by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
Kevin Trenberth declares the pause to be over [link]. Bob Tisdale disagrees [link]
Mojib Latif: Pause to continue as cooling atlantic masks global warming [link]
Ocean carbon sink much more variable than we thought [link]
@MCNisbet says we need to think more broadly about the technology required to tackle climate change [link]
Richard Tol: The US-China climate deal is a model for world diplomacy: too small to fail http://gu.com/p/439jd/tw
FP piece on contrasting coverage of US-#China #climate announcement in US vs Chinese media: [link]
Ed Dolan: What a better energy policy might look like [link]
Under the Republican #Congress, a successful #environmental strategy will need to focus locally. [link]
Fred Pearce: Have we found the carbon limit? [link]
Interesting background on the UNFCCC [link]
Coal is once again the world’s fastest growing source of energy even excluding China. [link]
Molecular sponges to mop up greenhouse gases [link]
High mortality during the cold season [link]
Why Americans are using less water [link]
How US farmers view climate change (hint: they disagree with climate scientists) [link]
Michael Mann interviewed by @kirkenglehardt on science communications [link]
Italian scientists acquitted in earthquake trial [link]
The role of reductionism in climate policy discourse [link]
Philosophy explained in a Brief Guide to Donuts [link]
McIntyre’s missing millions [link]
This lawyer’s new, full-time job is defending climate scientists from political attacks [link]
Unexpected photos coming in from comet landing:
There is also a new book out this week – “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”. I think it would be interesting to get reacions to the book from many of the denizens here. It would be a very light read for most.
CO2 and more warmth increase plant growth 50% in the 20th century.
Since less CO2 reduces plant grow and warmth kills far fewer people than cold (most deaths occur during the winter) it isn’t hard to make the case that we should be doing all we can to increase the CO2 level.
The same number of people die each year, and:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/American_Life_Expectancy_at_Birth.png
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Science/story?id=990641
U.S. Deaths by Month, 1995-2002
Total Deaths Avg. per Day
January 1,824,419 7,356.53
February 1,600,464 7,081.70
March 1,694,060 6,830.89
April 1,553,365 6,472.35
May 1,544,836 6,229.18
June 1,461,902 6,091.26
July 1,495,354 6,029.65
August 1,479,771 5,966.82
September 1,452,281 6,051.17
October 1,563,801 6,305.65
November 1,560,398 6,501.66
December 1,729,926 6,975.51
1995-2002 Total 18,960,577 6,488.90
The most people die in January, the fewest people die in August.
They do not die of extreme cold. They die of heart failure from breathing cold air when they step outside.
Why? Because old people in cold areas are living longer. The comparison group in Alabama is already dead.
The winter is the period that pneumonia is most active and it takes many elderly. For some, it is blessing, and hence it is called the “Friend of the Elderly”:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071117/
“people in cold areas are living longer”
Because of Global Warming. It’s consistent with the theory.
Andrew
They were living longer in the 1970’s, when the next ice age was almost upon them! They were living longer because people in colder climates tend to live longer. My pet theory is it’s because when it’s cold up there they drink beer and booze like fish. And the fact is, in Minnesota no southern moron conservative has ever run the healthcare system into the ground. As a gift to the cold that allowed them to live longer, they die when it’s cold outside. It’s a way of showing the cold their ultimate appreciation for the gift of a longer life. I know; it’s hard for people like Boing Dumbborg to understand. Lol.
Stop Global Warming or our children won’t know the Blessing of Pneumonia?
That’s a new one.
“They do not die of extreme cold. They die of heart failure from breathing cold air when they step outside.”
She died with a smile on her face. Her heart attack was caused by cold air, not extreme cold. What a relief.
“…old people in cold areas are living longer. The comparison group in Alabama is already dead.”
It’s amazing how warmists just know things, without the need for any…you know…evidence.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_med_age-people-median-age
State with the lowest median age? Utah?
State with the third lowest median age? Alaska?
Alabama’s rank? 22 out of 51 (including DC).
Texas is ranked 50th but Florida is ranked 5th.
But hey, it sounded good.
Have fun:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22397354
useful link, thx
No, not at all, not if you’re delusional, or just wildly ignorant, about the basic changes we’ve already made to the long term nature of our atmosphere relative to the trailing geologic record
Sort of even beyond the head in the head in the sand phase, kind of like this guy?
“For some, it is blessing, and hence it is called the “Friend of the Elderly”:
Typically creepy comment by Gates.
“pokerguy (aka al neipris) | November 15, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
“For some, it is blessing, and hence it is called the “Friend of the Elderly”:
Typically creepy comment by Gates.”
________
Your cultural bias (and perhaps lack of direct experience with death) is showing. Nothing “creepy” about living a long life and being taken by pneumonia:
http://www.themarysue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/day-of-the-dead-1-580×283.jpg
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/12/689
There are more winter deaths in warmer climates than in colder climates.
How many old people move from Florida to Minnesota?
Duh.
John Carter | November 15, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
No, not at all, not if you’re delusional, or just wildly ignorant, about the basic changes we’ve already made to the long term nature of our atmosphere relative to the trailing geologic record
Sort of even beyond the head in the head in the sand phase, kind of like this guy?
1. Head in the sand is pretty much the province of global warmers (actual global warmers shown below):
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/heads-in-sand.jpg
2. Changes to the atmosphere…
a. The change is mostly a little more CO2 at least in the first world.
b. Renewables push manufacturing to China/third which increases soot emission and other undesirable emissions in both air and water (cadmium, silicon tetrachloride. etc.)
c. The CO2 level before man came along was so low plants were gasping for breath. Gasping plants need a lot of water. 280 PPM is too low for a healthy ecosystem – hence 33% of land is desert.
d. CO2 increased plant growth 50% increase in the 20th century. Growth increased 11% from 1982 to 2011, according to CSIRO , in an article “Rising CO2 level making Earth’s deserts bloom”. This growth is due to CO2 and higher temperatures, is clearly benefiting everyone on the planet -both man and beast.
3. “The geological record”, shows that current horribly low CO2 level is a dangerous anomaly. The evolution of C4 plants is a response to the desperately low level of CO2.
Man has benefited the planet enriching the atmosphere with CO2. In the third world there are some emissions issues. On balance, from an atmosphere standpoint man has made the earth better off.
Full cold/heat mortality article: Exposure to Natural Cold and Heat: Hypothermia and Hyperthermia Medicare Claims, United States, 2004–2005
Funding bias?: Despite 833% hypothermia to hypothermia mortality rates, two citations focus on summer hyperthermia.
Until the US removes its impediments to low cost nuclear power efforts to reduce global GHG emission will be thwarted. The US needs to lead the world, by its actions not vacuous agreements, by removing it’s impediments that are distorting electricity markets in the USA and worldwide. The US is the biggest influence in preventing the world from having access to cheap nuclear power – i.e. cheaper than fossil fuels (without distortions to the cost of any technology). The US needs to lead and influence the other IAEA members to review the regulatory environment for nuclear power with a view to unwinding them to the extent that is justifiable by best evidence so there is a level playing field between nuclear and other electricity generation technologies – e.g. on the basis of fatalities per TWh.
Renewables will make no significant impact on reducing global emissions. They are expensive, not viable without market distortions to favour them, not sustainable, unlikely to be be; this explains why: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ .
China stated in its agreement with Obama this week it will try to peak its GHG emissions by “around 2030”. This really is BAU for China and it will not do anything that slows its growth. And wind and solar is expected to supply just 3%. That is a another clear demonstration that renewables are not viable and unlikely to make a significant contribution to reducing global GHG emissions.
Bjorn Lomborg, ‘The Australian’, Nov 14, 2014, “Kyoto deja vu as Paris becomes Copenhagen” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/kyoto-deja-vu-as-paris-becomes-copenhagen/story-fni1hfs5-1227122325610
Richard Tol: The US-China climate deal is a model for world diplomacy: too small to fail
On the contrary, the USA part is almost certain to fail. President Obama proposes to reduce USA emissions of CO2 by about 28% by 2025 relative to 2005 levels.
Given that USA population is expected to grow to 349 million by 2025, about 18% re 2005 level (see http://www.bitsofscience.org/us-population-growth-650/ ), per capita CO2 emissions must drop about 39% to 61% of US citizen 2005 individual levels.
US per capita yearly CO2 emissions have been essentially constant for more than 20 years at about 19.5 metric tons according to http://en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxi… .
I don’t see how President Obama’s plan for CO2 can be accomplished without destroying the US economy.
Peter +1. The only way that the US would achieve such a target is for it to go into another serious recession and this is getting more and more likely. The US dollar is overvalued as is most of its stocks.
Jon Rappoport offers advice for exiting the current matrix of social insanity:
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/exit-from-the-matrix-reality-is-a-cover-story/
In 1939 Bill Wilson offered practical advice for individuals seeking to exit the matrix.
I recommend the following practical advice Bill Wilson wrote in 1939 on what individuals can do to exit from the matrix:
“On awakening let us think about the twenty-four hours ahead. We consider our plans for the day. Before we begin, we ask God to direct our thinking, especially asking that it be divorced from self-pity, dishonest or self-seeking motives. Under these conditions we can employ our mental faculties with assurance, for after all God gave us brains to use. Our thought-life will be placed on a much higher plane when our thinking is cleared of wrong motives.”
“In thinking about our day we may face indecision. We may not be able to determine which course to take. Here we ask God for inspiration, an intuitive thought, or a decision. We relax and take it easy. We don’t struggle. We are often surprised how the right answers come after we have tried this for a while. What used to be the hunch or the occasional inspiration gradually becomes a working part of the mind.”
– Bill Wilson, 1939
The parts in bold are difficult for me.
Reproduced in Alcoholics Anonymous, Fourth Edition (2001) pp. 86-87
Warming hiatus declared over as we sit freezing here in record early cold in the Southeast, after a record cold last winter and cold last summer…
It would be nice if you could just look out your front door or even around your part of world and know what the global climate is doing, but alas, you can’t. Fortunately, we no longer have to rely on local personal anecdotes to try and figure out what the climate of entire planet is doing.
Personal anecdotes? Where? But we don’t count?
“if you could just look out your front door”
He just did, Sherlock.
Andrew
When you look out your front door, you can see what is happening in your part of the world, but it tells you nothing about net changes to the planet’s climate. Thankfully, increasingly broad coverage by satellites, thousands of ocean buoys, etc. are giving us a better and better picture of net changes in the system.
“When you look out your front door, you can see what is happening in your part of the world”
No kidding, Gatsey. What other profundities do you have for us today?
Andrew
it’s the snarky, all-knowing responses that seem anecdotal to me.
We can use satellites! And 2014 isn’t very warm.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/uah
Or we could use thermometers in parking lots to try and scare people into giving them more money.
,i.”Mojib Latif: Pause to continue as cooling atlantic masks global warming [http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/pause-to-continue-predicts-climate-scientist.html]”
Latif says the North Atlantic is cooling and the pause will continue for quite a while.
At some point (say 2030) with no increase in temperature (a hiatus) the claims of 2°C or more by 2100 will look increasingly absurd.
If we can meet the 2°C target by doing nothing… that is pretty easy to do.
In 2014 land temperature is not very warm. In 2014 the SST, which is measured from satellites, is off the charts, November 14, 2014:
ftp://public.sos.noaa.gov/rt/sst/nesdis/sst_anom/2048/sst_anom_2048_20141114.png
2014 is going to be warm in the Pacific because of the repeated El Nino attempts.
I’m looking forward to 2015 to see what happens. Right now it looks like 2015 will be back to normal. All 2014 did is cause a short hiatus to the steadily increasing difference between the GCMs and the actual climate.
PA,
You seem to be talking about natural variability in the flux of energy from ocean to atmosphere. This drives the short-term tropospheric temperature trends. The signal from the longer-term rise and longer-term forcing from GH gas increases needs at minimum a decadal average temperature to see. Also, your notion of a “return to normal” seems a bit off. What is normal?
Well…
The 2014 warming (from what I can tell) was driven by a decrease in clouds.
If that warm water creates more clouds it will get cooler again.
The question for the science people is what is driving cloud cover?
A small permanent increase in cloud cover would offset any foreseeable change in CO2 forcing.
Also we are at the peak of the solar cycle. The strong CO2 warming advocates says this doesn’t make much difference… but we will see by 2020.
“Fortunately, we no longer have to rely on local personal anecdotes to try and figure out what the climate of entire planet is doing.”
What doing, is one thing. Where heading ,is another entirely. Why do I get the feeling you’re dangerously close to conflating the two?
Bundle up: it’s at or below freezing in all 50 states!http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WINTRY_WEATHER_50_STATES?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
That’s weather, not climate. Only warm events are climate.
Since global climate is the aggregate global effect, over several decades,and the SouthEast U.S. is less than half a percent of the surface of the globe, temperatures there ,and over such a time frame, are about as relevant to whether the earth’s climate is warming, as is the name of your pet Boxer or Chihuahua.
That was not my intention with the statement.
in reference to the Latif piece
wow
so the North Atlantic is cooling, so the hiatus will continue
but all that “missing” heat is being absorbed by the ocean
I’m told, millions of atomic bombs worth
but the Atlantic is cooling
Antarctic sea ice increases
it is difficult to become an informed peasant on this subject
the goal posts seem to keep moving
is it my uneducated assumption that there should be some consistency and internal logic in science?
eludes me in my reading about “climate science”
beginning to think it should be “climate politics”
I must leave you now, for there they go and I am their leader
John,
Yes, the goal posts keep moving and the stories keep changing. Some of us have memories, but many apparently do not. How do you square the steep climb in temperatures forecast by the hockey stick, the many varied and urgent reports over the last decade that temperatures climbing even faster than we feared and the current argument over whether there is a hiatus or not. What does that say about settled science and 97% agreement? I’be seen bits and pieces, but I’d love to see a comprehensive review of what the best public/media/environmentalist understandings have been over time and where we are now. A goalpost timeline?
PE,
The HS is not a forecast.
Ah, memories….
PE – you can get a sense of what you request by reading the book I mentioned in the first comment on this thtread. I would be particularly interested in a review of the book by someone with you background and by someone like Stephen Segrest, and many others. I am not an engineer or scientist, so I look to experts like you, , dr. Curry, ellison, even WHUT, wherever he is, and many other denizens on this and other sites for advice. To me, this book lays out a simple, common sense view of our need for fossil fuels and lays bare the claims of the harm caused by them.
Michael | November 15, 2014 at 9:24 am |
PE,
The HS is not a forecast.
Ah, memories….
The hockey stick isn’t even a hindcast.
The proxies by and large attenuated after 1960 so the hockey stick infilled with instrument data.
The “hockey stick” is an exercise in chart making as opposed to something sciency that is factual and informative.
I’ll plead guilty to being sloppy and calling the hockey stick a forecast. I’ll further admit that I am often less impressed than I should be by distinctions between words such as predictions and projections. Perhaps the discussion is well understand in the relevant scientific communities,but in the public that is not the case. My point was that the public (and much of the press) have “expectations” that have not been consistent-but not noticed how the messages are changing. The movie “An Inconvenient Truth” used the hockey stick to show that carbon increases had led to unprecedented steep rises in temperatures. The “expectation” was that continued emissions would drive that steep rise to dangerous levels. Since that movie we’ve seen many proclamations that warming is happening even faster than we feared. Now we are told to fear the heat in the ocean.
Maybe it is important to correct my misuse of the word forecast, but I would appreciate more efforts to correct widespread misperceptions.
Planning Engineer, you don’t need to fear the heat in the deep ocean. It just won’t help you either. Heating the deep ocean delays, but does not stop the forced surface temperature rise. People have often wrongly characterized it as though the stored ocean heat will come out to get you. This is not a correct way of looking at the long-term energy balance, while it does pertain to shorter natural variations like storing up energy for El Ninos.
PE
I think is it important to remember that the heat Jim D speaks of
is only predicted
postulated
it may never be found
’cause it likely does not exist
Are there any Hockey Stick experts out there ….?
Is it or is it not the case that although the original one by Mann is a crock, others using other data show the same result? Thanks.
Bella
Paleo proxy reconstructions are often similar to each other because they use much the same data which arguably are not always good proxies.
A further problem is that the way they are sampled is very different to that of instruments. Consequently you are comparing apples to oranges when comparing paleo proxies to an instrumental record, as the former do not begin to capture the variability we can see in annual and decadal records
I covered this here;
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/
tonyb
Tony
My question is specifically about hockey sticks with (real or imagined) DIFFERENT data. Icecores or whatever rather than trees. cheers.
B, if you understand this issue, it leads straight to the conclusion that it takes deceit to claim a modern, unusual rise. The real trickery in the hockey stick is the straight shaft, the long handle. It has been smoothed so decadal variation disappears and the decadal instrument readings at the end produce an apparently unprecedented blade. That trick, plus the using of split bark bristlecones, upside down varves, and solitary unusual trees in Yamal has preserved the illusion of recent, unprecedented change. They are all crocks.
It is, and will eventually become well known as, one of the most shameful episodes in the history of science. The deceit is deliberate.
==================
By the way, I do not claim hockey stick expertise. My understanding is a pale shadow of that of the expert, Steve McIntyre. He has nearly singlehandedly destroyed the hockey stick.
===========================
Bella
The article I linked to concerned ‘spaghetti’ paleo proxy reconstructions. It includes ALL sorts of proxies not just tree rings.
Here is one specifically on boreholes which shows temperatures rising since around 1500. It ends around 1980 for technical reasons.
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
I have spoken to the author who is confident of the data since 1700 but less so on the earlier material.
If you click on the countries at the foot of the page you will see the reconstructions for specific areas. They go in all different directions and basically I long ago concluded that you could come up with any result you wanted depending on the type of proxy chosen and the location it came from.
tonyb
Bella – here is THE hockey stick expert …
http://climateaudit.org/?s=hockey+stick
Planning Engineer – click around the links on this site. Unfortunately, it isn’t temporally organized. But if you start following links, you can usually see the date of the article. Beyond that, the number of problems, fantasized and otherwise, blamed on global warming is downright comical. Note that some links have died.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
All this heat at the surface, rather than being an increase in earth heat content, may actually be heat on its way out of the system.
Heat is always on its way out of the ocean…24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The net energy flow is always strongly from ocean to atmosphere on this planet. There are periods when the flow is a bit greater and we get tropospheric temperature spikes, and times when it is a bit less, and we get a “hiatus” in tropospheric temperatures. Over the longer-term, an external forcing to the system will either increase or decrease ocean heat content. For the past 60 years, global ocean heat content has been increasing, most likely as the result of sharply increasing GH gases, resulting the the need to continually update the ONI index:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml
It is known that heat deposited in the ocean at the equator is ferried to the poles where it is released into space. That release of heat into space is why it’s cold at the poles
“It is known that heat deposited in the ocean at the equator is ferried to the poles where it is released into space. That release of heat into space is why it’s cold at the poles.”
_____
Not the much less solar insolation? Wow, write a paper on this remarkable discovery of yours.
Gates – sometimes it’s better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and demonstrate it beyond all doubt.
RGates,
Is a half degree of heat since 1880 a lot?
http://www.roperld.com/science/graphics/Ocean_LandTemp.jpg
“RGates,
Is a half degree of heat since 1880 a lot?”
______
“a lot”? Compared to what?
jim2,
I agree. Hence, this statement of yours should have stayed in your mind only:
“That release of heat into space is why it’s cold at the poles.”
RGates,
Say compared to TSI. The IPPC 5 report says RF from TSI over the industrial era is 0.05 +/- 0.00 to 0.10 and TSI variations over an 11 year solar cycle is 0.1% citing Kopp and Lean. I don’t know how much variation in CO2 reradiation is affected by that.
Apparently that is not a lot of forcing? So is there an accumulative effect in the ocean? Is it a significant amount? I don’t know what to think of all of that.
R Gates
you say “OHC has been rising for 60 years”
now we observe North Atlantic cooling
?
R. Gates | November 15, 2014 at 10:09 am |
“Heat is always on its way out of the ocean…24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The net energy flow is always strongly from ocean to atmosphere on this planet.”
No place for solar insolation then, Rickey?
All those 2,163,475,029 Hiroshima atomic bombs of heat since 1998 are actually occurring in the ocean and working their way out are they?
The simple scientific facts are heat in equals heat out, different layers of earth, ice, water, air hold heat at different temperatures depending on heat in from the sun, cloud cover, currents, gravity and air pressure.
The net energy flow is always strongly from the sun to the sea in day time to the areas directly below the sun, not from ocean to atmosphere on this planet. Night time you are generally of course correct sir.
Take a trip to Hawaii and enjoy.
The climate campaigner claim is that renewable energy is cost-competitive with coal (actually they say it’s cheaper), it’s ready to take over powering large industrial nations, and the only thing stopping renewables is a pig-headed corrupt opposition party (Republicans).
This deal with the Chinese is an admission that none of the advocates’ claims are true. The fact is that, based on climate advocate’s claims, it should be far easier for China to reduce emissions beginning now than it should be for the US. The “deal” is for the opposite to happen, of course.
There is no opposition party in China, no Fox News and even the Internet is closely censored. Leaders may do anything they want- ban coal, restrict air travel, set auto mileage standards at 100mpg or just ban gasoline-powered engines.
If wind and solar are really cost-competitive here, they are far more so in China. China is a communist country, the labor costs to build and install renewables and a smart grid is essentially zero and there are no corporations whining about the cost of “leaving it in the ground.” There is no reason at all why all new power generation in China can’t be renewable. If anything the climate campaigners say is true.
Instead, we get a deal that admits skeptics are right- we can’t expect China to cut emissions because it would hurt economic growth because there is no way to do it that isn’t expensive. We also get a deal that confirms the worst about our deal makers- they are people who are willing to claim that the obvious facts about cost don’t apply to the United States by some sort of political magic.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China–Nuclear-Power/
China has around 28 nuclear plants under construction and plans 1.4 Terawatts (not Terawatts-hours) of nuclear capacity by 2100.
They will keep increasing coal consumption until about 2030 then transition to nuclear as the nuclear plants come on line.
With the emphasis on fast breeders it will be clean and renewable and isn’t that what everyone is calling for. China may lead the world in clean and renewable (nuclear) energy in 2100.
“China may lead the world in clean and renewable (nuclear) energy in 2100.”
____
Given the complete gridlock in D.C. and the general decline of the American empire, this is not an impossible scenario.
Wow! Your post says it all!
“Molecular sponges to mop up greenhouse gases [link]”
Like using a diamond-encrusted precision cutting tool to shell peanuts. Ain’t gonna happen. The question I always like to ask myself is what were the researchers really trying to do before they decided to pin the ‘global-warming/climate-change’ label on the project?’
Michael Hart – “The question I always like to ask myself is what were the researchers really trying to do before they decided to pin the ‘global-warming/climate-change’ label on the project?’”
Get money?
I have a friend, a professor of genetics, who describes how difficult it is to get funding. I tell him, jokingly of course, tie his research to global warming. :)
Seriously, the idea of using microorganisms for geoengineering is interesting. Whatever happened to the BP oil spill plume? Here is an interesting article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6208/424.short
Also interesting, organohalides for groundwater contaminants:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1616/20120322
Perhaps there is or will be a CO2 analog.
Coal is once again the world’s fastest growing source of energy even excluding China.
*****
Yep, even my US-based basked of coal stocks it up 30% in roughly a month. Some Dimowit Senators from coal producing states were told that if they like their Senate seat, they could keep it. Oops!
It is not surprising that when the voters biggest concern is the economy, that job killing actions like dodging the Keystone pipeline, Obamacare, and CO2 regulations would be unpopular.
What is the one blue senator in election limbo doing to save her job? Forcing the Keystone pipeline vote that should have happened years ago (and will pass in the next session of congress anyway)..
Philosophy explained in a Brief Guide to Donuts
*****
This is great and exemplifies the reason why philosophy must be approached as one would approach a mine field.
McIntyre’s missing millions
*****
This places McIntyre in the illustrious company of Nikola Tesla. Although personally, I think Tesla should have held out for a fraction of profits from AC electricity.
True, both men’s obsessions cost them dearly, though for one the obsession was driven by genius and one more driven by ideology.
McIntyre is driven by repulsion. He is repulsed by sloppy work.
Yes, McIntyre is on a crusade against sloppy work…that’s the ticket!
The orebody he’s found has no limit yet.
===========
I wonder if there is anything McIntyre could have done with these missed millions that would have brought as much satisfaction as his Climate Audit investigations.
This lawyer’s new, full-time job is defending climate scientists from political attacks
*****
From the link:
“I have an immense amount of respect for scientists and I think it’s an interesting area to study, but ultimately what I was more passionate about was promoting science in a policy area,” she said. “This position’s got a similar thread, which is making sure policy decisions reflect what the science says, and separating people’s thoughts on science from what their political agendas are.”
*****
So, now this lawyer wants to force the rest of us to accept policy based on half-baked science. May a pox be on her house.
Lawyerly responses for defense are a cop out for civil resolutions.
She is equating FOIA requests with political attacks.
The current rules on FOIA should be tightened to terminate government grant funding immediately to the non-compliers. This would make her job unnecessary.
All government grant funded climate work should be completely transparent. People should not have to go digging with FOIA requests.
We need to bang on the Pubs to make a law that any government funded research, ex defense, has to publish when the paper is published, all data; code, formulae, everything!
Big Sister…
About Lauren Kurtz:
It sounds like she will most likely defend the consensus alarmist scientists who are attacked, but not as likely the Skeptic Scientists who are attacked and defamed.
I could be wrong now.
Yer anuther attempt ter censor-us by
the censorious cli-sci consensus.
No you couldn’t.
To start with, what could she possibly use as a skeptic’s defense when she fully supports the numbers from the EPA and IPCC?
If you believe in CAGW you must lie.
Missah Kurtz – she red.
This is a very good summary of both the hiatus and the actual sequence of events that pushed temperatures up this year:
“The negative IPO phase in place since the late 1990s led to very strong equatorial trade winds – which are separate from the classical trade winds that blow across the Pacific north and south of the equator. “These cooling equatorial trade winds were so strong that they sucked up water from the eastern equatorial Pacific and moved it west,” said Timmermann.
The result was that equatorial Pacific cooled and the sea level in the western Pacific rose much faster than the global average rate – and the cooling Pacific sea surface waters cooled the atmosphere above them and so caused the pause. “So the trade winds intensified, the equatorial Pacific cooled, sea levels in the west rose and this all goes together with the global warming hiatus,” explained Timmermann.
This period of strong equatorial trade winds came to an end at the beginning of 2014 resulting in a warming in the northern Pacific and especially along Alaskan coastal waters.”
________
What then of Atlantic? As Mann and Latif have both pointed out, the AMO, though in an actual “cool phase”, is still warmer than average. Some have misinterpreted this to mean that the AMO is in a warm phase. We are actually seeing a warmer cool phase because of external forcing of the system. We saw the same thing in the Pacific with the last La Nina. It was the warmest La Nino period on record. The upshot. Higher temps than historic averages in both cool and warm phases of the Atlantic and Pacific modes, but record high temps when El Nino’s hit, and watch out when we have both the AMO and PDO are both in warm modes.
R. Gates | November 15, 2014 at 9:53 am | Reply
…
It was the warmest La Nino period on record. The upshot. Higher temps than historic averages in both cool and warm phases of the Atlantic and Pacific modes, but record high temps when El Nino’s hit, and watch out when we have both the AMO and PDO are both in warm modes.
The recent trend of La Ninos and El Ninas is pretty interesting.
Not sure what it means… Dr. Curry was promising a guest post on clouds. A discussion of clouds/Ceres LW & SW/surface wind velocity as part of the natural cycles would be interesting.
Since NOAA predicted an 80% chance of El Nino this year and has been over 50% all year they appear (at this point) to be 80-100% wrong.
R Gates
so AMO is warmer than average
what average?
since science decided there was such a thing
30-40 years at best?
I interpret that as insufficient data to claim an …est anything
Timmermann is very clear about what this means for global warming. “Over the last 15 years or so – the period of the global warming hiatus – the Pacific has been anomalously cold and there has been a very strong negative IPO,” explained Timmermann. “This has now stopped. The negative IPO has stopped. This is the same as saying the global warming hiatus has stopped.”
While the IPO article was interesting the above comment is dubious.
The strong warming advocates have a dismal track record on prediction. We’ll see if Timmerman ups the average or not.
In the Mojib Latif article about a decade of global cooling ahead, I noticed the only mention of the Sun was to Jianping Li and Cheng Sun of the Chinese Institute of Atmospheric Physics.
Wow, nice to turn a “hiatus”, which was the warmest decade on record into a “decade of cooling” ahead. Very very unlikely that we’ll see a “decade of cooling” this century…a decade of flat temperatures, yes, but not “cooling”, short of a mega-volcano or two going off.
Dr. Curry has predicted cooling for some number of decades. Where’t the beef, Gates?
The AMO is a wimp. It’s not cooling anything.
It is very, very likely few global warming alarmists care that their opinions are groundless.
As discussed here several times, it is impossible to see a long-term forcing signal at less than decadal average resolution. Too much natural variability.
If Judith is predicting that we’ll actually see decadal average temperatures cooling (i.e. not just flat) in coming decades then she should write it up as a ground breaking paper, as she would have knowledge of some external forcing that is stronger than the rapidly increasing GH gas concentrations.
About the only thing that will cause a decadal average temperature to cool in the coming century would be a very large volcano or two.
“JCH | November 15, 2014 at 10:41 am |
The AMO is a wimp. It’s not cooling anything.”
_____
I agree. As Mann has accurately pointed out, it is in a “cool phase”, but this cool phase is being forced warmer by the overall increased energy of the system. Furthermore of course, the Pacific has a much greater surface area to influence tropospheric temperatures, so it’s probably something like an 80-20, Pacific vs. Atlantic split in term of influence on tropospheric temperatures.
and you are…??
Jim2 — Could you provide us the link where Dr. Curry said (and I’ll insert a phrase) to your quote: Dr. Curry has predicted a statistically significant cooling for some number of decades.
When you mangled my words, they are your words, not mine. You deal with them.
Jim2 — OK, I’ll remove the “statistical significant phrase.
Could you provide us a link where Dr. Curry said (in your direct words): “Dr. Curry has predicted cooling for some number of decades.”
“jim2 | November 15, 2014 at 10:39 am |
Dr. Curry has predicted cooling for some number of decades. Where’t the beef, Gates?”
_______
Be nice to see the groundbreaking research paper this prediction was published in. Linky?
From the article:
The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures.
“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” Wyatt said, the paper’s lead author.
Curry added, “This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035.” Curry is the chair of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
…
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/
curryja | March 10, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
Well here are a few reasons for the “fascination”:
• it is possible that 20th century attribution studies are significantly in error
• it is possible that in the short term we will see level or cooling temperatures
• it is possible that paleo proxy analyses have effectively damped substantial variations in temperatures over the past millenium, some of which may be explained by solar variability
• model simulations when compared with observational analyses give substantially different measures of solar sensitivity, with the implication that we don’t really understand solar sensitivity.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/10/21st-century-solar-cooling/
Sorry Jim2, but nothing there about “cooling”. On a decadal average basis there has been no cooling, and that is the shortest period that any signal from anthropogenic forcing could ever be seen and the link you provided does not indicate that Judith predicted “cooling”. Another linky Jim2?
‘• it is possible that in the short term we will see level or cooling temperatures’
That is fairly black and white.
“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.” Tsonis
“As for your question: at the end of the century we were sitting on the highest global temperature value of the modern record. Since then we have leveled off and we may in fact be cooling. “We have reached the top of the mountain”, therefore it’s not surprising that the last decade is one of the warmest on record. Think about it! The important aspect is that the warming of the 80s and 90s has stopped and the models missed it completely! The important issue is that we have entered a new regime in global temperature tendency. In fact, I find it very misleading that scientists will present “the warmest decade” argument to justify their beliefs (or failures).” Tsonis
“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least.”
______
Remind me how the warmest decade on instrument record is a “cooling trend” exactly. How does that math work out? And with 2014 very possibly going to be the warmest calendar year on record…how exactly is that a “cooling trend’? Odd sort of math or physics.
Let’s see – ‘Distinguished Professor: Anastasios Tsonis – he applied chaos theory to meteorology and has done important research on global warming.’ – or Randy the video guy?
Gates, when one reaches the top of the tallest mountain and it isn’t a sharp, pinpoint peak, would one expect their elevation shortly there after to be significantly lower?
Oh, and you keep forgetting about “on record”. And exactly how long is that record as a percent of the length of man’s existence?
“Let’s see – ‘Distinguished Professor: Anastasios Tsonis – he applied chaos theory to meteorology and has done important research on global warming.’ – or Randy the video guy?”
______
I thought an appeal to authority was against all that skeptics stood for? Oh, or are we not talking about real skeptics?
3 points:
1) A decadal average is the absolutely shortest period you might be able to see the anthropogenic warming signal.
2) The past 10 years have been the warmest on record.
3) The warmest 2 years of the past warmest decade have been in the past 4 years (2010 and now 2014).
Odd sort of way for “cooling” to be going on. But I am sure the “skeptics” will torture the charts and pick lots of cherries to find a way for cooling to be going on, and last but not least, if no one buys the tortured data and ripened Tisdale Cherries, then an appeal to authority, even if that appeal twists meanings around to turn “no warming” into “cooling”. And of course, please please please, don’t talk about ocean heat content or global glacial ice mass or species migration, or permafrost melt.
A reference to someone who has actual expertise is not an appeal to authority.
And 2010 is not anywhere near the top temperature – let alone an unfinished 2014. It just isn’t.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2014_v5.png
==> “A reference to someone who has actual expertise is not an appeal to authority.”
I love “skeptics!”
If you are going to take a mean in a record that has latent energy artifacts – make it a running mean and not an annual one.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/mean:12
‘This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.’ http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
For example – if I claim that X says that Joshua is an idjit – that is not a logical fallacy just an acute observation.
And I am far from being sceptical about anything at all – other than silly narratives from Randy the video guy.
Pause in warming equals cooling? I’m curious about that. The two phrases do not appear to me to be semantically equal.
ftp://public.sos.noaa.gov/rt/sst/nesdis/sst_anom/2048/sst_anom_2048_20141114.png
irst, just as climate scientists shouldn’t be threatening to beat up other climate scientists, people should not make death threats, leave dead animals on doorsteps, or otherwise threaten scientists physical well-being in any way.
However, the term “online abuse” (mentioned in the lawyer link) raises red flags. While she wraps herself in the noble-cause mantel of protecting science and scientists, it looks more likely that she is just another “progressive” environmental activist trying to achieve the goals of the left by legal threat. Specifically, it appears she would love to throttle debate of climate science. If a climate scientist does sloppy science, and this has clearly been the case more than once, it should be called out in public without fear of leftist legal challenges. I’m also tired of the whining about FOIA. It was put in place for a good reason, and climate scientists shouldn’t be able to hide from it under this lawyer’s skirt.
I’m guessing also that her belief that climate science is settled enough to formulate policy on it springs from the logical fallacy of “Appeal to Authority.” I wonder if she would consider Dr. Curry an authority?
Maybe she could do a guest post on Climate Etc. to explain her motivations.
Cute. Three points on Penelope Cruz is water (nice acting):
1. “There is only so much of me, and more and more of them.”
Is war or pestilence being suggested so there is not more of “them”.
2. 7/10s of the earth’s surface is water. Enough to cover the entire land area to a depth of 13000 meters and make jet travel (cruising altitude 12000 meters) very challenging. Doesn’t sound like a shortage.
3. More CO2 means more plant growth with less water.
Trenberth declairs hiatus is over! Trenberth predicts massive ElNino.
Trenberth predicts weather in 2100
Trenberth predicts….
Missed one in Philosophy Explained:
RAND – It’s worth someone’s time to bend over and pick up fried dough.
I love those studies where yr asked if you believe in
climate change. As if the term ‘climate change’ isn’t a
tautology, like ‘close proximity ‘ or ‘forward planning.’
In the Farmers/Scientists study above, reassuring
that ‘90% of the scientists and climatologists surveyed
said they believe in climate change.’
I used to believe in tree rings but… not so sure anymore.
It’s all in how you push-poll, serf.
If you ask people if they like black jellybeans they say they do, just to be all sophisticated and adult. No one will admit to liking the pink or orange ones best. But count the black jellybeans in the average lolly bag and it’s a different story.
I’m hoping to get a Nobel for this critical study, but I want a proper one. Not going to get out of bed for one of those Peace Prizes that fall out of cornflake packets.
They won’t give it to yer moso because of yer being somewhat
of a sceptical persuasion. Now you might switch ter one of those
progressive investigations like measurement of the uncaring
attributes of the Republican Brain or some such, and should yr
statistics come out with the appropriate hockey stick, well …
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/jellies.jpg
Rob, because you are obsessive-compulsive? ;-)
Beth I’m not sure I can agree with you that “climate change” is a tautology. You wouldn’t say the same of “climate distribution” or “climate variability” would you?
But hey, “climate variability” sounds good to me! Let’s start calling it “climate variability”.
Imagine Ed Davey as the Minister for Energy and Climate Variability. Or fatuous polls asking “Do you believe in climate variability and should we do something about it?”.
Or let’s call it what it indirectly means, global warming. Climate change is a tautology.
‘It’s ‘tautology,’ s a, because climatology’s
tautoises
all
the way
down.
You may be missing something in your analysis Simon–e.g., ‘climate’ is an example of something that ‘changes,’ right– like a stove is an example of something that’s hot. It’s not that a stove is hot all the time that is the issue; it’s that if it doesn’t get hot it’s not a stove.
I believe in CAWG, the Consensus, and the Wholly Funded IPCC.
Amen.
Will Lauren Kurtz leap to the defense of Will Happer because he is getting death threats?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/15/interview-with-physicist-will-happer-on-climate-change/
Or will she not, and prove beyond all doubt she is a political hack?
However, the term “Princeton’s Galileo” (mentioned in the video title) raises red flags.
http://thenation.com/article/186689-mitch-mcconnells-freighted-ties-shadowy-shipping-company
However, red flags.
Page not found.
Andrew
Willard
Make that “Majority Leader”.
As James S. C. Chao is fond to say:
http://www.horatioalger.org/members_info.cfm?memberid=cha09
From Williard’s link:
Active philanthropists and volunteers throughout their life, James and Ruth Chao, through their Shanghai Mulan Education Foundation, awarded thousands of scholarships to students in the United States and China. Chao’s many awards and honors include induction into the International Maritime Hall of Fame at the United Nations, recognition by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as an Outstanding American by Choice, and most recently, the recipient of the Lifetime Legacy Award by the International Fellowship Foundation. – See more at: http://www.horatioalger.org/members_info.cfm?memberid=cha09#sthash.dlsGq4Ca.dpuf
A squirrel in an open thread. Fancy that.
the king climate baller redefines week in review as open thread.
You will know its an open thread when it says “open thread”
or make up your own damn rules. you have no honor
> redefines week in review as open thread.
Actually, Judy renamed her open threads as “week in review”.
***
> You will know its an open thread when it says “open thread”
Not at all. One knows it is an open thread when commenters make it so. But if we need textual evidence, here it is:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/04/02/week-in-review-april-2-2011/
We have evidence that Judy herself treats her “week in review” as an open thread.
***
> you have no honor
And you have no argument. Meanwhile, you repeat a comment that Judy already deleted. Think about the honor it takes to do that.
May we meet one day,
W
Honor the renaming. You have a choice.
Don’t play dumb and think that your actions are justified
Because everyone else does what you do.
Climate baller
> Don’t play dumb and think that your actions are justified
Because everyone else does what you do.
This would be valid if we’d speak of truth, but we’re talking about justification here.
That commenters treat Judy’s weeks in review as open threads looks like good enough justification to me. And since this seems to include Judy herself, some might even argue that this is more than enough.
***
> Honor the renaming.
Unless Moshpit wishes to argue that only a few Denizens honor Judy’s change of word the way he’d like it to be, he might very well be profiling here. Or perhaps shadowing, to remain in the spirit of ClimateBall ™:
http://bloodbowl.wikia.com/wiki/Skills
Fabio Generatti left a comment at the Auditor’s this week. My favorite bit:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/10/13/millennial-quebec-tree-rings/#comment-740376
An army of crickets has invaded that discussion while auditors are parsing policies on self-plagiarism.
Yes, how strange that the stands are empty in a post that’s only a month old, with only seven posts above it.
McIntyre is the sort of scientist who will gladly welcome more information and modify his view appropriately.
Well, I said nothing to that comment as I had nothing to say. It was obviously a technical response to some things McIntyre had said. I had thought that part you quoted was doubtful, since McIntyre seems to have some graphs there that showed them as perfect upside-down mirrors images. But it could be I’m confusing that with some other proxies, which I do a lot.
But presumably this particular comment needs a post in response, assuming a response is needed.
willard as king climate baller you would and do use anything to justify your actions. That tells me you have no honor.
You could honor the name change regardless of how others act.
Your behavior reminds me of the child who thinks smoking is ok because they see their peers or parents doing it.
Pointing to Judy is a rather sly form of one of your favorite fallacies..
her too.
brilliant climateball
you had a choice.
I observe your choice.
that is all.
> I observe your choice.
More misreprensentation: a choice made by everyone who commented so far on this thread, and previously by Judy herself.
***
> That is all.
More misrepresentation:
The “I’m only describing” is a nice ClimateBall ™ move.
***
Another interesting tidbit for the week:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21632508-americas-concessions-are-more-real-chinas-dealing-denial
“No honor” award goes to the one who fails to acknowledge Curry saying that “Week in Review” is an open thread. Some people just can’t concede a point. Those people have no honor.
+1 David, I was going to post the same thing. Judith usually directs off topic discussions to move to an Open Thread or Week In Review.
This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025052/full
This has been happening for as long as we know of. Nor does it mean that we don’t get El Niño or relatively warmer north Pacific SST in cool periods – simply that the cold upwelling tends to persist and dominate conditions for 20 to 40 years.
In the 20th century – a cold period from 1944 to 1976 and a warm period from 1977 to 1998. Generally cool again since – both in the central and northern Pacific.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/pdo1.png
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
You can eyeball it in by the dominance of either red or blue in the periods.
Decadal to much longer variability suggests an external driver for these systems – both in the Pacific and Atlantic. In the event that they don’t really know what this is – perhaps they should wait a little bit before declaring the hiatus dead and buried on a few months data and an argument from ignorance. In the meantime – I’ll put quatloos on history repeating.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
Rob:
Have a look:
The sun determines the global mean temperature, not human emission of CO2.
Here is the data:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:300/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1954/compress:12/scale:0.001
The claim that Human emission of CO2 determines the global temperature is the greatest scientific blunder in the history of science.
When you remove the “isolate” function, you still have to explain the difference. Don’t just hide it and say problem solved.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:300/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1954/compress:12/scale:0.001/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954
G20 in Brisbane is obviously interesting.
https://twitter.com/seanparnell/status/533474637724651520
News you can use?
Very interesting. Can you please send me her phone number?
Jim
The answer is extremely simple.
The solar energy is instantaneous energy. However, the global mean temperature represents the stored energy in the earth’s ocean as a result of all the previous solar cycles. The global mean temperature is accumulated energy. The energy from the sun is instantaneous energy.
As a result, to compare apples to apples, you must remove the stored energy (the secular global mean temperature) to find the correlation between the sun and the global mean temperature.
You need also remove the multidecadal oscillation of the AMO as it represents distribution of heat within the oceans.
Problem solved!
Girma, you still have the problem of explaining why your “stored energy” mechanism only kicked in after fossil fuels started to be burned.
The reconstruction shows reliably that the period of high solar activity during the last 60 years is unique throughout the past 1150 years. This nearly triples the time interval for which such a statement could be made previously.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310823.pdf
Don’t forget the little ice age ended about 1850 and we are now at the modern solar maximum.
Girma, the solar activity now is at its lowest in 100 years, but we are nearly a degree warmer than at that time. You are trying your best to ignore that there are other factors (CO2) which more neatly account for the trend, nit just now but in paleoclimate.
Jim D
You can not change the energy stored in 100 years just in 10 years. Yes solar cycle 24 is low. Again you are comparing stored energy (global mean temperature) with instantaneous energy (solar activity).
Compare apples to apples!
Girma, even the current trend is the wrong way for you. Stored heat has been rising most in the last decade as the sun went through a long minimum. You are going to struggle convincing anyone that up is down.
The fact is that global surface temperature changes in PHASE with solar activity:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:300/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1954/compress:12/scale:0.001/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954
Nothing other than the sun is required to explain the above correlation.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:300/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1954/compress:12/scale:0.001/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954
It is important to realize that the sun has a contribution. Its 11-year cycles have a forcing near +/-0.1 W/m2 and that can be seen in the temperature record. Post-industrial CO2 already has a forcing of 2 W/m2 on its way to 6 W/m2 by 2100. Just scaling these effects by forcing, you can see what the big deal is.
Huh?
How do you get 6 W/m2?
You might get 4 W/m2 total (an additional 2 W/m2). 6 W/m2 requires 800+ PPM and that just isn’t going to happen.
And this is “topical” warming, not deep penetration like SW radiation.
From the 200 zettawatts the ocean is supposed to absorb since 1960 the transfer efficiency is about 20% (about 0.2 W/m2).
Going to take a while to warm the ocean that way when 80% of the added forcing goes back to space.
PA, CO2 warming is seen mostly on the land and in the polar areas, where there are more immediate impacts. The ocean delay only makes these other areas worse because the earth has to get rid of the heat in some way. RCP6 is a moderate global growth scenario for energy use, not even the highest one. If the skeptics are even wary about the average fossil CO2 emission rates doubling going forwards, they haven’t said it yet. The BAU growth rate needs significant slowing just to keep it below 6 W/m2, and maybe the skeptics would agree when they see the forcing it provides. The AR5 has an RCP4.5 scenario, but that is one with active mitigation policies in place through the rest of the century. It takes a deliberate effort to keep it in that range.
Jim D: If the skeptics are even wary about the average fossil CO2 emission rates doubling going forwards, they haven’t said it yet. The BAU growth rate needs significant slowing just to keep it below 6 W/m2, and maybe the skeptics would agree when they see the forcing it provides.
Climate Etc has had lots of discussions of future CO2 scenarios.
What do you think of the Romps et al study of possible future lighting strike rate increases due to temperature increase?
Matthew Marler, the Romps study is based on current GCM outputs, and diagnoses the lightning to increase if those are taken to be the scenarios. While it is interesting that the lightning could increase, the GCMs also are not likely to be perfect in the parameters they use to diagnose this on regional scales, and I am sure the paper is full of caveats about using these global projections for any such regional inferences.
Indeed the debate should be on the forcing trajectory, because I sense that even the skeptics are not so comfortable with us reaching 6 W/m2 forcing relative to pre-industrial levels which is within reach of the known fossil fuel resources even without developing much more of them like the Arctic and tarsands.
Jim D: I sense that even the skeptics are not so comfortable with us reaching 6 W/m2 forcing relative to pre-industrial levels
If an increase of 3 W/m2 causes an increase in cloud cover in the daytime, then there will not be an increase of 6 W/m2.
“Stored heat has been rising most in the last decade as the sun went through a long minimum. You are going to struggle convincing anyone that up is down.”
——
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good meme.
Jim D
I see the points both you girma are making. But why does it have to be so simple. We all are products of our linear and binary thinking . There may be many intervening variables that humans have not begun to think of. I have said this many times, but I wonder if the scientists of 2200 will look back at our body of work and all these debates and chuckle at how naive and uninformed we have been. Discovery is not dead
nottawa rafter, as I mentioned somewhere else on this broken thread, forcing explains both paleoclimate and current changes. Why look further? 6 W/m2 where we are headed is a massive forcing in paleo terms, being the difference between geological periods, if not era.
The answer is extremely simple.
The solar energy is instantaneous energy. However, the global mean temperature represents the stored energy in the earth’s ocean as a result of all the previous solar cycles. The global mean temperature is accumulated energy. The energy from the sun is instantaneous energy.
As a result, to compare apples to apples, you must remove the stored energy (the secular global mean temperature) to find the correlation between the sun and the global mean temperature.
You need also remove the multidecadal oscillation of the AMO as it represents distribution of heat within the oceans.
Problem solved!
Girma you have at least explained part of the mechanism of how ocean heat content is so vital to the climate and how the oceans can usually buffer against extremely rapid changes to the climate. They do store energy that came directly from the sun and they because of their high thermal inertia, they can affect the troposphere far longer than the “instantaneous” energy from the sun. Cool or warm the oceans significantly and you’ll cool or warm the climate for a long-period.
Nobody claims that C02 DETERMINES the global mean temperature.
The temperature is determined by all forcings: solar, aerosols, methan, c02, etc. See AR5 for a complete list. solar forcing has no secular trend worth noting.
steven
global mean temperature changes in PHASE with solar activity as shown:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:300/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1954/compress:12/scale:0.001
As a result, only the sun determines the global mean temperature.
I call BS – there are many factors involved. Including cloud.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png
Rob
The responds to the sun.
Rob
The cloud responds to the sun
‘Changes in the Earth’s radiation budget are driven by changes in the balance between the thermal emission from the top of the atmosphere and the net sunlight absorbed. The shortwave radiation entering the climate system depends on the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance. Often, studies replace the net sunlight by proxy measures of solar irradiance, which is an oversimplification used in efforts to probe the Sun’s role in past climate change. With new helioseismic data and new measures of the Earth’s reflectance, we can usefully separate and constrain the relative roles
of the net sunlight’s two components, while probing the degree of their linkage. First, this is possible because helioseismic data provide the most precise measure ever of the solar cycle, which ultimately yields more profound physical limits on past irradiance variations. Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example—
would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial amplification of the Sun’s varying output.’ http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
It may indeed be the case – but the mechanism are not at all obvious. Nor is it sufficient to simply declare it so.
Yes well the correlation of Earth’s climate with the 934-year and superimposed 60-year cycles in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets is overwhelmingly compelling, implying with an exceptionally high level of statistical significance, that planetary orbits regulate Earth’s climate. There is no valid physics which can prove that carbon dioxide raises the radiating altitude by more than a mere 1.5 metres, which would have a warming effect of no more than 0.01 degree.
“As a result, only the sun determines the global mean temperature.”
——
Uh oh. More un-science,
“The temperature is determined by all forcings: solar, aerosols, methan, c02, etc. See AR5 for a complete list. solar forcing has no secular trend worth noting.”
—-
Thankfully, we can always count on Mosh for a bit of sanity.
Does that racist have a non-white wife?
> Does that racist have a non-white wife?
See? That’s a squirrel.
Hmm Sounds like the beginning of the movie “Clear and Present Danger”.
For those who didn’t get the cultural reference of Judith’s link ‘Unexpected photos coming in from comet landing,’ it relates to The Clangers.
This was a much loved 1970’s charming, bizarre and surreal, British Children’s TV series set in space. Here is an episode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok6CoIwcJ-E
If you watch for just a couple of minutes you will see wheeled out a flying machine that has many similarities to the craft that landed on the comet.
I am obviously much too young to remember the Clangers.
tonyb
Yes, Tony…amazing the you remember your “Grandfather’s” stories about the Clangers. No doubt though, this was the inspiration for the craft that landed on the comet.
Tony
You may have already seen this but yesterday I saw a 2 hour documentary on The History Channel entitled “Little Ice Age:The Big Chill made in 2005. It tied in a lot of history with the change in climate. Quite interesting.
Nottawa rafter
I may have seen the programme at the time but will look out for it again. It sounds as though at two hours long they might have explored the subject in some depth
Tonyb
“the modern warm period ”
Tony, what exactly is causing this so-called “modern warm period?”
Joseph
Good question. What caused the Minoan warm period? The roman warm period? The medieval warm period?
When we know the answer to those we might be able to identify more accurately the causes of the modern warm period.
Tonyb
We have a good explanation for the current warming. It’s much better than nothing.
Joseph
So what is your explanation for the previous ( greater) warmings?
Tonyb
And also want to know what time period you think constitutes this “warm period” that needs to explained and do you have the global temperature indices to back up your time period.
I don’t know. I am not an expert by any means. Do we need to account for every climate fluctuation in the history of the Earth to know anything about the climate?
Joseph
I am a little perplexed. The previous greater warmings are unexplained yet you are (very) concerned about the current lesser warming? Is it not possible that they all have the same natural causes and co2 is a relatively minor player once the concentration has reached a certain level?
tonyb
Joseph, “Do we need to account for every climate fluctuation in the history of the Earth to know anything about the climate?”
No, but if you want models to be believable, they need to account for most of them. The 1910 to 1940 period would be one period that should be required. Previously, it was explained with solar and aerosols, but since then both solar and aerosols have proven to be a bit more complicated. Then, there were no older changes that needed to be explained due to tree ring based paleo, but since then that has proven to be a bit more complex. Postdicting the past 50 years isn’t exactly proof that the models work.
Now if you look at the real physics, only 3.7 Wm-2 per doubling is pretty well known. Since that is only about 1 C of temperature change and there is evidence of about 0.5C of natural variability, anything more should require a better explanation with current data before we jump through our a$$e$ to fix a problem that may not exist.
Tonyb
whilst reading up on Ostia
angels guided me to your paper on sea levels
I noticed your Wiki quote says
“silting and sea level changes”
the current Wiki page cites only silting as causing the demise of the port sea level reference deleted?
John
Which particular port are you referencing? Land level changes and silting and sea level changes all conspire to effect our coast.
Tonyb
John
Sorry, missed the ref. I was in Ostia last year.
It was threatened by rising sea levels around the 4th century and flood defences were erected in the form of rubble. This was also dumped in the marshes. Around the late 1500’s there was a high stand of water and the city was again flooded although by that time the surrounding landscape had changed greatly .
http://www.ostia-antica.org/intro.htm
The water then receded generally as the LIA locked up water and sea levels fell.
It started rising again around 1750 when the glaciers started melting after the LIA.
It seems that water oscillates around an average mean by around 50cms or so. we saw a high water stand in roman times, another possibly around the 12th century and another around the 16 th century.
Bearing in mind the LIa was the coldest period this side of the Holocene The amount of water locked up in ice is presumably historically pretty high so we can expect further sea level rises until the modern warm period finishes. When that will be I don’t know, but it will happen at some point.
Tonyb
Tony, FYI my letter to the Oz on comments Cameron made on Sky News:
You report online David Cameron as saying re climate change “I always say, think about it like insurance, even if you don’t believe in the nature of this threat, isn’t it better to insure against it?” This is totally absurd – by extension, there is an infinite number of threats we don’t believe in, and we should insure against them all. What we should do is address real, urgent problems, while following policies which increase our capacity to deal with whatever the unknown future brings.
[In passing, after dropping to 25-26 C overnight, we are heading for 40C in Brisbane today. No wonder Putin is leaving the G20 early – he can’t stand the heat.]
Faustino
I can think of very many threats I consider far more serious than the notion that we are drastically changing the climate.
It’s better to have Putin there rather than he leave feeling angry and humiliated. I think our. Leaders are grandstanding. Some things are better discussed in private away from the spotlight.
BTW I am a bit worried about a koala dropping on your head. It just so happens that Coincidentally I sell koala insurance. You can’t be too careful you know.
Tonyb
Tony, Australians invented “drop bears,” koalas which drop onto you from above, as a way of winding-up naive tourists. I assure you that this has no factual basis, but I will, of course, buy insurance from you just in case.
[Putin announced yesterday that he would leave early, apparently in response to his reception by some other leaders.]
Tony
thanks
I just noticed that the Wiki page “Ostia Antica” you quote in Part 1
cites silting AND sea level
the current page deletes the sea level reference
cyber history may have problems
BTW the “Time Team” episode you mention is responsible for my interest in this subject
John
Yes links change, especially wiki. Even worse is when they disappear which means my older articles increasingly have dead links. That’s why printed books are useful, but of course it’s impossible in a print version to have up to date information or to do more than quote a few lines. For all it’s flaws, in a net article you can link to oceans of knowledge that encourages the reader to explore further.
I like time team. It’s good popular history that draws on outside expert knowledge. I met the guy in the brightly coloured wooly jumper when he opened the museum I was involved with a couple of years ago
You realise that the presenter is baldrick? Having starred in four black adder series he obviously knows a lot of history. He’s come a long way in the intervening years
Tonyb
Tonyb, there is a well known chief scientist at the Met Office who has reminded me of the Soup Dragon on more than one occasion recently.
Climate Cognitive Dissonance/Pragmatism
Climate Progress emphasizes: The Planet Just Had Its Hottest October On Record
Ergo we must panic?!
Contrast Nicola Scafetta’s pragmatic empirical model
Astronomical Climate model forecast vs. IPCC
Steven Goddard documents: Arctic Sea Ice Extent At Its Highest Level In Over A Decade Posted on November 15, 2014
Conclusion: Lemmings are following the piping of erroneous global climate modellers.
Ex NASA engineers/scientists at The Right Climate Stuff, provide a refreshing touch of reality by Bounding Climate Sensitivity for Regulatory Decisions.
Don’t ever trust Goddard, 3 of the last 10 years have higher ice extent than this year, see http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
and click on the download button
And antarctic sea ice is less than last year for this date
go to cryosphere today
bob
Please reread the ijis.iarc seaice extent you link to.
The top three dotted lines are the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s averages, not individual years – where 2007, 2011 and 2012 are shown below 2014.
Steve Goddard linked to the DMI detailed graphs of ice cover. which showed that 2014 is the highest of the last ten year arctic ice extents.
The DMI has created a new arctic ice extent without the previous coastal masking but which does not show all ten years extents. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.
David,
If you follow instructions, you would have clicked on the download button, which gives you an excel spreadsheet with the ice extents for each day, and there you can find that the ice extent was higher in 2008, 2005 and 2004 for the latest day.
bob
Thanks. Apologies for missing your “download button”.
Interesting how the different research groups report different results based on their methodology.
Scaffetta just got bitch slapped by Cawley and Way.
Funnily I asked scaffetta for the code for his paper and ask his co author loehle. Loehle apoligized for Scaffettas refusal.
The errors were pretty bad.
“Scaffetta just got bitch slapped by Cawley and Way.”
_____
Inevitable.
Please forgive me in advance. The doughnut guy got SO much wrong. For example, he apparently confused Kant with Hume…except that he got Kant wrong because Kant was not an idealist (i.e. reality is an artifact of consciousness). Kant believed that consciousness participates with reality…as does quantum physics.
> Kant believed that consciousness participates with reality
A quote might be nice.
Transcendental Idealism should be a clue to you that you might be wrong about Kant.
Review his account of Time and Space.
“Timmermann is very clear about what this means for global warming. ‘Over the last 15 years or so – the period of the global warming hiatus – the Pacific has been anomalously cold and there has been a very strong negative IPO,’ explained Timmermann. ‘This has now stopped. The negative IPO has stopped. This is the same as saying the global warming hiatus has stopped.””
For 17 of 18+ years of no significant increase in reported surface temps, the CAGW activists masquerading as scientists denied the existence of any “pause.” But now, after several months of increase in those reported temps, “the pause is over.”
I wouldn’t let these guys teach an elementary school science class, let alone run the global energy economy.
https://twitter.com/capitalweather/status/531100378730094592
Indeed. And then this record-low-pressure system builds a high pressure ridge bringing polar air in the Midwest.
Did you have an intuition to see this to happen?
> And then this record-low-pressure system builds a high pressure ridge bringing polar air in the Midwest.
See? That’s another squirrel.
Yep. It’s squirrels all the way down.
So why did you bring this squirrel?
Willard
Last year it was the polar vortex. This year it is this. Given we have another 20 years or so of freezing our a….. off, how many more excuses do you have in your bag of tricks. And after that length of time, who really cares. It is what it is.
> Last year it was the polar vortex. This year it is this.
Is there a difference, and what causes this do you think, nottawa?
Whether it is or not the MSM has not used the term this year. No marching orders have come down from on high to make another excuse. Warmists have perfected the art of excuse making. I’m just curious when cold will be just cold.
> I’m just curious when cold will be just cold.
Just cold is just cold when it’s cold just as usual. And even then.
Just curiosity seldom sounds like curiosity. Perhaps never when it just dismisses explanations as excuses.
In the meantime, the yawning gap between consensus models and observational data grows every year resulting in even larger yawns by the public. Desperate times for those missing the yawns.
When you consider the Great White Hurricane of 1888 (also the Dakota/Nebraska Children’s Blizzard shortly before it), the Great Blizzard of 1899, the November Gale of 1913, the Great Appalachian Storm of 1950, the Knickerbocker Storm of 1922, the Armistice Day Blizzard of 1940, NY’s Great Blizzard of 1947…
Well, you are left almost in admiration of those who can use more recent US cold events to create an illusion of modern climate exceptionalism.
Is there such a thing as Peak Coyness? I think we may be there.
From the article:
This Democrat Is Giving Up on ObamaCare
The disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act was the catalyst for my party’s midterm thumping.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/burke-beu-this-democrat-is-giving-up-on-obamacare-1415919619
If you like your Senate seat, you can keep it. (NOT!)
What country is the subject of this article. X’s are mine. Take a guess before you click the link. From the article:
Wealth inequality in X is one of the world’s highest. A report by Credit Suisse says 35 percent of X household wealth is controlled by just 110 billionaires. Worldwide, billionaires collectively account for 1 to 2 percent of the total wealth.
“X has the highest level of wealth inequality in the world, apart from small Caribbean nations with resident billionaires,” Credit Suisse’s annual global wealth report says.
According to the study there’s one billionaire for every $11 billion in household wealth in X. This compares to one billionaire per $170 billion in the rest of the world.
An earlier report by Forbes showed the number of billionaires in X has increased 13-fold since the turn of the century – from eight in 2000 to 110 people in 2013.
http://rt.com/business/russia-world-household-wealth-944/
I was going to guess China before I saw “russia” in the URL. I have read articles on inequality in both countries recently.
From the article:
…
As the adage goes, the poor stay poor while the rich get richer. For years, Russia has been regarded as a nation fraught with economic inequality- a land where the rich accrue more and more wealth each year while the poor descend further and further into squalor. Even in the advent of the burgeoning middle class, the growing disparity of wealth has contributed to a widening economic gap between Russia’s rich and poor residents.
Although an astounding 18 million Russians, or roughly 13 percent of the population, live below the official poverty line, having a collective income of $12.4 billion, the 97 wealthiest Russians jointly own $380 billion- nearly 31 times the collective income of the nation’s poorest individuals.
While $18 million residents grapple with the challenges of poverty, Vladimir Putin consistently vaunts the exclusive wealth of Russia. In a sense, Russia has exhibited economic growth. For instance, Moscow now houses more billionaires than New York City, the iconic American city that has long been esteemed as the metropolis of wealth and power of the Western World.
Although Putin boasts about the economic prosperity of the few wealthy elites, little effective action has been taken to curb the growing rates of poverty in Russia. For example, the estimated cost of living in Russia is approximately $210. However, the nation’s minimum wage is wholly insufficient at $155 per month.
…
http://borgenproject.org/poverty-russia/
https://twitter.com/LabradorIce/status/533677148973064193
Can’t get to the paper, but it looks interesting. Wonder if it’s right?
Jim2
Yes it’s pay walled and coming from the future ( feb 2015)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014004876#bib0020
It’s a bot of a snarky abstract. Isn’t Robert Way one of Mosh ‘s colleagues? If so perhaps he can give us a few pointers to the content
Tonyb
Guess we don’t have a chance to see if it’s right or not. Too bad.
Its a very good take down of Scaffetta and Loehle.
To compare
Lewis and Curry TCR .9 to 2.5 with a most likely value of 1.3
Cawely and Way 1.3 to 3 with a most likely value of 1.6
I like that observations are used as constraints. More and better observations –> better estimates.
Nice to see Robert get another publication.
TCR 1.3 – 3.0
Lewis and Curry: .9 to 2.5
The amazing thing is we are finally seeing people do some somewhat systematic studies.. improving older methods and applying new data.
Stunning actually.
It is suitably located between a paper on niche habitats for endangered pumas and the dynamics of larch moth populations,signifying its stature in the hierarchic scientific method.
Steven Mosher | November 15, 2014 at 5:47 pm
“Nice to see Robert get another publication. The amazing thing is we are finally seeing people do some somewhat systematic studies.”
So nothing done in the last 30 years of climate science has been a systematic study. Truly amazing.
Or did you mean Way has somewhat done a scientific study, which would be somewhat amazing if if he had bothered to do an actual study rather than somewhat doing one, I’m still trying to get over his last feeble co-joint attempt at a study.
You know the one saying if A is next to B it is more likely to behave like C 1000 miles away.
Bill Gates is still working on the traveling wave nuclear reactor. Here, he looks into “cold fusion.”
From the article:
Gates Looks at LENRs as Future Energy Source
…
Nov. 14, 2014 – By Steven B. Krivit –
Bill Gates, pioneer in the digital world, is exploring low-energy nuclear reactions (LENRs), the frontier of energy research.
On Wednesday, he visited a small laboratory on the sprawling campus of a government lab in Frascati, just outside of Rome, Italy. The lab is one of several large ones under the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment.
While at ENEA-Frascati, Gates listened to a lecture by ENEA scientist Vittorio Violante and observed LENR experiments in his lab. Gates was there with Lowell Wood, a physicist who once worked with Edward Teller at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Wood is now a professor of physics at the University of Houston.
ENEA-Frascati has been working on thermonuclear fusion research for many years. Gates, too, has had an interest in energy research and has been funding Terrapower, a commercial effort to make a practical traveling-wave nuclear fission reactor.
http://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/11/14/gates-looks-at-lenrs-as-future-energy-source/
Terrapower:
http://terrapower.com/pages/the-physics
“Under the Republican #Congress, a successful #environmental strategy will need to focus locally.”
_____
The inevitable result of focusing too local:
http://conversationsofchange.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/head_in_the_sand-461×307.jpg
That’s Obama looking for his mandate from all those voters who didn’t vote.
I’m sure this is Gatesy looking out his window.
Andrew
rls
I think Turley is right
I’m quite concerned about this
Obama is playing a very dangerous game of chicken
seems to me congress would have to react to the serious challenge to separation of powers
the scarier part is the societal split in reaction to impeachment
which strikes me as almost inevitable if this unilateral action is taken by the executive
the US political class has it’s collective head in the sand about this
A crack in the consensus.
Speaking of heads in the sand, what really got my goat this week was Obama, Kerry and the NYT drivelling on about climate change while Russian tanks are moving in the Ukraine! Cut the Nonsense! There are real problems in the world!
/rant
Remember, we are too stupid to understand his affirmative action inspired brilliance.
Obama has always seemed semi detached to me. He seems a very Ineffective President. Perhaps the hubris of his undeserved Nobel prize went to his head.
It was a nonsensical climate deal whereby the US committed to a definite reduction whilst the Chinese can emit what they want until they have another think about it in 2030
The world-Putin, china, Isis,- seem to be running rings round the President.
Tonyb
Tony
I don’t think Obama is merely ineffective. He has been harmful to the world and now wants to expand his powers with an unprecedented and unconstitutional executive order.
Richard
“…while Russian tanks are moving in the Ukraine!”
_____
Lions, and Tigers and Tanks…oh my!
Why exactly do we care?
Rgates
If we shouldn’t care about the Ukraine ( and the Baltic states) should we also not care about ISIS . And north Korea. And Iran?
Tonyb
Richard
What will be the effect of this Executive order ?
Tonyb
Tonyb,
I always look for your sensible comments. This presidential and Kerry drival on climate change of 2*C being more urgent than Ukraine, ISIS, Ebola, Iran Nucs and Afganistan, or Libiya or China in the islands of Japan can mean only that they are inventing a boogie man that they can pretend to solve rather than addressing real issues and problems.
Hope for a new increment of temperatures from 1300 or sea level rise from the Roman era. I appreciate your studies, anecdotal as Moshpit calls them. Modeling something as complex as the oceans and atmospheric interactions without much real data is difficult.
Scott
Gates
Why should we care….gee sounds positively out of the 30s and shortly after WWII.
Tony
He has announced that he will pardon about 5 million illegal immigrants. The problem is that there are existing laws pertaining to illegal immigrants and he doesn’t have the authority to change those laws. Jonathan Turley, a liberal and highly regarded constitutional attorney, has said that if Obama does this it will be unprecedented and will cause a constituional crises. Turley supports a congressional lawsuit against the president; a lawsuit would allow the supreme court to set aside the president’s executive order.
rls
replied to you
see above
flubbed thread
John Smith
I don’t think there will be an impeachment, but the lawsuit is a possibility and could result in the Supreme Court overturning an executive order. The lawsuit is also recommended by Turley.
Richard
Gates is the type who would have thought Hitler harmless as well. Talk about your head-in-the-sand type.
“Gates is the type who would have thought Hitler harmless as well. Talk about your head-in-the-sand type.”
_____
Who exactly is the new “Hitler”? Putin? If he is such a big threat then why have the Europeans not drawn a line in the sand on their own continent? Oh yea…they need the Russian energy. Oops. Age of Stupid strikes again.
As a Canadian watching the US from the safety of my “window” (tm pending gates inc.), I find the issue with the Obama presidency, is that he only was ever was good at making inspirational speeches, and then he expected his work was done. That his inspiration was all he ever needed to do and then things would happen. Hence all the “disappointment” and “surprise” he has perpetually when things are not doing what he expected.
For all the flaws and politics during W and Clintons presidencies, they knew how to get things done after the speech, they moved and shacked things to make sure what they wanted was happening. Obama pats himself on the back for an inspirational speech and thinks he got what he wanted. Now that is a good or bad thing depending on your particular political obsession, but he doesn’t ever really do anything real. I think the Dems really enjoyed that because it game them unprecedented control to do their own slightly different things, often to everyones displeasure. Pelosi and Reid, had far more power and control the Obama.
My cold Canadian thoughts.
excuse my spelling, jeez, but a few letter substitutions should make my meaning available.
Tonyb, you’re reading the wrong websites. (Honestly…) Obama will start getting the credit he deserves after he gets out of office. I like what the Canadian said.. (paraphrasing) Strongest growth in the developed world… low unemployment that is dropping, millions of people with new access to healthcare… what are you guys angry at?
Tom
Angry? More like Concerned. The US President has been the leader of the Western World since the end of the second world war. Obama seems to have abdicated that position without telling anyone, leaving a gaping hole in the promotion of western interests and security.
There are numerous practical concerns that need attending to, but Obama seems unwilling to face them.
The problem is that although the king is dead there doesn’t seem to be another one in the offing.
tonyb
So far the Republicans are showing fear on a lot of issues: Isis, Ebola, Immigrants, Decarbonization, Healthcare, you name it, but have no alternatives or rational contrary arguments, just a lot of hair-on-fire type rhetoric. I don’t think there is any such thing as a calm-spoken rational constructive Republican these days. Fox News is just as bad, with every commenter being of this type too.
Tom Fuller
Tony is reading the wrong websites and you are reading the accurate ones? Sounds Bruberesque. And then your effort to paraphrase Brandon C? Total lies. You have successfully learned the Obama strategy; lie hard and lie often, and deny mistakes.
From the article:
China’s Income Inequality Surpasses U.S., Posing Risk for Xi
By Lorraine Woellert and Sharon Chen Apr 29, 2014 2:32 AM CT 46
…
China’s Income Inequality Widens, Worse than U.S.
The income gap between the rich and poor in China has surpassed that of the U.S. and is among the widest in the world, a report showed, adding to the challenges for President Xi Jinping as growth slows.
A common measure of income inequality almost doubled in China between 1980 and 2010 and now points to a “severe” disparity, according to researchers at the University of Michigan. The finding conforms to what many Chinese people already say they believe — in a 2012 survey, they ranked inequality as the nation’s top social challenge, above corruption and unemployment, the report showed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-28/gap-between-rich-poor-worse-in-china-than-in-u-s-study-shows.html
@jcurry
“””A few things that caught my eye this past week.”””
Rarely is it climate reality, or climate skeptic reality, such as….
“””Kevin Trenberth declares the pause to be over [link]. Bob Tisdale disagrees [link]””” So link to an actual climate scientist on the one hand. And an extreme ideologue on the other. (Let alone posting on a radical extremist site – but I would imagine @ curry misses that reality as well.) That will help perpetuate the skepticism and appearance of “fairness” by virtue of a false debate that this site is exceptional at promoting and creating! (Sure, it’s Tamino, but this is a good example of how Tisdale either lies, or more likely is such an extremist ideologue he can’t see what amount to fabrications.)
Got news for you. There is no pause. The whole idea is moronic. Climate is weather patterns over 30 or so years over the region (or in this case globe) in question.
So after a decade that spiked well above the mean in average ambient global temperatures (the 90s) the fact that the “pace” or increase wasn’t the same in the 2000s (even though all but one year in the entire 2000s so far has been warmer than every year prior to the 2000s in the semi modern era but for one, 1998, and 05 and 10 were the warmest ever, and NOAA has 2014 on track to be the warmest ever) in the 2000s, doesn’t mean that there is a pause in warming.
And it’s somewhat idiotic to say there is. The problem is scientists get overly attached to their models, and being somewhat, well caught in the idea that few people can really that be disconnected from the basic facts of the issue, don’t realize how they are feeding deniers like scraps of raw meat to starving wolves… as they want their models to be able to be as accurate as possible over time, even though any accuracy beyond the longer term general trend is really icing on the cake.
They even get biased themselves sometimes and fail to sufficiently take a big picture look, as some scientists really do think that models substantiate AGW. they are wrong, and don’t fully understand the issue or are limited in their thinking on it. (Notice how even then, the enormous majority – despite the fiction of a false controversy over consensus created on this blog) – are still all but tearing their hair out over how even the media, which is incorrectly accused by skeptics of being “one sided,” isn’t even giving the science it’s just due. One example just regarding the media alone).
The whole “pause” fiction is even more foolish in consideration of the fact that air temperatures are by far the least significant of the major changes, both in terms of the actual impact right now and the likely shape of further impact being fashioned right at this moment,
Climate scientists may not often use this phrasing, but good luck finding much more than the rare (“foolish ones”) who disagree. I don”t normally call anybody the id word (I changed it to “foolish ones,” but that guy just linked to wants to be in the national spotlight, is an ideologue, and repeatedly gets things wrong. He uses his religion to conflict with his science, and – openly even – he uses his anti government philosophy to shape the outcome he tries to reach. The opposite of science.
The rest of the few are ideologues. Which is bad science.
John carter
You make a number of sweeping statements. Amongst the idiots you castigate are the Met office who acknowledged the pause here
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
And on three related articles. I met some of their scientists at their offices in Exeter there last year and they also talked of the pause.
They also had a high level meeting In 2013 to discuss the pause which saw a lot of scientists convene there.
As for WUWT being an Radical extremist site, so we can judge your standards , could you link to three sites you reckon to be moderate objective factual climate sites? Thanks
Tonyb
John Carter
you can only be an agent provocateur
working for the fossil fuel industry
or doing a Sacha Baron Cohen performance piece
See comments below in response to Tisdale, they adequately address the pause issue
Re three sites, a problem is that the internet has helped lead to a lot of self selecting polarization and insularity , so there’s not a lot.
Climate progress is pretty good but it’s not always objective, and often castigates others, and takes for granted that everyone should “know” at least the basics of what it know,s and even view things in sort of the same way.
In that regard I think it undermines its own credibility much outside of those who already tend to agree with a lot of what it writes.
Skeptical science is very objective, repeatedly offering information that undermines it’s own arguments a little if that is what the information suggests.
Here’s the problem. I can’t even write “Sks” without at least one commenter writing something like “you cite sks, you’ve lost all credibility.”
And it’s the basic problem today. Climate change refutation is based upon a false construction of the basic issue (see responses below to Tisdale’s comment in responses to mine.) So a site like sks that matter of factly takes the multiple myths that “skepticism” is based on, and without rancor or adjectives or even, much as can be done (everyone is human) spin or mistakes (again, everyone makes mistakes, it’s a question of degree and occurrence), shows them to be false, either has to be seen by true climate change skeptics as a non credible site, or their (maybe your) entire skepticism has to be rethought, which people don’t want to do, one because we don’t like to change, we don’t like to change our heartfelt view, and in most cases – what is driving the skepticism – people want to be skeptics, and cling to it)
There’s some others, but again that isn’t really germane to the radical extremist nature of WUWT. Also, site like NASA tend to be good, and there’s plenty of science articles reasonably broken down in science magazine sites. But again, a lot of that is ignored as well, for the same reasons. The science does not support skepticism. what the science has been falsely turned into, does. but that science doesn’t really go to what the issue is, or misconstrues it, or misrepresents a tiny sliver, or some ongoing process of science, as the whole, and any possible adjustment of mistake or disagreement therein, falsely, as “refutation ” of climate change.
I agree, I was pretty sweeping – fair enough point you make there – I’m tired of all the over focus on the idea of “pause” and also misconception over what it actually does and does not represent, and it’s false conflation with the issue of general change itself. Again, see my response below to Tisdale’s comment to me. Thanks.
The definition of GW is the SAT. People can draw flat lines, even declining lines, in the SAT data. It’s undeniable. The significance of being able to do that depends on consideration of what is actually happening on a planet called earth, where there has been no pause at all in the accumulation energy.
John, you should apply for a job in the Administration.
John Carter | November 15, 2014 at 2:07 pm | Reply
Got news for you. There is no pause. The whole idea is moronic. Climate is weather patterns over 30 or so years over the region (or in this case globe) in question.
So how would you define a pause then John, and what would the beginning of this pause look like? Take your time.
Meanwhile , in the real world….
“””””
So how would you define a pause then John, and what would the beginning of this pause look like? Take your time.
Meanwhile, in the real world””””””
In the “real world” to use your term:
The question assumes that there is even such a thing. If there is such a thing, what is it? How is it defined?
Is it a “pause” in global warming? In terms of AGW representing the phenomenon of our long term affect upon the earth’s long term climate through ongoing industrial age atmospheric long lived GG alterations, the whole idea, as I said, is idiotic, and likely defies physics. But it would consist of signs that the earth’s energy balance is not shifting, that the earth itself (not the air, but possibly inclusive of the air), but the upper layer of the earth// ocean, surface land, ice, is not warming), and it is pretty indisputable overall (again, don’t confuse parts of it for the whole, though naturally that is what skeptics have done). That’s not only not been the case, it’s been accelerating overall.
Does it just refer to the general pattern of air temperatures? And what the long term trend is?
Does it even matter? See my response to Tisdale’s comment below.
If we are looking at just air temperatures, and after some period of time they continue to not rise, I guess you could call that a pause in air temps, but without it being several decades, or a little shorter, but representing a significant downturn from say, trailing ambient averages (also averaged out over a few decades) it sort of again is pointless. And if we had said former described pause, the issue would be it’s significance, which would have to be assessed in comparison to what else is going on in turns of the phenomena and conditions that affect long term climate.
But to call our real world situation a “pause” as if it has some sort of significance, when over a several year period the shorter term trend has slightly flattened but the longer term trend is strongly upward, and the level of energy going into the oceans is actually accelerating, is again, at best meaningless, and in practice, since it’s interpreted to be something it’s not, confuses the issue, and is falsely even used to refute it, is inane.
In the real world.
I’m exhausted at the moment, and still have to turn to some other obligations, so it’s possible this could be expressed better than I am doing. But here’s an example of what I mean. Everyone relates to air temps. But if a little more of the energy going into the ocean had flowed into the air and so the rate of “temp” increase had stayed the same as the very high, almost spiked increase of the 90s, then many more people would be convinced, when the relevancy and total measure of the issue would be identical, and the future threat/risk we face the same (or less, if some of that increase leads to an increase in dissipated upper atmospheric energy, whereas with ocean storage, none is loss, it’s all accumulating; but that gets too complex for this moment, and is otherwise not relevant to the main point here.)
It’s just the ocean warming would have been a little less. But we get fixated on air, when over the short run it’s probably the least significant of the major changes.
Oceans alone is also slightly simplifying it, since there are other changes. Sea bed bottoms are warming in at least some areas, and this could wind up being extremely significant (and will be as the issue continues unless we can find a way to reverse it) and ice sheet melt is occurring, and accelerating, with a rather remarkable increase in that change occurring in the northern polar region (Greenland) in just the last 5 or so years alone.(I notice this website fixates on stuff like that << satire. What it it actually fixates on is select uncertainties in various areas, and uses that incorrectly to question whether the earth is significantly changing or more importantly, likely to, through a repetitive pattern of looking at such select figures and discounting, taking the most extreme measurements and estimates of, and in most cases simply ignoring, everything else.)
Also southern annular mode winds have increased, it's pushing southern polar ice northward, and allowing for increased formation, while increasing melt from ice sheet bottoms has created a thin layer of upper cold water insulation, hastening surface freezing and sea ice formation, as it continues then to get pushed northward to make new room. (Though obv we don't understand it fully and are still learning about the process and the changes); but it is also masking huge regional differences in ice loss and gain down there, and marked change.
So antarctic ice extent is very slightly increasing, while the extent of arctic sea ice is decreasing, at about 5 to 10 times the RATE of antarctic ice extent. IT is also more important bc the northern pole is open water, and its always been covered with ice (in recent geologic history) for the most part, so our encroaching shift to open water is starting to mess with the polar region albedo, reflecting far less solar radiation out each decade, and the effect seems to be compounding —
— notice that in the past 10 – 15 years there have been strongly accelerating signs of change, relative to earlier rates, even taking into account the rate of progression of atmospheric change- as would make sense as some of the underlying stases conditions of earth start to change – and this process has essentially just begun, and is multiplying. While we obsessively focus – in large part because of climate change denialism – on air temps. Even scientists do – or some – thinking if they can model stuff they'll "show" skeptics (and I think, thinking wrongly, as i think it is far more imp for people to actually understand the issue which few do.)
Another key change is to permafrost regions, in which we can find relatively "encouraging" news (which skeptics, then again true to the pattern, falsely take as refutation of acc itself or of its overall severity) and very much not encouraging news (which skeptics, true to the pattern, essentially ignore or if possible, skew).. this process is in its early stages but there's huge amounts of C stored in there (almost double the amount in the entire atmosphere, roughly, and again it's a likely range), and though ranges for sea bed clathrates are broader, likely as much if not more than on sea bed floors.
And there are many areas where the actual ground under the shallow permafrost has warmed, and has warmed even more than the average increase in ambient air temp in the air just above, meaning even more energy is being transferred to the ground, where is is more stable, and compounding…
Meanwhile ice melt is not linear. I don't understand scientists who say it is. I know that about 12 years ago I said "you're underestimating glacial melt rates over time. " And since then multiple major studies have come out that have said we've been underestimating glacial melt rates, they are starting to melt faster than we thought they would or could, and we realize the rate of increase in the future is now faster than we thought. Coincidence? I don't think so. And that's a lot of energy transition that is hard to measure. And melting ice throwing cold water into the ocean, which then itself is extremely dynamic, is a pretty complex process, which is why it's sometimes key to not just look at the nitty gritty modeling, but the large picture as well.
Not all scientists do that. A pretty good one, Albert Einstein, said imagination was more important than specific information. not to make things up, not for b.s rhetoric (which is an entirely diff skilll, and possessed in abundance by those skilled at politics but little else in the way of actual knowledge and understanding),, but to be able to comprehend the broader picture beyond what is concretely measurable and definitive. Notice how we fixate on the latter, with air, when it's not even the predominant measure (or reflection, I should say, since it's "hard to measure," of the actual cumulative and compounding affect of change upon our system and its future capacity..)
etc etc etc etc
John Carter, wow, so much anger. You should consider seeing someone about that.
You began your comment with ad homs, which means your argument failed right from the get go. You also called me a liar while providing no evidence of it. That undermined your comment as well.
Your comment suggests you failed to read and comprehend the ReportingClimateScience interview of Timmermann and Trenberth. Much of that interview was speculation. The use of the words and terms “could”, “may”, “whether or not”, and “still uncertain” broadcasted the fact that Timmermann and Trenberth were speculating.
Your comment also indicates you failed to read and comprehend my blog post at WattsUpWithThat that Judith linked. Are you aware that it was a very simple monthly update of global land+ocean surface temperature and lower troposphere temperature products? The only thing atypical of my post: I added a graph that showed the long-term difference between GISS LOTI and the multi-model mean of the models stored in the CMIP5 archive.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/00-model-data-difference.png
It’s very clear that the most recent divergence between models and data—which started in the 1990s—still exists and that the recent uptick in global surface temperatures have had only a tiny impact on the difference between models and observations—that the uptick have simply slowed the growing divergence between models and data.
Now for your need to rely on a post from Hansen’s former bulldog Tamino. It clearly suggests that you personally, John Carter, were incapable of disputing the content of my post. In other words, you failed at that too. The fact that you linked to an off-topic post did not help your position. Further on the topic of Tamino, most of the persons reading this thread known that I replied to Tamino’s posts. I even have a Tamino category at my blog. There you would discover that I replied to the Tamino post you linked. See Tamino Resorts to Childish Attempts at Humor But Offers Nothing of Value. If you had bothered to read my response to Tamino’s nonsense, you, John Carter, would have discovered I fabricated nothing, and I am not a liar as you claim.
Regarding your statement “Got news for you. There is no pause. The whole idea is moronic…” Obviously, Timmermann and Trenberth disagree with you, John Carter. Everyone reading this thread sees the irony in your reliance on Trenberth’s authority as “an actual climate scientist” while, in the next breath, calling his beliefs moronic. I found your self-contradiction to be quite amusing. Yet another failure in your argument, John.
You really should see someone about your anger problems, John Carter. Your failed arguments come across like those of Miriam O’Brien, a.k.a Sou at HotWhopper.
Have a nice day.
@Bob Tisdale
With all due respect, even in your response to me you both get things wrong, and make things up
You state I called you a liar.
Here is what I did say, verbatim:
“But this is a good example of how Tisdale either lies, or more likely is such an extremist ideologue he can’t see what amount to fabrication.”
Go to the link that therein presented, and it does serve as an example of exactly what I stated. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/bob-tisdale-pisses-on-leg-claims-its-raining/
And what I did state was that you either lie, or “more likely” (which means I am saying it is LESS LIKELY that you are a liar) can’t see what amount to fabrications.
This raises the question of why you felt compelled to mis-characterize what I wrote, in order to respond to me and to my comment.
You also, and repeatedly, confuse use of the term “moronic” with “anger.”
The two are not related. I stand by my statement that it is moronic to say their has been a “pause” in global warming. (Granted I have a high standard here.) You then turn that into something else, and go on and on. And on, about it.
Again, why? As a further way to simply dismiss the substance of what my points are? Reflecting the exact same pattern of most climate change refutation?
This way, “well, John Carter is angry, so his points can’t be considered.
Never mind that it’s not true, (Don’t confuse annoyance with anger,)
And more importantly, never mind that it’s completely irrelevant to the issue. Which I notice is what a large portion of climate change refutation and “skepticism” is based upon, things that are irrelevant to the issue, falsely or erroneously conflated with things that are.
So that’s two wacky and somewhat manipulative things you did in response to my comment. Yet you probably don’t see the as manipulative, right? For this same reason: This pattern that is, much of what climate change refutation is.
And here’s a third: You made a huge deal out of the fact I linked to Tamino’s blog. I linked to it for an example of you misrepresenting the issue or data. The piece seemed to sufficiently do that. You don’t think it did? We can debate that elsewhere. But you completely ignored, in keeping with your pattern – that I wrote, again verbatim, “sure, it’s Tamino,” Meaning an acknowledgement that I’m not going to it as an authority on objectivity or even endorsing it, merely using it as a quick example, for a simple comment on a discussion thread. Not a blog post on a super popular and influential web site by a proprietor who testifies before Congress on this matter.
As for your link, it really doesn’t matter what you say about surface temperatures in it. There’s been plenty written on it by the world’s leading science organizations, and you’re not an expert on it. But Curry linked to you. That was my point. And part of the point was also the site where your articles appeared, which is a radical ideologue site that poses as a science site, where everything is interpreted in the most extreme way in order to support the idea that climate change is not a real issue, and is extraordinarily insular, self reinforcing, and self sealing.
Yet Curry elected to link to there, because, like you (although likely less so) she doesn’t realize it.
As for what Trenberth says on the pause, how much of my disagreement with him is a matter of semantics, and interpretation?
I tell you what, I’ll make every effort to get in touch with him this week or next, discuss that specifically, and report back to this blog, Jcurry,and yourself, via here. And if he and I still fundamentally disagree, I’ll note it, if I have made an error that I have overlooked, or he helps me see, I’ll note it. (Here’s the funny thing. As a non ideologue, I’m willing, and capable, or doing that.)
But yes, I think the whole notion of a “pause” in global warming, as if this issue is in fact linear and should render a somewhat orderly atmospheric temperature progression over very short geologic periods of time, is inane, and misconstrues the more fundamental issue here, and confuses a lot of people over it, and what it really is.
And even more so given the fact that every single one of the fourteen warmest years on record has still occurred since 1998, and 2014 is on track to make it fifteen (and to be the warmest – NOAA – or near warmest, ever.) And that this is trivial in compared to the level of change to the stases conditions that stabilize and drive future climate, notably but not limited to our oceans, albedo, carbon entrapment, and ice sheets. And the fact, usurping energy (and thus having a cooling affect on the atmosphere from what it would otherwise be), that these are rapidly changing, and this change is accelerating.
That is the key part of this, not some, yes – though perhaps I shouldn’t have used the term – “moronic” and simplistic notion of the short term overly dwelled upon climatically variable shifts in ambient global air temperatures, which are focused on simply because that is the part that people can most easily see, feel and relate to, most directly related what is expected to shift much more greatly over time, and is easiest to measure.
If you do decide to respond in comments to this comment, I ask you not to misrepresent it, again, Maybe that’s unfair, since I did say you either lie on the issue or “more likely” misrepresent without even realizing it because of your extreme ideology on the issue, so I guess you can start to illustrate that at least it’s not an automatic pattern, by, if replying, not misrepresenting or miscontruing this comment as well.
I know that’s hard if one does have ideology (since by the nature of it it’s not recognized), but it’s warping the discussion on this issue, and our understanding of it.
Thanks.
P.s. my assessment of climate change, also once again contrary to your assertions and assumptions, does not rely on the work of Trenberth.
The fact that the enormous majority of climate and related scientists who professionally study this issue offer general support to the same view that I hold (and refute the knowledge you believe you hold) is of some credibility, and certainly should mean something for most people who simply don’t have the time or the level of expertise and skill and study on the issue to be able to comprehensively understand it. But it is not what my conceptual or scientific understanding of the issue is based upon, but merely supportive. Significant, but I’m not merely parroting the fact that “the relevant scientists think this,”therefore I do.
And as if I can’t have any disagreement with any of them.
That is what the process of science is. Examination, disagreement, re-analysis, adjustment. Yet most climate change skepticism is erroneously based on conflating any of that with refutation of the basic underlying climate change phenomenon,
And you do it here, egregiously, while claiming that my claim comes from Trenberth’s work (false, but it wouldn’t matter even if not) yet I disagree with him, and trying to make that also into some sort of profound overarching point (through clever rhetoric, naturally, when once again it’s pointless).
There’s plenty of disagreement on climate change. Valid disagreement. Misrepresentation, misinformation, skepticism based upon misconstruction of the issue, driven by ideology that seeks, as if counsel to a side one must defend, a case one must ‘win,’ to always refute climate change and twist anything and everything in a way that does so, without even realizing it’s being done, is not part of that disagreement. There is plenty of debate – legitimate debate, over the issue of climate change. Over the question as to whether our past alteration of the atmosphere is affecting current climate, and is very likely to significantly shift future climate? No, there’s not.
Just because you say there is, and lot of passionate people do(but remarkably few who actually professionally study the issue and who work in a directly related science discipline professionally) doesn’t make it so. If you want something to be some way, and it is uncertain, and presents a risk range, you can believe it and assert it, and sort of self perpetuate that belief through collective desire. But it also doesn’t make it so.
Skeptics don’t want to accept that, and so create a false debate, through the above illustrated patterns (and others) included, exhibited in your comment in response to mine.
JC – there is no argument about climate change – climate change has happened, is happening, and will happen. This has been the case since climate existed. There are legitimate arguments over global warming and the consequences. I’m pretty sure ACO2 is contributing to warming, but it is small compared to other forces. And the proof that warming in general is bad is virtually nonexistent. It is probably 90% a good thing if more warming occurs.
Then, when it comes to proposed solutions to what probably is a non-problem, one must be extremely circumspect of ones that will cripple or kill the economy. On top of that, cheap energy is vital to our health and welfare, an inconvenient little something you warmists want to shove under the rug.
So, over all, there is a lot to argue about and it is highly important that skeptic keep up the pressure for scientist to produce good science, provide all code and data, and above all, DON’T EXAGGERATE WHAT IS KNOWN!!!
Mr. Carter is certain that global warmers are right:
1. Despite the poor track record of predictions.
2. The poor performance of the models. The models are at their highest deviation from observed temperatures and didn’t track observed temperatures to begin with.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/figure-122.png
3. From my understanding the CERES data doesn’t support the theory working the way it was originally supposed to (reflected shortwave radiation is decreasing and OLR is increasing). The dancing has started to say this is a secondary effect of CO2.
4. The current knowledge of clouds according to the IPCC is abysmal.
Well, the good news is we have a new prediction to test. Timmerman says the pause is over. Either he is right or by 2020 we will know that the global warmers are wrong again.
Trenberth is more cautious and says that the end of the pause relates to whether the PDO has switched.
Wading through John Carter’s muck brings to mind the adage about wrestling pigs, so I shall pass on to greener pastures and sunnier climes!
Digging through pig $#!+ for kernels of corn.
If you really want corn, eat it before the pigs. The rest of us will go for the bacon.
http://moyhu.blogspot.ca/2014/11/lingering-pause.html
“””Coal is once again the world’s fastest growing source of energy even excluding China.”””
Animals can rid themselves of mercury, but only small amounts, and it takes a long time.
Faunal life evolved under a normal range of atmospheric mercury, and developed physiologies such as to be able to rid the body of any potential excess build up.
Introduce a large excess net amount to the system, and suddenly that process is out of whack – and exceeds the normal capacity to keep physiological mercury levels at mundane levels.
This is where coal comes in, as coal alone is responsible for half to more than half of all our net mercury additions to the atmosphere, and probably responsible for a majority of the bio-accumulation of mercury in our food supply. It’s abstract, most people are not intuitively sensible when it comes to food (we took a grain, made it staple, then took the two health parts out and used the crap part to feed us for half a century, then wondered why everyone got cancer, diabetes heart disease, etc.) so we don;t really grasp how inane this is. But the world’s healthiest major protein source – fish, is now heavily contaminated ,as just one example.
Largely due to coal.
The acquisition of coal from the ground often destroys mountain tops and mountain sides – things that are largely irreplaceable – as well as watersheds, and even whole small ecosystems, and has severely damaged small rural communities throughout the land, though again much of the damage is insipid, and hidden.
Coal is also heavily polluting, contributing to multiple major pollutant levels.
And, fourth coal also just happens to be a major contributor to the long term geologically radical greenhouse gas concentration alteration of our atmosphere (commonly referred to as “climate change”).
It is as blind as bees who can’t see flying repeatedly into a clean glass window plate because they simply can’t see, can’t comprehend, that it’s glass or what glass is – or that the window is open at the bottom and they could easily fly past – that we continue to use coal.
And it’s furthered by the idiocy that passes for analysis, and that represents just a slightly more sophisticated version (albeit I’m sure well meaning) version of the same, on climate change, on this blog. And elsewhere, given mankind’s propensity to think he/she is far smarter than he/she really is (where suddenly an army of citizen scientists are more knowledgeable,for instance, on the topic of climate change, than the scientists who have studied science their whole lives, and who professionally study the issue) and the same kind of mindset that thought that what we put into bodies didn’t matter (as idiotic as that was), and we could just stuff them with high calorie low nutrient carbohydrates as our predominant sustenance – in rich nations, no less- after taking the two very healthy portions of the grain, and tossing them aside. While many – failing to use, or have, true common sense, but laboring under the delusion of swimming in it – argued that there was no “evidence,” that this was unwise or in anyway contrary to our interests or even (even more inanely given basic evolutionary biology), our physiology.
We are doing the same thing now, almost the exact same thing, on climate change; and in particular, are doing it with and on coal. Under the illusion that it is benefiting us, that we can’t “grow”, we cant’ “prosper,” we can’t “keep warm” (though we can nevertheless hold more computing power in a crappy palm sized android than all the computers that put our men on the moon almost a half century ago) without it.
Some see it. Many don’t. And blogs like this are the poster children for this myopia, ironically under the clarion cry of “common sense.”
You only read the press releases, don’t you ?
innocent computer pixels are dying when we respond to him
+1
From the article:
While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated Hg emissions in the U.S. they contribute very little to the global Hg pool 2005 estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources, natural & human-generated, range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 Tons/year Human caused U.S. Hg emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 % of the global total, & U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 %.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/energy/assets/pdfs/cctr/outreach/Basics2-Mercury-Mar07.pdf&sa=U&ei=kLZoVLuKBIqVyQSIsIHwCA&ved=0CAUQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE-0MWOzW_3jF_CT_V6Zg8Itmomjg
I could be wrong, but that article appears to be from a fossil fuel industry forum, which is likely going to be extremely biased. I’ve read other numbers, but I’ll have to find. Have other things have to do today so won’t be able to get back but if check back this week, will def see what I can find on it.
That article also seems at least, from the quote you provided, to put the emissions as a percentage of total rather than of our total anthropogenic emissions, which would also give very diff numbers.
keep in mind it’s not the total amt that matters, its the addition above what is naturally easily physiologically eliminated from organisms,add a little more and it can start to bio accumulate past an organisms natural self eliminating capacity.
Also, more important, while a fair point on mercury (pending the actual figures are of the total amt of our emission contribution) keep in mind that the contri’ of coal to atmospheric alteration are extensive, the mining of coal has been very destructive, and there is no doubt that aside from increasing gg levels, coal is also one of the world/s leading contributor to general air polltn – in addtn to mercury – and that harms or slightly reduces everybody’s health, though its largely invisible, and almost impossible to measure or correctly isolate out.
IT just makes more sense, since it’s probably of more value in the long run, and is what we and our kids breathe and probably can’t have a price tag in the long run, to just focus on having clean air.
John Carter. Statements like “I could be wrong, but that article appears to be from a fossil fuel industry forum, which is likely going to be extremely biased. ” is making me think you are nothing more than a political hack. This is from the Purdue University web site.
John Carter: IT just makes more sense, since it’s probably of more value in the long run, and is what we and our kids breathe and probably can’t have a price tag in the long run, to just focus on having clean air.
No quarrel from me on that one: I think that the effluent should be scrubbed and the poisonous elements like mercury should be removed.
The scientific case that CO2 is a problem is full of liabilities, and the case that we can improve anything by reducing CO2 production is even weaker. And the case that we can influence other nations is weaker still.
John Carter: And it’s furthered by the idiocy that passes for analysis, and that represents just a slightly more sophisticated version (albeit I’m sure well meaning) version of the same, on climate change, on this blog.
It’s better to quote particular statements that you disagree with. The claim you quoted that use of coal is growing faster than use of any other energy source, for example, is not contradicted by your noting that coal burning produces airborne mercury, which is harmful. The increase of coal burning is happening in places where American voters have no say; most mercury can be scrubbed out where there is the political power to enforce scrubbing.
Whether CO2 produced by coal burning can change the global mean temperature can be debated based on “the science”. What do you understand about the science of how that is supposed to work,and what the criticisms and known unknowns are?
I follow (usually engineering) research from MIT. What piqued my attention this week was a MIT Climate Science Study entitled “The missing piece of the climate puzzle”.
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/global-warming-increased-solar-radiation-1110
Could some Climate Scientists here at CE comment on this MIT Study?
But … but … I thought the science was settled??
There is no missing piece. C02 makes it warmer than it would have been.
Except when it gets colder, just not as cold as it would have been.
You mean there is something else?
Andrew.
Rgates
My interest is in producing accurate objective reconstruction covering CET . As I have said before I will leave it to others to interpret otherwise I become an advocate.
That the mega volcanoes threw up a haze to cloak the sun that so drastically affected the ocean temperatures but appeared to have little impact on land temperatures, which you would have thought would be the first factor to be affected , is an interesting hypothesis.
I think that before yOu have said the volcanic effect could affect the land temperature by one or two degrees c?
In that case, without the volcanic cloaking many parts of the 13 th, 14th , 15th and 16 th century would apparently have been noticeably warmer than today
Tonyb
I hope some of them will. One of my pet peeves has been that SW energy is absorbed throughout the atmosphere and that changes in atmospheric forcing will change the ratio of solar energy absorbed in the atmosphere versus the physical surface. Previous Earth Energy Budget estimates had too many errors to be useful and newer Earth Energy Budgets tend to show how complex the changes actually are.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
One of the biggest problems with the old energy budgets was the treatment of mixed phase clouds. With a warming surface and atmosphere the percentage of liquid topped mixed phase clouds should increase and the models don’t even come close to getting them right. A PhD candidate in the UK has a thesis on modeling mixed phases clouds which indicates proper modeling would reduce overall climate “sensitivity” to ~1.6 C per doubling which is consistent with most of the newer TCR estimates based on energy balance. The Mid-level Liquid-layer Topped Stratiform Clouds are basically a negative feedback.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~gc903759/phd/ABarrett_Thesis.pdf
jim2 provide a link to the letter, I added the reference trends. The reason I use the Oppo study and the Indian/Western Pacific is that they have less noise than the higher northern latitudes. As you can tell by the shifting jetstream/POLAR VORTEX, there can be considerable less than globally indicative weather changes. Since “global” mean has only varied a degree or so, it is unlikely that CET would give a perfect representation of Global average conditions. It is a good overall reference, but the AMO would likely over ride a global temperature reduction due to volcanic activity.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-KsUpQ9j4wzo/UpvbboWyMhI/AAAAAAAAKqs/Dn3vlYvkQuU/w829-h505-no/common%2Bperiod%2Bwith%2Bgmsl%2Band%2Bohc%2Bmonthly%2Bto%2B1669%2B27mo%2Bw%2Boppo.png
That is a comparison of Oppo, BEST, CET, GMSL and the Indian Ocean. From what I have seen, the IPWP typically lags volcanic/solar forcing by around 21 years. But since all volcanoes don’t have the same impact due to a variety of reasons, there isn’t a fantastic fit.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-i3lnxYaO7ac/UmvNAM3-FfI/AAAAAAAAKLs/RcVtn0Ec8NY/w739-h406-no/sol%2By%2Bvol%2Bplanetary%2Bscale%2Bsmoothing%2Bbasis.png
That use Crowley et al. Volcanic with one of the 10be solar reconstructions. With very small changes in forcing it takes time for things to happen.
Capt. D,
Some very interesting charts. Here’s what we need to try and dissect related to volcanic vs. solar effects, and I think the mega volcano of 1257 is a good test point: big volcanoes has the same net effect as reduced solar activity, so how to distinguish true volcanic forcing from actual solar output changes. It also must be remembered that the period of 1225 to 1275 was the most active volcanic period in the past 2000 years, and the mega volcano was simply the capstone event of that period. There is very little doubt that less solar was going into the IPWP during that period, especially given that much of the volcanic activity of that period was right in the heart of the IPWP geographically (i.e. location matters when it comes to volcanoes). The question that seems unclear to me is how much of the reduced solar during the 1225-1275 AD timeframe was volcanic, and how much was actually reduced solar output. That heat content of the IPWP took an nosedive at that point seems fairly certain, and given the importance of the IPWP to global weather patterns, this was indeed a “gateway to the LIA” event, as the MWP came to a rather abrupt end from an ocean heat content perspective.
Rgates
It will be interesting to see when the reduced ocean heat content (modelled) actually translates to lower atmospheric temperatures. A couple of months ago you sent me a graph of the ocean temperatures covering the MWP period to modern day which showed the ocean temperature then, being warmer than now. Can you repost so I can keep all the material I have gathered into one place? Thanks
The gateway to the LIA appears to be much later than the period you quote.
“Reconstructing medieval April-July mean temperatures in East Anglia, 1256-1431
Kathleen Pribyl • Richard C. Cornes • Christian Pfister
Received: I 7 February 20 I I Accepted: 9 October 20 I I / Published online: 28 October 20 I I
“The reconstruction period contains decades of warmer spring-early summer temperatures (for example the 1320s to the early 1330s and the 1360s) as well as colder conditions (for example the late 1330s, 1340s and the 1380s).”
The average temperature drop over the whole period was from 13 to 12.4°C, but after the 1380s cooling the LIA set in. ”
tonyb
R, Gates, ” so how to distinguish true volcanic forcing from actual solar output changes.”
I am coming to believe that you cannot distinguish between the two. At least not in a convincing way. You can get a fair indication of the initial atmospheric effect, but the potential lags related to ocean circulation are a serious problem. What I do see with paleo is that you can get a pretty good indication of average conditions regionally, but it you try to average all the regions you are just smoothing the data to death. The IPWP though does correlate very well with “global” and does represent a lion’s share of the energy. Land at least in the NH tends to amplify IPWP changes by around a factor of 2 and likely more is there is a larger glacial extent.
Tony,
By ocean heat content metrics, the MWP came to an abrupt end during the very active volcanic period of 1225-1275 AD– the most active period of volcanic activity of the past 2000 years. Ocean heat content took a nosedive. But given the thermal inertia of the system, this would not translate into a sudden global reversal of the MWP warmth (like an asteroid strike might cause), but rather, a point at which the scales were tipped toward cooling– hence why it was the doorway to the LIA. That there would be warm decades and cool decades from natural variability alone following this “doorway” event is not surprising. But the big hit on ocean heat content guaranteed that a longer-term trend toward cooling had begun and the MWP was over. The of course, we had the 2nd mega volcano of 1453, and the LIA was given an additional nudge to being a significant global cooling period.
Capt. D.,
I would love to see a high resolution chart of the past 2000 years with actual valid TSI data overlaid on top of volcanic forcing. I know that we have pretty high resolution volcanic forcing data from ice cores, and we have 14C, 10Be and 36Cl information, but I’m unclear of the effects of higher sulfates in the stratosphere on potentially altering those. We know ocean heat content took a big nosedive in the period of 1225-1275, and we had the most active volcanic period, but what was solar output actually doing?
Capt. D,
A nice bit in this paper toward the end about the unknown influence of volcanoes on net solar effects:
http://www.agci.org/docs/lean.pdf
Also, this is just a great paper to read. Somehow I missed it back in 2010. Excellent job by Judith Lean. Should be required reading for all CE denizens.
R. Gates, ” I know that we have pretty high resolution volcanic forcing data from ice cores, and we have 14C, 10Be and 36Cl information, but I’m unclear of the effects of higher sulfates in the stratosphere on potentially altering those.”
That is the big question. When I did that Sol y Vol Chart I tried to use the minimum solar forcing possible since Svalgaard and others are indicating there isn’t much variation. Lean and others include “background” which is the largest variation which could be aerosols impacting 10Be or reduced optical depth causing sun spot counts to be lower than normal. As it is, something appears to have happened and the combination of solar and volcanic appears to correlate with the changes, but not perfectly.
In any case, if Oppo et al. is accurate, 1950 to 1990 would be a better choice for the end of LIA influence. That would make “natural” almost exactly half of the current warming.
Rgates
Sorry, Ended up in Wrong place.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/15/week-in-review-35/#comment-648116
Tonyb
R. Gates, That is a good Lean paper but notice her model fit.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-tOprS65prJE/VGkLk6THStI/AAAAAAAALvc/M1c5iKrZ_gE/w801-h593-no/lean%2Bmodel.png
That miss lines up well with the IPWP recovery pattern.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Zt1oH-PdG38/Ubx-Yc4PFjI/AAAAAAAAIng/B7BvlEPm0kY/w809-h509-no/giss%2Band%2Bersst%2Bwith%2Bipwp%2Bbaseline.png
There isn’t a real good explanation for that period other than internal variability related to differences in the ocean area between the hemispheres and the slow mixing due to the THC/AMOC. A fairly regular pseudo-oscillation is obvious in the Oppo 2009 and most other temperature reconstructions, why would you think it would just stop?
By ocean heat content metrics, the MWP came to an abrupt end during the very active volcanic period of 1225-1275 AD
Nope you are out by a century,the 1375 event ( the step like change in isotopes ) is well described in the literature eg Rodgers 2011.
As the sea-air flux of 14CO2 has a clear maximum in the open ocean regions of the Southern Ocean, relatively modest perturbations to the winds over this region drive significant perturbations to the interhemispheric gradient. In this study, model
simulations are used to show that Southern Ocean winds
are likely a main driver of the observed variability in the
interhemispheric gradient over AD950–1830, and further,
that this variability may be larger than the Southern Ocean
wind trends that have been reported for recent decades (notably
1980–2004). This interpretation also implies that there
may have been a significant weakening of the winds over the
Southern Ocean within a few decades of AD1375, associated
with the transition between the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the Little Ice Age. The driving forces that could have
produced such a shift in the winds at the Medieval Climate
Anomaly to Little Ice Age transition remain unknown. Our
process-focused suite of perturbation experiments with models
raises the possibility that the current generation of coupled
climate and earth system models may underestimate the
natural background multi-decadal- to centennial-timescale
variations in the winds over the Southern Ocean.
http://www.clim-past.net/7/1123/2011/
The interesting observation of the present,is the slight decrease in the observations of the SO windspeed in the 21st century,and concomitant increase in the lag of CO2 interhemisperic mixing.The SH midlatitude stations lag mlo by 48 months as opposed to 18 months previous.
maskimovich
I also pointed out to RGates that 1275 was not the gateway he believes. I linked to this study
“Reconstructing medieval April-July mean temperatures in East Anglia, 1256-1431
Kathleen Pribyl • Richard C. Cornes • Christian Pfister
“The reconstruction period contains decades of warmer spring-early summer temperatures (for example the 1320s to the early 1330s and the 1360s) as well as colder conditions (for example the late 1330s, 1340s and the 1380s).”
The average temperature drop over the whole period was from 13 to 12.4°C, but after the 1380s cooling the LIA set in. ”
I will have a read through the study you link to as the abandonment of farms on the nearby uplands of Dartmoor also relate to the last few decades of the 14th century. (although it did turn warm again a century later)
tonyb
tonyb, Does this look more like what you would expect in the UK?
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-42rnx1eOi8w/VGk1NfFA54I/AAAAAAAALvw/OuqWvwualik/w695-h465-no/nh%2Bnhl%2Brecon.png
Because of the THC, the northern hemisphere would not respond the same as the IPWP. “Globally” the deepest point of the LIA should be close to 1700 AD, but the NH would have alternating cool and warm periods gradually reaching the coldest point in 1700.
That data was downloaded off Noaa Paleo.
I appreciate everyone’s input on this volcanic forcing/LIA discussion. It seems there is some mistaken belief that a huge decline to ocean heat content to the IPWP, which seems very likely to have occurred during the active volcanic period of 1225 to 1275, would instantly translate into monolithic and sustained global cooling event. This is not at all the case. The system is far too complex and has far too much thermal inertia for even this very active volcanic period to cause a sudden sustained long term cooling. It would take a cataclysmic eruption or asteroid strike to do that. What the 1225-1275 period did was tip the scales toward a cooling period which began working its way through the global climate system over many decades. This was further reinforced through sea ice and ocean feedbacks and then the mega eruption of 1453 further reinforced the cooling.
Rgates
I have only just seen the Captains graph immediately above your post. It chimes with my research which shows a substantial decline during the 13th century BEFORE those volcanos, (also noted in the glacier records) with a slight recovery immediately afterwards and then basically a pretty warm 14th century with several notable and documented heat waves.
As I have said before, the 1400′;s are largely a closed book to me at the moment but there was certainly a good recovery during the first half of the 16th century.
There is no sign these volcanos were LIA gateways. They took place during an existing downturn and none of the four separate documentary records I have demonstrate a prolonged period of lasting severity, merely a few changeable seasons and intermittent severe weather
Can you repost that graphic from a few weeks ago where the ocean temperatures had been reconstructed showing a MWP high and a decline, then a warming again over the last century.
tonyb
R. Gates, “I appreciate everyone’s input on this volcanic forcing/LIA discussion. It seems there is some mistaken belief that a huge decline to ocean heat content to the IPWP, which seems very likely to have occurred during the active volcanic period of 1225 to 1275, would instantly translate into monolithic and sustained global cooling event. This is not at all the case.”
Right, Even with a “global” cooling event there would be internal pseudo-oscillations on the way down and the way back to normal. It should take roughly the same amount of time to recover as it does to lose the total energy. That is why declaring that the event ended at some assumed period without considering the internal oscillations would be a giant leap of faith.
tonyb, there are a lot more variables to consider in the northern hemisphere due to the lower specific heat capacity of the land mass and potential for over season snow retention, i.e. glacier building.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-GskY9s38Jo8/VGtNPTH8j7I/AAAAAAAALwE/gtezbRMncYw/w849-h397-no/sol%2By%2Bvol%2B800.png
That is my interpretation of the Crowley et a. volcanic by hemisphere and the steinhilber et al. solar dTSI. If you remember that there is still going to be internal, primarily NH intensive oscillations, determining “cause” isn’t going to be easy.
Captain
Thanks for those additional graphs.
My aim is to chronicle as objectively as I can the likely CET temperatures from the current instrumental limit of 1659 back as far as can realistically can be done.
As you know my article ‘The long Slow thaw’ took us back to 1538.
As it happens there is a considerable amount of British related material for the period 1200 to 1400 AD which should encompass the downturn to the LIA. Material for the 15th century seems much less available.
Consequently I am concentrating on the 1200 to 1400 period which looks especially interesting due to the highly variable climate we can observe at times and the well recorded extreme events.
Whilst the cause of the downturn is, of course, interesting I don’t want to invent my own theories and then have to adjust my findings in order that everything dovetails neatly together.
There are quite enough people looking for causes on this blog without me adding to them.
However I have had this interesting conversation with Mr Gates about volcanoes a number of times and from the evidence on the ground it is difficult to see their long term effect. Which is not to say they have NO effect just that it doesn’t appear to last long.
tonyb
tonyb, “Which is not to say they have NO effect just that it doesn’t appear to last long.”
As far as the CET, volcanic impacts would appear to not last long since the AMOC is a major source of energy and the initial radiative effect of volcanic sulfates is short term with respect to lower troposphere impact. I haven’t done it, but if you remove the AMO signal from CET you should get a better indication of volcanic influence in the longer term.
With the Sol y Vol I estimated a low long term “global” forcing which should require around 300 years for about 0.8C of ocean impact.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ukz4Fm2AXYM/VGtyZ7z6SqI/AAAAAAAALwg/L8jhnsps0rA/w682-h449-no/kobashi%2Boppo.png
If you look at the CET/NH you should see a long slow thaw from around 1500, but for the ocean it would be a long slow recovery from around 1700. Basically, the oceans and AMOC are still warm enough to help thaw the NH and moderate CET.
I like your work, but CET similar to global, it isn’t a perfect global correlation. The IPWP appears to have a better “Global” correlation.
Captain
Many thanks for the information.
I am not sure that any matrix can be considered an exact proxy for the globe as the globe consists of many different climates and trying to average them all together as climate science tries to do just means we miss the nuances i.e some places might be cooling whilst others warm and vice versa.
CET appears to be a reasonable but by no means perfect global proxy and a better NH proxy with the caveats above.
This link leads to a global borehole temperature reconstruction to 1500 that was coordinated by the University of Michigan
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
Basically an upwards trend from 1500 can be observed. I contacted the author who confirmed the difficulties of smoothing and averaging etc and that he was more confident of reasonable accuracy if we looked at the graph from around 1700. Basically I would date the long slow thaw from 1700 which shows up in temperature reconstructions both borehole AND land.
The study was cited as ‘Huang, S., Pollack, H. N., and Shen, P.Y., 2000. Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature, 403: 756-758.’
R Gates posted this a few weeks ago and I don’t know if it follows your information.
‘ocean heat content covering 1257 volcano’
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/31/bertrand-russells-10-commandments/#comment-643159
Definitely agree with the idea of a time lag as regards land/ocean temperatures. As you can see in the link the ocean temperature is still recovering from the LIA.
We really need to explain how the many warm and cold eras during the Holocene has occurred as co2 was not the trigger for them unless the ice cores are wrong. The modern warm period does not look extraordinary when looking at it in historical context
tonyb
tonyb, “We really need to explain how the many warm and cold eras during the Holocene has occurred as co2 was not the trigger for them unless the ice cores are wrong.”
I doubt that anyone will be able to explain much that will be accepted by CO2 minions any time soon. There are a few new papers that are still paywalled to me that look into the polar seesaw and D-O events. Without being able to put a finger on “cause” there is generally a variety of small oscillations with periods of up to ~5000 years that can synchronize producing peaks or valleys of about +/- 1 C in the oceans. If you combine lots of reconstructions and smooth over say 100 years, you get a standard deviation of around 0.3 C which is about the same if you smooth the instrumental period over 100 years. Other than CO2 theory, there is nothing particularly unusual if you compare apples to apples. If you drop back to weather time frames of 30 years or less, there is so much noise you can get whatever you like.
To me that means that 0.8C +/-0.2 C per doubling is about all you can have any confidence it. That is mainly because with current technology there is no chance in hell there will be a major advance in ice sheets which really drive climate.
Capt — Thanks!
So, are they saying it was the clouds wot did it? And the sun. Or didn’t do it. Or might do it.
Tonyb
tonyb, “So, are they saying it was the clouds wot did it? And the sun. Or didn’t do it. Or might do it.”
It should be water vapor increase would increase atmospheric absorption of solar. Since water vapor is mainly a response to actual SST, it doesn’t look like the paper has discovered much other than the atmosphere isn’t all that transparent.
The big question is still what is “normal”?
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-QixN6RvJjP4/VGio57R499I/AAAAAAAALvI/SFCi1UgvHWc/w669-h459-no/oppo%2Bnormal.png
Captain
What is ‘normal’ is one of the things I am trying to find out through historical reconstructions.
What does your graph represent and do you have a link to the article/paper it comes from? thanks
tonyb
That is a reconstruction of the IPWP with trends overall, to 1700 and to 1225. If a megavolcano and general increase in volcanic activity “caused” the LIA, the trend to that point 1225 should represent “normal” which is about the temperatures of 1950 to 1990. Assuming that the LIA ended in ~1880 to 1900, would mean normal is about 0.4C below the “normal pre-megavolcano trend. Since water vapor doesn’t care if SST increases due to CO2 or not, it would mean that about 50% of the warming since 1950 is “natural” unless you pick a below “normal” condition. Even the mean of Oppo 2009 is higher than the 1880 to 1900 guestimate.
Here’s the whole paper, a letter actually. It references other papers that corroborate.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/private/nature08233.pdf&sa=U&ei=mbJoVOyIBYWHyQSfv4LQBw&ved=0CAcQFjAB&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFUgyXk5ccOPKLt7nJu14sZP5VhSA
Captain
Thanks for that but where does the study actually come from? Is there a link to an article that contains this graph?
You have probably seen the various discussions I have had with R gates about Mega Volcanoes. My new article covers the exact period of supposed transition but to date the observational record from four different sources doesn’t support the mega volcano theory. There were some very warm decades in the 14th, 15th and 16th century.
tonyb
This should have been here. http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/15/week-in-review-35/#comment-648080
Seems, Horatio, there are jest more interactive variables
in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in modellers’
climatology.
Stephen Segrest,
This comment by Isaac Held who was quoted in the MIT article is probably the best interoperation you’ll find of what to make of this study:
“The paper is not challenging the physics of climate models; its value lies in helping the community interpret their output. “While this study does not change our understanding of the fundamentals of global warming, it is always useful to have simpler models that help us understand why our more comprehensive climate models sometimes behave in superficially counterintuitive ways,” says Isaac Held, a senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory who was not involved in this research.”
R. Gates — Thanks!
Stephen Segrest
Here is the link to the abstract of the original: the full text is behind the paywall: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/11/05/1412190111.abstract?sid=958c0eda-1196-42ba-b136-92dbebe37d0e
The paper seems to be an examination of a lot of the model results. The importance of the short-wave radiation has been noted by others, but usually under the headings of “albedo”, “cloud cover”, and “aerosols”. It is hard to tell from the press release and the abstract what is new in this paper.
Consider this: A simple linear radiative feedback framework is used to explain this counterintuitive behavior. It is found that the timescale over which OLR returns to its initial value after a CO2 perturbation depends sensitively on the magnitude of shortwave (SW) feedbacks. If SW feedbacks are sufficiently positive, OLR recovers within merely several decades, and any subsequent global energy accumulation is because of enhanced ASR only. In the GCM mean, this OLR recovery timescale is only 20 y because of robust SW water vapor and surface albedo feedbacks.
That’s from the abstract.
And consider the phrase “holds more water” (effect of temp on absolute humidity) from the press release. The only effect of warming on water vapor considered here is the equilibrium of the water vapor, such as the Clausius-Clapayron relationship. From these selections I infer for now that the authors do not consider the changing rate of the hydrological cycle, as was studied by Romps et al. Perhaps someone can get the paper from behind the paywall.
Matthew — Thanks!
CSIRO technology to clean up power stations cited by Greg Hunt as one of the two big things the world can do to immediately reduce greenhouse emissions is at least five years away and “still … relatively immature and unproven”, the CSIRO itself says.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/03/coal-emission-reduction-technology-still-five-years-off-says-csiro
A diesel replacement from coal in development. It relies on reducing the ash content – purely a mechanical process. Has run a diesel engine in Newcastle – going into trials in Japan – a prototype production plant by 2016.
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/Energy-from-coal/High-efficiency-low-emission-solutions/Advanced-carbon-power.aspx
Think of all those coal mines it can save.
Tonyb
Clouds are difficult to measure for depth, density and thickness and may have a cooling effect as well as a warming effect. Very difficult to predict coverage and impacts at this level of instrument observation, satellite observation and lateral coverage. Satellite sensors don’t penetrate well into the top layers so the actual warming or cooling effects are hard to determine. Lots of work before the science is settled.
Scott
Scott
Thank you for the information. I read about some new projects in the works. Anything you know of that will better inform?
Richard
Richard
Quick response is ACME and CLIVAR programs. Not at work computer can’t pull up the actual programs, so will answer more on Monday, but in general satellite sensors don’t penetrate into clouds far and brightness and reflectivity change dramatically with specifics of each cloud system. . Then monitoring lateral coverage is not too complete or systemized.
Not including the ocean, especially below 2000 m. Shocking how some claim the science is settled when the observations are so sparse. The models have to be adjusted to reflect reality and observations, not the other way around. Still the temperature has gone up but is it natural, where is it coming from, where is the heat going and what the net impacts are likely to be big items to study.
Scott
Scott
Thank you. The AR5 Chapter 7 authors go in depth describing the uncertainIty of cloud feedbacks, which you describe much better, using far fewer words, than they. But the grabber is that they conclude, after describing the uncertainty, that feedbacks are extremely likely to be positive, using logic with flawed premises; discarding the uncertainty. There is an abyss between the science and the conclusions. It appears that scientists wrote most of the chapter but non-scientists wrote the conclusions.
It is obvious that we need better knowledge of cloud feedbacks but, from what you say and from what I’ve read, there are too many variables; that current models and observation capabilities are insufficient. Also, that research must start at the local levels.
Do you agree? And do you see less feedback uncertainty ahead?
Regards,
Richard
‘The MODIS instrument is operating on both the Terra and Aqua spacecraft. It has a viewing swath width of 2,330 km and views the entire surface of the Earth every one to two days. Its detectors measure 36 spectral bands between 0.405 and 14.385 µm, and it acquires data at three spatial resolutions — 250m, 500m, and 1,000m.’ http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ceres_modis-1.gif
You want good or perfect?
WHEN i wrote the world’s first full 3D mathematical model of a missile system (WRE report SAD20) in 1959, I never thought that it, or a further development of it, would one day land a rocket on a comet billions of miles from Earth. This shows a lot of science to the world’s examination. Like the importance of closed loop navigation systems and their mathematical reality to cope with manufacturing tolerances and many other techniques like validating mathematical models which I have been urging for years in climate studies.
See my paper on those aspects underlined above.
History.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~alexandergbiggs/histpt1.html
Thanks, Alex and Beth. Very interesting. A minor point – para 9 refers to “White, Keats and Higgs.” As that is the only mention of Higgs, I wonder if it should be Biggs?
Of interest to me was the comment “With that flexibility of management for which the British used to be famous …”, with the implication it had been lost at the time of writing. I worked in Whitehall 1967-72 including involvement in discussions between government and the car industry et al. From at least the late ’50s until the mid-70s (I was too young to know about earlier times, travelling after 1972), I’m aware of many government interventions which compelled industry to undertake projects completely at odds with rational commercial decision-making, something which seriously harmed British industry (and the economy) and perhaps was a major contributor to that loss of flexibility. Although I also know some examples where I got things right and industrialists got them seriously wrong.
Did you get to say “yes, minister”?
Faustino: No, I don’t remember what work Higgs did in the uk, One of my sons was professor at Edinburg i n Scotland and was proud of the fact that the Higgs bosun was discovered there, but I think that was a different Higgs.
Yes, the British shedding of defence R&D is worrying. At the height of the Blue Streak and ELDO sattelite projects I travelled through Europe as a consultant on mathematical modelling. Government backing for the project was different in Britain and France, the writing was on the wall for the project, the French wanted to take what they could get to their colony in S,America to which the British and Australia had no answer. So while the British supplied the heavy lifter, Blue Streak, the French gained most of the advantages.
PS: My daughter was involved in rocket-firing at Woomera a few years ago as part of a UQ project.
PPS: Alex, my wife and other daughter were on a wildlife safari in Africa with a man called Mike who had programmed the comet rocket and lander. He was taking a break while it coasted through space without instructions.
Postscript to Alexander Briggs Part 3. development of the
world’s first full 3D mathematical model of a missile system.
History in the making. solving the problems.
Postscript:
‘Computer simulation is now a powerful technique for development and understanding of all kinds of complex systems, for example; climate change, the design of cars, design of aircraft, the study of the economic system, to name a few. But in 1950, when the work described in this paper commenced, such possibilities were unknown. The Cold War, at its height, threatened a third World War in which no part of the planet would be safe; it was as much as anything else, a battle of technologies. This paper describes how a new concept was developed between the early 50’s and the late 60’s, a concept with enormous ramifications. At the beginning of this period it was thought that Australian scientists would not be involved in the developments of rockets; at the end of the period they had developed a powerful mathematical modelling and computer simulation technique that affected the development of all future weapons and probably many other complex systems as well. This was a period of world-wide developments in computer applications, not the least for simulation. What was different in the Australian work was the attention paid to model validation; the model not only had to be valid, but be seen to be a valid representation of the real system.’
“”Farmers are problem solvers,” she said. “A majority of farmers view excess water on their land and variable weather as problems and are willing to adapt their practices to protect their farm operation. Initiating conversations about adaptive management is more effective than talking about the causes of climate change.””
Compare, you are causing global warming with global warming is occurring. We have enough preachers, thank you very much. Whether or not it is occurring, the farmers will know and adapt if needed. Late thaws and early frosts will effect growing seasons. For instance you plant corn tailored to growing season length. With a late planting, you reduce the days and the yield, but the corn will mature, then harden and usually dry (preventing spoilage) on the stalk. If it rains too much, year after year, they might add drainage tile. If it doesn’t rain enough, they’ll look at ways to retain what moisture there is, and some will go so far as to irrigate. They may change their crop rotation. They may partner with Green Giant foods who will help them grow sweet corn or fresh peas. The farmers peers hang out at the Chatterbox Cafe and they have a good idea of what’s going with their climate. On a perhaps related topic, farmers are one of great land use changers. Easily converting a square mile of vegetation to black fields with little ground cover. Low hanging fruit of the climate issue? If landscape changes are an issue, you should work with the farmers. If you want farmers to grow tall grass and build up the turf, and not hay it? They’d be happy to for the right price.
I farm, part time with my father in Canada (not my day job), but farmers up here have become extremely sceptical of AGW. They don’t deny the warming trend of 80’s and 90’s, but they balked at being told it was still warming in 00’s ( more exactly shifting in about 2003-2004) when we had a very clear climate shift back to cooling and wetter. I understand the regional nature of AGW, so you I don’t need “window” refresher, but the thing is the climate scientists have continually told us that we were indeed experiencing warming in out area. And you have to realize that farmers have a much better understanding of the current weather and the historical weather in the area. Regional weather limitations aside, our area had a very clear climate regime during the global warming period, we now have a different one and it is as different as day and night and cannot be missed.
My question Is, can anyone really say the models really predicted such large swings to regional climates? I have studied this subject a lot and looked at a lot of the model output, especially the regional predictions climate scientists offered up, and none of them ever indicated we would see regional variation to the point where we are now completely at odds with our regional prediction. Of course the regional predictions were mostly garbage science intended more to scare than inform, but frankly I don’t believe the AGW can be continuing as expected and still see such complete reversals on a regional scale. More to the point, if there has not been a “hiatus/pause/plateau”, then there is not reason for our climate to have undergone a shift to completely different phase. Especially one at complete odds with predictions.
This might be interesting:
http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u365/images/2013/0403/2.jpg
The PDO and AMO were used by Tsonis et al 2007 I believe. They used other indices as well. They might say, there are climate regimes. A shift in the late 70s and around 2000 it is suggested. Looking at the maps, we might say the AMO controls drought and the PDO controls who gets it in North America. Notice the near mirror image as the Pacific changes phases. I don’t think the models are too good at regime changes. Ellison had a good post here: http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/30/the-astonishing-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
I took it to say, this is a difficult system to model. His figure 4 is a Bifurcation diagram. We can model those things. But we don’t know when the regime changes are going to occur at this time. The figure says the system is mostly stable, but at certain times I’d call it unstable. If one could know a year beforehand, that would be something.
Try this one – http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html
And I have rewritten my post on the basis of things it became apparent were not adequately communicated.
http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
Judith made a presentation at a 2011 NOAA workshop on water which partialy used the McCabe paper on US droughts as they relate to PDO and AMO.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/events/2011/pdf/water-cycle-presentations/Curry_noaaWaterClimate.pdf
“McIntyre’s Missing Millions or How Climategate Blogger Missed Out on ‘Deal of a Lifetime’”
Option 1, As it occurred.
Option 2, McIntyre gets over $2 million in options.
What does Desmog blog write for option 2? McIntyre makes millions from mining company. Verbal tarring and feathering is requested. I suppose he’d be criticized either way and what we’re left with is, meet Steve McIntyre. I might throw out there for discussion, Consensus Climate Scientists are in it for the money. The expected response would be laughter and examples of how little they make, and perhaps it’s really the skeptics who are in it for the money.
The sun determines the global mean temperature, not human emission of CO2.
Here is the data:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:300/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1954/compress:12/scale:0.001
The claim that Human emission of CO2 determines the global temperature is the greatest scientific blunder in the history of science.
This is way cool:
Sun-Climate Link
<img src="http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/SolarClimateLink.png"
Source: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:300/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1954/compress:12/scale:0.001
Sun-Climate Link
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:300/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1954/compress:12/scale:0.001
The articles by Ed Dolan and David Victor (I didn’t find Richard Tol’) are about economic, regulatory and international agreement approaches to cutting global GHG emissions. Surely 25 years of trying such approaches should have made it clear by now they are unlikely to succeed, no matter how many times they are debated. There is a much better approach, IMO. It’s deregulation, which will allow and facilitate competition and innovation as distortions are removed from energy markets.
The US could lead the world to a far better result than more useless international agreements. The better way is for the US to remove its impediments to low cost nuclear power. The US could lead the world by removing it’s impediments that are distorting electricity markets in the USA and worldwide. The US is the biggest influence in preventing the world from having access to cheap nuclear power – i.e. cheaper than fossil fuels (without distortions to the cost of any technology). The US could influence the other IAEA members to review the regulatory environment for nuclear power with a view to unwinding them to the extent that is justifiable on an objective basis so there is a level playing field between nuclear and other electricity generation technologies – e.g. on the basis of fatalities per TWh.
Renewables are unlikely to be a significant contributor to global energy supply or to reducing global emissions. They are expensive, not viable without market distortions to favour them, not sustainable, and unlikely to be be; this explains why: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ .
China’s goal to try to peak its emissions by around 2030 illustrates what a small contribution non-hydro renewables will make to cutting global GHG emissions. China stated in its agreement with Obama this week it aims to achieve 20% of electricity from non-fossil fuel energy. Wind and solar are expected to supply just 3%. That is a another clear demonstration that renewables are not viable and unlikely to make a significant contribution to reducing global GHG emissions.
From Bjorn Lomborg, ‘The Australian’, Nov 14, 2014, “Kyoto deja vu as Paris becomes Copenhagen”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/kyoto-deja-vu-as-paris-becomes-copenhagen/story-fni1hfs5-1227122325610
Peter, + 100. The problem with deregulation is the disincentives for politicians and bureaucrats who seek control, influence and to dictate, for whatever reason, a particular direction. Deregulation reduces their power and influence. Of course, rationally and from a public benefit viewpoint, you are completely right. The opposition is from misguided self-interest (perhaps abetted by ignorance, although there is no excuse for that).
Faustino,
I responded earlier to your comment but it is held in moderation.
Peter, better there than purgatory.
Faustino, thanks for your comment. I agree of course. Here are a few points that indicate the enormous potential to reduce the cost of nuclear power if we unleash the private sector, competition and innovation.
Nuclear cost reduction potential and learning rates
The potential to reduce costs of nuclear (e.g. by deregulating to facilitate private sector competition, innovation and R&D) is huge.
Professor Bernard Cohen, 1991 ‘Costs of Nuclear Power Plants – What Went Wrong?’ says regulatory ratcheting increased costs of nuclear power by a factor of 4 by 1990, http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html . It’s likely doubled again since.
Ramasb and Kohler, 2007, say:
http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/eprg0723.pdf .
According to Rangel and Leveque, 2013, ‘Revisiting the Nuclear Power Construction Costs Escalation Curse’ nuclear has averaged 4% cost increase per doubling in France and US. http://idei.fr/doc/conf/eem/papers_2013/leveque.pdf ,
http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2013/01/27/revisiting-the-cost-escalation-curse-of-nuclear-power-new-lessons-from-the-french-experience/ ,
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/TransitionstoNewTechnologies/06_Grubler_French_Nuclear_WEB.pdf (Figure 3)
Clearly something is preventing the cost reduction rates of other electricity generation technologies from applying to nuclear power. It’s regulatory ratcheting and the financial risk because of the damaging litigation the anti-nukes cause to the operators. There is a very high financial risk premium, which in turn is caused by the public’s irrational nuclear paranoia and the anti-nuke activists.
Allowable Radiation limits are set at the ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’ (ALARA) level instead of at the ‘As High As Relatively Safe’ (AHARS) level http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15900&page=0 . Raising the limits could be the catalyst to get people to rethink the causes of their fear of nuclear power, http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf .
The US deregulation of drilling for oil and gas provides a relevant example of the effect of freeing up the private sector to innovate and compete. ‘The Driving Force Behind the US Oil Boom’ http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Driving-Force-Behind-the-US-Oil-Boom.html shows how competition and innovation in all sizes of organisation down to the smallest niche specialists is reducing the costs. The same will happen when nuclear is appropriately deregulated.
Thanks, Peter, for the overview. Appreciate it as a former utility-plant engineer. The monolithic regulatory/bureaucratic costs on nuclear is astonishing & saddening. New and improved nuclear-plant designs have been stifled unnecessarily for decades now.
Regarding the G20. It would be very embarrassing for Abbott if they made a climate statement in his own back yard. Where are the pro-fossil protesters? I am sure they are an equally entertaining bunch.
http://mashable.com/2014/11/15/obama-ban-ki-moon-climate-g20/
Re the headline that Obama and B-K didn’t get the memo, there are unfortunately a lot of memos which they didn’t get.
Abbott is used to people embarrassing him. He is ridiculed for being an active lifesaver and for being a through-the-night firefighter with his local brigade. (The long-term yearly sacrifice of holidays to give service to remote aboriginal communities is understandably just not mentioned by the luvvies.)
Embarrassed by some standard pomposities about “climate action” from the usual limp-wristed time-servers? I may not be Abbott’s greatest admirer, but…nah, not going to happen.
+100!
JIm D
Stopping fossil fuels use will not stop global warming:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:300/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1954/compress:12/scale:0.001
Abbott was hoping to suppress any talk of climate change, just like he does by defunding his country’s climate science, by not putting any mention of it on the G20 agenda. He gives the appearance of just being a political hack in the pocket of big coal when he does things like this.
Embarrassment such as O’Bama experienced at the recent US elections ? And we see the “Big Coal” conspiracy has re-surfaced
You’ve become a serial dill, Jimmy Doo Doo (just rotating the post to catch all the angles)
And here is the ultimate in decarbonising an economy:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/north-korea-the-ultimate-low-carbon-ideal/#more-39378
Truly inspirational
Jim D,
No, he was trying to get and keep focus on what is imortant to 97% of the world population – i.e employment growth and economic development. We’ve had 25 years of useless climate meetings and negotiations. Do you really believe it is wise to hijack every international meeting and sideline everything that’s important for the sake of more chat about your cultist beliefs?
You don’t need to be in anyone pocket to love our Aussie coal. There’s so much of it, and so much of the premium Permian black. Yum.
Now we just need to modernise our coal power gen, build our nukes and dismantle all those trashy wind turbines. The concrete bases and wiring may have to stay, unfortunately, till we can find the billions for their complete removal. Like most things “green” they are a conservation nightmare, but so long as you get rid of the main hazards you can live with some residual junk. A lot of the hills and ridges will re-grow – let’s hope it’s a proper conservation effort with careful contouring and planting. Given plenty of cheap fossil fuel and nukes we should be able to afford it.
We won’t need the disused turbines as display. Every time some expert or activist proposes funding “climate action” we can just show them our rusting, unused desal plants. And we still have some hilarious tide generators sinking into the sand.
mosomoso,
Here’s an interesting factoid. IEA estimates the decommissioning costs for wind farms to be around 15 times higher than for nuclear ($0.01/MWh). How about that, eh?
IEA, 2010, Tables 3.7a and 3.7d for USA (at 10% discount rate, i.e. the same as AETA uses for comparing LCOE of electricity generation technologies) http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/projected_costs.pdf
The statements were drafted months ago – there is nothing embarrassing in it.
Why the f..k would anyone protest for fossil fuels? The source of energy is irrelevant. Where is going on in their heads?
What A Better Energy Policy Might Look Like
Ed Dolan
“A recent working paper from the IMF attempts to quantify some of them, including health costs of local air pollution and congestion costs of motor vehicle use. The authors of the working paper estimate that those costs average $57 per ton of CO2 for the 20 countries that account for the largest emissions, and about $36 per ton for the United States.”
The recent working paper: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14174.pdf
“To take another example, if congestion, accidents, and other externalities from motor vehicle use are not fully internalized through other pricing policies, again there are potentially significant co-benefits to the extent that carbon charges reduce vehicle use.”
“Vehicle Externalities. Co-benefits from incorporating carbon charges in motor fuels include reduced air pollution, traffic congestion, accidents and (for the case of heavy trucks) road damage.”
“For most countries, air pollution damages from gasoline are small relative to congestion and accident externalities…”
I did not expect the above approach. There are car accidents and congestion, and these cost money. Oil is in the vicinity of these things but so to are batteries in electric cars. People may be texting and driving and wrecking but of course, that is a social cost of carbon. Urban planners may build a 6 lane highway that narrows to 4 as you approach Minneapolis (I-394), and that too is a social cost of carbon. Round abouts as we don’t understand them and they remind us of liberal Europe, may not be built and people sit at stoplights idling their cars and that is a social cost of carbon. A small number of motor vehicle drivers terrorize bicycle riders, who decide this isn’t any fun, and drive their own cars instead. You got it, a social cost of carbon. Let’s look at this another way. Mileage mandates do cut gasoline consumption in half. People drive the same as before. Less oil used, doubles the social cost of carbon as it relates to motor vehicles. Lang and I had discussed cost accounting a bit. What answer do you want? Sure, we can get that one. Cost accounting. An interesting test would be whether or not a CPA would sign off on such a method for obtaining the social cost of carbon.
To clarify, Mileage mandates cut the gallons of gasoline used in half, doubling the social cost of carbon per gallon.
Ragnaar,
Excellent point and thanks for pointing it out. I hadn’t realised they were assigning all the cost they could think of against CO2. Amazing how supposedly reputable organisations could do that. It seems so far fetched I am having difficulty believing they’ve actually done that, but I haven’t investigated. Surely such a gross deceit or error would have been picked up long before the report was published.
Peter Lang:
Here’s what I think is going on, Dolan used a number from the IMF that seems to be pushing the envelope of the definition to include co-benefits. Since were are driving our cars, if we didn’t, there would less time loss to congestion. So a benefit of not driving is a cost. Those costs in this case are borne somewhat by the drivers. They pay for their insurance and spend their own time in traffic. The IMF’s definition ‘used’ at what I linked is different than the more traditional social costs of carbon, the one’s that the economists work on and use discount rates, and growth rates. The argument is similar to, don’t live in a suburb, live in high density areas, as it costs you time and money to have a big lawn. And it costs government too. If you’re trying to sell a light rail line that people are wary of, talk about co-benefits and see if you can call that a savings.
RAgnaar,
Thanks. But I am still really amazed that, if your interpretation is correct, why haven’t may economists around the world picked up on it. They’re not all CAGW activists.
Girma:
After watching a bowling ball and a feather fall,
“Einstein formulated the principle of equivalence – that a uniform acceleration and a gravitational field were indistinguishable to an enclosed observer. No experiment from inside a closed box could tell, he reasoned, whether the box was resting on the surface of a massive body or was being accelerated by rockets through outer space. Either way, a downward, gravity-like force would be felt.” So are we seeing inertia or the effects of CO2? We are beyond Pluto on a trajectory from Earth. We fire our CO2 rocket constantly at a steady Lockheed Martin guaranteed rate of 0.1 G. Our gravity meter varies sporadically and has since we began the flight from negative 0.1 to 0.3 G.
I’m not sure why people have difficulty understanding that the air or gas in the gap between double glazing acts just like that in a planet’s troposphere. The hotter pane of glass represents the surface and the colder pane the tropopause. Let’s imagine that at the tropopause radiation to space can happen, rather like happens from the methane layer near the top of the nominal troposphere of Uranus. If the rest of the troposphere (or the gap) were totally dry air (or some non-radiating gas like argon) then thermal energy would still transfer through the troposphere by (stationary) conduction and diffusion processes. But the process is slow. If we add water vapour (or carbon dioxide) then (as with moist air in the double glazing) the insulation effect is reduced because intermolecular radiation (and radiation direct to the tropopause or beyond) helps the thermal energy to leap frog (at the speed of light) over the slower moving energy going up by non-radiative processes. No thermal energy can be transferred back by radiation to lower, warmer regions. Yes the radiation can go downwards, but it is immediately re-emitted by electrons in any and all regions that are warmer than the source of the radiation. Its electro-magnetic energy is not converted to thermal energy and so it does not raise the temperature of whatever it strikes.
The most prolific greenhouse gas, water vapour, cools rather than warms. Empirical evidence (using real world temperature and precipitation) proves this to be the case. The more water vapour you have, the more clouds there are shading the surface and reflecting energy back to space.
The base temperature which the IPCC says is 255K is not that low, because they deducted 30% of the solar radiation supposedly reflected back to space by clouds which could not exist in the absence of water vapour on their imaginary Earth with no greenhouse gases. Using the correct radiative flux of about 341W/m^2 we get a temperature of 278K, not 255K. I’m hoping that even Australian politicians can understand this point.
Once we have water vapour setting the radiative altitude at, say, 4.5Km, then, even if 98% of the atmosphere were then replaced with carbon dioxide, the radiating altitude could not rise above about 7Km in a troposphere only 11Km high. So this 2.5Km raising would be only 1 metre if only 1 molecule in 2,500 were carbon dioxide. And 1 metre represents only about 0.007 degree at the surface. There are other reasons why carbon dioxide cools more than this, but you can spend your billions and raise your concerns as much as you like about that 0.007 degree.
I’ve been working up some data that correlates the increase in global carbon dioxide with the increased reforestation of the Northern Hemisphere as a result of the land use efficiencies gained during the industrial and agricultural revolutions.
The simple notion is that more biomass would result in more cellular respiration and eventually in increased emission of carbon dioxide. It incurred to me that plants may get the majority of the carbon dioxide they need from dissolved carbon dioxide in the ground water they take up rather than through the atmosphere. Trees then eventually release that carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as they mature and die, lose limbs, with seasonal leave changes, wildfires and of course as fuel wood.
Any thoughts, i would like to find more forest management data to add into the analysis. Biologist and protein chemist by training.
mosomoso,
What are you and your Queensland mates doing to us?
Heatwave to drive QLD Sunday evening demand to a record?
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2014/11/heatwave-to-drive-qld-sunday-evening-demand-to-a-record/
Clearly, you are very irresponsible. You’re burning too much coal.
Perhaps, as the Australian Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown, explained the Brisbane floods were directly attributable to the coal miners. :)
My Queensland mates? Admittedly I have two neighbours from Queensland, a married couple. The authorities up there found they weren’t related so they had to elope to NSW.
Our hottest November here on the NSW midcoast was in 1915. Brisbane’s hottest was in 1913. Sydney’s was in 1894.
But we won’t let that get in the way of yet another good climate story!
It has dropped to 37.4C in West End, six hours after sun zenith at 25 deg south.
I blame the G20 security fencing for blocking the early-evening breeze. Down, down, I say! (We’re within 2 kms of the conference, currently living in a ghetto as West End is a peninsula.)
Peter, I responded to some nonsense on empathy from HR commissioner Tim Soutphommasane on ABC online – disputing his argument that empathy is “highly political” – good grief! – no sign of my post yet. Perhaps saying that “Having empathy requires the capacity to understand and respond to the experiences and emotions of another” is not acceptable on “our” ABC.
Tsk! I keep tellin’ y’all it’s not ‘our’ ABC, it’s been captured by an
alarmist-elitist-progressivist coterie in lincoln-green camouflage.
Faustino,
I know! I know. I’ve just watched SBS news then ABC news coverage of the G20 meeting. It seems all they wanted to talk about was climate change. I’ts one paragraph at the end of the final summary, yet it’s all SBS and ABC are interested in. I am so fed up with the Labor-Green propaganda in the country.
Lame satire, slanted reportage, rigid censorship, manboy comedians, smug commentary, smirking convent girls…
I keep having to remind myself that publicly funded broadcasting is worse in North Korea and Eritrea. It is, isn’t it?
I’ve just written to Tony Abbott.
“Tony,
You’ve done a fantastic job with the G20. As have Joe Hockey, Julie Bishop and Andrew Robb. All Australians should be proud of the way you handled it and the guests – all of them. Thank you.
But I am really fed up with the bias in the ABC and SBS news coverage. I want the ABC to get back to the days when it was a trusted source of balanced, unbiased information. I hope you have a plan to sort it out.
Peter Lang”
‘Lame satire, slanted reporting, rigid censorship, man boy
comedians …’ noble cause certainty, surprising to think the
ABC first presented ‘Foyle’s War. Strangely, occasionally,
an flower may grow upon a dung heap.
Biased reporting created the market for Fox News. Maybe you need something similar down there, perhaps you can create your own. Note that the HuffnPuffPost was “staffed” with volunteers. It can be done.
Girma, for some sanity, here is the forcing change since 1980. Note that the sun appears to have a small negative change. Other factors are bigger, giving us the main reasons for the warming.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/137452/ipcc_ar5_radiative_forcing.jpg
Not sure we can expect sanity from Jimmy Dee.
There are two aspects to the problem. One is thermal inertia. How low does it take for the system to heat up with an solar forcing peaking in the last half of last century?
Perhaps more importantly – what did actually change at TOA?
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_LWup_toa.gif
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_SWup_toa.gif
Cooling in IR and warming in SW. Must be a feedback.
Rob, mostly when you get a forcing change like 11-year solar cycles or volcanoes, you don’t have to wait around for half a century for it to show up, so you seem to be proposing something brand new here.
WTF do you think ECR is aboug? A sustained forcing and thermal inertia. Nothing new at all – just an unknown given the large variability in TOA flux.
Rob, ECR is an asymptote. the fastest part of the response to the forcing is always at the beginning, and from there it slows down towards its asymptote. This is why we see quick responses to the solar cycle and volcanoes.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg
It is interesting. 3/4 of the forcing is since 1950.
I guess the warming coming out of the LIA was due to magic. Perhaps the forcing due to magic is located in another section of the IPCC document separate from the GHG forcings.
The interesting thing about the mid-terms is the 64% of potential voters didn’t vote, possibly because of their disapproval of Congress’s ability to change anything, which, based on recent performance is likely even more true now. This leaves maybe 20% who probably voted for Republicans. Hardly a mandate. They can’t go around claiming they represent the “American people” when clearly from the numbers the American people are just fed up with them, and 80% did not vote for them.
Jim D,
What are you doing awake at this time of your night? Go to bed and leave it to the Aussies to sort out all the world’s problems All will be fine by the time you wake up. :)
I am on travel at a location where the time is more reasonable.
Jim D,
So you’ve moved up among the leaders, into the leadership group, eh?
:)
Not sure what that means, but OK.
Jim D
I read in the NY Times that the % of the Dems advantage in the youth vote had dropped by half since 2006. Just because you are in a different time zone doesn’t preclude you from facing some uncomfortable truths. :)
Or, 64% didn’t vote because they were disgusted with Kommandant Obama.
Jim D
“The interesting thing about the mid-terms is the 64% of potential voters didn’t vote”
Do you find 64% much more interesting than the 60% that didn’t vote in 2010? The Crats didn’t get hammered – it was an aberration because 4% of their voters didn’t show up?
Is there a correlation? An alarmist decrying the Republican victory ~ an alarmist denying the scientific uncertainty of climate?
Richard
Jim D,
mid-term elections ALWAYS have low turnout. When they go better for your interests we don’t hear your side dismissing the results due to turnout. For that matter Obama was not elected by a majority of American adults (no President is), so Obama must be illegitimate for this reason. Arguments about turnout and legitimacy are crap. We could go to an obligatory voting system such as some countries do, but short of that turnout is what it is. Deal with the results and stop whining.
That’s right. If left-leaning people were concerned about global warming, they would have showed up to keep the Dimowits in power. They didn’t. Ditto for immigration and “The War on Women.”
And ditto for Obamacare.
curryja, thanks for the link to my post at WUWT.
Cheers.
Well, Mr. Gates…
It is hard to tell what is happening.
Is the ocean in equilibrium with current forcings and atmospheric temperatures? Probably not because of the huge thermal inertia.
What is the equilibrium point? This is a rather important question because it drives sea level and global temperature. LW radiation doesn’t heat the ocean effectively (unlike UV). Since temperatures are near the peak of a periodic 1000 year warm period, I would expect some further warming and sea level rise – the MWP was warmer with a higher sea level.
I’m interested in 2020 temperatures since we will be seeing the effect of a low UV period on the ocean now that the solar maximum seems to be over.
“Sigh”, reply to wrong thread – but I do like Bob Tisdale’s site and his well illustrated analysis.
Just a reflection on the statement “the pause is over” from a honest rational skeptic who looks at things objectively from the broadest possible perspective.
1) Something had to exist in order for it to be over. Clearly, tropospheric temperature growth flattened after the big El Nino of 1998. Hundreds of scientists have been working many years and many ideas have been put forth to explain the “hiatus”.
2) The “hiatus” clearly caused tropospheric temperatures to diverge from models that were run prior to the hiatus showing possible evolution of tropospheric temperatures. That models will diverge from actual reality is not at all a surprise. The biggest and most powerful supercomputer in the world could not accurate model the exact path of a particle of dust floating in your living room. Particles of dust are like model runs. There are likely billions of such particles and each of those will have its own path and represent potential evolutions, all subject to the force of gravity, air currents in the room, etc. Even though no supercomputer can predict the exact path of a real particle of dust subject to very simple “forcings”, it is not hard to predict that in aggregate, your table will get dusty. Thus, the hiatus, in no way disproves AGW.
3) A rational skeptic is looking for evidence to disprove their theory, or at the very least, refine it. The hiatus has been a gift and has spurred much research that has help to evolve the understanding of the science, especially sources of natural variability. So whether the actual hiatus has been caused by Pacific ocean cycles, Atlantic Ocean cycles, solar cycles, global THC cycles, sulfates, etc, or some combination of all of these– the point is that it was an opportunity to see why the actual climate diverged from the models and thus expand our knowledge. What can be hoped, and is not at all clear as of yet is whether something useful and dynamically quantifiable can be put into future models.
4) I see no evidence yet that the “hiatus” is actually over, even if 2014 turns out to be the warmest year on record. I say this because we would have to see tropospheric temperatures return to the growth rates we saw in the 90’s. This may very well (and some would argue likely) happen in the next 10 years, but one “warmest year” is not enough to show that growth rate returning.
5) Conflating the “hiatus” or flattened temperatures into declining or “cooling” is a dishonest practice.
6) The “hiatus” is a bit of a “look squirrel” moment for “skeptics” as the over-emphasis on the low thermal inertia troposphere takes the attention away form the overall climate system, which continued to gain energy quite strongly during the “hiatus”. The troposphere is a very poor proxy for energy gains in the climate system over anything less than decadal averages at best. Everyone who studies the oceans knows they very likely have warmed quite robustly during the heart of the tropospheric “hiatus”. This energy stored in the ocean during the hiatus represents many degrees of potential warming in the troposphere. The natural flow of energy is from ocean to troposphere. The odds are very good that energy stored during the “hiatus” will follow that natural flow– it’s just a matter of when and how robustly.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iersstv3b_0-360E_-90-90N_n_1997.5:2015a.png
One year near the peak solar of even a weaker than normal cycle isn’t exactly proof positive that anything is over or begun.
http://i.imwx.com/images/maps/winter/us_snowcover_large_usen_600x405.jpg
If you generally agree with what was said in that article,I think we have a lot we can agree on. Climate change is only part of the problem..I think if we are going to get billions out of poverty and countries moving into the developed world this century, we are going to need alternatives energy sources that won’t run out and constantly increase in price as supply falls. Along with all the other reasons for moving away from fossils fuels, I think now is as good as time as any to start the process
US nat gas storage is low for this time of year. Could get interesting. Might want to fire up some of those old coal plants. :)
http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/ngs.gif
Global sea ice above 1979-2008 average.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
Hiatus over my ass. It’s just getting started.
What’s up with the latest daily MLO CO2? Only ~390.5 ppm?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.png
They calculated the weekly average (only ~0.4 ppm annual growth) including that point…
30 year Cold Spell
Climatologist: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth Sunday, 16 Nov 2014 07:46 PM
Space and Science Research Corp. SSRC
The Global Cooling Awareness Project (GCAP)
““If you look at the 100-year global temperature chart, you look at the steep drop off we’ve had since 2007, it’s the steepest drop in global temperatures in the last hundred years.”
______
A perfect example of pseudoscience. Oddly, 2010 and possibly this year (2014) will be the warmest global temperatures on record. Very odd way for a “steep drop” to occur.
We must keep pseudoscience away from our children and politicians – but I’m not hopeful on either of those.
==> “Food riots will break out, demand for heating oil will spike, and the failure of the corn crop will put the squeeze on ethanol.
He even predicts the United States will ban agricultural exports to feed its own citizens.”
Thanks god we have “skeptics” around to prevent the “alarmists” from getting away with their hoax!
Every C degree down is far more alarming than any C degree up.
==================
You see the same thing with the XL Pipeline issue. “Alarmists” suggesting that to not build it will harm “American Energy” and hurt “American Jobs”, when the truth is, once the pipeline is complete, there will be less than 100 American jobs involved maintaining it, and the energy will nearly completely go right to foreign countries. How easily people can be manipulated into alarmism when you wave a flag and talk about ‘merica.
R. Gates – that Canadian oil is destined for Gulf Coast refineries. They spent billions on gearing up for heavy oil. Also, USA condensate is used to thin it, so that creates a market for our products. Your ignorance is showing.
jim2,
Pretty small rewards for ‘mericans. Hardly “protects our American energy supply” as we keep hearing.
R Gates, who can know now that refined products from Keystone XL will go primarily to foreign markets? We hear that a lot but it is probably a talking point concocted by some fantasist like Bill McKibben. Anyway, there are other excellent reasons to allow the pipeline to be built, and NO actual good reasons against it. The opponents truly are anti-capitalist anti-freedom zealots. If our neighbor Canada wants the pipeline that is a good reason in itself to allow it.
Joshua
Thanks god we have “skeptics” around to prevent the “alarmists” from getting away with their hoax!
Thanks god we have John case round to prevent the “alarmists” from getting away with their hoax!
See how easy it is to avoid motivated generalization?
The difference between holding an individual responsible and holding a tribe responsible.
Gatesy prefers the “shovel ready” type of temporary jobs created by Big gubmint’s profligate deficit spending. Or better yet, the well-paying (until the bankruptcy) Solyndra type green jobs created by Big gubmint’s silly subsidies. He no like capitalist jobs created to actually turn a freaking profit. Dip.
Little joshie is just tedious.
Steven –
My point is to express my gratitude to “skeptics” as a group for their willingness to stand up to the “consensus police” and fight the good fight against the “alarmists.”
I mean yes, I suppose there are a few “skeptics” that aren’t fear-mongering about fear-mongering. I can’t actually think of any – but I will exclude them from my expression of thanks.
Let’s see, “At 32 C all die!”, “The oceans may boil”, It’s game over for humanity.” versus “heating oil prices will spike and food riots.”
I think that climate science has won the alarmist internet. Could be wrong though. Perhaps we need a comprehensive list?
ECONOMIC SUICIDE!!!11 HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF STARVING CHILDREN11!!!! THE END OF SCIENCE AS WE KNOW IT!!!111 ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!!111!!!!! THE DESTRUCTION OF CAPITALISM!!!!!11! A NEW ICE AGE!!!!1 CONSENSUS POLICE!!!!11 LYSENKO!!! NEO-McCARTHYISM!!!!!1 STALIN!!!!1 ISIS!!!!11 EBOLA1!!!!!
Joshua
‘My point is to express my gratitude to “skeptics” as a group for their willingness to stand up to the “consensus police” and fight the good fight against the “alarmists.”
There is no such group. All of your attempts to define such a group are
non scientific and show your continued motivated reasoning. You cannot help but see patterns and similarities.
The one way you can diminish the frequency of tribalist statements you make is to address what ACTUAL INDIVIDUALS write.
Casey is a nut. he is wrong.
Hagen is Shill for nonsense.
speaking of perplexity, as I was, … .
I read most of Steven Mosher’s posts and skip most of Joshua’s posts, and today tumbled onto this:
Joshua
Thanks god we have “skeptics” around to prevent the “alarmists” from getting away with their hoax!
shucks
Well, you’re certainly entitled to make it about calling people names, passing judgement on their sanity, or their intelligence. You’re entitled to judge their motivations.
Instead, I see it as a matter of observable patterns, that get repeated over and over, revealed through empirical evidence, in how people reason when assessing risk in the face of uncertainty.
I say tomato, you say tomahto.
That’s why they make chocolate and vanilla.
Capt, I don’t hear much of that to be frank. I especially don’t hear much of that from the those here who accept the science of AGW and believe that it has the potential for damaging consequences if we don’t do something about it..
ECONOMIC SUICIDE!!! That is impossible right? Economies would never actually die, just smell that way.
11 HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF STARVING CHILDREN11!!!!
In the US we have millions of starving obese kids already, how are a few more alarming.
THE END OF SCIENCE AS WE KNOW IT!!!111
How well do you really know science?
ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!!111!!!!!
That is just over the top. It should be one world bureaucracy
. THE DESTRUCTION OF CAPITALISM!!!!!11!
Never happen. black markets are growing by leaps and bounds.
A NEW ICE AGE!!!!1
Another misconception. You can’t have an ice age without some place to store the ice. It would more like an inconvenient snow age. Just spread some ash on it and it will melt.
CONSENSUS POLICE!!!!11
Did you here the one about the 12 armed EPA agents and the polluter?
LYSENKO!!!
Wasn’t that an example of someone in charge not knowing what they were doing? Welcome to America.
NEO-McCARTHYISM!!!!!
Inappropriate analogy. Communists aren’t being persecuted :)
1 STALIN!!!!1
So 20th century.
ISIS!!
When Clinton said it depends on what the meaning of is, is, did you think this would happen?
!!11 EBOLA1!!!!!
Nothing to worry about. Really, when was the last time an infection from Africa caused problems in the US?
It is one of those things.
Temporary warming in the North Pacific (two year running) is used to claim the hiatus is over.
Record cold temperatures in the US (two years running) herald a new ice age.
We’ll see. It might be climate. It might just be weather.
As to the oil – the warmist argument that an oil pipeline to the US won’t give us any benefit over a pipeline to China (the alternative) is just silly. If it wasn’t beneficial to the US the oil wouldn’t be getting shipped to the US by more expensive rail transport now.
I’d much rather import oil from our friendly stable neighbor Canada than Venezuela!
Oil sands provide one of the few interim fuels able to carry us over to cost effective sustainable fuels.
PA, isn’t Canada still a US ally? I thought NAFTA was all about North America playing nice together.
David L. Hagen: The worst of the cooling cycle, Casey predicts, will hit in the late 2020s and the early 2030s.
Food riots will break out, demand for heating oil will spike, and the failure of the corn crop will put the squeeze on ethanol.
He even predicts the United States will ban agricultural exports to feed its own citizens.
Maybe. He isn’t the only solar theorist making this prediction.
The precautionary principle puts us in a perplexing position: we must do everything in our power to prevent this cooling, but we must do everything in our power to prevent the warming of which we have warned.
While resolving our perplexity, we can keep score among the many predictions of doom. Maybe Ehrlich and Holdren will see the writings of Casey, and go back to their cooling alarmism of the 70s.
Matthew That’s the Chicken Little (climate version) “precautionary principle”. Consider the ethical stewardship version:
“Corollary to the Precautionary Principle:
A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor 2014: The Case against Harmful Climate Policies Gets Stronger Climate & Energy, Developmental Economics, Economics, Poverty, & Development, Environmental Economics, Poverty
By David R. Legates and G. Cornelis van Kooten September 17, 2014
David L. Hagen: Consider the ethical stewardship version:
Quite right. I was being facetious. I liked your ethical stewardship version.
I don’t believe the cold warnings, and I don’t believe the warm warnings. The most reasonable base for planning for the future climate is to consider that there will always be alternations between extremes of hot and cold, wet and dry, in every part of the Earth that has experienced such extremes.
Stephen Schneider, a man before his time.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/gruber-update-friday-white-house-obamacare/index.html
This is the sixth video to surface of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber outlining the successful plan to lie to the stupid voters about the comically named Affordable Care Act to ensure its passage. (Show of hands, how many here have even heard of the guy?)
And from the peer reviewed litcherchur:
“It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare.”
http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.abstract
A pop quiz for extra points. Who do you think Gruber was referring to as stupid? Here’s a hint. It is not the low information voters who vote progressive.
“I think science is very important, and I think the increased politicization of climate science is a really horrible turn of events,” Kurtz, the new Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, told ThinkProgress.
What’s ironic is that Al Gore and the CAGW IPCC politicized it!
Look what the lefties and their Utopian idealism have wrought. Crony capitalism – IN SPADES!
From the article:
…
WASHINGTON — As Americans shop in the health insurance marketplace for a second year, President Obama is depending more than ever on the insurance companies that five years ago he accused of padding profits and canceling coverage for the sick.
Those same insurers have long viewed government as an unreliable business partner that imposed taxes, fees and countless regulations and had the power to cut payment rates and cap profit margins.
But since the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, the relationship between the Obama administration and insurers has evolved into a powerful, mutually beneficial partnership that has been a boon to the nation’s largest private health plans and led to a profitable surge in their Medicaid enrollment.
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/politics/health-law-turns-obama-and-insurers-into-allies.html
Judith Curry
As a synthesis of the topics and debates of last week I want to state some of my views I regard as essential. At first let us say that the last week did not change anything essential what I have said already e.g. in my comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 :
a) Firstly there has not been expressed any evidence based on empiric observations according to which the trend of recent multidecadal global warming could have been controlled by anthropogenic CO2 emissions to atmospere.
b) Secondly the anthropogenic share of the recent, increasing CO2 content in atmosphere has been only about 4 % at the most, which means that even the current CO2 content in atmosphere is not controlled by the anthropogenic CO2 emissions to atmosphere.
c) Thirdly the increase of global CO2 content in atmosphere follows global warming and not vice versa.
Every one of these three points above is able even alone to refute the climate model results according to which the recent global warming has been controlled by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. There is no evidence available according to which man could mitigate either changes of global temperature or extreme events of weather. Mankind can only try to learn to adapt him/herselves, as well as possible, to these events.
As for solving a complex, multidisciplinary problem, it could easily be too challenging for any expert of a particular discipline. Therefore existing disagreements even between experts are understable, and this has made the cause of multidisciplinary problem of recent climate warming remain without any really working solution for potential actions. This is proved even by the disagreements stated in JC’s topic http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/27/climate-dialogue-influence-of-the-sun-on-climate ; excerpt:
”Marcel Crok provides an introduction to the current dialogue at WUWT, excerpt:
‘We have a record number of participants, namely five. Two of them – Nicola Scafetta (USA) and Jan-Erik Solheim (NOR) – believe in a large role of the sun. Mike Lockwood (GBR) – in line with AR5 – thinks the sun is only a minor player. The two other participants – Ilya Usoskin (FIN) and José Vaquero (ESP) – seem somewhere in between.’”
On the basis of my experiences in investigations of complex, multidisciplinary problems of metallurgical processes I agree with Sagan’s ‘rules’, and these principles are even valid on the investigations of recent, multidisciplinary problem of global warming, including so called cross-disciplinary approach, too. The basic qualifications for researchers currying out the kind of investigations are openmindness and ability to understand roles of all potential factors influencing a problem. The key issues here is to learn to know a) what so called cross-disciplinary approach of problem does mean, b) when it is really needed, and c) how it is applied to get a solution for working action needed.
Carol Anne Clayson seems to be concerned about gaps in knowledge of how oceans influence on climate. I am especially interested in statements of Bob Tisdale on sea surface warming all over the oceans. I have interpreted that this natural warming makes also CO2 content in atmosphere increase, the mechanism of which I have already tried to explain in my comment mentioned above.
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608029857508560102&w=294&h=185&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7
Proven Paths to Innovation Success
“As we noted in our 2007 study, “The Customer Connection,” companies can spend more money, hire the best engineers, develop the best technology, and conduct the best business market research, but unless their R&D efforts are driven by a thorough understanding of what their customers need and want, their performance may fall short.” http://www.strategy-business.com/article/00295?pg=0
Interesting article on how to successfully innovate. What they’re saying above is innovation is driven by the customers needs and wants. Reminds me of an old saying. Don’t sell your customers what you have to sell, sell them what they need. Wind generation and solar are more of a what we have to sell approach. To sell those, you could say, you need and want this when you should be listening to your customers tell you what they need and want. Don’t sell your customers what you have to sell, sell them what they need, and they’ll stick with you for the long term. Make one sale to them of something they don’t need, and they’ll never come back. The negative blow back of deploying renewables that are not ready will probably occur, tarnishing the reputation of renewables and those who sold them, for instance the politicians.
To all:
Beware – global warming starts again in the year 2029, (as we can deduce from planetary orbits) so CO2 will be blamed again unless and until you realise that there is absolutely no valid physics supporting the conjecture that it helps the Sun to raise the daily maximum temperature anywhere on Earth – or on Venus for that matter.
Hansen and Pierrehumbert made the huge mistake of forgetting that there would be no clouds in an Earth with “greenhouse” gases like water vapour, etc. That’s how they got 255K (with 33 degrees of warming) instead of 278K from 341W/m^2 striking the dry, rocky surface of such a planet.
Some readers probably realise that there are more clouds shading the surface in regions where water vapour is highest and temperatures are thus lower than similar but drier regions. Such readers may be able to help their climatology friends to have a look at the real world.
Today a British MP, Roger Helmer, identified another piece of the Climategate puzzle:
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/open-letter-to-rt-hon-john-bercow-mp/
The 2009 Climategate emails and five years of dishonest official responses helped me decipher and complete a research assignment received in 1960 from a nuclear geo-chemist who secretly took possession of Japan’s atomic bomb plans [1] during unreported CHAOS & FEAR of nuclear annihilation in AUG – SEPT 1945 [2].
“Discover reality from inside a social matrix controlled by FEAR of reality.”
Now I an convinced that the very survival of humanity depends on our success in escaping the fear-based matrix of reality that frightened world leaders created sixty-nine years (2014 – 1945 = 69 yrs) ago to save the world from nuclear annihilation! [2]
Nations were united in OCT 1945 to hide this reality [3] from the public.
References:
1. BBC News, “Atomic plans returned to Japan,” News Front Page, World Edition (3 Aug 2002) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm
2. “Aston’s Promise & Warning (1922); CHAOS and FEAR (Aug-Sept 1945)”. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/CHAOS_and_FEAR_August_1945.pdf
3. “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy(submitted 1 Sept 2014) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf