance as it decreases.
You are full of nonsense Jimmy Dee.
The forcing is offset by increased emissions after the system reaches a warmer conditional equilibrium. The delay occurs because the oceans take time to equilibriate. It makes no difference at all whether it is the Sun or CO2.
The point is that solar forcing stayed high for the 2nd half of the century. It is equivalent of CO2 not increasing and warming continuing until a conditional equilibrium is reached.
Wrong solar series.
You are one of the people claiming the current warming rate is a delayed response to something the sun did 80 years ago when it already responded to it 80 years ago as is seen in the 1910-1940 warming. How do you get a pause and second rise from one solar increase? This is interesting physics that you are invoking, and somewhat implausible.
It is the latest reconstruction from the SORCE TSI page. So it is not the wrong solar series mad, naked Emperor Moshpit.
We have one factor amongst many – solar TSI – that peaked in the later half of the 20th century. It warmed in the early part of the century to 1950 obviously and stayed high for rest of the century – with one obvious dip. It seems pretty obvious that surface temps will continue to rise while the oceans equilibriate.
There are other factors and there is no sense in which the regimes – from 1944 to 1998 – should zero out. Hugely unlikely in fact. Could we see a shift to yet cooler conditions as the Sun cools this century?
rob.
“It is the latest reconstruction from the SORCE TSI page. So it is not the wrong solar series mad, naked Emperor Moshpit.”
Its wrong. you dont keep up on the science.
Rob doesnt keep up on the science.
http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf
yes I am aware of this one – mad, naked, Emperor Moshpit.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/revisiting-ssn.png
It doesn’t change a thing.
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/tsireconstruction_zps3db52059.png
From the article:
…
“Compared to the impacts on ratepayers, the impacts of customer-sited PV on utility shareholders are potentially much more pronounced,” the report stated.
The study was performed for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy under the U.S. Department of Energy. One of the main purposes of the study was to evaluate measures that could be pursued by utilities and regulators to reduce the financial impacts of distributed PV.
The report recommends measures such as changes to utility rate design and rate-making processes, mechanisms that allow utilities to recoup revenues lost due to distributed PV or to earn profits on distributed PV, and a variety of other strategies.
According to the latest edition of Tracking the Sun, an annual PV cost-tracking report produced by Berkeley Lab, installed prices for residential and commercial PV systems completed in 2013 fell by roughly 70 cents per watt (W) or 12% to 15% from the prior year.
“This marked the fourth consecutive year of significant price reductions for residential and commercial systems in the U.S.,” Galen Barbose, one of the report’s authors, wrote. “Within the first six months of 2014, prices for such PV systems in many of the largest state markets have continued on their downward trajectory.”
…
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2688394/rooftop-solar-panels-could-soon-cut-utility-profits-by-15-or-more.html
From the referenced report (page 1, adobe/17):
“Net metering” is a boondoggle. Let them buy batteries.
A much bigger threat, IMO, is backup gas generators. Most people have piped gas as well as electricity, and such generators could be double-fed, to use tanked propane/butane if necessary. And the incentive to buy them will increase as grid availability becomes less reliable.
I was referring to homeowners buying batteries, but these are relevant:
Eos: Utility-Scale Battery Storage Competitive With Gas
This means, for homeowners, the “[E]xtra costs and additions” can be skipped. Just put the battery system between the cells and the inverter.
Costs For Small Scale Battery Storage To Drop
We do need to remember, though, that lead/acid batteries don’t last very long.
AK: “Net metering” is a boondoggle. Let them buy batteries.
I disagree with you there. If I had a roof-mounted system and exported electricity to the grid, some of that electricity would flow to my neighbors (and through their meters), and the flow into the neighborhood from the grid would be reduced. The payment for that electricity would go to the utility that did not generate it. So it would be fair for the utility to pay me some amount for the electricity, even as they continue to bill me separately for the grid connection (which they do, in my area: the costs of electricity and grid maintenance are itemized.)
The very fact that they’re required to take it back makes it a boondoggle. I seriously doubt you’re paying a fair price to amortize their expenses in setting up and running the whole charge-back system (hardware and software).
If the utilities had the freedom to refuse to accept it back at all, and chose to anyway, then maybe it wouldn’t be a boondoggle. Except at the expense of local consumers who didn’t want to have to pay extra to cover the cost of the whole process. Which, AFAIK, they do in every real-world case.
Perhaps I’m wrong… Do you have links?
AK – I’d like to see the cost per kwh of solar + EOS battery vs grid supplied for a 50 year period.
@jim2…
It doesn’t matter. I’m saying if people want to use rooftop solar to save on grid power, they should have to pay for the batteries, not extract money from the utility, and their non-solar neighbors, for whatever solar power they don’t happen to need right now. Adding the batteries, they can still get (almost) full value out of their rooftop installations.
Of course, it might cost them a little more. At the moment.
Yes, they absolutely should pay for their own batteries. In fact, that is what I was alluding to. If they have to replace the batteries after 30 years, what does that do to their total costs?
And also, EOS is assuming their product will last 30 years. For, like LED lights, they haven’t had 30 years field experience with them.
First of all, I don’t know or care. I was speaking from principle.
As with most other attempts to reason based on cost estimates 30, or even 5, years out, I regard them as hopeless. In the first place, you’re imposing your own assumptions regarding how they do their battery thing.
For instance, what if a bunch of locals got together and formed a co-op big enough to buy regular lead-acid auto batteries in a job lot? True, they might lost only 3-5 years, but one of the most important points of the articles I linked is how fast prices are coming down.
By the time they need replacements, storage costs might well be 1/10, or even 1/50 of what they are today.
And in the second place, we don’t really know how fast prices will come down (see above), but multiple experiences with multiple energy-related products suggests a very good probability the economic landscape will be totally different in even 5 years.
Which, BTW, is why I’m so suspicious of the motives of urgent mitigationists: they want to get their political/ideological agenda rolled out before technology makes the whole thing moot.
AK: Perhaps I’m wrong… Do you have links?
No. I just go by my electricity bill. It itemizes the cost of the connection, the price they pay for the electricity, and an added cost of delivering the electricity.
Solar panels will continue to be a bargain as long as Chinese panel makers continue to dump products due to lack of markets. Here in Spain the government had to slow down the flow of subsidies to the solar power industry because it would have bankrupted the economy. I believe other European nations also slowed down their projects and the Chinese are now dumping in the USA.
Since rich enviros are so numerous in the USA I encourage them to buy up panels and the associated storage systems, but don’t ask for subsidies from regular folk. It could help reduce emissions a little bit.
Nope. The US put a tariff on Chinese panels. There were complaints about quality, but the true reason is to prop up US solar companies. I say, buy the cheapest as long as the quality is good. Why worry over having a US source when the idea pretty much sucks anyway? If the Chinese want to sell panels at a loss, buy them!
Best thing Gavin ever wrote/said.
–e.g.,
Settled science is essentially political correctness;
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/26/the-federalist-targeted-for-wikipedia-deletion-after-criticizing-neil-degrasse-tyson/
On the last thread Steven Mosher mentioned “no one” wanted to debate “sky dragons” which blurs the lines (deliberately I would say) between negligible co2 Impact conclusions and the smaller group who question radiative heat. Still the line of no actual empirical proofs and “consensus” dominating “science” which actually abstract theory passed off as something else. Wikipedia science or Orwell science when governments support the culture. The link demonstrates the memory hole in action.
Amazing! You would think, or hope, Wikipedia would be above this, but wherever there are humans there is bias of all sorts.
One of the best books I’ve ever read, on any subject, is “Thinking Fast and Slow” by Daniel Khaneman – a tome describing all manner of systematic errors in thinking, aka bias. He and Amos Tversky published some important work on decision making under uncertainty:
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/Ec101/JudgementUncertainty.pdf
Rather than read somebody’s ignorant and biased reporting, why not look at the Wiki Talk Page discussing the deletion. The two editors trying to get it deleted, Cwobeel and Second_Quantization, sound like some of the worse types over at theresphysics. The second to last entry on the latter’s talk page (at this moment) reads:
And Cwobeel sort of reminds me of Nevaudit. Or Joshua.
Interestingly, Wiki talk pages have robots.txt files making it impossible to have Wayback make snapshots. When I tried I got
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8zqd9kf8swyryzr/robots.jpg
WikiGate!
Huh.
You are off to a bad start when you can’t summarize an argument accurately. Try again. Better yet.. Read more comment less
That doesn’t mean WikiGate isn’t interesting. The Daily Beast: The Right’s War on Neil deGrasse Tyson
[…]
[…]
[…]
As far as I can tell, the Daily Beast is actually pretty liberal. Or perhaps very liberal. Or perhaps…
AK,
There are many divides for “skeptics” to confront but none more dire then the “about science” teams vs. “about politics” groups. There has been nothing more enabling then technical skeptics who keep endorsing basic bits of dogma such as largely imaginary and smeared “sky-dragons” and misrepresenting what is “believed” to what is demonstrable with the actual scientific method.
Humans produce less then 3% of co2, co2 is a minor GHG relative to water and the residency time of this co2 is filled with even more junky assumptions that can’t be proven or quantified by actual science and yet those who doubt the impact of a relatively small human input compared to all natural forces are broad brushed as “skydragons” as if something close to nothing is the same as “there is no GH effect at all”. Doubting human co2 impact becomes “there is no co2 impact” as a pejorative “anti-science” labeling technique.
Of real importance are those who have observed the “debate” in its many forms over the past 40-50 years from the late 60’s on, that it’s mostly “politics” and the various cultures and agendas found in academia and increasingly in “science” academia that followed at a slower rate the leftist politicization of humanity departments over an even greater period of time. The climate debate in the broad policy aspect is almost completely rooted in political agenda setting. Money, power, policy directives (control over others) at every level. The excuse to justify massive central planning in short. The science is sufficiently vague to support any belief system, difficult to prove or falsify with existing technology which is why it was perfect for the social role it serves. Sufficiently small to be dominated by a partisan enclave which it is.
The issue is too socially important to a “working within the consensus system” that is corrupt from inception. The sky-dragon meme is a good example of distraction of what brought us to the road we are on.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/only-about-3-of-co2-in-atmosphere-due-to-burning-fossil-fuels.html#comments
It isn’t to shut out the technical blogging skeptics and their views and ultimate commonality of purpose (eliminating alarmist results, as a simple term). It’s simply that the Neil degrasse affair is actually more important as a broad metaphor then a thousand science “papers” recently or to be filed on various technical climate topics. It’s time for the “science” side to grow-up and admit that to more then itself and more then in relative privacy. Humiliating as it is serious scientists should admit their field doesn’t deserve broad public policy input as actual science developers based on the empirical results produced. Since so much of the culture is tribally linked to the political agenda and the shear numbers of rent seekers and politically aligned in the academic community is obvious the process will remain long and difficult. I just find it ironic that the a general science community so willing to buy into “deep ocean heat” speculations or a hundred claims of co2 impacts not supported by data or even basic understood physics time and again aren’t willing to allow a debate over the range of radiative co2 forcing as that is one of the mother-loads (crock might be a better word) of the technical range of discussions. “Settled science” as they say. I’m not here to argue for or against “skydragonism” as it may exist inside the technical debate. I just find it curious that with so many emotionally charged technical claims in the current debate some are permitted to be debated while others not to even discussed. There is a mini-version of this social tendency on numerous basic climate topics…..co2 residence time is another one that gets a similar treatment comes to mind. This really is settled science at the root levels and skeptics support the practice themselves even if they are unconscious to the process.
Immediately after I watched the eruption, I rushed away but I was soon covered with ash, talking about the eruption of Ontake in Japan just hours ago, is a reminder that a Pinatubo can change the climate of the world practically overnight.
Judith the Scientific American link validates my decision two years ago to cancel my longstanding subscription. Out of curiosity, I bought the October 2014 issue.P 22 monarch butterflies threatened by climate change (and milkweed loss through herbicide control). P. 27 Alaska highway disrupted by climate change melting permafrost. P 68 coffee endanger by climate change (and lack) of genetic diversity. Page 83 story on methane hydrate, missing the two most important issues for production, floating the old methane time bomb climate change scare, and never mentioning the interesting biological result offered by the Macondo blowout ‘experiment’.
The subscription stays cancelled.
I dumped mine SA sub many decades ago, it was the 80’s I believe. They went left wing at that time.
I would say the late 60’s when they broadened their demo targets from teens and young adult hobby science enthusiastists. They became focused on the pollution, negative growth “consequences” and fear based memes. A metaphor for the AGW culture culture to this day in campus and education life. As all print has declined the tendency is to “mainstream” the remains which explains why the one note political view takes hold.
I decided to dump mine after I read “false hope” by the hockey stick guy. But the Spanish version is different. I think the English version is aimed at grabbing the Discovery magazine audience.
Judith Curry,
am I right or wrong, as I think you assume, in accordance with IPCC, that all the recent increase of CO2 in atmosphere have been caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions to atmosphere? Whereas e.g. my comment http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/#comment-632698 claims that in this recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere only about 4% at most can be controlled by anthropogenic CO2 emissions to atmosphere.
As I remember, you are going yourself to scrutinized the bases of Salby’s statement: ”The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.” As I have expressed in my comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-uestions/#comment-198992 , I agree with what Murry Salby has stated. According to the results already available, the anthropogenic share of recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere is insignificant to control global warming. I am very interested in what kind of results you, Judith Curry, will state on your potential scrutiny of Salby’s statement.
Has anyone looked at the carbon 14 reduction curve over the last 50 years. Since the bomb pulse in the 40’s thru 60’s they should trace the reduction from fossil fuel without carbon 14 to existing w added carbon 14 and the time trace reduction of concentration?
I saw a study that looked at Sierra smog carbon haze vision reduction and found it was from recent carbon not fossil, fires and natural emissions, That was a surprise cause everyone thought it came from car emissions in LA which as fossil fuel would have no sign of bomb trace carbon 14.
Scott
Lauri, you have twice addressed Judith. Your point is perhaps the Prof. Salby kerfuffle and anthropogenic versus natural CO2. For sure, there are both. However, land use conversion resulting in ‘natural’ CO2 injection is also anthropogenic. Think palm oil plantations in Indonesia. So there are not ‘clean’ definitions behind your question.
There are also two separate issues. The atmospheric residence time of an individual CO2 molecule, it’s ‘half life’. Even warmunists like SkS concede this is on the order of 5 years. But that is not relevant for warming. The relevant question is how long it takes the oceans and the biosphere to sequester any net increase even if individual molecules are churning like crazy? There, the ‘half life’ is estimated from 30 to 50 years. There are many papers you can google on that. The ‘bomb spike’ suggests about 40. So a fairly certain range. Remember that half life is a logarithmic decay concept.
There are a number of post bomb spike Carbon isotope studies that do suggest that most of the Mauna Loa measured increase is indeed due to anthropogenic fossil fuel consumption. Only Salby disagrees. I have studied his presentations, and find his specific reasoning suspect.
Burning fossil fuels does reinject into the biosphere previously sequestered carbon. Just a simple obvious fact. All that coal and oil used to be carbon dioxide. Converted via the magic of photosynthesis on our wonderful blue (water) green (chlorophyll) planet.
Regards.
The 15 heads of the science academies suggest that allocation of emissions from sources and sinks is indeed a problem.
The net sum of human and natural sources and sinks can be estimated using atmospheric and/or oceanic measurements (including remote sensing from satellites) of the gases and state-of-the-art mathematical models of air and water flow. These methods offer an opportunity to provide an independent check on inventory estimates. However, they cannot yet be used to estimate greenhouse gas emissions and sinks with sufficient accuracy at the national level, because of: transport error; large and incompletely understood background fluctuations of natural emissions; and the small number and uneven geographic distribution of sampling stations. For example, current atmospheric sampling grids largely avoid major emitters like cities, making it difficult to interpret satellite observations. Moreover, air samples are not analyzed for all isotopes of interest: for example, measurements of radiocarbon [14C] would enable fossil-fuel CO2 emissions to be separated from non-fossil-fuel sources and sinks
This is important from both negotiating a treaty framework without ambiguous measurement and correct appropriation.Marland 1998,2008 suggested that the 0.9% absolute difference in the two common measurements of emissions for the US alone is greater than total emissions from 147 of the 195 countries analyzed.
There are substantive suspicions the LUC effects are substantively greater then suggested by the IPCC.
What is hindering the surface oceans from equilibrating with atmospheric CO2? Air-sea CO2 exchange is primarily controlled by diiference in CO2 partial pressures (and the exchange coefficient). Even the surface oceans contain much more CO2 than the atmosphere. The equilibration time must be shorter than the residence time (for the individual molecules).
Edim, you are right about ocean CO2. NASA’s website gives estimates that seem good enough for the upper mixed layer.
But for a Henry Law/ Chatellier principle ‘equilibrium’, the entire ocean must be considered. Multiple ice core analyses now say this is on the order of 800 years. So lots of uncertainty monster room to roam.
There was an interesting post several days ago at WUWT. Researches found that formation and melting of actic ice pumped large amounts of co2 into the deep ocean. Given the significant increase in Law Dome co2 concentrations 1800s to 1950, I thinks it’s plausibe that a small but substantial portion of co2 concentration increases may be due to stadium wave processes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/22/claim-arctic-sea-ice-helps-remove-co2-from-the-atmosphere/
From the article:
…
Russia, viewed by the Obama administration as hostile to U.S. interests, has discovered what may prove to be a vast pool of oil in one of the world’s most remote places with the help of America’s largest energy company.
Russia’s state-run OAO Rosneft (ROSN) said a well drilled in the Kara Sea region of the Arctic Ocean with Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) struck oil, showing the region has the potential to become one of the world’s most important crude-producing areas.
The announcement was made by Igor Sechin, Rosneft’s chief executive officer, who spent two days sailing on a Russian research ship to the drilling rig where the find was unveiled today. The well found about 1 billion barrels of oil and similar geology nearby means the surrounding area may hold more than the U.S. part of the Gulf or Mexico, he said.
“It exceeded our expectations,” Sechin said in an interview. This discovery is of “exceptional significance in showing the presence of hydrocarbons in the Arctic.”
…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-27/rosneft-says-exxon-arctic-well-strikes-oil.html
Many seemingly unrelated events fall into place if we know the real winner of WWII: Joseph Stalin !
http://junkscience.com/2014/09/25/obamas-un-climate-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-267797
Including the fall of the Berlin Wall?
Ronald Reagan played his role well on the world stage.
John F. Kennedy did not.
The Revkin link contains a rebuttal to Koonins’s WSJ editorial, written by scientists at Carnegie-Mellon University. Like other “rebuttals” in this ongoing debate, it depends on some other dubious claims. Here is one excerpt: Climate skeptics often argue that, during the last fifteen years, global temperatures have been nearly flat and that climate models are unable to predict or explain this pattern. This so-called “climate hiatus” rears its head again in Dr. Koonin’s editorial. In fact, these last fifteen years are in no way surprising: 1998 was an extremely hot El Niño year and the early 2000s were at the peak of a strong solar cycle.
In fact, as everyone knows, the “climate hiatus” surprised everyone; initially it was claimed not even to exist; since then there have been dozens of explanations proffered, and a search for models to explain it. The authors cite one of the models thus found, and claim that the post-hoc “prediction” is as good as an actual out-of-sample test of a model prediction.
“the early 2000s were at the peak of a strong solar cycle”
Go to the archive over at RC and look how the faithful treated solar influences on global temperature when it was rising.
It was the weakest cycle in 33 years.
Matthew: Doesn’t appear that those Carnegie Mellon scientists read AR5 WG1 Ch7:
“The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling effect of clouds on the climate”
rls, good find.
The Revkin piece is dirty pool. He interviewed Koonin then posted the CMU attack beneath without giving him a chance to reply. In journalism this is called sandbagging (hitting someone after they have passed by) and it is borderline unethical.
The CMU folks are not scientists. They are mostly from the Dept of Engineering and Public Policy, which I helped gear up many years ago. Our original idea was to be a watchdog on EPA, etc., but the Federal trough got the better of them under Granger Morgan.
Whatever else can be said about Judith (and others are being very judgmental for political reasons) she does allow and point to all points of view. The latest ATTP post “Curry for Dinner” by VTG about her is not really an attempt to engage, its a smear. Judith gives the link so people can judge for themselves. The post on the Lewis and Curry paper is not bad even though it makes some irrelevant points such as Cowtan and Way, which will have little effect on the result. Nor is the range “still very similar to the IPCC range” as pointed out in the comments there.
When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner.
Doc, some of us older Vietnam trained folks see it slightly differently.
And some of us also carry confirming scars. Like me.
So we are likely to play it differently. Hope you enjoy the next book, which with Judith’s foreword blessing plays it differently.
DocMartyn: When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner.
In real life and in the play, his lenity was somewhat tempered, you might say. Returning the pyx, after threatening to butcher the whole town, and right before murdering the prisoners, is touching, no doubt, but might be thought a political gesture to separate the clergy from the army.
Let’s do attribution from the Lewis and Curry numbers. From a CO2 rise approximately 305 ppm to 380 ppm (1940-2005, the middles of their last periods), their 1.33 C TCR sensitivity gives 0.42 C, and they have a temperature rise of 0.49 C, so this would attribute CO2 at 86% of that rise with their uncertainty range from 62-129%. 50% is at their lower 5% margin, so a 95% probability of more than 50% with a most likely value near 86%.
Math based on faulty logic gives faulty results. Since when was (your numbers) 380/305 or 1.25, or 1/4 of the TCR, or 1.33/4 or 0.33C close to 0.49C Try harder. And also don’t cherry pick intervals like you did.
You can compute the forcing change between 305 and 380 ppm for yourself, and this corresponds to the time period, that you claim is cherry-picked, by Lewis and Curry. From that forcing change which is 0.32 times a doubling, and using their 1.33 C per doubling, you get 0.42 C for that forcing change, which is 86% of 0.49 C. These are their numbers for the periods 1930-1950 and 1995-2011, except I had to get the CO2 numbers to correspond to their selected periods to obtain the CO2 part of the forcing, which they did not provide. You can check for yourself.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
Disentangling natural variability from anthropogenic warming relies to first order on recognition of the timing of the regime changes. It is far from an exclusively PDO effect but the signal in the Pacific is the most obvious link to inflections in surface temperature trajectories.
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/pdo_zps89a7b4c1.jpg
It is about as certain as can be – the increase between 1994 and 1998 was 0.4C and is the maximum that can be attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. If one believed in such a thing – this would give a TCR of some 0.8C.
whoops – 1944
“Math based on faulty logic gives faulty results.” – Rud Istvan
I don’t claim to be any math savant, but I do remember that when learning techniques, it was always important to known and understand the implications of your assumptions, and to suss out any implicit assumptions of which one was unaware.
So many of these warmies are completely blind to any questions regarding this aspect, Jim D, WHUT, etc, that they can’t even put to rest criticisms on these grounds, as they should be able to do in a single sentence.
“You can compute the forcing change between 305 and 380 ppm for yourself” Jim D
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! It is all so simple!
OK, my low regard for Jim D’s comments caused me not to read him to the end. I take back the above comment.
Fine, TJA, I’ll ignore yours. I am guessing you changed your name from a previous moniker because you got seriously embarrassed under that name, and now you are making a good start with this one.
See, like that comment. I have been around for several months on this site, maybe a year. Are you citing “facts not in evidence?” Hey, that’s all you need to jump to a conclusion.
What does the 276 to 309 increase from 1600 to 1940 imply.
Much opinion is based on GCMs which have been demonstrated to be faulty by their failure to predict the flat average global temperatures since before 2001. Especially egregious is the failure to use, or even acknowledge, the science of thermalization of absorbed radiation which explains why non-condensing ghg changes have no significant effect on climate change, i.e. climate sensitivity is zero. A discussion of this and some other mistakes is at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/ .
A physics-based equation, with only two drivers (both natural) as independent variables, explains measured average global temperatures since before 1900 with 95% correlation, calculates credible values back to 1610, and predicts through 2037. The current trend is down.
The drivers, method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610) and predictions (to 2037) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com.
Let’s drag this out from a mixed thread above.
And Michael – So bitching about Judy on ATTP like little bitches has something to do with CA? Do you imagine – Michael – that referencing the personal and professional bitching and adolescent gibes justifies another – if immensely incoherent – dig? The world wonders indeed.
Cast your mind back to Judith’s motivation for blogging – the terrible, terrible behaviour of scientists refusing to engage with their ‘skeptic’ critics. It was undermining the confidence in science, even it’s very Integrity.
Fast forward and we have Judith snarking at criticisms of her new paper.
Heck, she won’t even engage with Gavin Schmidt’s recent critique.
Judith has developed a distinct preference for ditto-heads.
The comments at ATTP are little bitches bitching about Judy – and Michael is here bitching about Judy incoherently. It is personal and not even remotely dispassionate discussion in good faith.
Quite apart from the quite unreadable and almost data less diatribe from Gavin.
I actually had the conversation with him where I agreed that the rate of increase was 0.1 degrees C from 1950. He first of all denied that he said it – I quoted him back – and then said that the rate later in the century increased and is expected to increase further. Natural variability added to the rate of warming in the late 20th century – and has had a cooling influence since. Surely that’s the point?
From the high point of the early 20th century warm regime – 1944 – to the high of the last warm regime – 1998 – the rise was 0.4C and the rate of increase over the period was 0.07 C/decade. It covers – conveniently the period of most CO2 rise.
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/pdo_zps89a7b4c1.jpg
Can we assume that the 0.4C is all anthropogenic – and does it matter if it is? But – at any rate – the 1950 starting point seems to be 0.25C too high. An end point effect.
It is not really the point about bitching out of malice and resentment though is it Michael?
… 0.25C too low…
damn – 0.1C/decade…
Crikey Indi,
What are you r@nting about??
It’s not about you!
Back OT;
Judth’s demands for scientists to engage with critics, evaporated quite quickly when the shoe was on the other foot.
Now she’s going all Mann/Trenbeth.
Criticism – what a waste of my time!
Michael – ATTP is that way ——->
No Michael – it is about the personal and the bitchy exclusively – and your inability to separate science from pure malice is the point. A lack of self awareness or refusal to admit to perfidious motivation. Your inability to string a coherent thought together might have something to do with it.
It is not technical or scientific at all – it is driven by malice and resentment. A manifestation of groupthink generated in the echo chambers of the Borg collective blog sites – emerging to contaminate rational discourse where ever it might threaten to surface.
It was such a thin façade of rationality – not responding yet to Tweedly De about whether half or all of the post 1950 warming was anthropogenic. The rest is dissembling, calumny, disparagement and malice. Not a pretty picture at all.
Willard, Josh, and Michael play the game where the adversaries writings are scrutinized for contradictions. The selected passages can be taken out of context, the adversary could have learned something new and changed her mind, or in rare cases the contradiction could actually be meaningful in some way.
WJM are the purveyors of Bitter Small Beer, as are some others over at ATTP.
They are losing on the science field, thus must play nitpick games.
Indi,
No criticism please, we’re ‘skeptics’!
I haven’t seen any critics. Well there was gavin who said we should follow dennets rules and then promptly broke them.
Now she has gadflies. Meh
Yes, FOI’s!!!! – then we have ‘critics’.
Climate-Earth system computer model to be the most advanced ever created, says DOE
http://www.kurzweilai.net/climate-earth-system-computer-model-to-be-the-most-advanced-ever-created-says-doe?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ff4069f485-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6de721fb33-ff4069f485-281896085
ACME? Really? I wonder if the climate model will be just a little bit chaotic, like just a little pregnant …
DocMartyn,
I got lost in the threading. You cast aspersions on dowsers, clairvoyants and so on.
I am shattered. I was just about to purchase a multi purpose climate modifier. This from the orgonite website –
“Don Croft has invented a device called a chembuster which combines the original cloudbuster’s basic operating principles with the advantages of orgonite.
A typical chembuster consists of 6 six-foot copper pipes embedded in a base of orgonite (typically poured in a paint bucket) with double-terminated quartz crystals in the base of each pipe to create an etheric energy vacuum effect which literally sucks the negative energy from the sky within a several mile radius into the orgonite base where it is then transmuted into harmless, beneficial positive energy. Unlike Reich’s cloudbusters, chembusters can be safely left in continuous operation where they will quickly restore and maintain atmospheric energy balance within an area. In drought-stricken regions of the globe, this always occurs in the form of rain sufficient to end the drought conditions. This has been successfully demonstrated in variuos parts of Africa, California and in many other locations around the world by various dedicated individuals.”
You can run it in reverse if you are in danger of getting too much rain, as well.
Actually, I was a little suspicious – I think there is really an N Ray generator at work here, disguised as a double terminated Quartz crystal.
Pathological science – marvellous stuff!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I have a barely used Orgone Generator I could let you have cheap.
DocMartyn,
I agree with both you and Faustino. The use of the apostrophes’ apostrophes, apostrophically or otherwise, is unlikely to be viewed as a catastrophe, apostrophe’s sibling.
Language evolves.
The world cools.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
DocMartyn,
Thank you for most kind and generous offer. The last slightly used Orgone Generator I bought, to alleviate ” . . . depression, mental illness, cancers, fibromyalgia, diseases, asthma, birth defects, and subliminal mind control.”, didn’t seem to work all that well. I suspect someone had siphoned off the zero point energy to power their free electricity plant. LOL!
And now for something silly.
I think the R W Wood who debunked N Rays, also debunked the CO2 greenhouse effect.
Does this imply that greenhouse believers must therefore believe in N Rays? Or is this another example of selective debunking belief? This could be a whole new field of research for Ludicrous Lew, Creative Cook and all the rest.
Apologies for wasting your time, but it’s Sunday morning.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Robert Williams Wood was a notorious skeptic who rejoiced in questioning dogma’s. He then designed experiments to test the underlying assumptions in theory, rather than thinking about it really, really, hard.
Doc, far be it from me to be dogmatic, but you can have dogmas or dogmata, but not dogma’s.
Faustino,
Dogma’s downfall may be evinced by an exiguity of experimental elucidation – or evidence, if you prefer.
Do I pass?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
The use possessive endings for attributes of inanimate objects is not kosher – better as the downfall of the dogmas. Although I would dispute the need for the plural at all. But it is apparent that a dogma may not own anything.
May and evinced have conflicting tenses – may have been evinced – alternatively may evince are better usages – with a little syntax juggling.
All in all – clumsy, pretentious and more errors than paragraphs.
The use (of) possessive…
Quiet Sunday in Australia.
Rob Ellison,
“On dogma’s ruin Freedom, Life and Faith
Shall flourish; everywhere shall shine one light,
And everywhere one perfect genius.”
“. . . O’Connor’s use of dogma in “The Enduring Chill” reflects her theologically sophisticated view of dogma’s function in the human person: . . . ”
Of course, many writers have addressed dogma’s role in religion, science, and so on, in particular, dogma’s effect in theses areas.
As to evince, I point out the phrase ” . . . may be given in evidence . . .” seems to be widely used and accepted. Cannot “may be evinced” be used similarly?
I see you are unimpressed with my humour’s structure, and maybe it is clumsy, pretentious, and contains more errors than paragraphs. Similar to my impressions of Warmism’s dogma’s content, in general.
Thank you for reasoned and cogent critique. I will give the condideration it so richly deserves, after I have staunched the tears of despondency running down my chubby little cheeks.
Or maybe not.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
They don’t just kill time in Queensland on a Sunday. They massacre it.
Has Flynn found a single usage of the possessive ending used with an inanimate object? Such as dogma? It is incorrect.
Evidence is the present or future tense – depending on the context as should be evident.
I am thoroughly unimpressed with Flynn’s strained humour and stilted linguistic formalism. It has an air of the yokel writing a letter to the editor in a tone he imagines is edumacated. Along with the inevitable accusations, protestations and dissembling of course.
It is the mad science however – utterly mad – cobbled together from snippets of ideas less than half comprehended, names that he imagines lends gravitas, richly embroidered with fanciful musings – that is truly astonishing. Reminds me somewhat of Moso’s musings on ENSO.
People love my musings on ENSO. They just don’t want to admit it.
Seriously, it’s no mechanism, but when you put neg PDO together with some of that La Nina my bamboo just loves it. But they never tell me these things were definitely predicted till after they happen. If this year’s super-Nino arrives, it was predicted. If it doesn’t arrive, that was predicted too. If it’s a weak one, there’s was a prediction for that. If a weak one has strong effect or a strong one has weak effect…predicted!
Just quietly, what wasn’t predicted?
Faustino, like fire extinguisher inspectors and beautiful women, apostrophe’s can go anywhere they want.
Quod erat demonstrandum – Moso. watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/tongue-out-emoticon-173462661-e1411949170859.jpg
Hmmm
watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/tongue-out-emoticon-173462661-e1411949170859.jpg
Last time promise.
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/tongue-out-emoticon-173462661-e1411949170859.jpg
The extinguished inspector Faust,
His last hunt for the fierce apostraust;
Fell over, an omen
A beautiful woman,
And as anybody who know anything about fire knows, he also burnt down the apostrophe’s haus.
=============
Oops, one little, but very significant, comma got away.
============
LOL! Is it effective against alien invasion, black helicopters, contrails, zombies, and invasive GMO plants? I like the reversable rain thingy, that could be useful.
Judith,
I particularly enjoyed the “Curry for dinner” post. Did you laugh while reading like I did?
The comment section sounds like a bunch of VERY angry people; it’s pretty clear they understand they are losing the argument, and are really unhappy about it.
==> “The comment section sounds like a bunch of VERY angry people; it’s pretty clear they understand they are losing the argument, and are really unhappy about it.”
It is really quite fascinating just how much that comment reads like the types I often see on the other side of the climate wars battle line.
People are really good at seeing exactly what they want to see.
The difference with Borg collective blog sites is that dissent is not permitted. What we can guarantee however is that they will rehearse their material and then bring their bitchy little whines here. We can of course rely on Joshua to be a persistent little pest with the same the same song and dance on endless replay.
The problem is that they never get exposed to any but an exceedingly narrow science or policy synthesis in these echo chambers. Dissent is not permitted – the dependence of policy on science is assumed but never made explicit – philosophies of limits are mandatory. The gatekeepers have a narrow focus and the space cadets are – like Joshua – are typically clueless on much Earth science at all. Science suggests a broader synthesis – it leads to something real. The Borg collective is chasing anomalies down a rabbit hole and converging up their own arseholes at the same time. A neat trick as I say – but I suggest closing your eyes before the implosion.
Joshua assumes a moral and intellectual equivalence. There is none. There is the fringe worldview of the Borg collective and there are the rest of us. The teeming masses who want economics growth, humanitarian freedom and security, education opportunities for our children and the conservation of God’s nature.
Did you miss that bit Joshua?
OMG! There goes joshie, again. The little putz wallows in unintended irony. Can that much unintended irony be unintended? We may never know how he does it.
Its interesting to see that their language was quite polite on that thread. Even WHT’s posts were snark free! Perhaps more input from sceptical commenters would liven up the ATTP blog site but then again it seems doubtful that any such exchange of views will make much difference to the respective positions of both sides of the AGW debate.
Peter,
I tried commenting there once. I was immediately attacked as a den!er who doesn’t care about poor people. It is a vacuous left wing echo chamber where only one POV is acceptable. Really, it is a remarkably hostile group that is not the least bit interested in a reasoned discussion.
The deep fat fried tree rings, bored to a crisp, are snappier.
=======================
Yer won’t get no pudding if yer don’t eat yr greens.
Now that’s an icky thought. 10 to 1 they aren’t organic or free range.
Out-kimmed kim. Ten points.
Perhaps the emerging data which contradicts GCM projections could be referred to as “GCM out-kims,” a parody of unsettling science.
(No, I didn’t understand that either.) (Tired.)
Are you my Mom reincarnate? Sure sounds like it!
Few can compare with Christopher Booker at putting the boot in. Quotes:
Apart from the Middle East, there can have been few more depressing places to be in the world last Tuesday than the UN General Assembly in New York, where an endless queue of world leaders, including Barack Obama and David Cameron, treated an increasingly soporific audience to leaden little appeals for humanity to take urgent action to halt global warming. The purpose of this special meeting, summoned by that dim little nonentity Ban Ki-moon, was to issue a desperate last-minute call for a legally binding treaty in Paris next year, whereby they would all agree to save the planet through an 80 per cent cut in those CO₂ emissions, which are inseparable from almost all the activities of modern civilisation.
… even The Guardian could not hide the fact that no one had anything new or interesting to say. …
The real disaster from all this, I argued [just before Copenhagen], was not the imagined apocalypse of the world frying, as ice caps melted and sea levels soared (thanks to Antarctica, there is more polar sea ice today than at any time since records began). It was the response of all those deluded politicians who had fallen for the scare.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/11124976/Dreary-climate-summit-was-surely-their-saddest-fiasco-yet.html
“Every week we’re seeing new and undeniable climate events, evidence that accelerated climate change is here right now,” DiCaprio added in his speech. “None of this is rhetoric, and none of it is hysteria. It is fact.”
It may not be hysteria,but climate is almost surely Hysteresis
You have to give it to DiCaprio. He is a good actor. Looks sincere spouting his scripted UN lines. No hint of the life style hypocrite hidden within.
He calls for “action”. What better messenger than an actor!
Nothing more difficult than faking sincerity. That is why they make the big bucks.
I really like Di Caprio. He was here in Ibiza with Orlando Bloom and in walked Justin Bieber and talked trashed to Orlando. Orlando got up and tried to strike Justin, but Justin’s bodyguard pulled the singer back. Meanwhile Leonardo was screaming insults at Justin. That was an upstanding way to help Orlando get even for the deal with Amanda. These movie stars sure make things lively, don’t they?
The Sunday Time Magazine has a good article on the Drax power station in Yorkshire England, and the import of wood from the USA to power it. The cost of this imported biomas is more than three times the cost of coal. The wood is in the form of pellets and have to be stored in a nitrogen atmosphere to prevent them from spontaneously combusting.
I wonder if the carbon foot print for all this, including transport, is grater than locally sourced coal. any ideas?
R Johnson-Taylor
The original lunatic idea was that Drax -one of our biggest power stations-would in future be fuelled by wood pellets from Britain. Then it was realised there were not enough trees here to do that, so they looked to America with the idea that ‘thinnings’ from forests would be used. It is said there are not enough thinnings so therefore mature trees will need to be cut down.
This is much more expensive and carbon intensive than burning coal when all aspects are considered. Here is the House of Commons report on biofuels
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenergy/181/181vw.pdf
The latest news is that Drax is pushing for an expensive carbon capture scheme as the co2 savings over coal will not show up in their carbon budgets unless the output can be removed and buried.
If you have a spare hour you might like to try and find out Tim Yeo’s involvement with the co supplying the pellets to Drax.
tonyb
Tony, sometimes I wish I were an aphid or a cuttlefish, just so I don’t belong to the same species which conceived woodchips-to-Drax.
It’s not just the carbon issue, if issue there be o GW, but it’s the damage being done to the environment, ecology, biodiversity etc. What happens to all the water that the trees would have moved into the atmospher, is it now just runoff? Is the topsoil disappearing in this run off? It seems to me that UK has exported problems to the USA and they don’t seem to care.
R Johnson Taylor
I agree with you. I just don’t think that the UK govt thought it through so eager were they to reduce carbon emissions. However, as it has turned out they won’t reduce them at all. But we (sceptics) all knew that.
tonyb
tonyb, what I think you are seeing is the difference between a plan and a vision. Visions are awful easy, but they tend to attract some odd characters.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZlsKvOkHIY&w=640&h=390%5D
Capt
This appears to be the age of irrationality.
tonyb
tonyb, nope, just the age of rapid information transfer. there has always been plenty of irrational to go around.
Capt, I wonder how many had gas masks on or did they just forget them?
joseph, I think polar bear costumes and gas masks were about tied with guitar heroes. The marchers though have a lot in common with political campaigners, both tend to leave a lot of trash afterwards for others to clean up.
I don’t think either one of us can know if that really is a representative sample of the people who marched or of people who supported the march. You should be more skeptical of what you see and consider the source.
joseph, I think it is pretty safe to assume that “marches” attract a good number of abby normal individuals.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw&w=640&h=390%5D
It isn’t much of a challenge to find “followers” that are clueless.
You are right Capt but there are loonies on all sides. I recall some gun control activists going into a fast food restaurant armed to the teeth. But I guess loonies and or extremists have a right to an opinion, because we can always ignore them.
I might be wrong, but those trees in the US were probably headed for the production line anyway; in the form of paper pulp, particle board, etc. And with home building in the slump, more would now be available.
==> “joseph, I think it is pretty safe to assume that “marches” attract a good number of abby normal individuals.”
As opposed to climate blogs?
Oh. I see Josh found a mirror.
jim2 –
How’s that germ situation going?
entering to aid Josh’s point …
OMG, wood pellet power plant? … in UK?
had not even heard of this
gonna take me a couple days to process
Gaia help us
Joshua, “As opposed to climate blogs?”
There is a similar mixture, but climate blogs seem to attract a more interesting group of nut jobs. IMO anyway, since I doubt many are sitting around in polar bear suits or gas masks while planning to ban anything they don’t understand. Always exceptions of course.
John smith
I guess you are referring to my couple of posts on Drax?
It was europes biggest coal fired power station And was specifically
Built on top of one of our largest coal fields. Here are the people who built it
http://www.atkinsglobal.co.uk/en-GB/media-centre/features/powering-britain
Britain was the first country in the world to enact a legally binding climate change act and one of its provisions, in tandem with the Eu, is to reduce carbon emissions.
Drax was a natural target due to its size and some genius worked out that co2 could be saved by switching to pellets from uk forests.
Unfortunately that was impossible so the pellets are coming from I believe the carolinas.as the house of commons report I cited above mentions, the sums- carbon and financial- didn’t add up.
Another of our large coal fired stations at Didcot, was recently shut down, others are being mothballed? Two nuclear reactors are down, wind renewables are twenty percent down over the last quarter because of lack of wind. Solar is very marginal in the uk anyway but through the winter it’s output will be negligible. Our energy is I believe three times more expensive than in the US.
Our depleted power supplies are highly dependent on the winter being mild. If its severe we are in trouble. I have bought a generator.
Tonyb
John Smith
We had cut most of our forests down by the 10th century. Henry 8th planted some more for his future navy but generally speaking we are not a well forested country.
I know that and you know that but unfortunately our politicians didn’t seem to
tonyb
Tony, well said. And the semi-swamp forests being cut in the US Southeast coastal areas just spent 100 years recuperating from the last such stupidity. Plus, the land change CO2 emissions from these wetlands is not factored in.
There are plans, there are visions and there are
phantasmagoria. Now where does climate activism
ter save the world relate ter these?
tonyb
yes I was referring to Drax
thanks for additional info
“pellets from UK forest”?
no offense, did not think England was known for timber production
I’m from the Carolinas, don’t have a ton of forest land left there either
the inmates of the asylum are taking over here as well
John
Sorry my reply to you came in just above here.at 4.59
I was right, the wood comes from the North Carolinas
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22630815
tonyb
Here in Spain we were hoping to sell processed sewage to Drax. The idea would be for the UK to pay for a 2 gigawatt molten salt nuclear plant we can use to generate heat to dry the sewage and make organic chips we can sell at €0,50 per kg. Given the UK government’s keen interest in saving the atmosphere we would like to start negotiations before the Americans corner the chip market.
The linked article on the renewed UN-support for carbon pricing — like a perfect storm — sounds like the community of nations getting together to recognize the cleansing effects of ritual blood-letting… only, when comes to carbon pricing by government fiat, it’s society’s productive who become the ritual oxen whose blood is being drained by witchdoctors of the Left. On the one hand, the Left recognizes the power of “price signals” to “affect the hundreds of millions of decisions” that take place in a dynamic marketplace while on the other hand, the Left fears a people who are free to make such decisions.
Belief, bias and Bayes
Evidence can modify our beliefs, but the impact it has depends upon those beliefs. An 18ᵗʰ century priest has something to say about that, in what could be seen as a mathematical formulation of the scientific method
snip
Climate change is another good example. If you have a prior assumption that modern life is rubbish and technology is intrinsically evil, then you will place a high prior probability on Carbon Dioxide emissions dooming us all
http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2014/sep/28/belief-bias-and-bayes?CMP=twt_gu
1975 ‘Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference
Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
The Future of Humanity: a Lecture by Isaac Asimov (1974)
And you know, pretending is a good thing because if you pretend long enough, you’ll forget you’re pretending and you’ll begin to believe it.
http://www.asimovonline.com/oldsite/future_of_humanity.html
:: ))
“Curry used to drive a Prius, but she replaced it with a Honda CRV. She still walks a mile to work and recycles. She supports research into alternate energy and energy efficiency because she thinks people will soon run out of fossil fuels. Her life is as green as most people’s, and her lifestyle choices are based on practicality.”
Uh Ohhh!!
Judith has really stepped into another quagmire!!. She’ll have another whole group of (willfully blind) people angry with her if this means outing her as a closet “Peak Oiler” :: ))
brent – That depends on what your definition of “soon” is. But, the price of oil will continue to trend up.
There is nothing wrong with conserving energy. The biggest worry is that we don’t have a cheap replacement for gasoline and diesel. Nat gas could do it, but the EPA have made it cost prohibitive for manufacturers to switch to it because the EPA demand proof that nat gas is less polluting than the gasoline it replaces, on a model-by-model basis. A good example of government standing in the way of environmental and technological progress.
Other that nat gas, we currently have no economical replacement, and a Prius ain’t economical. I was hoping Joule Fuels might have a solution, but reading the tea leaves there seems to indicate solar energy isn’t going to fill the bill, they need to make gasoline at night as well as during the day to be profitable. At least that’s my interpretation of their latest press releases.
We’ve been running out of oil since the first human grabbed a glob of tar from a seep. We wont’ run out as fast as many people think, but we do need get government out of the way and let free enterprise find an economical replacement. It could start by dropping regs on nat gas.
Maybe. Or maybe they’re just looking for a better ROI.
Bet they could do it with electrolytic hydrogen from solar panels. You’d need a way to store a day or so’s worth of hydrogen, and wait for the price of solar to come down again.
OTOH then you wouldn’t need inverters. And the oxygen from electrolysis and the daytime Joule process could be fed into power plants with carbon capture, which could provide the CO2 needed for the process. (Carbon capture is much cheaper at the moment if you start with oxygen rather than air. That might change, but we shouldn’t count on it.)
For that matter, perhaps the heat from the “stacks” could be drawn out and used for distillation, then the stack gasses could simply be shoved into water to dissolve (some of) the CO2 for use with the Joule process. (You need some of the CO2 to be fed back into combustion mixed with oxygen: pure oxy burns too hot for current technology.)
The basic idea, IMO, is to use synergies among solar electrolysis, Oxygen-fired carbon-capture, sea-water purification, and processes to create fuel from CO2 and energy. That way, the same actual physical structure can provide several different streams of return on investment.
jim2: Wall Street Journal on Natural Gas in vehicles …
Forget Electric Cars. Natural Gas Is Powering Vehicles in Texas
One fleet of 24 natural-gas Fords will displace more gasoline than 700 Chevy Volts and ‘save’ taxpayers $5.3 million.
At Mike Scully’s Apple Towing in Houston, just one of their big Ford F650 tow trucks saves more gasoline each year than 20 Nissan Leaf electric cars.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/bob-lukefahr-and-balu-balagopal-forget-electric-cars-natural-gas-is-powering-vehicles-in-texas-1411770393
Correction to a misleading comment. The EPA requires a cert for every model for a retrofit of gasoline to nat gas.
From the web site:
Clean Energy is changing the way North America fuels its vehicles. Energy independence is an undisputed goal for our nation, and we at Clean Energy know just how realistic and attainable that goal is with natural gas fuel.
Moving forward in our thinking as well as in our vehicles means a safer, healthier planet for all of us. This change is already happening. Natural gas is abundant and domestically available and is already used as a cleaner source of energy around the world.
http://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/
From passenger cars to locomotives, Westport drives natural gas transportation, and has a solution for you. We work with some of the world’s largest original equipment manufacturers to incorporate our state of the art technology into your application, whether it’s a Volvo bi-fuel taxi off the line, a city trash hauler, or a customized Ford utility truck.
http://www.westport.com/
The EPA is a huge roadblock to nat gas conversion.
From the article:
…
As it turns out, there are very few technological barriers to overcome. In fact, converting existing vehicles to burn natural gas isn’t particularly challenging. Unfortunately, if you tried to do it yourself, you’d more than likely run afoul of the Clean Air Act’s rules against modifying fuel systems–a violation that could cost you up to $5000 in fines for every day you drive the converted vehicle. So if you want to green your wheels today, the only way to do it is by hiring a certified compressed-natural-gas (CNG) installer to do the job. To get the skinny on aftermarket CNG systems, I visited NatGasCar in Cleveland. It’s a startup shop that augments gasoline cars by installing a parallel natural gas fuel system. They showed me their latest creation, a dual-fuel Dodge Caravan intended for airport taxi service. It starts on gasoline and switches over to natural gas once the engine warms up.
…
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-to/maintenance/should-you-convert-your-car-to-natural-gas
From the article:
…
The EPA does indeed “certify” CNG conversion kits specific to certain year model vehicles and engines. There are not many makes and models that are “EPA Certified”. Your local qualified CNG conversion shop will know if your vehicle can be converted. The EPA Certification process is very expensive and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. A few thousand dollars of your conversion fees will help cover the cost of this root canal.
…
http://www.skycng.com/regulationsandcertifications.php
There is absolutely no doubt that ICEs can be modified to burn Nat Gas. Caterpiller does it all the time for their so called spark ignited generators (converted from diesel).
But that is the relevant fact. Big gensets are stationary, and ‘pipeline’ connected. Vehicles are not.
So please check out relative energy density and mileage. By vehicle class. What might or might not work on a big rig class 8 semi on a dedicated route is different than a city transit bus with regular refueling stops, than an urban taxi or commuter. Courses for horses. Do not generalize. Transportation fuel is another of those wicked problems.
Not sure who she was interviewing, doesn’t sound like me :)
Brent, she isnt closet. She hosted Caltech’s David Rutlege on coal (guest lecture at GIT), and two guest posts from me on petroleum (here, 2012?). Rutldge is something of a peer reviewed coal expert; I have onlynatudied petroleum in depth. Reason is that coal for electricitynhas nuclear as a substitute. Petroleum for gasoline, diesel, and kerosene as transportation fuel does not (for on the grey economic margin, read my first book Gaias Limits). The previous sentance is too black and white.
I think Judith is a scientist trying to understand what the data says in an energy production area outside her personal scientific expertise. And that produces a double bravo for her, and most readers here. Because she checks, then decides to publicize, even if she is not certain. Scientific methods shining through.
BTW, my energy thoughts are greatly elaborated in the forthcoming book, to which she very gratious contributed a nice forward. Both peak oil essays previously posted here are reproduced ( updated, expanded) therein, with lots of supplemental information and additional enlightening essays on related irrefutable but obscure petroleum facts.
@jim2
We badly need to address our energy future DIRECTLY and stop trying to implement energy policy through the backdoor via PROXY touting MYTHOLOGY AND DOGMA of CLIMATE CHANGE
http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/02/week-in-review-21/#comment-613993
Saudi Aramco Chief Executive Warns on Oil Supply
The world’s oil fields are in decline, so the world needs to replace close to 40 million barrels a day of new capacity within the next two decades, Mr. Al-Falih said.. A lot of those resources will be complex and expensive, such as shale oil and gas and heavy oil projects.
“So, to tap these increasingly expensive oil resources, oil prices will need to be healthy enough to attract needed investments,” said Mr. Al-Falih.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/23/week-in-review-24/#comment-621284
From this morning’s NY Times:
“A former Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, made tackling climate change a signature issue and enacted a carbon tax — a move that was seen as political suicide. Last year Australians voted her out of office and this past summer, the new prime minister, Tony Abbott, pushed through a bill to repeal the carbon price.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/world/americas/presidents-drive-for-carbon-pricing-fails-to-win-at-home.html?_r=0
Pielke Jr’s iron law prevails.
Yep. O’Bumbles is already out, so he’s pushing the suicidal initiatives now. I just hope his actions can be pinned on other Dimowits running for office.
I was trying to understand the President’s approach. He’s a lame duck. If he uses the EPA, he shields the Democrats in Congress from having to make a recorded vote, and that may help them with the voters in November. He himself draws the skeptics fire and he has little to lose.
Ragnaar, but he opens himself up for easy court attacks. See my guest post here on Clean Coal for one example.
From the article:
…
Everyone understands what it means to own a plunger. Go to a store, buy the tool, take the physical object home, use it. No contract is required. If you give it away, all its plunging capabilities go with it. If it is stolen, it is lost. If you don’t know how to use it, there is no customer service line to explain. There is no way to hack a plunger from eastern Europe or even from across the street. Modern Americans own most things the plunger way.
But consider the phone. The physical object of the phone is the center of an ecosystem that spans the Earth and goes on up to low-earth orbit, where GPS satellites float in space and help companies pinpoint devices on Earth. To make calls or send text messages, one must have a contract with a provider of service. These phones come with all kinds of restrictions on their possible physical capabilities. You may not take them apart. Depending on the plan, not all software can be downloaded onto them, not every device can be tethered to them, and not every cell phone network can be tapped.
…
With smartness comes something else: hackability. If you have a computer, and it’s on the network, it can be breached by someone or something else. Build a smart ceiling fan and you have a ceiling fan that can be hacked.
…
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/when-everything-works-like-your-cell-phone/379820/?single_page=true
Listening to Sept 17th House Science Committee meeting with Holdren. Some interesting exchanges there. The Republicans came with their talking points, and appeared not to be there to listen.
http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-administration-s-climate-plan-failure-design
Or maybe they insist on something more than specious BS.
That would be fine if the Republicans came armed with information that was remotely accurate, but it was just a series of debunking of seriously flawed ideas that Holdren and McCabe had to do.
Jimd
Upthread somewhere you dismissed borehole temperature proxies which showed rising temperatures from 1700 . These had originally been posted by Fan who only looked at the end part and didn’t realise the implications and reckoned they were robust.
Can I take it that bearing in mind the extreme shortcomings of tree rings that you would also dismiss those?
Tonyb
A borehole proxy for 1700 is fine if you interpret as a multi-century average centered on 1700.
Jimd
That’sna bit cryptic. Haven’t been taking lessons from Mosh have you? Please elucidate.
Also please answer my question on the reliability or otherwise of tree rings. Thanks
Tonyb
Boreholes estimate past temperatures by heat diffused down from the surface. The diffusion wave spreads with depth, so by the time you are a few centuries back, you are looking at temperatures influenced by a few centuries of past surface temperature, effectively doing a long-term average, so maybe what is ascribed to 1700 is the average of 1600-1800 or something of that order.
Regarding tree rings, I would not take them as a sole source, unless you had wide distance correlations that can be shown significant, e.g. on different continents. There are many other proxies than can also confirm or disconfirm them.
Jimd
Boreholes show temperatures rising since around 1700 . Tree rings show temperatures decreasing from before that time. It can’t be both can it?
Looking at each of the proxy sets from each continent it is Apparent they are all over the place and getting any sort of positive or negative figure takes considerable cherry picking.
I am suspicious of the value of all types of proxies as they all have serious limitatioms and show no clear dirction of travel of temperature unless carefully selected, but tree rings in particular seem To me to be nonsensical for a variety of reasons. These include their microclimate problems and also that any signal that can be detected is limited to a short growing season.
Proxies are an important part of the ipcc narrative but it sounds to me as if you have reservation about them as well
Tonyb
Who can forget the temp downspike given to notoriously hot 1934 by Mann? Seems Bristlecone Pines like a bit of water to do their growing. Dormancy in drought is understandably a big thing with them, a fact which was well researched in the 1950s.
Even from this distance I’ve long been aware of how much rain did not fall on California in the 1930s. In 1934 even the grasshoppers starved. How do the klimatariat miss these things? It’s like they want to miss them.
@ Tonyb
It seems to me that a proxy for adult gullibility, replacing the childhood test of belief in the tooth fairy and Easter bunny, would be how strongly they believe that boreholes and tree rings provide millennial proxies, with sub degree precision and resolution, for the ‘Temperature of the Earth’.
Quoting Mike Flynn: “I draw your attention to the expression “non unique series of surface temperature values”. To me, this indicates that any of several non-unique (different) values can provide the same borehole temperature profile. Which one is correct? The problem appears to be solved by adjustment. Adjust your assumptions, until you obtain the surface temperature you want. Another Warmist pseudo-scientific attempt to peddle nonsense.”
All very amusing and entertaining. At least it was before the ‘pseudo-scientific attempts to peddle nonsense’ morphed into justification for the destruction of our energy infrastructure. Now, not so much.
Jim D: The Republicans came with their talking points,
I have wondered for a while: what is the epistemic or epistemological implication of a proposition being labeled a “talking point”? It sounds like a proposition whose truth is undeniable, but which the labeler wishes everyone to ignore. Did Holdren have anything new to say that he and others had not said plenty of times before?
Matthew: And when Holdren speaks why listen, given this quote:
“Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”
Holdren’s published statement is here. It is just an update and synthesis on climate, possible global measures, costs, etc. pertinent to this committee’s interests.
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY-WState-JHoldren-20140917.pdf
“talking points” has come to be used for orchestrated points made by one political party, whereby all their politicians and spokespeople speak from the same list. It is very effective, because the public see it as independent people coming to the same conclusion when they are just following instructions from their sponsors. It is demonstrated often by people like Jon Stewart who show 5 or 6 Republicans almost using the same words as if from a script. It looks quite pathetic when shown up like that. The Democrats have been far less effective with talking points, being too independent of each other.
Such obvious tendentious nonsense from Jimmy Dee. Politicians need a song sheet or they put their feet in it.
It’s a wonder he can take himself seriously.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/dem-talking-points-slam-m_n_717898.html
For example here, a gem from 2012 pre-election, where the Republicans were trying to downplay the recovery.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/01/1069337/-Jon-Stewart-exposes-RNC-collusion-memo-to-Fox-News-on-economic-talking-points#
Jon Stewart playing to his audience is evidence that the Democrats don’t have a song sheet? It is at least better than his usual standard of evidence.
He “plays” by using their own words against them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMxnxe02epQ
Apparently – in a case of too much information – Michelle didn’t go all the way down.
Jim D: The Democrats have been far less effective with talking points, being too independent of each other.
How droll.
Heat doesn’t diffuse from the surface into the rocks. It comes up from below. I already wrote a comment somewhere above.
Diffusion goes both ways, of course, but what comes up is quite constant at the chosen locations, while what goes down does vary with climate, so you see the climate signal in the boreholes.
So, what about tree rings as a proxy?
Tonyb
Jim maybe you are used to observing borehole records in cold regions? I ask because when I looked at data the seasonal transients wash out very shallow and then we obtain a fairly uniform heat flux from below. But I confess I wasn’t looking for the ice ages.
We look for leaks, flows between geologic layers and the data to run the lab measurements, prepare equations of state and things like that. I suppose that if the location had been under a glacier for 80 thousand years and the surface temperature increases 5 degrees C then the surface does send a heat transient. However the temperature at 300 meters under a mile of ice could be 8 degrees C. This gives you a curved shape temperature profile with heat feeding in from both directions. Did I get it right?
Fernando, they typically look at boreholes in 10s to a few hundred meters where the temperature variation from the surface has an influence, especially if it is changing steadily relative to the last millennium average. You probably have to go many hundred meters to see the effect of the Ice Ages.
Tonyb, I answered that somewhere else. Basically I would only think they have information if they agree with other proxies or if their signals are correlated across several different continents.
Jimbo – are you talking rock cores. By all means show us 1 temperature reconstruction for a borehole in rock.
http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=519:2:::::P1_study_id:12621
‘Borehole temperatures are used as temperature proxies. Since heat transfer through the ground is slow, temperature measurements at a series of different depths down the borehole, adjusted for the effect of rising heat from inside the Earth, can be “inverted” (a mathematical formula to solve matrix equations) to produce a non-unique series of surface temperature values. The solution is “non-unique” because there are multiple possible surface temperature reconstructions that can produce the same borehole temperature profile. In addition, due to physical limitations, the reconstructions are inevitably “smeared”, and become more smeared further back in time. When reconstructing temperatures around 1,500 AD, boreholes have a temporal resolution of a few centuries. At the start of the 20th Century, their resolution is a few decades; hence they do not provide a useful check on the instrumental temperature record.[11][12] However, they are broadly comparable.[4] These confirmations have given paleoclimatologists the confidence that they can measure the temperature of 500 years ago. This is concluded by a depth scale of about 492 feet (150 meters) to measure the temperatures from 100 years ago and 1,640 feet (500 meters) to measure the temperatures from 1,000 years ago.[13]’
Wikepedia
Amazing – he’s right. Although you would have to suspect that higher resolution methods are of more fundamental value.
rob
the original reason for the interest was this graph posted by Fan in support of one of his arguments
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
he obviously did not realise at the time that it showed temperatures rising from as early as 1700
tonyb
Tony,
Just got to that page myself – below. Comes with not reading FOMBS I suppose. To me it shows vigorous natural variation.
Cheers
Rob Ellison,
You wrote –
“‘Borehole temperatures are used as temperature proxies. Since heat transfer through the ground is slow, temperature measurements at a series of different depths down the borehole, adjusted for the effect of rising heat from inside the Earth, can be “inverted” (a mathematical formula to solve matrix equations) to produce a non-unique series of surface temperature values. The solution is “non-unique” because there are multiple possible surface temperature reconstructions that can produce the same borehole temperature profile. In addition, due to physical limitations, the reconstructions are inevitably “smeared”, and become more smeared further back in time.”
I draw your attention to the expression “non unique series of surface temperature values”. To me, this indicates that any of several non-unique (different) values can provide the same borehole temperature profile. Which one is correct? The problem appears to be solved by adjustment. Adjust your assumptions, until you obtain the surface temperature you want. Another Warmist pseudo-scientific attempt to peddle nonsense.
It amazes me that people don’t seem to give any thought at all to the nonsense they promulgate as fact. Once again, it’s assumption piled on estimate, adjustments, smoothing, expert opinion, sigmas, best judgement, keep the grant funds flowing.
I suppose it’s too embarrassing to admit it’s all about as useful as a treemometer.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I have just shown an ability to admit error in speaking far too quickly about something that had not crossed my horizon previously – when 2 minutes on Wikipedia would have at least suggested some deeper issue.
I have shown that I can get to the core (ha ha) of the issue quickly – http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
Flynn the Dingbat has no such ability to self correction or talent for following the evidence.
‘It is a kind of direct temperature – temperature study. Therefore, it is free of any uncertainties due to conversion from proxy data to temperatures.’ http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/approach.html
The House of Cards Collapses:
http://centinel2012.com/2014/09/28/a-doj-original-series/comment-page-1/
We can talk ice cores, coral cores or sediment cores. None of them rely on heat diffusing down.
They all rely on accretion – the first two determine temperature from oxygen isotope ratios.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/
Rob
How accurately could they deliver a temperature signal accurate to tenths of a degree from 500 years ago?
Tonyb
I think I could design a system to give you very good temperature measurements. I was doodling it on a piece of paper, so it’s very raw. And it would need a budget (I’m more of a put the team and budget together type of engineer). The key would be to work a piece of homogeneous rock with very low permeability. I was thinking the side of a mountain known to have been there for a while without significant erosion, little snow, no tree cover and so on. Then we need to core the rocks to understand their properties. The final step would be to drop in a sensor string with a sensor every 0.5 meters. It’s industrial strength and should give data to about 2000 years. But we do need to work the details.
Tonyb
thanks for saying this
this seems to me like one of the odd ignored issues in this debate
Still looking for something that convinces me that these 500-1000 year reconstructions can be that accurate
I don’t see anyone offering a direct answer
Like your question about which happy climate period we might return to and “sustain”
Actually, from my reading our industrial CO2 period looks pretty good
warmer periods seem to correlate with more societal stability, technical and economic growth
(oh wait … forgot … economic growth is bad for the climate)
:)
John smith
Judging from the hundreds of proxies I’ve looked at over the past few days, from tree rings to boreholes, corals to ice cores It seems that they are all over the place and you can choose to arrive at whatever climate conclusion you want to.
Quite why such proxies are thought to be so reliably scientific whilst my research into contemporary observational sources are merely anecdotes, is obscuring the search for whatever the true climate may turn out to be.
Tonyb
There are multiple environmental factors that influence the isotope ratio. Perhaps more broad brush than precise.
So it could discern that a warm period followed a cold period but not the actual temperature extremes during either state?
Tonyb
Depends on their length and their shape. I think the key is to use multiple boreholes in a cluster and use dozens of clusters. It costs money. But I have an oil company background. We are used to spending $100 million on a single well. Spending $200 million of government money running a field campaign to pin down the medieval warm would be a lot of fun.
This is the latest and greatest – it provides continental scale estimates in terms of standard deviations.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/04/21/blogs/dotkaufman.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html
There are multiple proxies and you can drill down to sites from here.
http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=519:2:::::P1_study_id:12621
Tim Ball writing at WUWT:
“They also exploit the public belief that change is gradual over long periods of time. Use of the word “belief” is deliberate, because it represents the philosophical, pseudo-religious basis for western science – Uniformitarianism.”
“A debate, including in the climate community, raged in the late 1980s and early 1990s involving the replacement of Uniformitarianism by Chaos Theory and Cyclic Theory. Communist block scientists said climate was the result of the interaction of multiple cycles creating a net climate. The west, particularly the US, was pushing chaos theory. Western media interpreted this as a political divide of the Cold War. It wasn’t. It was an intellectual divide within climate science, that continues today. Stephen Jay Gould introduced another option he called Punctuated Equilibrium. This was Uniformitarianism with periodic interruptions by catastrophic events. There was discussion at the time about equilibrium and whether the global system is a transitory or a non-transitory system. That is, if pushed from equilibrium, would the global system return to it or establish a new equilibrium. This implies there are tipping points.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/28/climate-change-and-extinction-what-is-natural/
a) Uniformitarianism
b) Chaos Theory
c) Cycles
d) Punctuated Equilibrium
So what happened to b), c) and d)? Is Ball overstating the case of these other points of view? Uniformitarianism seems a better starting place to make predictions from. The acceptance of ocean cycles lately, seems to arguing for c) and maybe a bit for b).
The message the climate change is real, if based on a Uniformitarianism point of view is sort of like proving the basics of gravity many years too late. The fact that one didn’t use to believe the basics of gravity before but now discovered them is entertaining. Like proclaiming with conviction, gravity is real. Welcome to our world. Please fill out this guest registration form, and here’s a complimentary gift basket. The pool closes at 11:00 p.m. No glass containers in the pool room please. We hope you enjoy your stay.
Uniformitarianism fits better with reductive science I think. b), c) and d) have a number of uncertainties. How are we to predict the sign changes or significant breaks? Sensitivity numbers though arguably lacking are what we have to work with. Maybe it’s that the complexity of the problem highlights the limits of Uniformitarianism.
We shouldn’t let the ‘Week in Review’ pass without some mention of the bizarre behaviour of uber-‘skeptic’ Anthony Watts.
After begging for money to fly to the UK (WTF!?) to attend a talk by Michael Mann to ask ‘hard-hitting’ questions……he apparently forgot when he was actually there.
The subsequent outpouring of excuses and drivel has been awesomely pathetic.
Michael,
I agree with you. I’m not sure why anybody would bother asking Michael Mann any questions at one of his talks, except maybe for directions to the bar or the toilet.
Can you provide examples of any questions that you could ask of Michael Mann which might improve your knowledge of anything useful?
Nobody in the real world appears to have benefitted in any way from any beliefs held by Michael Mann. Predictions, scenarios, forecasts, and so on do not count, as they haven’t actually happened yet. Any fool can claim to peer into the future, Michael Mann included.
Michael Mann’s contribution to the world at large has been precisely what, in your opinion? Provide a few examples of the enduring legacy of a great intellect, if you can. I don’t believe you can, but I’m always prepared to absorb new facts. I used to believe that peptic ulcers were caused by stress, now I accept that I was wrong. I’m flexible. Convince me that Michael Mann is a great scientific figure, if you feel it’s worth your time. My view is that he’s more likely to be suffering from delusional psychosis, than in possession of a first rate mind deserving of a Nobel prize.
What do you think?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn,
Mike,
That was positively Watt-esque.
Re Mann ; the latest post by Judith may be relevant to your queries.
Michael,
Am I correct in assuming you have no evidence that Mann is other than a delusional psychotic, who has contributed nothing to the general community other than giving the world at large the opportunity to indulge in merriment at the posturings of a balding bearded buffoon?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Judith thought he was deserving of a journal article in response.
Perhaps you’re right and Judith is wrong.
Michael,
If I wanted Judith’s response, I would have asked her, I guess.
I’m almost always right. I don’t speak for anybody else.
You obviously choose not to answer my question because you would end up looking foolish, like Michael Mann. I’m right again, I think.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mike,
I completely understand why you want to talk about Michael Mann rather than Watts.
Sceptical minds might wonder if he obtained money under false pretenses.
This is actually quite interesting. Global borehole data is maintained at the University of Michigan.
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
The data is quite extensive – including at least some for Africa. The error bounds are narrower than I would have expected – although there is no fine detail.
Yes we know it is warming – most before 1944 quite natural and perhaps 50/50 since.
The world is cooling folks – as this natural warming reverses this century – even Kim doesn’t know how much.
Rob Ellison,
Just a couple of points.
Is the P D Jones and his colleagues at the University of East Anglia the same Phil Jones who loses his data and apparently suffered from spreadsheet comprehension impairment?
The temperature at Thornton appears to have dropped by 2 C odd in the period 1500 – 1900. It’s the only one I looked at. I presume you have a nifty explanation for cooling being recorded to support warming? Or have I read the graph incorrectly?
I suppose that 97% of borehole climate resurrectionists agree that anybody disagreeing is a fool. You might notice the disclaimers attached to the graph. The researcher clearly states the technique used does not necessarily provide a correct answer. What a surprise!
Keep up the good fight!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Just 2 points Flynn? No and no. There – didn’t even have to read it.
Rob Ellison,
Thanks. I assumed you didn’t read it, and just cut and pasted for some reason known only to yourself. Just because it appears on the Wide World of the Web, doesn’t mean it’s true. Otherwise, we would all probably believe in the fiction of the CO2 greenhouse effect, N Rays, orgonite and all the rest of the twaddle.
I suppose Nature requires gullibility – balance or something. Why must there be so much?
Keep up the good fight!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
One of the important lessons an education in Earth sciences gives is the need to distinguish between reputable and disreputable sources. Although I started with Wikipedia – it is never the place to stop.
As the repository of borehole data in a globally coordinated paleoclimatic dtat project – the University of Michigan is reputable.
Flynn the Dingbat most evidently is not.
Rob Ellison,
If you believe that all data held or coordinated by a university or other Government body is necessarily meaningful, accurate, complete or up to date, I wish you well.
Keep up the good fight.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
The question is – how much more reliable than Flynn is it?
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
Quite a humungous amount really.
Life to short for bad coffee, mad unscience and incessantly repetitive whines.
So for over 100 years, since the beginnings of earnest industrialization the surface temp is up 0.6 C?
The question is – how much more reliable than Flynn is it?
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
Quite a humungous amount really.
Life to short for bad coffee, mad unscience and incorrigible and improbable obsessions
Rob Ellison
LinK: http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=519:2:::::P1_study_id:12621
error message.
http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=519:2
How long is this charade on future climate to continue?. The partial theories about ‘greenhouse’ gases continue to effect international policies to the detriment of many countries. It is time for the US president to admit tat the path he had chosen for fossil fuel was misguided and not supported by the evidence. The scientists’ professions have been misguided by the UN’s ICCC and IPCC and I humbly apologise for following their advice.
In truth we know no more about future climate than what we did 30 years ago.
The leading “wave” for the last rise starting in 1970 was CRUTEM4 NH (NH land) which is not included among the stadium wave indices for some reason. With land leading, this implies external forcing. 45 years after the turn, the land is still showing no signs of slowing, which as the leading index portends that the other indices won’t turn any time soon either. All the stadium wave modes will be stuck in this end warming mode for the foreseeable future.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vnh/mean:240/detrend:0.8/offset:0.5/mean:120/plot/esrl-amo/mean:240/mean:120/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:240/mean:120/detrend:0.8/offset:0.5
The land/ocean divergence is most evident in the last decade or so.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979
It doesn’t happen in the troposphere.
So what could feasibly could be the mechanism?
Thermal inertia. Land and ocean responding to the same external forcing, but the land can respond faster. It’s like the seasons where the oceans lag.
So why doesn’t it happen in the troposphere as a whole?
Air motion mixes things up, I guess. The air only stays over the continents or ocean for a few days at a time.
So it is just the temps at 2m?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1979
There is no particular lag noticeable in variability. Land is more variable than the land and ocean temps because of thermal inertia. The obvious factor is the land/ocean contrast that gets worse as the last decade proceeded and occurs only at the surface.
Now what could possibly affect sensible heat at the surface like that?
You see the lag better with 10-year averages. The land is warming about twice as fast.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/mean:120/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1900/mean:120
It’s the heat retained in the upper soil that has the memory of the forcing. That changes the fluxes.
There is nothing particularly evident but the peaks and troughs happen at the same time and that you smooth out the significant divergence last decade. Why the increasing divergence in sensible heat at the surface?
Why did it happen last decade?
If the difference is IR emissions at the surface – why isn’t this reflected in tropospheric temperatures? After all – it relies purely on emissions and is much faster than mixing.
The heat difference between the land and ocean is stored in the land and ocean, not the atmosphere that has hardly any heat capacity. This has most influence on the 2m temperature not so much in the troposphere that flows over it. Why is it diverging faster? Because the forcing is changing faster. Short-term peaks and troughs are likely natural ocean variability (ENSO) that gets transferred quickly from the ocean globally. No lag there because this variability is not externally forced by a secular change.
This gets quite off the point. The forcing is the same whether it is over oceans or land. There is some heat that is stored in the oceans and less so over land – although it tends to follow net TOA flux. The global troposphere is quickly mixed – and temperatures maintained at night and in winter – by ocean heat storage. But while atmospheric mixing happens quickly – a matter of days – IR emissions are much faster of course.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/dietmardommenget_zps939fe12e.png
The essential question I asked remains unanswered. If land is releasing energy back to space more quickly by IR emission why would this not be warming the air above? Why does it happen at 2m – and not more generally in the troposphere as energy is emitted back into space? Why do we not get a hot troposphere over land?
My answer was that the air is flowing over both the land and water, so it spreads the heat downwind quickly in relative terms. Do they even provide separate tropospheric land and water temperatures? I haven’t seen them. The continental interior troposphere has a much larger annual cycle than the ocean’s, so the climate trend may be hard to see against that background in some areas.
Use the land and ocean and land only – as you do with the surface temps.
Additional IR up warms the surface over land – but not the troposphere? Because the troposphere is mixed and the surface is not? And this is because more heat is stored in the oceans?
If we assume that the oceans are warming at a rate of 0.5W/m2. This seems about right for last decade – all of it SW. It is a large number over the whole ocean but a very small part of the total surface flux. Can we expect a substantial and increasing land/ocean contrast from this last decade? What other factor can result in an increase in sensible heat at the surface but not total heat in the troposphere?
The way I see it is that the changed forcing has a new equilibrium surface temperature associated with it. The land can adjust almost immediately to that, while the ocean can’t because of its thermal inertia. It is all about the difference between these surfaces. The atmosphere can mute this effect, but can’t prevent it.
In a transient climate the global land surface temperatures (Tland) warm with greater amplitude than sea surface temperatures (SSTs), leading to a land/sea warming contrast. The ratio of land to sea warming tends to a value of around 1.5 (Sutton et al 2007, Lambert and Chiang 2007, Compo and Sardeshmukh 2008, Dommenget 2009). Previous studies have shown the land/sea warming contrast is not simply due to the larger heat capacity of the ocean when compared to land, but is a result of the dynamics of the climate system. Sutton et al (2007) described an energy balance argument; assuming the anomalous downward surface energy flux is equal over land and ocean the land/sea warming contrast is caused by the difference in the partitioning of the upward energy flux into sensible and latent heat. Lambert and Chiang (2007) proposed that the stability of land/sea contrast
47 over annual, 5 year and longer timescales is maintained by a land to ocean heat flux where the ability of the ocean to absorb the extra heat leads to a damping of Tland variability. In this scenario the value of the land/sea contrast depends on the ratio of the land and sea climate sensitivity parameters, and can be related to the results of Sutton et al (2007). However, as stated by Byrne and OGorman (2013) the energy balance argument does not give a sufficient quantitative value of land warming. Joshi and Gregory (2008) proposed a conceptual model to explain how the SSTs can force Tland, leading to a land/sea warming contrast above unity. There is a level in the atmosphere above which there is no significant land/sea contrast and thermal anomalies are transported efficiently around the globe. The lapse rate below that level is affected by temperature and moisture and different
land and ocean lapse rates cause the land temperatures to reach an equilibrium warmer than the oceans.’
The differing lapse rates are caused by moisture deficits affecting the partitioning of sensible and latent heat at the surface but not total energy in the troposphere.
I am bored with this game now – go away.
Oh – reference – http://users.monash.edu.au/~dietmard/papers/tyrrell.et.al.land.sea.contrast.submitted.cdym2013.pdf – you might try it someday.
I don’t disagree with those clips. There may be a limit to the land-sea contrast, but currently they are diverging as fast as ever, so we haven’t reached it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1900/mean:240/mean:120/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1900/mean:240/mean:120
Yet it fundamentally contradicts you?
But a sensible person might then wonder what was happening with precipitation over land. A sensible person would wonder that anyway.
If it contradicts me, the observed temperature divergence I showed contradicts it and agrees with me.
‘Previous studies have shown the land/sea warming contrast is not simply due to the larger heat capacity of the ocean when compared to land, but is a result of the dynamics of the climate system….
However, as stated by Byrne and O’Gorman (2013) the energy balance argument does not give a sufficient quantitative value of land warming…
.. assuming the anomalous downward surface energy flux is equal over land and ocean the land/sea warming contrast is caused by the difference in the partitioning of the upward energy flux into sensible and latent heat. ‘
No – Jim – your mechanisms are not right.
Like I said, I agree that the lack of latent heat also makes the land get warmer, especially dry areas. The lack of humidity also leads to less clouds over land, and less rain, so it feeds back towards staying drier and hotter. No surprise there.
‘However, as stated by Byrne and O’Gorman (2013) the energy balance argument does not give a sufficient quantitative value of land warming…’
And I thought the troposphere was well mixed?
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/dietmardommenget_zps939fe12e.png
The divergence in the past decade is caused by drought -a lack of moisture availability over land which leads to a reduction in evaporation and latent heat transport from the surface.
As the land continues to get warmer relative to the ocean, the relative humidity over it will drop, leading to less clouds, less rain, drier soil, and more warming, in a feedback that leads to more drought in some areas.
The origin of most rain is the oceans. Some 90% in the diagram above.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/usdrought_zps2629bb8c.jpg
JimD, we know that heat is transferred from the Atlantic to the northern hemisphere land;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1880/plot/esrl-amo/from:1880
Your ball
DocMartyn, how would you interpret this? When considering longer terms it seems the other way around especially since 1970.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/mean:120/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1900/mean:120
Happy international coffee day.
‘Webcam invented to monitor coffee pot
Sure, a watched pot never boils, but the first webcam was invented to keep an eye on how much coffee was in a pot in a computer lab at the University of Cambridge. It supposedly saved researchers the trouble of visiting the pot to find it empty. The Trojan Room coffee machine cam was installed in 1991 but switched off in 2001. The camera was then sold to Der Spiegel.’
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/coffee/coffee.html
http://food.ninemsn.com.au/healthyrecipes/newsandfeatures/8912689/things-that-surprised-us-about-coffee-more-than-caffeine-itself
Letter to the Oz:
Steve Nicholson tells us that 11,500 people recently took to the streets to demand stronger action on climate change (“Climate change talk is over, it’s time to act,” 29/9). 23,617,000 people didn’t.
:) Hmmm … not one in a thousand, not even one in two thousand,
could so many be subject to deja vu all over again?
We are the 99.95 percent!
So the climate sci – consensus was a sorta – er- conn – sensus?
I also have a new slogan for Google, now that they are investing in bird-frying solar plants: Don’t Be Eagle.
(Hope you serfs appreciate dry patrician wit.)
Any wit but half wit, serfs enjoy.
Nominations are open for the Dingbat Award for Triple Plus Blogospheric Unscience. Unsurprisingly – Webnutcolonoscope holds 3 of the top 5 nominations.
1. WNC – for the infamous Bose-Einstein meltdown positing that Bose-Einstein statistics didn’t happen at atmospheric temperatures because Bose-Einstein condensation happens at ultra low temperatures.
2. Flynn the Incredible – for the idea that the planet is cooling from the core out and that the Sun, albedo, oceans, atmosphere, etc., etc. has absolutely nothing to do with climate whatsoever.
3. WCN – for positing that the atmosphere is a blackbody that chews up IR radiation and spits it out again smeared all over the electromagnetic spectrum in a process technically known as ‘Bose-Einstein juggling’.
4. Climate Triple Plus Unscientist – for theorizing that downward IR radiation can’t ‘thermalize’ the surface because that would violate the second law and that therefore the energy was ‘pseudo scattered’ down a rabbit hole into another dimension. Thus violating the first law. Way to go Climate Unscientist.
5. WNC – for theorizing that a sine function can be used to model ENSO as long as you call it sloshing and arbitrarily fit it to the SOI using ‘forcing functions’. It is very much like S&M. You have been a very naughty sine function and you must be punished.
Joshua, Michael and Willard – get a special mention collectively for theorizing that every time Judy opens her mouth it is motivated reasoning, hypocrisy or duplicity. They have elevated this to a very special unscience.
Rob Ellison,
You deserve an award for creating words where none exist, have existed, or will exist.
The Warmist dogma in all its glory.
Make a true statement, then add a blatant made up falsification – hoping that no one will notice the sleight of hand as you put words in someone’s mouth.
If you can point out where I wrote ” . . . that the Sun, albedo, oceans, atmosphere, etc., etc. has absolutely nothing to do with climate whatsoever.”, I will gladly offer you a fulsome apology. Of course, the chances of that are somewhere between nothing, nil, and zero.
The Warmists are getting desparate. The Earth refuses to heat up. Nature’s ears are apparently deaf to to Warmist Manntras. What a pity!
Keep fighting the good fight!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
too tedious – didn’t read at all Flynn.
You may always retract your position – stated over and over – that no matter what the Earth is cooling and has been for 4.5 billion years at – currently – 0.05 W/m2. It would seem to imply that Sun, clouds, etc. do not have much of a role in climate.
Of course you could always take the option of waffling on about me being a ‘warmist’ – more baffling and groundless insanity on you part.
Rob Ellison,
I retract nothing. No need. On the other hand, Warmists appear to make unsubstantiated accusations, supported by precisely nothing except he product of their own fevered imaginations.
I don’t mean to appear harsh, but you have changed from “you said this” to “it would seem to imply . . .”, when you are challenged. I don’t really understand why people make stupid statements which are so easily proven to be so. Maybe Warmism depends on the assumption that people are so stupid that they will accept anything without demur. Lunacy.
The Earth is indeed cooling – it cannot be otherwise. The weather – and its average, climate – has always changed, and will no doubt continue to do so into the future. Weather depends on atmosphere. No atmosphere, no weather – at least in the accepted sense.
Atmosphere established, if there is no atmospheric motion – once again no weather. Concisely defined, one can say that wind is air in motion. What determines the three dimensional motion of the air? Can it be predicted? What other factors are involved that determine the final combination of components we describe as weather? These are questions not easily answered, although you may claim you can.
Once again, unsupported assertions are not fact, although seemingly accepted as such by supporters of pseudo science of the climate variety.
I am at a loss to understand why you bother wasting your time attempting to give offense, when you have been told you are doomed to failure. I can only put it down to some type of pathological condition. There is a bright side, and that is that I believe you are gradually becoming able to accept fact, unpalatable as that may appear at first sight.
I can but hope.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
If I have misrepresented your mad theory – by all means correct this. But I don’t think I have.
‘The Earth is indeed cooling – it cannot be otherwise. The weather – and its average, climate – has always changed, and will no doubt continue to do so into the future. Weather depends on atmosphere. No atmosphere, no weather – at least in the accepted sense.’
The Earth warms and cools over decades to millennium to ages. Cooling from the core out is quite immaterial to surface climate change. The rest is more long winded twaddle. A philosophy of wind.
http://earth.nullschool.net/
Rob
Last night I was pointing out that boreholes seemed to accurately reflect the upwards rise in temperatures that started around 1700Ad. I wa asking how accurate they are as in truth all paleo proxies are all over the place with the Hockey stick giving exactly the opposite answer.
JimD seems to be backtracking a bit as to their value and Fan gave a very long explanation as to why the data HE had originally posted needed to be treated with caution.
Tree rings are useless. I can not think why scientists gave them house room other than for dating and possibly precipitation.
Boreholes I would like to believe as they closely mirror CET as described in my article ‘The long slow Thaw.’
However, wishful thinking on my part is hardly the basis for scepticism which is why I have tried to determine why boreholes should be better than any other proxies-if they are. Having looked at all the paleo proxies in MBH98 it seems to me that by due selection you can get any result you wanted.
If Judith sees this an article about how paleo proxies and the resultant reconstructions are gathered and why we should give credence to any of them would be useful.
tonyb
Tony,
I have built things in my career – actual stuff that involved big boys toys, explosives, bribing the locals to ignore noise and dust, rock bombing the local resort, etc. It rounds out planning and design with reality of being on the ground.
I was building a marina in Airlie Beach – it’s a hard life – blowing up rock to provide. Twice we hit rock looked like the other rock – slightly discoloured – but behaved much differently. It blew out. Once bombing the resort taking out an umbrella on the pool deck, raining debris on a dive class in the pool. Whoops. The other it rained out to sea in perfect arcs getting closer and closer to the million dollar yachts. You could hear me on the video. Oh sh_t, oh sh_t, oh sh_t. We halved the drill hole depth and the charge after that and went way over budget.
The point is that ground engineering is notoriously difficult. It is stratified with – sedimentary rock is interwoven with igneous and metamorphic rock – ground water levels are changeable and change properties. ‘In an idealized homogeneous crust, if the surface temperature is steady, the distribution of ground temperature is a linear function of depth.’ http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/approach.html
It is doubtful that the real world would ever be homogenous – so the temperature departs for a linear function. How that departure manifest I imagine is estimated from rock types, radioactive content, local hot spots, etc. Geotechnics is usually more an art form than a science – and ensuring consistency is likely a problem. There are always solutions and they usually involve approximations – sometimes gross. But I would tend to accept the conclusions and the error bounds at face value – assuming the best of the researchers.
If you look at the high resolution PAGES 2K proxies – you will that there is a vague global pattern.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/04/21/blogs/dotkaufman.html
Cooler conditions occurred prior to the the 20th century – but with significant regional differences.
Tony, pardon my ignorance, but is a bore hole a place where warmistas hang out?
The clan is cuzzins. Some live in the bore hole, some dwell in the core.
=============
Faustino,
That’s a bit harsh, surely!
Only joking – Te Saluto! I hope I got that right – quite rusty.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Tony,
Came across this today in Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years – a report from the National Research Council:
“There are two major structural challenges. First, the amount of high-quality proxy data available for analysis decreases markedly as one moves back in time. The great richness of tree ring network data available for 1700, for example, is largely depleted by A.D. 1000. Large-scale temperature reconstructions should always be viewed as having a “murky” early period and a later period of relative clarity. The boundary between murkiness and clarity is not precise but is nominally around A.D. 1600.”
The report does acknowledge the MWP and the LIA and does give credit to historical literature.
Richard
Ellison, got much experience blowing holes in the Greenland Ice Sheet where the boreholes Tony is talking about were taken? ROFL
“getting caught up in the technical details is a pointless waste of time”
Gavin Schmidt Ph.D., Scientist
I don’t know if this has come up, but very interesting re. the EPA CO2 finding;
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/26/climate-change-chicanery-and-the-federal-agency-academic-complex/
The NOAA spent a lot of money to fund research solicited to support the finding:
“This FOIA also identifies many nongovernment scientist-authors and peer reviewers who had been affiliated with universities and nonprofit institutes then participating in NOAA grant-funded climate science research-related programs, the development of which NOAA had solicited via broad agency announcements of funding opportunity (“BAA”s). The NOAA BAAs explicitly directed universities and nonprofit institutes to perform specific types of climate science and other related environmental research to support agency and administration climate policy priorities in exchange for NOAA’s funding of these programs. These programs were not the result of scientist-initiated applications to secure government grant monies for individual research efforts. The FOIA shows, for example, that NOAA awarded more than $750 million of congressionally appropriated funds to universities and nonprofit institutes participating in only one (NOAA’s Cooperative Institute Program) of nine identified NOAA grant-funded climate science research-related programs!”
“ITSSD’s FOIA, furthermore, shows that each of the parties concerned had been handsomely remunerated by these arrangements. Policy-conforming universities and nonprofit institutes received significant sums from NOAA to establish, maintain or reestablish climate change science-related Cooperative Institutes governed by five-year agreements subject to renewal. Staffed by university and overseen by government scientists, these programs attracted the participation of additional universities, institutes and scientists that together helped to promote and advance NOAA as well as administration domestic and international climate change policies. The research findings generated by the scientists affiliated with such programs often later appeared in the form of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications which NOAA incorporated expressly or by reference into the climate assessments it had been developing. The EPA then used these NOAA-developed assessments as the scientific foundation, in part, of its GHG Endangerment Findings. The EPA has continued to reference these assessments as the scientific basis for each of the GHG emissions regulations it has since enacted and proposed.”
Here’s the weather forecast from the expert. Read it and weep Hockey Pucks!
…
Here is the 2014/15 persimmon readout. Never have seen all spoons before!!! Tell the readers to prep for lots of snow. Even our ground hornets are moving up into our pecan tree.
…
http://farmersalmanac.com/blog/2014/09/26/persimmon-lady-winter-2015/
LOL… well to start, I might as well finish right now.. Unfortunately (1) y’all have not taken into account the physical chemistry of water. First the oceans can not lose the heat they gain in any significant manner other than by evaporative cooling…. the atmosphere is constantly radiating into the absolute cold of space. Yes the atmosphere is heating…. and more alarmingly the oceans are heating even more. WHY ?…..
Well there is persistent petroleum oil in the marine micro layer…. Oil on water prevents/reduces water evaporation… as a result there is less evaporation of seawater so of course the ocean heats to attain equilibrium. This is a problem, but the boffins only think of marine life.
Unfortunately (2) the heat retained by the oceans will not be able to be released unless the petroleum oil layer is removed (impossible). Meanwhile the oceans will continue to accumulate heat. This ocean excess heat is a grave threat to LIFE on Earth. WHY ?… this heat once released will precipitate a Snowball Earth Ice Age.
Now for really contentious science. The boffins (personal communication) believe that the atmosphere heats the oceans. In science there is no known mechanism for this to occur, unless you appeal to simple radiation from the heated atmosphere. In a clean environment, this small heat gain (compared to the input of the Sun’s irradiance) would be offset by increased evaporation of seawater, and so the ocean temperature would be stable. It is well understood that evaporated water is hot… it takes heat from the liquid and transfers that heat to the gas (steam, vapour).. the heat in vapour is released when that vapour condenses… exactly what happens to evaporated water… it condenses in the atmosphere releasing heat to the atmosphere. This process dwarfs any exchange of radiation in the heat stakes. The oceans HEAT the atmosphere and not the other way around.
so you now have a problem… who do you believe because I do not see solid science on this planet anymore. Your world is headed into a cold like never before and none of your boffins are remotely aware. Worse than that your world is addicted to petroleum oil so the populous will not support massive and targeted action.
For comment see
https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/iceagenow/
http://www.omegafour.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=46
The atmosphere works like an insulator. It prevents the ocean from cooling as much as if it did not have this insulator effect. Note that insulators work even when they are cooler than the surface that they insulate. Contrast the insulating effect at night of a cloudy sky and clear sky. Both are colder than the ground but cause the ground to cool at different rates. It is very important to understand how insulators work.
Jim D,
You are quite correct. The insulator also prevents the ocean from heating as fast as it would without it. It is very important to understand how insulators work.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Not sure you understood, but it’s OK.
No, the ocean is warmed by non-radiative heat transfers from the base of the troposphere. You don’t think that can happen because you think warmer things always transfer thermal energy to cooler things. That’s what you learnt in schoool. Well, direct solar radiation cannot possibly explain the temperature. Nor can back radiation help the Sun. You have no valid explanation as to how the transparent surface layer of the ocean gets to its existing temperature in the first place, So talking about slowing its rate of cooling is irrelevant.
You clearly don’t understand the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and nor do you understand thermodynamic equilibrium. I doubt that you could even quote the law and definition of thermodynamic equilibrium or tell me the difference between it and thermal equilibrium.
Hence you are way out of your depth arguing with someone like myself who has been studying these matters for many years and helping students understand. But you are not willing to be a student, and so you will continue to cite your school boy thoughts about the Second Law, without having any idea about the necessary prerequisites for the corollary of that law (yes, the bit about warm to cool only) and why those prerequisites are not met in a vertical plane wherein mean gravitational potential energy varies with altitude.
The proof that what I have described and explained in my book is correct can be found in any planetary troposphere, and I have shown that I can explain all relevant temperatures and energy transfers. This is ground-breaking physics way beyond the hopeless mess that James Hansen got into with his attempts to expalin even just the Earth’s surface temperature.
It is not an insulator – and it doesn’t stop the oceans warming. As for no one knowing that the oceans heat the atmosphere – the dingbats keep coming.
Unbelievable.
Rob Ellison,
You wrote –
“It is not an insulator – and it doesn’t stop the oceans warming. As for no one knowing that the oceans heat the atmosphere – the dingbats keep coming.
Unbelievable.”
According to the Warmist dogma as preached by Raymond Pierrehumbert, the atmosphere acts as an insulator.. He calculates the insulative effect of the atmosphere. He writes textbooks about the atmosphere. Apart from being a lead IPCC author, and a Professor of Geophysical Sciences etc., etc., etc., is he also a dingbat?
Maybe you should tell him how stupid you think he is. I am sure he would appreciate your assessment. Or maybe not.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Flynn the dingbat – insists it is a warmist propaganda that it is an insulator. It is an analogy and not a very good one – in a field that is rank with inapplicable analogies.
Rob Ellison,
You stated the atmosphere Is not an insulator.
I merely pointed out that it is, and even Warmists such as Ray Pierrehumbert say it is.
It looks as though you are one of the only people in the world who believe the atmosphere does not possess any insulating properties, and does not impede the transmission of light at all.
As usual, you are wrong. I am right. You might as well get used to it.
Keep up the good fight!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
It is a filter of sorts that passes many frequencies through unhampered. This includes the shortwaves that heat the land and oceans. Which makes your original statement – it ‘also prevents the ocean from heating as fast without it’ – almost complete babbling nonsense. There may be a marginal influence in the far infrared by water vapor.
Most incoming energy is transmitted – outgoing energy is scattered in a number of frequencies by a number of substances.
The warming effect is determined by the absorption and emission properties of greenhouse gases which – forgive me if I wrong – your dingbat triple plus unscience rejects?
Go back to this comment.
I don/t think so.
John, where did you run across this fresh bile of BS? Where has this layer of oil been measured? Did bacteria cease to eat oil for some reason? Did oil cease to oxidize? Did winds cease to mix the ocean and create waves and spray.
What a fantasy man YOU are!
Another little “denier” gem from Time Magazine;
http://time.com/3445231/climate-denier-settled-science/
That’s how you frame a straw-man!
‘Curry thinks paleoclimate proxies “are garbage. Not all of them, most of them.”
She referred to the writings of McIntyre of Climate Audit for a better explanation and then snapped, “I don’t know why we are talking about tree rings; I’m bored with tree rings.” ‘
Huh – Dr. Curry, do you have a post where you explicate this a little more? What exactly do you think of the overall quality of the reconstructions? How much reliance can be placed on the ECS they provide? How much reliance can be placed on their estimates of the Medieval Warm Period?
A long-time visitor at climateaudit can get an impression that all reconstructions are wrong. But I don’t have any way to know if that is true, or if it’s just a nitpick here and another there (as certainly some are claiming). What’s your impression of the forest and the tree(-ring)s?
Miker613
I don’t know if you responded to my comment on this subject and several replies?
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/26/week-in-review-28/#comment-633637
Paleo climate proxies are a very mixed bunch which can probably prove whatever you want. They miss out on the considerable annual and decadal variability and therefore make it appear the climate is stable which it isn’t
Tonyb
There is nothing mankind can do to control climate. Climate is governed by natural cycles which are based on the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and the planets. The correlation is too good to ignore.
If the greenhouse conjecture were correct then moist rain forests would be about 40 degrees hotter than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. They aren’t: they’re cooler.
Yes you are correct. … dry air is a good insulator and a poor absorber of heat… and its relatively transparent. Dry air is also a great evaporator of water, and cools water surfaces very efficiently. Thanks for the logic.
Ocean of course is quite opaque and covers 70% of the Earth’s surface. It is a good absorber and unusual, it has a very efficient way of losing that heat. Above that, water has a high heat capacity, some four times that of “materials” (such as air) and even more extreme the ocean has a thermal mass one thousand times that of the atmosphere.
It seems that the atmosphere is drying out.. and that implies drying ground and a lack of moisture in the air. Dry ground heats up much more than moist ground, so hot ground heats up the lower atmosphere over land. Dry air cools the ocean, but insulates the land surfaces.
Since the thermodynamic aspects of the ocean completely drawf the atmosphere IMO, the atmosphere is completely immaterial to the discussion of Climate Change on Earth.
Current climate statistics show quite clearly that focussing on atmosphere has been completely erroneous and can not explain expanding drought and the rise of associated atmospheric phenomenon, such as increasing Ice Clouds, can not explain El Nino /La Nina (spilled petroleum oil in the Indonesian archipelago) nor can it account for the low melting rate of land based ice. Sea ice melting is highlighted.. due to “Hot Tub” oceans (NOAA).
Because we live in the atmosphere it seems so important to us… and yet all the action is happening in the oceans.. the really BIG player. The ocean is polluted with petroleum oil…. Occums Razor shines brightly here.
John it doesn’t quite work that way. It’s actually not the heat capacity of the ocean or the atmosphere which determines a planet’s surface temperature. It is the height of the atmosphere. In fact the temperature at the base of Earth’s troposphere is what determines the temperature of the thin surface layer of the ocean – which is transparent, by the way, allowing most of the solar radiation to be transmitted down to colder layers, from where the extra thermal energy heads for the poles. The Sun’s radiation does not explain the temperature of that surface layer.
Consider the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus. It’s hotter than Earth at the base thereof – no oceans, – no direct solar radiation – no surface there – just gas that is hot because of the gravito-thermal effect that has trapped thermal energy over the life of the planet. That’s physics!
You’ve got your head up Uranus, dougie.
The DC court is filed with agenda liberals at this point but the process goes on;
http://online.wsj.com/articles/double-trouble-carbon-regulation-1412119495
Street level activity from the “Peoples” Climate March NYC;
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/09/alex-epstein-loves-fossil-fuels-mixing-it-up-with-climate-marchers-in-nyc/
I would have expected more razing of Epstein if not worse. It looked a dull affair from this frame. Perhaps reflecting the tired meme even to believers. A worked up “Peace” or “No-Nukes” rally from the 60’s-70’s could always count on spontaneous acts of emotional outbursts and violence. This looks like the predictable mix of aging boomers, feminist groups, hipster grandchildren students and assorted others. The G8 protesters, actually more rabid seem to be where the lefts left are;
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrBT9phFyxULtQAeW5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBzamR2dHI2BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1FJMDQ4XzE-?_adv_prop=image&fr=ytff1-tyc&va=g8+protesters
My conclusion is that even activists are tired of the AGW agenda. Without irrational emotions from the base the agenda isn’t that politically useful. After the election the operation will cease being of much use for years to come. It’s largely a low information crowd from the looks of the PCM, not many outside their box and therefore of little trend value.
The final summary shot of has-been culture, in this case G8 ideologues but would you like to guess what their “climate” policy could possibly be??;
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/webimage/1.5181597.1370962826!/image/921972867.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/921972867.jpg
Just following up on the popular “trend” of AGW memes and commentary, take a look at the graph attached to this article;
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/climate-a-bad-career-move-for-leo.php
The only recent up tick is from television, largely a DNC tool following the talking points. That explains it.
This is a very concise summary from Stephan Hayward;
“Like anti-nuclear activism 30 years ago, climate change activism has decayed into irresponsible advocacy, and deserves the increasing scorn of the public. And like the nuclear freeze movement of 30 years ago, if catastrophic climate change is a real prospect decades from now, these are the last people who should be put in charge of developing responses.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenhayward/2014/09/29/climate-change-has-jumped-the-shark/
Doug’s personal crusade against the forces of darkness? Including every rational sceptic on the planet – but especially Roy Spencer because he made fun of this silliness?.
The surface is warmed by IR scattering in the atmosphere. The surface simply loses more IR energy than it gains to balance the SW inputs. This does not violate the second law – because entropy always increases.
Everything after that is equally dingbat unscience.
Garbage Rob. Radiation from the colder atmosphere does not even penetrate the surface of the ocean by more than a few nanometres. You cannot add the back radiation flux to the solar flux and bung the total into SBL calculations. All you have at the surface is 161W/m^2 of solar radiation which could raise the temperature of the surface, except that it would only support a temperature of minus 35 degrees C in a surface completely paved in black asphalt. Now all your back radiation can slow the radiative component of the surface cooling from that -35C. Big deal!
As usual, you present no physics and no calculations. My calculations above use emissivity of asphalt 0.88 and so any reader can check with an on-line Stefan-Boltzmann calculator easily found on Google.
You assume that the planet is a blackbody with no carbon dioxide or water vapour in the atmosphere. You usually compere this to measured temps to get a greenhouse effect of some 33K.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gw-photons-animated.gif
http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf
But of course it is all wrong and all IR hitting the surface is ‘pseudo-scattered’ in some ‘pseudo science’ way.
And the “net” business is garbage too, Rob.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to thermodynamic equilibrium (see comment below) and hence to all forms of energy, including gravitational potential energy. If your “net” effect were true then what you are claiming is as absurd as saying the Second Law is not violated if water flows up a hill to a lake at the top of a mountain, provided that it flows further down the other side.
I wrote a comprehensive paper on all this two and a half years ago. Look up “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” because I don’t have time to repeat what is in the paper here. You cannot magnify the warming effect of radiation entering the top of the atmosphere by reflecting it back and forth (such as between parallel mirrors) and then into the surface.
Radiation from a colder source undergoes resonant (or “pseudo”) scattering in a warmer target, and none of its electromagnetic energy is converted to thermal energy. Instead the EM energy becomes part of the target’s own quota of radiation (as per its Planck curve) and so it uses less of its own thermal energy. Hence that portion of the target’s cooling which is due to radiation is indeed slowed. But other non-radiative cooling processes can and will accelerate in order to compensate, so the overall effect is close to nil.
What actually slows and even stops the cooling in the early pre-dawn hours is the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere – a temperature supported because the gravito-thermal effect is a reality. For more on that see my comment below. The surface is already warmed by the gravito thermal effect. Water vapour cools it a bit (from about 300K to 288K) and so does carbon dioxide but only by about 0.1 degree.
A greenhouse gas molecule will emit in all directions. Those at the surface will be emitting and absorbing more frequently and those higher in the atmosphere less – according to temperature. So more photons go up and fewer go down. The 1st law is immutable – the 2nd law is statistics. It all balances out in an increase in entropy. Pseudo scattering is dingbat unscience.
[quote] The Sun’s radiation does not explain the temperature of that surface layer.Consider the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus. It’s hotter than Earth at the base thereof – no oceans, [/quote]
With no water, yes you are correct, fortunately Earth has water…. so there are more mechanisms at work than simple radiation/insulation, so there is no comparison to other planets so the logic does not apply.
Firstly, the atmosphere can be conducting (water present) or insulating (no water). Water has been manufactured on this planet to keep homeostasis for living organisms. These ebbs and flows of increasing atmospheric temperature is all directly connected with the humidity of the atmosphere.
Low humidity and higher temperatures… extensive Ice Clouds so high IR….
High, lower temperatures… extensive low cloud so low IR.
You may pretend that marine petroleum oil pollution has noting to do with availability of water to the atmosphere, however the environment does not agree with you.
The blips of statistically significant increases in atmospheric temperature and drought are well correlated to significant oil spills…. remember there is always a lag..
Thanks for your thoughts.
John My study of 30 years of temperature data from three continents proves that drier regions have higher mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than do more moist regions at similar latitude and altitude.
This is the exact opposite of what the IPCC wants the world to believe as they try to bluff us all into thinking that “greenhouse gases” such as water vapour raise the Earth’s surface temperature.
The gravito-thermal effect is blatantly obvious on all planets with significant atmospheres, including Earth. The gradient is reduced by about a third on Earth mostly by radiation processes involving water vapour. Likewise on Venus by carbon dioxide, and likewise (but only about 5%) on Uranus by methane.
I have explained all planetary temperature data in tropospheres, surfaces and (in broad general terms) even below any surface in planets and satellite moons throughout the Solar System. Have you?
The atmosphere is a fluid. A parcel of air warmed at the surface will be less dense due to the increased kinetic energy of the molecules. The buoyancy force will exceed the gravity force and the parcel will rise expanding and losing energy until it reaches a level where it reaches a local thermodynamic equilibrium and it stops rising.
Doug’s kinetic and potential energy is a statement of Bernoulli’s equation. Water in a reservoir at the top of hill has a potential energy – water at an outlet at the bottom of the hill has a kinetic energy. Without pipeline losses the two are equal.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html
A parcel of air in local thermodynamic equilibrium has no potential energy – it is not going anywhere unless it gains or loses internal kinetic energy. It is sitting in a gravity well and there is no lower point to flow to. Molecules have an internal kinetic energy – related to the temperature of the gas – but the molecules are moving randomly. So they don’t have a kinetic energy in the way flowing water does.
All in all it seems a misunderstanding of the concepts of fluid flow and a resultant misapplication to molecules of air in the atmosphere.
Can anyone answer a question for me please. It is about use of DICE-2013R, Excel version.
If I change the participation rate in sheet ‘Copen’ row 47 (e.g. halve the values) are the results in Row 124 (“Consumption ($trill per year)”) correct, or do I have to run an optimiser to get correct values?
Running an optimiser of solver program is way over my head, so I am hoping someone can answer my question or give me a link to somewhere where I can ask the question.
Dice-2013R and the User Manual can be downloaded from here:
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Web-DICE-2013-April.htm
…
The short-lived natural gas price spike earlier this year – to the $4.50-$5.00/MMBtu level, using the winter 2014/2015 futures – appears to have been a perfect one-time stimulus to producers to bring their output volumes to a higher but stable level.
The storage deficit versus the 5-year average went from ~900 Bcf at the beginning of the injection season to ~373 Bcf currently. Goes without saying, neither figure should be interpreted as a measure or indication of imbalance between supply and demand, but rather, as a reflection of abnormal weather pattern: the initial deficit was the consequence of the severe winter, and the strong contraction of that deficit is in large part explained by the abnormally cool summer.
…
Of note, Chesapeake mentioned that it only needs to run 3-4 operated rigs to maintain its gas production in the Marcellus North flat. This is substantially lower than the 5 rigs/$300 million net maintenance capital estimate that Chesapeake provided earlier year. Chesapeake’s net production in the Marcellus North during Q2 2014 was ~0.9 Bcf/d. The company’s gross operated production is much higher, at ~2.2 Bcf/d. 3-4 rigs maintaining 2.2 Bcf/d of production flat – this is a truly impressive metric.
The remarkably low rig requirement to keep production flat is a testament to the productive capacity of the Marcellus’ sweet spots and shallow production declines from the existing wells after operators put them on restricted choke programs. With Utica demonstrating equally strong productive potential in the dry gas area, production deliverability from the region is very powerful.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2537605-natural-gas-the-goldilocks-storage-picture-is-masking-deep-containment-in-the-marcellus
I keep writing replies to Rob Ellison but they are censored and deleted
I’ll let some through on week in review, but most are repetitive or lengthy off topic posts
The deleted comments were replying to invalid criticism of what I had written made by Rob Ellison. I am only claiming right of reply.
Rob Ellison is way off track in thinking that I am discussing fluid flows (when in fact I am correctly using Kinetic Theory) and so he is probably confusing your readers. What I have written is correct physics (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and neither you nor Rob Ellison can prove me wrong. Even with a $5,000 reward on offer for these last 6 months, no one has come close to proving the gravito-thermal effect wrong. And because it is a direct corollary of the Second Law, no one ever will prove it wrong. And because it exists, the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture is proven totally wrong. That ought to be of interest to your readers. Why not have a thread getting back to the “science” and let’s get to the bottom of what is truth and what is not. You will see that no one can prove the physics that I have explained to be incorrect.