by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
Robert Stavins’ insightful assessment of the Lima climate accord [link]
The aristocrats of oil build up their barricades against the arriviste revolutionaries of shale [link]
Brookings: Back to the future – advanced nuclear energy and the battle against climate change [link]
Swiss Re Sees Huge Drop In Losses From Natural/Manmade Catastrophes In 2014! [link]
Since requiring corn ethanol in fuel in 2007, over 1.2 million acres of grassland have been lost to corn & soy crops. [link]
No growth stimulation of tropical trees by 150 years of CO2 fertilization but water-use efficiency increased [link]
Why innovation is the best path to climate policy @BjornLomborg [link]
Natural gas and wind appear to have very similar per-MWh impacts on CO2 [link] “Nine Fixes for China’s Water Risks” http://bit.ly/9_Fixes
Nassim Taleb’s Foreign Affairs essay: Why instability is good, counter current thinking in political “science”. [link]
See more good news about many forms of climate change. Enjoy it; we don’t know how long it lasts. [link]
BBC: Arctic sea ice may be more resilient than many observers recognize [link]
World’s beaches being washed away due to coastal development [link]
Economic modeling should only have a limited role in #climate policy decision-making. [link]
An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy [link]
The Atlantic: Scientists have a sharing problem [link]
Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics [link]
AGU meeting
The annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union was held last week in San Francisco. I was in San Francisco for part of the week. Frankly I don’t get much out of this meeting, it is just too big. The highlight of my week was the Thurs dinner of the Chinese-American Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.
Many of the talks are publicly available online [link]. Some talks that I heard were notable include presentations by Brian Hoskins, Ulrike Lohmann, Jeffrey Sachs, James White.You can get a little flavor for the meeting from twitter #AGU2014. Anthony Watts is attending the meeting and has several blog posts, there is also a post at RealClimate.
Enjoyed the link on “Some good news about our changing climate. Enjoy it, for it might not last long.” I guess that’s why almost every one agrees that climate is always changing. In the long run, humanity will have to find ways to optimize climate to avoid the intense glacial periods that have dominated the last 500,000 years or major disruptions will be the consequence. Harnessing solar energy seems to me to be a logical choice. In the very long run as the sun gets gradually hotter and hotter, global warming will become an extreme challenge if humanity survives that long.
Hugh Jass works better. Tell you what – you can have it. I use it in response to certain people as a bit of fun. Truth to tell – it is having a battle of wits with the unarmed. Get’s old quick.
Some greenhouse effect deniers to start the thead. Yep yep.
Where?
From “Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy” :
“Nuclear power—being by far the most compact and energy-dense of sources…”
That is really the key point – energy density.
I can’t wait for the Russian offer, to satisfy their UNFCC COP20 Quota set by Ban Ki Moon in Lima, to finance and build 26 advanced breeder reactors in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
India has large Thorium resources and is working hard to have an Advanced Heavy Water Reactor on thorium by 2020.
U.S. Uranium Supplies, Part 2: Mitigating Future Energy Security Risks from Large Imports DisruptionsThe USA imports 80% of its uranium including 35% from FSU (Russia etc.)
Transatomic’s
On paper it looks good. I can’t wait to see a running prototype.
I would think there would be a race to jump on board for new safe nuclear by Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps there are too many other issues getting in the way at this point. It is nice to see new young scientists getting into the field and starting start ups.
In theory it is a significant improvement over a conventional reactor.
The lack of a pressurized water filled reactor eliminates a number of known failure modes.
This isn’t a bad starting point. The important thing is to get a prototype in the ground soon. There are going to be a number of prototype issues to resolve.
Here is the correct link for “Defend the Integrity of Physics” :
http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
“No growth stimulation of tropical trees by 150 years of CO2 fertilization but water-use efficiency increased [link]”
Guess they’ll have to look somewhere else then for the missing carbon. If Trenberth’s heat is skulking in the depths then maybe some CO2 went with it.
I looked at just the first page available on the link and have not read the full article. Likely I won ‘t read the full article, since I have other things to work on, but it appears to state that tree ring widths have not increased in the samples they measured over the past 150 years, while CO2 levels have risen. The thought that occurred to me was that during this time estimates of global temperatures have also gone up, but this result seems to argue that the tree ring widths would not reflect those also (since the CO2 and temperatures are correlated). Thus this result seems to imply that tree rings, in this case at least, were not a reliable indicator of global temperatures.
The paleoclimate proxy reconstruction folks don’t do very good science, but they are nowhere near that bad! Tropical tree ring widths are not used as proxies of temperature. Only trees where the limit on growth is primarily temperature can be used; those tend to be trees in arctic climates, like bristlecone pines.
Treeline, sometimes arctic sometimes alpine. Never only about temperature.
======
I don’t think that’s entirely implausible, much of the ocean biomass pyramid is thought to be upside down. Short lived plants at the surface are quickly consumed by animals. Ultimately fish poop, dead fish matter, etc. may end up decaying on the ocean floor.
Well, that’s interesting.
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx
http://www.csiro.au/~/media/CSIROau/Portals/Media%20Releases/2013/DesertsGreeningRisingCO2/SatelliteData/High_Resolution.png
Satellites seem think that most of the growth acceleration is occurring in the tropics.
Perhaps the Nature Geoscience study had some sampling issues.
I have noticed that there is a plague of studies that try to say CO2 doesn’t make plants grow. That would seem to be a wasted effort.
The Csiro study sampled from satellites that can detect additional leaves. From the map it’s study area goes far beyond the tropics. The other group
appears to have sampled actual trees in tropical forests in three countries: Bolivia, Cameron, and Thailand.
Plant growth is limited by limiting factors. When CO2 is a limiting factor, they will grow more. If a mineral is the limiting factor, you can drown the plant in CO2 and not much will happen. If you address the mineral, then CO2 will cause more growth.
Is it possible to increase the number of leaves via increased CO2 without causing additional tree growth? Could be.
That open letter on nuclear power must have been funded by big energy, and the signatories have to be a bunch of evil climate change deniers… there is no other rational explanation. ;-)
Will the open letter have any effect? Not a chance. The unhinged greens are not looking for any solution other than a drastic forced reduction in material wealth. Nuclear might allow continuation of material wealth… so it is by definition bad.
Water use efficiency means more growth if there are every any droughts because droughts will not cause as much of a die-off if the trees can survive with less water.
They found no additional growth, so whatever the limiting factor is, it’s not CO2 and it’s not water. Unless maybe they’re being offset by additional warmth. And that’s where the asked for my credit card.
But almost no warming in equatorial regions has been observed. Graphs of global temperature disguise the fact that almost all of that warming has supposedly occurred in the Arctic.
JCH, why do you think that trees would invest energy into tree rings rather than something else, like roots system or fruiting bodies?
What is it that trees exist to do and what is the best evolutionary strategy to achieve that aim?
Tropical trees in many places grow on very old soils and heavy rainfall and thus are nutrient limited. This would prevent a CO2 signal from showing up.
Doc – the trees showed no additional grow to what was normal. The additional CO2 did not make wider growth rings.
Come to my house and I’ll show you my collection of rare tone woods. I have some of the best in the world.
Certainly, US shale oil producers will suffer to differing extents due to the lower price of oil. The Permian Basin will probably suffer the least as some lease and land there were obtained in the thirties, meaning the companies have only operating costs to cover. The other shale plays in Texas will have more debt, but enjoy the oil and gas infrastructure that is to a large extent already in place. North Dakota will probably suffer more due to debt and lack of infrastructure. But the US isn’t alone in the suffering, not by a long shot.
From the article:
…
KUWAIT CITY – Gulf countries are bracing for tough times as vital oil revenues fall and after they missed a golden opportunity to diversify their economies in a decade of unprecedented windfalls, analysts say.
The six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – could soon start reeling from falling oil prices, which have dropped by half from their 2014 highs to around US$60 (S$78) a barrel.
Pumping about 17.5 million barrels per day, GCC countries are forecast to lose at least half their oil revenues, or around US$350 billion a year, at current price levels.
Oil revenues make up around 90 per cent of income for most GCC states and with prices now below budget forecasts, their governments are looking at certain deficits next year.
Spending cuts are sure to follow – and possibly even the region’s first taxes – raising fears of public discontent and eventually an economic slowdown.
The oil price drop has also sent Gulf stock prices plummeting, wiping out billions of dollars of market value across the region and hurting major private firms like developer Emaar Properties and builder Arabtec Holding.
The heart of the problem, leading Kuwaiti economist Jassem al-Saadun said, is that Gulf states failed to seize on surging energy revenues to build up their economies outside the oil sector.
…
But the spending focused mostly on items like wages and subsidies – not crucial capital investment.
…
The Gulf states have adopted a generous cradle-to-grave welfare system with highly subsidised services and fuel and no taxation.
…
http://news.asiaone.com/news/world/gulf-braces-tough-times-over-oil-price-plunge
jim2 are you ready to buy?
I’m already there.
jim2, I’m not sure I know what you mean by “I’m already there.” Have you doubled down?
I see Continental Research stock is down about 50% compared to its 52-week high. It’s tempting.
i’ve adjusted my holdings to include more companies in the Permian.
I’ve read the Permian Basin is very promising. Good luck.
What happened to WHUT? It was always great fun to get him going on how his calculations showed us running out of oil. I hope he didn’t invest in any of those instruments that paid based on the theory that the price would never go down and you lost all your money if it dropped by more than 15%
I have to wonder if he ever figured out that you can model what you don’t know? Attempting to predict developments in oilfield tech is a fools game.
We are running out of oil. Until recently i was getting paid to judge oil recovery technology. There’s nothing over the horizon to replace the oil decline rates we are experiencing and put the extra oil on the table (shale oil is very expensive and hard to extract, same with heavy oil, arctic oil, deep water oil, or enhanced oil recovery in older reservoirs). .. . Oil will be very very expensive in 20 years. But I realize this is incomprehensible to business types and climatologists. We will just have to wait until we hit a wall.
Fernando – I guess we’ll see how that prediction pans out. Most shale gas/oil plays around haven’t been tapped yet. Re-fracking is being explored as restimulation and has produced some good results. So, we’ll see.
Fernando – You seem cock sure about your oil prognostications. Being that you are certain, you should be able to attach a price to your prediction.
What will the price of oil be in 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, and 20 years?
I think, Fernando, you contradicted yourself when you said “We’re running out of oil” then immediately listed a litany of additional supply.
If, instead, you defined “cheap” and said “We’re running out of cheap oil”, that would be more credible.
To various degrees, oil supply and prices have for years varied as supply (which varies by exploration and development investment) attempts to balance vs. demand (industrialization on the way up for developing nations, service orientation and efficiency standards on the way down for developed nations).
Fernando has dodged the tough question about the future prices. Just about anyone with an IQ above 69 knows oil is of limited supply for all practical purposes. The tough question is when will it price itself out of the market. The answer to this question hinges on technological development in the future. Fernando claims to have some magical power that allows him to see the future. I don’t believe in magic.
Hey Fernando, maybe you can restart The Oil Drum since you know the future.
At some level, we are running out of oil. Stone Age people were running out of stones too by your logic.
I dont do oil price price forecasts on a website. But I can help you figure this out: what is the potential for renewables or nuclear power to deliver the equivalent of $150 per barrel in 2014 dollars? What about $200?
Then work backwards…how much shale, deep water, Arctic, and tar sand oil can be produced at $150 per barrel?
The next step is to estimate demand at $150 and $200. Then you have to estimate inflation, and what oil industry costs will be when it charges $150 or $200 to the world ecónomy (I assume you know industry costs go through the roof when oil prices increase).
Now all you have to do is guesstimate whether OPEC reserves are falsified, and if so, by how much. Venezuelas heavy oil is overstated.
The rest of the story isn’t suitable for an open discussion. You have to get a sound consultancy and accesss to the full IHS data base. Or if that’s too expensive look up OPEC’s oil price forecasts. They are available in their website.
Sadly, Fernando, I have never seen a single institution or individual who has any credibility whatsoever in predicting oil prices more than 1 year in advance. Equally, the “analysis” of potential is highly flawed because reserves are added or reclassified constantly, technology is constantly changing, and the value of units of currency also changes.
WordPress.com Fernando Leanme commented: “I dont do oil price price forecasts on a website. But I can help you figure this out: what is the potential for renewables or nuclear power to deliver the equivalent of $150 per barrel in 2014 dollars? What about $200? Then work backwards…how much s”
Look for Obama and the Left to propose foreign aid for the Gulf countries most effected.
We will, someday, run out of oil and gas. We need to burn coal help our oil and gas last longer. We need to build more nuclear to help our oil and gas last longer. Wind and Solar and Ethanol do not help and most if that is a waste of money and even criminal. Use them if and where they make sense, which is extremely limited, and use them if and when they can provide energy without unfair tax credits and subsidies.
Who is we? Are you Iranian? Congolese? From Ecuador?
We are humans. I am Houston, Texas, USA.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/joke.png
Saudi Arabia beats out Australia for last place in the climate stakes.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-ranked-worstperforming-developed-nation-on-climate-performance-20141209-122nk4.html
Seemingly the only things that have changes are:
1. Adjustment of the renewable target to reflect reduced electricity use due to ballooning energy bills.
2. Elimination of the carbon tax in favour of ‘direct action’ – but with the same target reduction.
Here’s a link to the report – which I’m sure is fair, unbiased, unpolitical and dedicated to reaching practical and pragmatic solutions. .
https://germanwatch.org/en/download/8599.pdf
In Australia we are so backward.
‘The Emissions Reduction Fund is a classic market mechanism. It is a reverse auction to buy back the lowest-cost abatement. This is, for example, the same approach used for buying back water. At a global level, the world has two major approaches to emissions reductions. The first is a carbon tax, or an emissions trading scheme (ETS). There has been considerable uncertainty and policy instability within many of these schemes around the world.
In addition, as the Productivity Commission has noted:
– no country currently imposes an economy wide tax on greenhouse emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS.
A significant distinction can be drawn between the Australian carbon tax/ETS and other models, because of the unique breadth, depth and impact of the Australian carbon tax. The previous Government’s carbon tax, whether in its fixed or floating form, essentially relies on driving up the cost of electricity and gas as its primary mechanism.
The alternative global model is purchasing abatement. Instead of a heavy punitive tax, a
buy-back model focuses on activities that reduce emissions. This is the basis of the largest
and arguably the most effective system in the world, the United Nations Clean Development
Mechanism, which to date has generated approximately 1.4 billion tonnes of emissions
reductions.’ http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/66237232-3042-4cd8-99a3-040705fead3b/files/erf-green-paper_1.pdf
Direct action is a broad based approach that seeks the cheapest offsets in efficiency, technology, land use and conservation. It involves baseline studies for soil carbon that not merely aims to sequester carbon but is the key to improved agricultural productivity. Conservation and restoration of landscape are not just key greenhouse gas mitigation mechanisms but build resilient ecosystems.
‘In terms of clean land, I can announce tonight for the first time that Australia, with our latest
Indigenous Protected Areas, has just achieved the IUCN goal of 17 per cent of our lands in protected areas. And what’s exciting is that it is the traditional owners that have taken the lead in expanding those protected areas. But again, more than that, it’s not just as President Jiang said, lines on maps, it is about the ability to ensure that our young people participate.
And so we will be bringing 15,000 young people with a pledge of $800 million over five years for a Green Army to work and learn and be part of the protected areas and those areas which are not covered by the lines on the map, which can be improved to rehabilitate our landscape.
In terms of clean air, the last act of our Parliament before this great Congress was to put in place a two-and-a-half billion dollar fund to reduce carbon.
It is part of our contribution to the great global task of reducing emissions and addressing climate change, and as a Congress we should all welcome the historic announcement of the United States and President Jiang, your country, China, in reaching an agreement for the future only hours ago. I’d like to think they timed it for the Congress.
And in terms of clean water, we have only in recent months achieved the long-held task, sought over a century, of an agreement in Australia to protect the Murray-Darling Basin. But not everything of course is perfect, and this Congress will not be a success if we pretend that everything is perfect. But this is not the group that would do that.
But, we have had a history in Australia, over a hundred years, of disposing of spoil from our
coastal area in one of our great marine parks, even before it was a marine park along the reef.
Recently we committed to and ended the proposals to allow that dumping to occur, with the Queensland Government that is represented here today. We listened to the World Heritage
Committee, and we acted.
But the IUCN asked us to go further; they sought a legal background to that, and tonight I can announce that, with the agreement of the Queensland Government, we will put that ban on
capital dredge disposal in the marine park into law through regulation, so it will not be something that we face again, and that is our pledge to this conference.
The last thing that I want to do is to bring you good news. Only two hours ago many of the delegates in this room left an Asia-Pacific rainforest Summit, held here in Sydney and hosted by the Australian Government.
During the course of that Summit, we heard pledges of action from Papua New Guinea, which committed to bringing forward the ending of round log deforestation by a decade from 2030 to 2020. An extraordinary gesture by that country. We should give them applause. Indonesia committed to protecting over 63 million hectares of the extraordinary peat land, which is so fundamental to preserving the world’s species and biodiversities.We heard the Philippines commit to 1.5 billion trees being planted over the coming years, and the conference, the Summit, committed to developing an Asia-Pacific Rainforest Recovery Plan, which will see the ending of deforestation by 2030, and the halving of deforestation in our own region within five years. So this Congress starts with some bold declarations and pledges. It’s now up to each of you, in your own way, through your own contributions, to contribute to that. Each will be asked to do difficult things, but it was Kennedy that said we choose to do the things that we do, not
because they are easy but precisely because they are difficult.’
Much of the regional funding for forests protection and restoration – as well as the skill set – is coming from us – but I am sure we can beat Saudi Arabia into last place next year by failing to commit to the UN carbon fund.
What ever you do, don’t panic.
1. Goal Post Migration Alert!
Father of 2°C Target Schellnhuber Postpones CO2 Emissions Peak 10 Years: From 2020 To 2030!
http://notrickszone.com/2014/12/10/goal-post-migration-alert-father-of-2c-target-schellnhuber-postpones-co2-emissions-peak-10-years-from-2020-to-2030/
Relax, Rob. Doomsday has been moved.
2. Finland introduced the world’s first carbon(sic) tax in 1990.
They still have it.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/29/factbox-carbon-taxes-around-world
There must be some evidence of the tax stopping climate change by now?
Ms Curry has even supplied a link to Munich Re, and a report that shows a drop in catastrophic doomsday weather from the future that is here now.
The countries that do the most to punish themselves about CO2 are really going to feel bad when they figure out that most of what they did was really stupid and did more harm than good.
The countries that do the least to punish themselves about man-made CO2 are really doing the right thing.
I wouldn’t commit a ruble to a UN carbon fund. That’s a no brainer decision. Right now it makes more sense to create a low interest loan facility for countries which have a solid commitment to reduce government corruption and human rights abuses, as well as apply sound (neoliberal) economic policies. The others can go beg from the Chinese.
++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Atlantic: Scientists have a sharing problem [http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/scientists-have-a-sharing-problem/383061/]
Data from government funded research is supposed to public domain. It is incredible that this isn’t rigorously enforced.
This problem is easy to solve, any scientist that hasn’t published the data from prior government funded studies is ineligible to apply for new grants. One year after a study completes, if the data isn’t published, any current grants to the scientists involved go on “hiatus” until the problem is rectified.
There is no reason to give grant money to scientists who don’t make their data freely available.
The further problem is that because of nondisclosure – much data from government funded studies has been permanently lost.
I’m all for it, but as the Atlantic piece pointed out, there are reasons scientists are reluctant to share. Some don’t want to do anything that might help their competition (other scientists) and cause them more work.
That’s fine – they don’t have to share if they don’t want government funding.
If scientists want the benjamins from the US tax payer – nondisclosure of data should not be an available option.
Fine, don’t share. Just don’t tell us that we have to spend trillions based on it either.
While I favor transparency and disclosure, I’m not convinced beyond doubt it will advance science, nor am I confident we will ever know its net effect. I hope it doesn’t result in scientists practicing defensive science. I think about how MD’s practicing defensive medicine has added to the cost of health care.
huh,
when you build an airplane for the government, then own everything.
and yes your competition benefits. so what
I used to work for an aircraft company that was a subcontractor for it’s competition.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0068397
“Furthermore, fraud was found to be involved in 94% of the 228 cases of misconduct identified by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity from 1994–2012 [10].”
“An anonymous survey of 2,000 psychologists estimated that the prevalence of data falsification was 9%,”
“Among 163 professional biostatisticians, 31% had been involved in a fraudulent project and 13% had been requested to “support fraud” during their research career [16]. ”
In the medical profession errors are made with 5% of patients and serious errors affecting outcomes in 1%.
Only 11-20% of scientific studies are reproducible and perhaps 9% are fraudulent.
If the tiny failure rate of medical professionals invites scrutiny, what sort of review and disclosure does the huge failure rate of scientific studies deserve?
Scientific studies should be grilled like a porterhouse steak.
What do you mean by the huge failure rate of “science?” Do you mean in the fields you cited or science in general?
Pa believes science is rife with dishonesty. I believe scientists are more honest than people in other walks of life. If we are both right, I fear we are surrounded by crooks.
Pa believes science is rife with dishonesty. I believe scientists are more honest than people in other walks of life. If we are both right, I fear we are surrounded by reprobates.
‘Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right. His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials.’ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
A scientific method technically known as pulling it out of your arse. We suspect that is how Maxy rolls 100% of the time and – perhaps more importantly – that 97% of climate science is done this way.
Max, ” I believe scientists are more honest than people in other walks of life.”
You should probably just remember that scientists are people and leave it at that. People tend to rationalize which means very few ever do anything dishonest, in their own opinion anyway.
Of course scientists are just people, but I believe they are more honest than people in most other professions. I associate honesty with objectivity,
something that’s more important in science than in most occupations.
Hugh Jass approvingly quotes from an article that claims you can prove a theory.
“if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right”
____
Need I say more?
Max, ” I associate honesty with objectivity,
something that’s more important in science than in most occupations.”
That sounds good but “science” like most everything, is still just a thing. When you put “science” up on a pedestal, it doesn’t make it anything but an easier target.
The majority of scientists, like all people are honest provided they aren’t tempted to the point of slipping. The most honest people are those that really don’t have any skin in the game at all.
Now “professionals” in general do have a higher level of trust which they have earned and should respect, but once they start mixing their professions with politics, they need to realize they may be compromising things. Then as Reagan said, “Trust but verify.”
.
Need you say more? The question for the ages – but I tend to think that nothing you add will detract form the sum of human knowledge, wit or wisdom. So all in all we are perhaps better off if you don’t
‘Propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena.’ Isaac Newton
We tend to think that data that is predicted confirms hypotheses.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein
‘Although scientists reject the notion of attaining absolute truth and accept some uncertainty as part of nature, most scientific knowledge is durable. The modification of ideas, rather than their outright rejection, is the norm in science, as powerful constructs tend to survive and grow more precise and to become widely accepted. For example, in formulating the theory of relativity, Albert Einstein did not discard the Newtonian laws of motion but rather showed them to be only an approximation of limited application within a more general concept. (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration uses Newtonian mechanics, for instance, in calculating satellite trajectories.) Moreover, the growing ability of scientists to make accurate predictions about natural phenomena provides convincing evidence that we really are gaining in our understanding of how the world works. Continuity and stability are as characteristic of science as change is, and confidence is as prevalent as tentativeness.’ http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm
Well – some of us gain in understanding it seems – others not so much.
It’s not so much a matter of honesty or dishonesty. It’a a matter of replication and simply checking the methods used, data used, data discarded, etc. Openness facilitates the self-correcting feature of science. Without openness, it is much more difficult and not very efficient to verify.
Excellent point. It should apply in particular to closed access in pirate outfits like Nature. Technology has gone beyond their utility. They deliver too little for what they charge, and they warp research funding with their political agendas. I’d say they should be cut out from locking up papers written using material funded by tax funds.
BREAKING NEWS
DENIERS ARE NOT SKEPTICS
say CSI Super-Skeptics
Good on `yah CSI super-skeptics!
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/images/Global_Temps_08.gif
Good on `yah, for sustaining the centuries-old rational responsible respectful tradition of science-respecting skepticism!
a fan of *MORE* discourse: But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics.
A totally baseless claim, unless the authors have created some virtual deniers.
Maybe you know the answer to this question: Gobally averaged, the rate of cooling of the Earth surface by evapotranspiration is 80 W/m^2, and by dry thermals is 17 W/m^2 (from Trenberth et al; Stephens et al have slightly different figures). How much do those change if the DWLWIR increases by 4W/m^2 or if the surface temperature increases by 1C? Is your answer an instance of “science-respecting skepticism”? Do you think that the question and its answer are distractions? Quibbling? Are these more or less important than the 12% or so increase in lightning ground strike rate that Romps et al calculate for the Eastern US if the surface temperature increases by 1C?
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather
scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean
– neither more than less.’
‘The question is, ‘said Alice, ‘whether you can make words
mean so many things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty,’ which is to be
master. – that’s all.’
Proper skeptics promote open debate and testing and
do not hide declines or refuse ter release data or seek
ter gate-keep journals to limit critical debate and research
because it is contrary ter consensus thinking.
Skepticism is averse ter walls, oops, look out_
Humpty . (
Perfect. What would Orwell say?
“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” – George Orwell
Of course.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
Proper skeptics promote open debate and testing and
do not hide declines or refuse ter release data or seek
ter gate-keep journals to limit critical debate and research
because it is contrary ter consensus thinking.
Sorry Beth but you can’t have your cake, pretend you ate it, and eat it too.
Are you a denier, a skeptic, or are they the same thing for you?
Is this the way you want to be remembered, Dr. Pratt?
“Denier seems an inappropriate label from someone who
sometimes calls himself Descartes, VP. In any case it’s
jest an ad-homonym so not ter be taken as argument.
Regarding scepticism a simple serf finds Socrates, ‘all I
know’ is that I do not ‘know’ ‘ and Karl Popper’s distinction
that scientific method re pseudo science involves testable
hypotheses and provisional, not certain knowledge so that
makes me what,hopefully a denier of dogma?
So VP what do you have to say regarding refusal ter release
yr workings and gate keeping, well documented on Climate
Audit?
4th line edit, insert ‘insightful,’ before ‘Socrates,’
‘serf finds Socrates,’ goddamit!
JC SNIP
@bts: So VP what do you have to say regarding refusal ter release
yr workings and gate keeping, well documented on Climate
Audit?
WTF, bts?
Surely yr jking, bts. I’m flattrd-but-skeptcl that Climate Audit has documented anything about any Pratt, let alone well-documented it about any near-relative of mine including me myself. A URL, please.
JC SNIP
Half the audience for Don Monfort and Peter Lang’s ad hominem arguments, which they liberally apply to anyone disagreeing with them, may well find them compelling.
What DM and PL have not addressed is whether that’s the same half that is below average intelligence.
One could well imagine that this is highly likely given that those of above-average intelligence are highly likely to be accustomed to discounting ad hominem arguments.
Pratt’s totally uncalled for ad hom attack on Beth:
Then just a little while later calls my comment ad hom for pointing out that he is repetitive denier of the relevant facts and a perpetual troll.
What a hypocrite.
Both pronouns ‘one’ and ‘you’ are acceptable as indefinite
or generic pronouns … except fer serfs who consider the
use of ‘one’ sounds too haughty..
Happy New Year to YOU, V.P. )
bts.
And a happy New Year to you too, Beth.
vrp
@BTS: So VP what do you have to say regarding refusal ter release
yr workings and gate keeping, well documented on Climate
Audit?
(Sorry to be slow disambiguating “yr”. A senior moment there, many more to come, no doubt.)
This is presumably in the context of my comment on your “Proper skeptics promote open debate and testing and do not hide declines or refuse ter release data or seek ter gate-keep journals to limit critical debate and research because it is contrary ter consensus thinking”. What I had in mind had nothing to do with the hockey stick wars per se (other than that they too confuse me) but rather that it left me confused as to whether you were taking the position of a climate denier, climate skeptic, or “proper skeptic”, or conflating two, or all three.
As far as “proper skeptic” is concerned, all reputable journals, whether of climate, chemistry, mathematics, etc., practice “gate-keeping” in the form of skeptical refereeing, which is how I interpreted your “proper”.
Should the skepticism of a climate journal referee be the same as that of a climate skeptic? I’d imagine this is more so at Energy & Environment than at say Nature. Should Nature behave more like E&E?
Pratt pretends to concern himself with the workings of the casino. Payoff’s been good so far, so mum is the word.
Yeah, yeah, declare it, but to whom? Pratt, the Fall.
=================
FOMT, it is you who proves continually guilty of the mental operations characterized by the definition, “Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.”
Your chronic inability to engage in thoughtful and objective discussions on this blog, and your continual stream of insults, irrelevant or ill-digested links, and irrational tantrums render you a “denier” of first rank — denier of decency, civility, rationality, and humility.
I wonder about the psychological health of anyone that confuses taunts with discourse.
Hey, I dissemble that remark.
=============
Fan
Why link to a graph 10 years out of date.Get it right
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201301-201312.png
You do realize that you are automatically tuned out by the vast majority of readers here, I would guess, based on the fact that you are so utterly predictable.
Question What is denialism’s contribution to reasoned responsible respectful public discourse?
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cartoons/climate-models-vs-skeptic-models.png
The world wonders!
By selecting 10 year old graph, in order to avoid showing the 15 year pause, your credibility is permanently damaged. Have good Xmas etc.
Fan:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/images/Global_Temps_08.gif
current:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201301-201312.png
a fan of *MORE* discourse: What is denialism’s contribution to reasoned responsible respectful public discourse?
You routinely deny the existence of well-documented flaws, omissions, limitations, lacunae, and such in the standard alarmism; for example, you deny the importance of the fact that changes in the hydrological cycle are not known.
A skeptic model
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/f8.jpg?w=500&h=330
http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/16/docmartyns-estimate-of-climate-sensitivity-and-forecast-of-future-global-temperatures/
Outperforming >97% of GCM models
JimD, “Natural internal variability averages itself out more the longer the averaging period. For a century average, it doesn’t matter, but might add or subtract a tenth to the several degrees of forced climate change.”
First, natural variability will average to zero over some time frame.
Second, your second sentence is arm waving.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-um0MLLV1bHM/VJQmVEzG5OI/AAAAAAAAL80/GQcK0Hin9Xw/w767-h535-no/Equatorial%2BImbalance.png
That is the equatorial SST imbalance. That would be the source of the oscillating settling pattern that “causes” natural variability. You have two hemispheres that do not respond exactly the same to “global” forcing. If models correctly emulate that imbalance, then natural variability would be small in the model world. As it is, the magnitude of natural variability is inversely proportional to what the models “get” right. There is no “fixed” limit to natural variability.
captd, I don’t count locally variable responses to forcing as “natural variability”, and also I mean the globally averaged temperature and its natural variability, not regions. That narrows it down to the more normal definition here.
JimD, captd, I don’t count locally variable responses to forcing as “natural variability”, and also I mean the globally averaged temperature and its natural variability, not regions.”
Then you have a problem. If some region has a greater amplification of variability, it would have a greater impact on “global” variability. Southern hemisphere forcing has a greater impact on ocean heat content and a northern hemisphere forcing has a greater impact on “surface” temperature.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-z14J4JBWh9k/VJbN3cCakhI/AAAAAAAAL-E/bGZ0XetGveA/w539-h309-no/volcanic%2Bforcing%2Bby%2Bhemisphere.png
Crowley and Unterman 2013 is likely the current state of the art volcanic reconstruction and it is done by hemispheres. “Normal” volcanic forcing in the NH is greater than “normal” volcanic forcing in the SH. If you have unequal forcing you will have unequal response. Unless you account properly for regional forcing/response you are never going to get global response correct.
Then if you use a questionable paleo reconstruction to estimate impact, you get some combination of fruit and ham salad.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
captd, we all know that the globe doesn’t warm uniformly. The global-average land is currently warming twice as fast as the global average ocean. This is nothing to do with “natural variability” because we are talking about responses that would not happen without forcing. Don’t you see the difference? The paper by Armour is all about this and why this effect renders simple assessments of ECR like Lewis’s as underestimates (because they don’t fully account for slow responses).
JimD, ” This is nothing to do with “natural variability” because we are talking about responses that would not happen without forcing. Don’t you see the difference?”
Of course I do. What you don’t see is that all forcing estimates are based on assumed normal.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0mS-HTpcRRA/VJbp614Wh3I/AAAAAAAAL-Y/Oz-DcAMqmSc/w557-h332-no/cum%2Bvolcanic%2Bforcing%2Bby%2Bhemisphere.png
If I assume today is “normal” I can estimate the cumulative volcanic forcing by hemisphere using the Crowley and Unterman reconstruction.
If the Little Ice Age was “caused” primarily by Volcanic forcing, that would be the approximate forcing curve. With that unbalanced forcing you would get an oscillating response between hemispheres. If you pick 1900 as “normal” you would have a positive volcanic forcing because you picked the wrong baseline. Then if you assume that the majority of forcing is CO2 equivalent gases, your projections over estimate impact, David Rose write about a “pause”, etc. etc.
Your simplistic view assumes that everything previously published is 100% correct. There isn’t a very good chance of that since models are diverging from observation and will continue to until initial assumptions are revisited.
captd, it is even easy to see relatively weak forcings like the solar cycle that only is about 0.2 W/m2, so anything else going on is not masking that either. I don’t think people are surprised that volcanic forcing can be seen in the temperature record too. These are small and short shots of forcing nothing like a sustained forcing growing from 2 to 6 W/m2 as it would from CO2 alone this century. Quantification tells you what is important. Trying to ignore the relative importance of CO2 is what gets you into trouble in explaining things.
JimD, ” Trying to ignore the relative importance of CO2 is what gets you into trouble in explaining things.”
I never ignore CO2 forcing. In fact I use it to estimate other forcings.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-4rh-741loSo/VEKphwNa1_I/AAAAAAAALnQ/TokMZox6eRo/w640-h434-no/global%2Bwarming%2Bthe%2Bnorth%2Bcountry.png
That pre-industrial tail is what would be assumed “normal” if you have a high sensitivity to CO2. So you are effectively say that the depths of the LIA is “normal”. Then you end up adding the volcanic forcing reduction to the powers of CO2. When the SS troopers pick 1973 as their start date they are assuming there is zero natural variability, zero residual volcanic effect and declaring that is a anthropogenic only trend.
Why Muller did his CO2 + Volcanic fit to BEST he was doing the same thing, assuming 1750 was normal and that there are no longer term effects.
When you make “ideal” assumptions you should expect your estimate to be high. For some reason you don’t realize that.
captd, CO2 is the only forcing that is going to be anything like 6 W/m2 by 2100. This is what matters in the context of future climate. Even those small forcings are having an effect as you acknowledge, so 6 W/m2 is something to consider in that context. Volcanoes and solar variations were important for past climate causing much of the 0.2 C variance that occurred over the past millennium. Now we are at 0.8 C which is 4 standard deviations above the mean and climbing, not coincidentally occurring as the CO2 forcing almost reaches 2 W/m2. These are the kinds of things to evaluate seriously for the future. Put it this way, what do you think the dominant climate effect will be in 2100? Will it still be like the 1800’s and early 1900’s with solar and volcanic variations dominating?
JimD, “Put it this way, what do you think the dominant climate effect will be in 2100?”
Co2 will likely be dominate by then and close to the no feedback estimates. But if there is an “average” volcanic forcing that needs to be considered, then actual temperatures would fall into a different range.
To go even further, if there are no significant volcanic or “other” events, natural variability would approach zero, but every perturbation would start another oscillation.
captd, the solar and volcanic forcing have to have significant feedback to explain their temperature effects, so why should CO2 not? In fact you can’t account for the warming since 1950 without lots of feedback on the forcing change, mostly from CO2 in this period.
JimD, ” so why should CO2 not?”
The biggest feed back for CO2 is water vapor at marginal temperature ranges. Marginal would be where CO2 can increase snow/ice melt. So if there are lots of glaciers and snow fields, CO2 can have lots of feedback. Black carbon and ash though have a larger impact on snow and ice than CO2 so you can’t attribute all that feedback to CO2. Another of the model glitches it would seem.
The H2O feedback is not specific to CO2, but solar too. It just comes from anything that produces warming. We know warmer global climates are moister. Clausius-Clapeyron in action.
JimD, “The H2O feedback is not specific to CO2, but solar too. It just comes from anything that produces warming. We know warmer global climates are moister. Clausius-Clapeyron in action.”
I know that, that is why I specifically said CO2s biggest feedback was water vapor at temperature margins. If CO2 adds a degree of equivalent forcing that would expand the relatively snow/ice free zones and time frames. Black carbon can do basically the same thing by reducing snow/ice albedo.
When you get to the tropics where the surface air is already close to 100% relative humidity, increased CO2 forcing is almost completely offset by latent cooling. Every forcing basically has it sweet spots.
The CO2 effect is one of expanding the tropics more than enhancing them. While the tropical water vapor feedback is delayed more, other areas are getting warmer and moister at the same time which may explain the amount of feedback implied by the temperature record. However, the uneven warming means that the land is responding at nearly 4 C per doubling, and may even be drying leading to a different type of positive feedback due to reduced clouds. This is a transient climate with a strong ongoing divergence between land and ocean temperatures since 1970 (somewhat like that occurring in the annual spring/summer transition but longer term). It’s a sign of a rapid external forcing change that the ocean can’t keep up with.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1900/mean:240/mean:120/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/mean:240/mean:120
JimD, it only takes the oceans about 8 to 10 years to catch up based on a variety of estimates. That is of course the bulk mixing layer, not the total oceans.
As far as CO2 expanding the tropics, it basically just expands the moist air surface area, tropics, subtropics what ever, you can compare models with regional temperature to see how well they got that right.
I know you are counting on the oceans coming to rescue your higher sensitivity dream estimates, but reality is going to be a beyatch.
The difference between your estimate and mine will boil down to who has the most realistic assumptions.
captd, as the graph shows the land is warming at 0.3 C per decade, which is nearly 4 C per CO2 doubling. Even if the oceans don’t catch up, or perhaps because of it, this rate of warming is enough to be concerned about.
JimD, “Even if the oceans don’t catch up, or perhaps because of it, this rate of warming is enough to be concerned about.”
Being concerned doesn’t mean over selling a “cause” or demanding action for the sake of action. A lot of the land warming could be due to man made changes in the hydrologic cycle. That would include black carbon, agriculture practice, draining swamps, inefficient irrigation. Getting the world to use CFLB and drive subcompact hybrids isn’t going to change that. This over selling Climate Change has diverted resources from more practical adaptation/mitigation plans that will likely produce larger and more immediate positive impacts.
Plus a larger share of the land warming is being produced by “how cares” regions of the higher latitudes in winter.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lzsGQU1RjO4/VI9V215PMhI/AAAAAAAAL6Y/UWtjuhH8Osc/w661-h461-no/65-90%2Bc%26w.png
That is Cowtan and Way’s kriging to save HADcrappy forte. “Robust” warming from -30C to -24C in the Arctic winter isn’t exactly an immediate concern for mankind. Warming does need a bit of perspective from time to time.
You may care a bit about high-latitude land warming fastest of all because that will lead to sea-level rising increasingly faster as it continues in Greenland and Antarctica.
JimD, “You may care a bit about high-latitude land warming fastest of all because that will lead to sea-level rising increasingly faster as it continues in Greenland and Antarctica.”
Get real, -30C. Arctic winter warming is associated with increase heat loss. You are conflating it with global warming. Below -20 C CO2 has very little impact.
that is what is so sad about alarmists, they want it so bad they attribute everything to CO2 like it is a religion.
captd, have you seen the gravity measurements of the declining ice masses? They account for half the sea-level rise rate already, and the loss is accelerating, having doubled in five years.
JimD, “captd, have you seen the gravity measurements of the declining ice masses? They account for half the sea-level rise rate already, and the loss is accelerating, having doubled in five years.”
Yes I have and surface temperature has squat to do with it. Especially surface temperatures well below freezing. But for a sales pitch you can say, OMG! the Arctic warmed by 5 degrees! I am sure we will have ice free conditions and a complete meltdown of Greenland producing 20 feet of sea level rise by 2016 unless everyone buys a Prius and stops eating beef! Oh wait, y’all have been saying that haven’t you? How is that media campaign working out for ya’?
Did you ever think a little realism could be a nice change of pace?
captd, deft switch from too cold for anything to be causing sea-level rise to OK it is losing mass, but not from the large amount of NH warming.
JimD, “captd, deft switch from too cold for anything to be causing sea-level rise to OK it is losing mass, but not from the large amount of NH warming.”
You’re the one that shifted to sea level rise. The biggest treat to Greenland ice is still black carbon not atmospheric forcing. It doesn’t bother you guys at all to make incredible leaps for the cause.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icru_tmp_10_Greenlanda.png
There is Greenlands temperature anomaly.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icru_tmp_10_Greenland.png
There is the absolute temperature per Hadley. It has a glacier because it is cold. It still is cold. Now do you want to mention the poor going extinct polar bears?
Now since you aren’t really in to “regional” you can smear cause and effect like kriging smears temperatures, but most of the glacial mass loss is due to basal melt and black carbon.
captd, if you want to work backwards, sea-level rise was mentioned because you thought Arctic warming didn’t matter. It actually matters a lot more than you think. Greenland’s ice loss is related to the flow rate of the glaciers which is related to temperature.
JimD, “captd, if you want to work backwards, sea-level rise was mentioned because you thought Arctic warming didn’t matter.”
BS, I specifically said ” That is Cowtan and Way’s kriging to save HADcrappy forte. “Robust” warming from -30C to -24C in the Arctic winter isn’t exactly an immediate concern for mankind. Warming does need a bit of perspective from time to time.”
referring to this:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lzsGQU1RjO4/VI9V215PMhI/AAAAAAAAL6Y/UWtjuhH8Osc/w661-h461-no/65-90%2Bc%26w.png
Nothing about sea level rise or the Arctic not mattering. But when you mixed anomalies for -30C warming with “global” anomalies you are on a mission to deceive especially when you leap from inconsequential warming to massive ice loss in Greenland.
captd, so if your inconsequential warming is already leading to measurable Greenland ice loss, seems it does matter that we don’t accelerate that warming. This may go in more ever decreasing circles now, and is unrelated to your strange definition of natural variability as global warming unevenness that you started with.
Jimd
As regards measurable green land ice loss I would point out that there have been various periods of such ice loss.
I referenced it in great detail here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-two/
The two warmest consecutives decades in Greenland remain the 1930 and 1940 decades.
Tonyb
JimD, I tell ya what, here is a paper that attempts to blame greenland ice sheet ablation on surface temperatures.
http://www.geus.dk/publications/bull/nr28/nr28_p69-72.pdf
Put your peer review cap on and see if you can find an inconsistency.
@ Jim D, tonyb, et al
I noticed the discussion re ice loss from the Greenland ice cap and got curious as to the current ‘state of play’. This was one the first ‘hits’:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html
from which I got these bits:
“A negligible ice mass loss of 6 Gt between June 2013 and June 2014, in contrast to the largest annual loss (474 Gt) observed in the GRACE record in 2012, indicates a slowing of the rate of ice loss.”
“Average albedo during summer 2014 was the second lowest in the period of record that began in 2000; a new record low albedo occurred in August 2014.” (See captdallas2’s comment re soot/black carbon and note that with a record low albedo, the ice loss was also at a near record low rate.)
Taking the data at face value and ignoring the question of whether we can actually measure the Greenland ice cap with +/- 1e(-6) precision, my first reaction is ‘So what?’.
The total mass is around 3e15 tons. If I postulate a rate of loss triple the largest loss observed to date I get a loss of 1e12 tons/year. In other words, the ice cap will be gone in a mere 3000 years. It also corresponds to a volume loss (if triple the max observed rate) of 1000 km^3/year, which translates into a sea level rise rate of 3 mm/year. Again I ask, ‘So what?’. If the sea level rises 1 meter over the next 300 years, is it going to make ANY difference that would cause anyone other than professional sea level recorders to even notice, never mind feel threatened enough to demand the cessation of fossil fuel use? As a separate issue, is there any evidence that if we DID cease the use of fossil fuels that it would have any measurable effect on the rate that the Greenland ice sheet lost mass OR the rate of rise of sea level?
Remember: the above ‘catastrophe’ was predicated on a postulated rate of loss triple the maximum observed loss. At the most recent loss rate, the icecap disappears in somewhere between 400 and 500 thousand years and the Greenland ice cap melt causes the sea to rise at a rate of 0.02 mm/year. And I should give up electricity at the flip of a switch, 24/7/365 and the freedom to ‘move about the country at will’ in my car on the off chance that doing so would prevent my hundredth to ten thousandth generation descendants from enjoying their wine tasting tours of the famed Greenland vineyards?
Bob L, in the last ten years the Greenland ice mass loss rate has doubled twice. If it continues doubling every five years it will be all gone by 2100, so that is the other extreme. Reality is somewhere between your extreme and mine.
Jim D, so you reckon that there’s even the slightest possibility of anything even remotely close to an exponential increase being sustained?
Where is the energy going to come from?
Your “extreme” isn’t an extreme – it’s not even on the same planet, let alone in the same ball-park
@ Jim D
“Bob L, in the last ten years the Greenland ice mass loss rate has doubled twice.”
And since 2012 the loss rate has decreased by ~ 8000%, taking the NOAA figures at face value. Their term for the rate of loss, 2013-2014 was ‘negligible’.
Postulating that your quoted figures for the last ten years and NOAA’s figures for the change in loss rate since 2012 are accurate, what conclusion do you draw from them relative to AGW and why do you think that the observed data is indicative of a looming catastrophe that demands government action?
After 500 ppm, Greenland’s glacier will be on borrowed time because it didn’t even exist last time CO2 was at that level. Arctic sea-ice will go first, then that will be a natural follow-up.
Jim D | December 23, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
After 500 ppm, Greenland’s glacier will be on borrowed time because it didn’t even exist last time CO2 was at that level. Arctic sea-ice will go first, then that will be a natural follow-up.
Hmm. The last time the CO2 level was above 500, there were no Himalayas, the Arctic wasn’t semi-enclosed, Antarctica was still moving to the South pole and just starting to build an ice sheet, the Americas were unjoined and Africa was in the process of hitting the Middle East.
But no – it has to be a slight drop in CO2 that caused the ice age and frosted Greenland.
PA, I am talking about 20 million years ago when the continents were not much different from now, just warmer and Greenland was still a few million years away from getting a glacier, and CO2 had just dipped below 500 ppm.
Jim D | December 23, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
PA, I am talking about 20 million years ago when the continents were not much different from now, just warmer and Greenland was still a few million years away from getting a glacier, and CO2 had just dipped below 500 ppm.
23 million years ago the Drake passage between Antarctica and South America opened up leading to the formation of the Transpolar current. The isolation from tropical waters caused the current version of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, the cooling of the planet, and a drop in CO2 level from the resulting cooling.
@ Jim D.
“After 500 ppm, Greenland’s glacier will be on borrowed time because it didn’t even exist last time CO2 was at that level. Arctic sea-ice will go first, then that will be a natural follow-up.”
Lets see now. In 2012, the year of the record Greenland ice loss, the peak CO2 was 397 ppm. Since then the CO2 has continued to rise and reached a peak this year of 402 ppm. Over that same time, the ice loss has gone from 474 GT/year in 2012 to to ‘negligible’ (6 GT/yr).
From that you conclude that the icecap will be ‘on borrowed time’ if it CO2 reaches 500 ppm? Just how much time would you anticipate that he ice cap would need to borrow?
PA, what kind of delayed action causes a climate change many million years after an ocean circulation change? The answer is that the CO2 level was dropping slowly as were global temperatures. This is part of the trend that eventually led to the Ice Ages, or are you going to say those were due to rearranged ocean circulations too.
Bob L, do you consider a one year trend to be climate change or just weather?
@ Jim D.
““Bob L, in the last ten years the Greenland ice mass loss rate has doubled twice.”
“Bob L, do you consider a one year trend to be climate change or just weather?” (Note: 2012-2014 is actually 2 years, but never mind.)
Well, it depends on whether I am following ‘Climate Science’ rules or generic science rules.
Under Climate Science rules I am repeatedly informed that several DAYS of record setting heat in the southwestern desert is proof positive of ‘ACO2 driven AGW’, while record setting cold/snow events affecting most or all of Europe or the US, even those lasting for an entire winter, are only ‘weather’. Using generic science, I simply provided data points from a government document, with no commentary as to whether they represented climate change or weather. I merely asked whether YOU considered the most recent two year period, during which CO2 continued to increase at its long term rate while the rate of loss of the Greenland ice cap went from near record high to negligible, to be indicative of an existential threat from CO2. But didn’t get an answer.
Based on your commentary on this thread, you obviously think the transition between ‘weather’ and ‘Climate Change’ is somewhere between two years and ten years. Two years: weather; ten years: clear confirmation of climate change.
Just out of curiosity, could you narrow it down a bit further? For example, would a five year trend still be weather or would it cross over into climate change? If not five years, what do you see as the transition point?
Bob L, ten years isn’t really enough, but that is all we have for Greenland. Greenland is going the same way as Arctic sea ice and that trend is over thirty years long, which is enough to call climate change.
JD it took a while for the current to establish and South America to drift away. Continents don’t move overnight.
The Antarctic ice sheet melted at the end of the Oligocene for what are thought to be tectonic shift reasons. The Antarctic temperature has changed without regard to the CO2 concentration trend. CO2 is not the boss of Antarctica.
PA, you need to point to some paleoclimatologists who think that the cold periods in earth’s history, the Permian and now, had nothing to do with lower CO2 levels, and also that warmer periods like the Triassic, Eocene and PETM didn’t result from stronger GHG effects. It looks very inventive to say the continents and oceans did it all, with carbon-budget changes just being coincidence. That must be quite an important paper among the skeptic community, and possibly the only one that they are not at all skeptical about, if such exists.
JD this will have to resume this when we can open a new thread.
If you concur – we can pick back up where we left off.
PA, we can resume later, but it so far looks like a classic case of ABCD, unless you show a bottom-up approach that explains the last billion years of paleoclimate without a CO2 driver.
DENIALIST RESEARCH
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4775/3173/400/calvin_hobbes_thesis.1.jpg
DENIALIST COGNITION
http://www.mekainkorea.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/denial.jpg
CLIMATE-CHANGE REALITY
http://www.skepticblog.org/wp-content/uploads/SkepticsvRealistsv3_0.gif
There are lot’s of different starting point that the SS troopers could have picked.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-CNLbGdNZ7r0/VJXIrePa4FI/AAAAAAAAL9w/XJLrI1Fx0c4/w753-h553-no/pick%2Ba%2Btrend.png
It is almost like they are trying to sell something.
Is this ‘denier science’?
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/stadium-wave1.pdf
Is this?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288/abstract
Or this?
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/369/1956/4751.full.pdf
Too hard. What say we just play battling cartoons?
http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/north_pole_cartoon.jpg
Guess who’s getting coal for Christmas?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
I sometimes wonder if any skeptics can distinguish papers on up-and-down natural variability of +/-0.1 C, like the stadium wave one, from those on climate change referring to the observed overall trend of 0.7-1 C in the last half century to century. The comments imply some confusion on this point.
JimD, Why don’t you explain that natural up/down variability that is locked into +/- 0.1 C?
Then explain why picking a trend starting at 1973 is not more of a sales tactic than scientifically illuminating.
captd, the stadium wave is one attempt at an explanation of these small variations. Others do it in terms of ocean cycles. I also find it interesting that the last 8 years of the pause is 0.07 C warmer than the first 8 years. Makes you wonder what a 16-year pause is defined by, doesn’t it?
The temperature increase in the latter part of last century was 0.4K. You can make it more or less by cherry picking start points – but the science based start point – based on *cycles* – is 1944.
The *cycles* are not *cycles* at all but climate shifts that are more or less extreme – tens of degrees in places in as little as a decade.
A sort of halfwit, pull it out of your arse triple plus unscience is – however – the best we get from true believers. God only knows how they continue to miss the freakin’ obvious.
JimD, “captd, the stadium wave is one attempt at an explanation of these small variations. Others do it in terms of ocean cycles. I also find it interesting that the last 8 years of the pause is 0.07 C warmer than the first 8 years. Makes you wonder what a 16-year pause is defined by, doesn’t it?”
Not if you are up to date. The “pause” is a UK thing, David Rose with the Mail versus the UK MET. The MET made a lot of “extraordinary” predictions that didn’t pan out, One of those was that half of the years following 2009 would be the warmest years EVAH.
The Hiatus, slow down, stand still, oceans ate my warming, is the divergence between the models and observations. 0.07 C per decade is the long term secular trend in the data and 0.17C per decade should be the projected warming rate. So if you create a strawman by assuming that the “skeptic” trend needs to be 0.00, you can blissfully side step the discussion.
Now, please explain why “natural” variability is locked into as in cannot possibly exceed, +/-0.1 C degrees. I believe that was an estimate based on model performance prior to observations diverging from the model projections. Do I have that right or is there basic physics that limits natural variability?
Jim D: The comments imply some confusion on this point.
“The” comments? Any some in particular?
MM, specifically that Hugh Jass Delta Dawn with the references on decadal trends and asking about whether those are deniers. Completely different subject.
‘Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
Natural variability is a different problem? As if. What’s a different problem is Jimbo’s asinine number crunching.
Natural internal variability averages itself out more the longer the averaging period. For a century average, it doesn’t matter, but might add or subtract a tenth to the several degrees of forced climate change.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iosf_25yr_low-pass_boxa.png
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itsi_wls_ann_25yr_low-pass_box.png
I lowpass filtered the TSI reconstructions (to get the residual trend) and solar influence seems to explain temperature much better than CO2.
PA, you need to come up with some new science to support that because the solar forcing change is an order of magnitude smaller than CO2’s, which is why it is usually discounted on numerical rounds.
Well, solar has a 3-4 times “water vapor multiplier” because it warms the deep ocean that CO2 lacks because the infrared from CO2 is a skin effect.
http://www.am.ub.edu/~jmiralda/fsgw/lect7.html
Also, the 20th century warming due to TSI change was 1.5 W/m2. The usual global warming propaganda (see link above) says 3.3 W causes 1°C of warming. So 1.5 W/m2 is about 0.45°C of warming due to direct effect.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/049.htm
0.45°C happens to be inside the IPCC 95% confidence interval of 0.4-0.8°C for the total amount of 20th century warming.
Whoever told you the CO2 effect was 10 times greater was either lying or misinformed. The planet did not warm 4.95°C in the 20th century.
Since the solar induced warming is inside the confidence interval no CO2 forcing is needed to explain 20th century temperatures.
“As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media.”
weirdly you can accept all of climate science, accept that we must take action and STILL be called a denier.
“I decide who is a Jew.” [Dr. Karl Lueger]
‘Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
You would be a fool to accept all of climate science. But you could for instance accept that things are much worse – at least potentially. That effective, practical and pragmatic responses are possible – as opposed to the nonsense that usually passes for climate policy – and still be called a denier by obnoxious and supercilious twits with not a skerrick left of the sense God gave them and not two functioning brain cells to rub together.
No, the implication is that forcings vary much more than assumed and on various timescales and that CO2 is trivial at current levels.
Such a silly and obviously bias comment should not have made it into a publication.
So repeating the quote is sufficient to refute it?
‘What defines a climate change as abrupt? Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.’ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=14
Not the slightest clue about how undetectably small changes can cause major shifts in climate? Not worth considering further?
The statement is inane. My statement provides perspective. The suggestion that CO2 forcing increases the likelihood of shifts is silly, forcings (and trends in forcing) vary too much to assume that the little, gradual forcing of a-GHG increase or decrease risks. And the unpredictability of shifts also suggest variability in sensitivities, globally and regionally.
Aaron –
Messrs. Mosher and Jass are proffering insight, common-sense and no-regrets.
Take care not to back off a cliff.
I love your plots with the old data. I use the same trick. I copied it from dr man’s presentation at britoil university. I also like to put flames on the graphs’ backgrounds. It makes it look scary.
I sent the following letter, which the Managing Editor has forwarded on to the editor for his review and considerationDear Sir –
As a former member of CSICOP, I was disappointed in your Open Letter, “Deniers are not Skeptics”. It’s easy enough to mock Sen. Inhofe’s comment, which is both imprecise and exaggerated. That’s what one would expect from a politician. However, from scientific point of view, there are facts about climate change and there are accepted theories, but there’s also considerable uncertainty.
— It’s a fact that the planet and warmed and that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased.
— It’s a widely accepted theory that the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide has contributed to the warming, to some degree.
– However, there’s no agreement on how big an impact carbon dioxide has on global warming. This impact is measured by “climate sensitivity” (the amount of warming caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2.) The latest IPCC Report was unable to agree on a best estimate of sensitivity. It said that sensitivity was “highly likely” in a range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C.
– Many climate scientists are concerned because the climate models used by the IPCC have significantly over-estimated actual temperatures. Thus actual data suggests the possibility that the IPCC’s estimate of climate sensitivity may be too high.
– Regarding the Keystone Pipeline, some believe that not building the pipeline will have no significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions. They predict that Canadian oil that’s not burned in the US will be shipped abroad and burned somewhere else.
– Many people assert that climate change has caused an increase in extreme events. This claim is contradicted by the IPCC, whose position is that they cannot find evidence that climate change has caused an increase in extreme events. That conclusion is pretty obvious, because there hasn’t been any increase in extreme events.
I think it’s important to acknowledge all the uncertainty surrounding climate change. People who raise valid questions like these should not be called “deniers.”
@FOMB: But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics.
What a fantastic single sentence for knowledge theorists to play around with. It could be good for 2-3 years of conference papers.
A denier knows (is convinced) that P is not true. A skeptic has not (yet) been persuaded of the evidence for P and asks for more evidence that might decide the question. Call these categories D and S (or D(P) and S(P) if other questions besides P bear on this).
1. Are D and S disjoint? If so why?
2. The only members of D that could have falsely branded themselves as members of S are members of D\S (the set of deniers that aren’t skeptics).
Richard Lindzen has publicly outed himself as such a person on the ground that to call oneself a skeptic of proposition P is to raise the possibility that P might be true and as far as he is concerned there is no question that P is false and therefore he is emphatically a denier. (He said all this at question time after a Heartland presentation that you can find online, I can help if needed.)
3. How does FOMB propose to establish that any given self-proclaimed member of S is secretly a member of D? To do so is to charge that person with not acting in good faith.
That could work if FOMB is a mind-reader. Failing that, FOMB would need to point to evidence for membership in D. In many cases this would not be hard since online postings insisting that P is false should suffice. But this alone would not suffice as FOMB also has to establish that these deniers are not skeptics. This could be rather difficult given that so far the only denier to deny being a skeptic is Lindzen
It would be easier if people just stated what they believe.
Vaughan, that is an interesting analysis, but one way you can tell if a S is really a D is with their own words. Their self-definition may just not be correct, being unaware of the distinction. From their words, many of these people are almost certain, if not certain, that the IPCC WG1 is either just wrong on their most probable sensitivity values or just concocting the science to suit a different agenda. These are classes of D, not S, but they call themselves S. From their words you can tell they won’t be convinced by any amount of warming or melting and past evidence, let alone scientific arguments.
A person who is convinced that P is not true is a denier only if P is in fact true.
Then there are always space cadets (SC) whose ‘The Science’ is ludicrously maladroit.
Every time they open their mouths – some id_ot starts talking.
I should have said, “only if P is known to be in fact true”
The term, denier, is always relative. I would be a denier to Creationists, for example. You can’t stop people within a common belief system calling outsiders deniers, whether that belief is scientifically based or otherwise.
And what do you call someone who is so convinced that P is true that they accept without question any bit of rubbish which appears to support P being true in some way.
You can believe P is more probably true than not as a scientist. Unlike religion which has absolutes, science allows for probabilities. For AGW the belief supported by evidence is that the sensitivity is more probably above 2 C per doubling, for example.
Evidence JD?
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/new-paper-lowers-climate-sensitivity-estimate.html
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The clear implication being that the IPCC did not know whether to rely on computer models or observational data.
The evidence is the ECS is on the low end. The models predict higher ECS (and we know how they have been doing lately).
We need a well bounded +/-20% estimate. 21st century climate would indicate past estimates were high, some of that ECS should have kicked in by now. Perhaps if the models were run with 1/2 the CO2 sensitivity they would work better.
PA, for every low-sensitivity study there are ten with higher sensitivities. The science takes the balance of evidence. You can take Lewis and Curry’s method and start in 1970 instead of 1940 and get a completely different result, but they didn’t show that.
Jim D, it’s not a popularity contest
phatboy, no, it is definitely not. It is about independent lines of evidence.
Studies do not, of themselves, constitute “evidence”
It’s not unknown, in other sciences, to have several “independent” studies subsequently shown to be wrong.
And the winner, in a crowd(smudged, could be cloud), are the independent lines of evidence. Well, that’s what the observations, after solemn review by the collected umpires, demonstrate to be an estimable measurement. Instant Replay Rules.
========================
“Steven Mosher | December 23, 2014 at 2:54 am |
It would be easier if people just stated what they believe.”
——
Indeed, but it would be most honest and clear if people stated what they thought was most likely true with probability included, i.e., likely, very likely, extremely likely, etc. Sort of like what real scientists do.
Vaughnan, the comment above is idiotic because denier is used by other people to attack those with different views.
It is an epithet, not a descriptor and just like any other epithet is used to denigrate (think on the etiology of this word).
Attempting to apply it based on some scientific principle is foolish because its usage has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Vaughan Pratt | December 23, 2014 at 2:39 am | Reply
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist, known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983[1] until he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[2] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change[3] and what he has called “climate alarmism”.[4]
Yes, please help. I don’t believe that this Harvard educated professor at MIT is a “denier”. If he were a Stanford professor I’d believe almost any faculty member had left the reservation but not MIT.
Some people don’t like the word denier or denial, so they need to come up with a name for people with an “a priori rejection of ideas” that the CSI labeled as denial. They sure are not just skeptics. This is the CSI’s complaint about them because they give true skeptics a bad name.
JimD said “The term, denier, is always relative.”
And that is what makes it such a poor label (really it is just an insult and name-calling).
I have been called a denier for arguing that ECS will turn out to be lower than 3c. Anything between 1.5c and 4.5c is within the IPCC range so some might think I could not be a denier if I espouse an ECS of 1.6C – yet I get called denier.
The people who label others deniers based on IPCC reports also take the reports as gospel. What if ECS were to end up being 1.45C (below the IPCC range)? Do we measure denial based on who turns out to be correct?
I would encourage all people to stop using the label denier. Because it is relative it is meaningless and just plain insulting.
I would much rather have people call me wrong or right.
@David in TX: Yes, please help. I don’t believe that this Harvard educated professor at MIT is a “denier”.
And yet he himself said he was. You can see Lindzen say the following at 52:10 in this video.
“Whenever I’m asked, am I a climate skeptic, I always answer no. To the extent possible I am a climate denier. That’s because skepticism assumes there is a good a priori case that you have doubts about it. There isn’t even a good a priori case. And so by allowing us to be called skeptics they have forced us to agree that they have something.”
Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
So, the consensus climate people are the real Deniers!
JC provided a link to Mike Daly’s Telegraph piece in which he says:
“What is likely is that pre-drilled well capacity and existing finance will provide a buffer of three to six months before true reality is exposed. This is certainly not familiar territory to the shale players, and the industry waits to see how they will deal with it.”
______
He may be right. Production from new shale wells drops sharply in the first year and continues to drop fast during the following three years before bottoming out at an annual output around one-fourth of the first year’s. I believe this means supply from existing shale wells, a large proportion of which are under four years old, is going to fall off fast, resulting in a price recovery for oil. As prices rise, drilling in shale should pick up again unless investors fear another squeeze by the big foreign oil producers.
I’m not complaining, just curious. What was it about this post that resulted in it spending half a day in moderation?
famili@r.
Max, my own analysis says the same thing. Even with a time frame of 18 months to be back above $100/bbl. The reason, however, is more than just US shale decline curves and the economics driven slowdown in new drilling permits. In 2008, a massive IEA study (essay IEA facts and fictions in Blowing Smoke) showed existing conventional capacity was already declining at an average rate of 5.9% per year. That is about 0.06*85mbpd or 5.1 mbpd that has to be replaced annually, itself about twice the present supply demand imbalance. Other than US shale, the big replacement numbers have been from Canadian tar sands and the Brazil deepwater subsalts. Both are as or more expensive than shale. You already see Canadian capacity investment curtailment. Eike in Brazil has already gone bankrupt. All Brazil has to do is slow production of their FPSO ships and things will balance back out.
Meanwhile, the Saudi’s get to show Maduro in Venezuela, Khameini in Iran, and Putin in Russia who is oil boss. The latter two supporting Bashad in Syria against Saudi wishes. Saudi’s are getting a twofer.
Rud says “18 months to be back above $100/bbl”
Rud, I sure do hope you are right.
Thanks for the reference to the IEA study. I didn’t know conventional capacity was declining as fast as “5.9% per year.”
5.9 % per year isn’t that fast. If a reservoir is allowed to produce at a “normal” pace and there’s no additional drilling the decline rate ranges from 5 to 40 % (I’m using ballpark figures). Think about it. Consider the reserves to production ratios, use Qt = Qi x e raísed to (-d x t), where d us decline rate, and t is time (in years), Q is yearly rate, and Qt is rate at time t. It’s a no brainer.
The shale bankruptcy indirectly referred to is Endeavor International.
A quick look at their debt load and debt issuance history shows what the problem is: in 2004, the company had $1.8 million in debt. By 2014, the long term debt was in the 600+ millions. They have issued nearly $700M in bonds in the past 3 years alone.
Even if the existing debt isn’t affected unduly by the bankruptcy process (not in the least clear given that bonds for lehman are still unresolved 7 years later), there’s no question whatsoever that future bond issuance and debt rollover is going to be severely impacted.
The Nassim Taleb article on fragility is relevant – excessive debt leads to fragility. The current shock imposed by OPEC will prune the weak out of the shale business. OPEC itself is fragile. We will see what happens.
Centralized decision making leads ter fragility. See me 23rd
Edition of Serf Under -ground re Nassim Taleb and others..
https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/268/
Correction .Herewith.
https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/
Too bad Wal-Mart doesn’t know centralized decision making leads to fragility. Just think how stronger the company could be if it let each store manager just do his own thing.
HA HA !
“Walmart”
Max, OK, Cub Reporter,
As always the question with you credulous types is, are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you actually obtuse? I think it’s mostly the latter.
Wake up pokerguy! Wal-mart is wealthier than some countries, and has centralized decision making.
“Wake up pokerguy! Wal-mart is wealthier than some countries, and has centralized decision making.”
actually decentralization of decision making is one of the keys to their success as regional managers, store managers and department heads are given decision making power that you dont see in other retail chains.
read
“Winning: Continuous Improvement Theory in High Performance Organizations”
they know more than you do
Well, of course, Wal-Mart’s upper management doesn’t micro manage all those stores. Nor do they give each store manager carte blanche.
Walmart DOES let it’s store managers “do their own thing”, within the scope of their business model. A store in Fremont won’t be stocked identical to one in Atlanta. Demographics, Economy, there are a dozen different parameters that decide how each store is run. And Walmart management knows this.
Now, if you want to view the true communist ideal of centralized planning (complete with leadership purges) look no further then Sears. But look quick, most of the industry is expecting THAT bankruptcy by 2016.
Ah yes, ‘Walmart let it’s store managers “do their own thing”,
within the scope of their business model’
HA HA, which ain’t exactly letting you do your own thing.
Sears is going bankrupt? Oh no ! There goes my free tire rotation.
Has he ever worked for large a multi-national? Making money is the business model.
In fact – has anyone ever employed him for anything? I can’t imagine it – but I do have the perfect career advice.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/Krustytheclown.png
Beththeserf: ‘The differences can be small, but they may lead to radically different consequences, like a railroad’s switch points; the chemist’s trade consists in good part in being aware of those differences, knowing them close up, and foreseeing their effects.’
Let the sirens wail, call forth the Progressive Technocrats to administer the Precautionary Principle and close down all those labs and activities that might result in large changes from small effects. Henceforth, let it be known in the land that any cause that results in an effect larger than the self same cause is outlawed. Health and Humanity will be Protected.
Endeavor isn’t a shale oil company. Its production is in the North Sea.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/10/15/endeavour-international-oil-field-in-north-sea-back-online/
And if you read the Fuel Fix article, you will find their problem wasn’t oil prices.
Certainly Endeavor does do North Sea, but they also did shale:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/endeavour-unveils-new-portfolio-of-us-resource-plays-80768962.html
Perhaps you can comment on the breakdown between which is what portion of Endeavor’s portfolio; was the nearly $700M in issued debt in the last 3 years for the North Sea or for shale, or in what proportion?
c1ue – I just now saw your response.
If you look at this SEC filing, it appears the bulk of their asssets and spending were on North Sea projects. However, I don’t see a breakdown of debt by region. That could be in some of the filings somewhere, I guess.
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=10138441-133649-201100&type=sect&TabIndex=2&dcn=0001562762-14-000213&nav=1&src=Yahoo
Bjorn Lomborg: Invest in R&D not subsidies
No problem, we’re selling mucho coal to Germany.
Good ol’ Rocky Top,
Gone to gen. electricity.
=================
The real 97%.
The link for:
Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics :
doesn’t seem to work
Scientific Method: Defend the Integrity of physics
http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
Questions asked by ANYONE need to be addressed – regardless of beliefs.
Only trust where we can objectively verify what is predicted. Else it is not science.
“The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable.”
Yeah, a theory you can’t test has no utility. It may enrich your life thinking about it but it doesn’t advance science.
If you can’t test if a theory is right or wrong – it doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong. The theory just doesn’t matter period.
PA, are you forgetting the first steps in the scientific method, the observing and the questioning? How on earth would you know how confine your observations and questions just to matters that could end up as testable theories?
“How on earth would you know how confine your observations and questions just to matters that could end up as testable theories?”
Huh?
All the NSF has to do is limit RFPs to observations and questions that end up as testable theories. That’s pretty easy.
If you want to spin pure theory that has no practical or testable application you can do it with private funds.
Every NSF application should have a check box “can theory be tested?” with a essay box for description of method. If the check box and essay area aren’t filled out the application goes to the bottom of the pile.
I read Maxy’s comment twice – and laughed out loud both times.
He has a rare gift. But keep going Maxy. You know – monkeys – typewriters.
PA, your idea sounds like something out of a Lewis Carroll novel.
I could tell a scientist as a condition of employment he is forbidden to make any observations or ponder over any questions that would not result in a testable theory, but even though I’m a pretty good actor, I’m not sureI could do that with a straight face. But if I could, just think how many people I could convince I’m a total nut case.
If we are thinking up silly ideas, I have one. We should tell scientists as a condition of employment they are forbidden to have impure thoughts while observing co-workers.
A hypothesis that cannot in principle be put to the test of evidence may be interesting, but it is not likely to be scientifically useful.
http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm
Groan.
Right, and a scientist should not waste time thinking about theories that are untestable. After thinking up a testable theory, the scientist should test it. If a theory fails the test, he should forget it, and think up another testable theory. Scientist also should not waste time thinking about theories that have already past the test.
Now and then an untestable theory may cross a scientist’s mine while he is trying to think up a testable theory. This kind of distraction makes the scientific method inefficient and should be avoided.
Science would be more efficient if scientists were paid on a piece rate, a proven system which rewards the most productive workers. If a scientist comes up with a theory that passes testing, pay him well, but if his theory fails testing, pay him nothing.
AGW is testable. We are doing the experiment now by steadily increasing the forcing on the climate by 0.4 W/m2 per decade and watching the warming rate produced in the surface temperature and ocean heat content.
Jim D, I believe that’s called “destructive testing,” which definitely is not a good idea for anything irreplaceable.
Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | December 20, 2014 at 10:51 am |
Jim D, I believe that’s called “destructive testing,” which definitely is not a good idea for anything irreplaceable.
Well, if you refer to the “Models vs Observations” chart in the next thread, the trend of reality is headed for negative numbers and the models are starting their trend toward infinity.
It is time to start talking about requiring by law that the model aggregate bear some resemblance to reality, as a requirement for future federal funding. To this point researchers have failed to correct the models. It is pretty clear they are going to have to be beaten with some sort of stick to make them change.
There is no point in having models that seem to model Venus and not earth. The atmosphere of Venus is so different it might as well be another planet.
Bad models are not irreplaceable – they are irrelevant. What is being “destructively tested” is funding justification for GCMs that are grossly incorrect.
PA, I had questions on that graph too. Did they underestimate the observation line? They are not using OLS trends for sure, maybe end-points?
PA, ideally, the prediction from a model would be perfect (match reality), but if its in the ball park it still can be useful.
“Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.” – Albert Einstein
Notwithstanding Maxy’s down home homilies – and Einstein’s much more subtle intimations of the limits of knowledge – hypothesis forming, analysis and ultimately synthesis is the scientific method.
We can go a little more into the creativity required to formulate hypotheses. ‘The use of logic and the close examination of evidence are necessary but not usually sufficient for the advancement of science. Scientific concepts do not emerge automatically from data or from any amount of analysis alone. Inventing hypotheses or theories to imagine how the world works and then figuring out how they can be put to the test of reality is as creative as writing poetry, composing music, or designing skyscrapers.’ And if Maxy bothered with ‘book learning’ instead of relying entirely on facile quibbling – we might bot be plagued always with such simple minded nonsense.
Einstein has a take on play and imagination.
“The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be ‘voluntarily’ reproduced and combined. …. This combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought before there is any connection with logical construction in words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others”.
However it is approached – the scientific enlightenment established the rules for science to be considered science. Hypothesis, analyses and synthesis. A hypothesis is predictive and therefore testable through analyses – and synthesis explains analysis. ‘Scientists strive to make sense of observations of phenomena by constructing explanations for them that use, or are consistent with, currently accepted scientific principles. Such explanations—theories—may be either sweeping or restricted, but they must be logically sound and incorporate a significant body of scientifically valid observations.’ http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm
‘Sir Isaac Newton was a significant contributor to the Scientific Revolution. Newton believed that scientific theory should be coupled with rigorous experimentation, and he published four rules of scientific reasoning in Principia Mathematica (1686) that form part of modern approaches to science:
1. admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
2. to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
3. qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
4. propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena.’
Parsimony, equivalence, universality and testability. The scientific method – and it’s called a method for a reason.
It is absurd to need to reiterate the foundations of science for someone who has obviously been failed by the educational system in Oklahoma. There was a link to ‘Science for all Americans’ – quoted again above. There is little excuse for persisting in displays of profound ignorance – other than an invidious and disruptive one.
AGW is – btw – a theory that is contradicted by observations. It is an incomplete idea. The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/ipcc-models-vs-observations-cato.png
Fun chart, apparently from the AGU meeting.
The chart makes clear the obvious problem with the climate models. The average trend of the models should be the average of the actual climate trend.
If NOAA hurricane models matched the climate models – 95% of the models would show the hurricane going too far left and the “best” models would predict that hurricanes do counterclockwise donuts in the Caribbean.
By law (since it won’t happen any other way) the average of the climate models should be required match the observed trend. They can defund the high trend models or reduce model CO2 sensitivity, but the average has to meet the observed trend.
If hurricane model predictions were as bad as climate model predictions the staff involved would be sacked.
A very illustrative chart. Watch the 20 to 30 year trend drop to zero in the next decade.
Since 1980 the PDO, a significant source of natural variation in the GMT trend, has been adding less and less oomph to the global mean temperature trend. Around 2000 it entered its negative phase. This PDO “cycle” is now 30 to 35 years old, and it’s likely to peak by age 45, and at very high GMT.
Maybe someone can explain how they get their observed trends. From HADCRUT4 you get 0.15 for the last 50 years, and 0.17 for the last 40 and 30 years. Their’s are nothing like correct. Where did they go wrong?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1964/trend:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1974/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1984/trend
Jim D, VERY MISLEADING with how you presented the graph.
You want an explanation? EASY. Show it with more sampling data. Also change the time trends in segments, as per the below:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/mean:1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1973/trend:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:2002/trend:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend
Note the change in the y-axis, now 1.6 degrees, rather than Jim’s 0,9 degrees. So the slope of the center segment increase is less (not as ‘scary’ as on Jim’s plot).
And adding the means for each time segment CLEARLY show the trends for each time period: slight decline from 1950 to about 1973, the increase from about 1973 to 2001, and the slight decline from about 2001 to the present.
Martin C, you are not doing what they were doing. They were looking at trends ending in 2014, which is what I showed.
On the other hand, they do seem to get 0.17 C per decade. It appears lower than 0.15 when eye-balling, but you can line it up and the observed trend is not far short of 0.2 C per decade for the last 30-40 years, which is about right given the forcing going on.
Jim D says on December 20, 2014 at 12:47 pm . . .
Yes Jim, because temperatures have increased over the past 150 years or so, you could start just about ANYWHERE during that time (except from around 2001 as the last segment of the plot I noted shows), and even if temps were following the same decline since 2001, it would be a LONG TIME before that trend would have a zero or negative slope, even if temperatures were truly on a decreasing trend. SO WHAT ?
For a specific example, temps could drop 0.4 degrees in the next 10-20 years, and your plot STILL WOULD SHOW an increase of just a linear trend starting from where you did, in about 1970. IT IS MEANINGLESS to focus on just the linear trend this way. .
Let’s see what happens to temperatures during in the next decade, first; THEN decide what might need to be done (if anything . . ).
This is why 2014 being the warmest year upends the nonsense around here.
The 2001 to 2014 trend he shows ends at December 31, 2013. Making WfT’s graphs about the “pause” with Hadcrut4 really pointless. It’s 2014 data ends on July 31, 2014.
Judy wants game in 2015, and 2015 will have a result.
‘This paper provides an update to an earlier work that showed specific changes in the aggregate time evolution of major Northern Hemispheric atmospheric and oceanic modes of variability serve as a harbinger of climate shifts. Specifically, when the major modes of Northern Hemisphere climate variability are synchronized, or resonate, and the coupling between those modes simultaneously increases, the climate system appears to be thrown into a new state, marked by a break in the global mean temperature trend and in the character of El Niño/Southern Oscillation variability. Here, a new and improved means to quantify the coupling between climate modes confirms that another synchronization of these modes, followed by an increase in coupling occurred in 2001/02. This suggests that a break in the global mean temperature trend from the consistent warming over the 1976/77–2001/02 period may have occurred…
Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature…
It is hypothesized that persistent and consistent trends among several climate modes act to ‘kick’ the climate state, altering the pattern and magnitude of air-sea interaction between the atmosphere and the underlying ocean. Figure 1 (middle) shows that these climate mode trend phases indeed behaved anomalously three times during the 20th century, immediately following the synchronization events of the 1910s, 1940s, and 1970s. This combination of the synchronization of these dynamical modes in the climate, followed immediately afterward by significant increase in the fraction of strong trends (coupling) without exception marked shifts in the 20th century climate state. These shifts were accompanied by breaks in the global mean temperature trend with respect to time, presumably associated with either discontinuities in the global radiative budget due to the global reorganization of clouds and water vapor or dramatic changes in the uptake of heat by the deep ocean.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
There is some actual science that at least explained non-warming from 2002.
So yes the Pacific state did shift – and given that these states persist for 20 to 40 years – there may be a little more of the cool state yet.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/atm/images/pdo_long.gif
And – yep – it does seem to be cloud.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/earthshine.jpg
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change’
Frankly – anything else seems like dumbass triple plus unscience. But whatever rocks your dumbass boat.
I don’t know looks closest to RSS at the 30 year point, which would be cherry picking, other trends are higher at that point, and would be green, including UAH.
The whole thing is the old blackboard trick of comparing model runs with error bars to data trends without error bars.
Put both sets of error bars back in and the whole nonsense about model data mismatch disappears.
‘ It is hypothesized that persistent and consistent trends among several climate modes act to ‘kick’ the climate state, altering the pattern and magnitude of air-sea interaction between the atmosphere and the underlying ocean. Figure 1 (middle) shows that these climate mode trend phases indeed behaved anomalously three times during the 20th century, immediately following the synchronization events of the 1910s, 1940s, and 1970s. This combination of the synchronization of these dynamical modes in the climate, followed immediately afterward by significant increase in the fraction of strong trends (coupling) without exception marked shifts in the 20th century climate state. These shifts were accompanied by breaks in the global mean temperature trend with respect to time, presumably associated with either discontinuities in the global radiative budget due to the global reorganization of clouds and water vapor or dramatic changes in the uptake of heat by the deep ocean. Similar behavior has been found in coupled ocean/atmosphere models, indicating such behavior may be a hallmark of terrestrial-like climate systems [Tsonis et al., 2007].’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
In the words of Michael Ghil (2013) the ‘global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’
The theory of abrupt climate change – the new climate paradigm – suggests that the system is pushed small changes in the system – such as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation.
The shifts can be rapid and more or less extreme. The last shift was in 1998/2001. So – without the realclimate spin – we are looking at 30 years of non-warming (or even cooling) at least and – beyond that ;the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature’.
The warming over a warm and cool regime – 1944 to 1998 was 0.4K at 0.07 K/decade. Not all of that was greenhouse gases. Not at all serious in the scheme of things – with the only caveat being that it may radically shift several times this century.
One might wonder when FOMBS/Hansen/Mann/Oreskes/Francis might actually accept this new reality for what it is – the one which says that climate is a little more dynamically complex than they have contemplated to date. With FOMBS at least possibly not yet – even as he skirts around the new reality. The personality construct around this issue is a little too strident, fervent, facile, supercilious, superficial, evangelical… It all seems a bit crazy to me.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
A few month ago I made a similiar approch:
[img]http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/sensi2.gif[/img]
I compared the trends (GISS) to 2004 and to 2014. It’s clear, that the model-tuning from 1975 to 2004 ( brown for obs. and green for CMIP5) produced some kind of good agreement between CMIP5 model-mean and the observations. If one looks at the trends to 2014 ( blue for obs. and purple for CMIP5) the divergence is good visible. The trends of the model-mean is about 30% too high. This could be solved very easy: 30% Reduction of the TCR of the model-mean ( which is now about 1.9), this leads to a TCR of about 1.33. It’s just the value of Lewis/Curry.
The Singular Universe?
I might have known that anything from FOMBS would be utterly worthless.
1) There is only one universe at a time. Our universe is not one of many worlds. It has no copy or complete model, even in mathematics. The current interest in multiverse cosmologies is based on fallacious reasoning.
The dominant concept amongst physicists is the Copenhagen interpretation of wave/particle duality. The decoherence of the wave equation has no physical reality manifesting in many worlds.
2) Time is real, and indeed the only aspect of our description of nature which is not emergent or approximate. The inclusive reality of time has revolutionary implications for many of our conventional beliefs.
Time ceases to be distinct from the spatial dimensions – time is an illusion for 3 dimensional beings in a 4 dimensional universe.
3) Everything evolves in this real time including laws of nature. There is only a relative distinction between laws and the states of affairs that they govern.
Nothing evolves – including species. There is no arrow of time but a continuum in which each moment is eternal. The universe is perfectable – but as light displaces darkness and not through time. A Manichean battle of light and dark in 4 dimensions.
‘There is light within a man of light, and he lights the whole world. If he does not shine, there is darkness.’
4) Mathematics deals with the one real world. We need not imagine it to be a shortcut to timeless truth about an immaterial reality (Platonism) in order to make sense of its “unreasonable effectiveness” in science.
Got no idea what this can mean. No one imagines any more – and haven’t for millennia – that math is anything more than a symbolic language.
All in all – if this is the core of the book – it is worthless pseudo scientific babble.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
Lol … Delta Dawn, ain’t it a simpler to tell the truth and shame the devil?
You ain’t read that Unger-Smolin book, have yah?
That’s why it was FOMD’s pleasure to provide you (and Climate Etc readers) with quotations and working links!
Best wishes for happy holiday-season science-learning are extended to you personally, Delta Dawn, and to *ALL* rational-minded Climate Etc readers!
‘Our aim is to develop methods and principles adequate to a
science of cosmology that is not simply a scaled-up version of contemporary physics. To develop them, we take as points of departure three conceptions: the singular existence of the universe, the inclusive reality of time, and the selective realism of mathematics.’
Having quoted an essay from somewhere on these three *fundamental ideas* – and a fourth that was rather incoherent – I am not really inclined to wallow any further in new age cosmology the likes of which we have seen again and again. All of them utterly without substance.
As I said – the three ideas are misplaced. Most physicists accept the Copenhagen interpretation of wave particles duality. We have the science of the very big – the very small and the very complex. Replacing it with triple plus unsceince is a retrograde step. And really – who now believes that math captures the music of the spheres. The latter I suppose relates to decoherent probabilities in the wave equation – see Copenhagen interpretation.
The central idea are based on false premises – and frankly are about as interesting as FOMBS always is. Not at all that is.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
Delta Dawn (and other knee-jerk skeptics), please be aware that Unger-Smolin physics and Grothendieck-Gromov math are finding their enterprise application in fields as eminently practical as …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa59ZgflJD8
… the accurate simulation-science prediction of drug potency.
Like it or not simulation-science marches on … in climate-science and in pretty much every other STEM discipline too.
Utter freakin’ nonsense as usual – there is no Unger-Smolin physics – it is philosophical cosmology based on very uninteresting premises. The molecular simulation has to do molecular dynamics or the Monte Carlo method – free energy perturbation. Getting better at modelling molecular binding energies? One would hope so.
We could look at science that is actually relevant to climate – the field of network theory comes to mind as fundamentally important – but why break the mold. Let’s have some extraordinarily detailed cosmology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
The very large and the very small – watch the space as they come together – perhaps – in quantum gravity.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
Lol … John Baez’ recent lectures on climate-change are worth studying too!
• John Baez’ Question I: What is Climate Change?
• John Baez’ Answer I: It’s Michael Mann’s hockey-stick blade of anthropogenic CO2-driven warming
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Hockey-Stick-small.gif
• John Baez’ Question II: What To Do About Climate Change?
• John Baez’ Answer II: Leave CO2 in the ground. Develop a carbon-neutral global energy economy ASAP
Good on `yah John Baez … for vigorously affirming Hansen/Mann/Oreskes/Francis climate-change science!
—————
Question for D-D Golly D-D … does yer left-brain even know what yer right-brain is sayin’?
Pro Tip The literature of tensor network theory links Unger/Smolin/Gromov insights to practical simulation science … Joseph M. Landsberg’s recent text Tensors: Geometry and Applications (2012) and his survey article “On the geometry of tensor network states” (2012) both are commended to your attention.
You have me confused with someone else. There is actual science on the pause.
‘Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
Unless pulling it out of your arse – something it seems FOMBS excels at – is now a recognised part of of the scientific method – then some sort of hypothesis followed by analysis and synthesis is usually required.
The new regime started in 2002. I talked to a hydrologist in 2003 – who understood the temperature implications and links to Pacific states – that I had just got. In 2007 – Tsonis and colleagues posited a new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. By now it is pretty definitive. A break in ocean states likely to persist for 2 to 3 decades.
There are two sides to this coin. As I have said often.
‘A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
Again as I have said many times – these aren’t cycles of natural variability but shifts in climate states that are driven by a shifting balance in internal mechanisms, happen over very short time frames and can be more or less extreme.
FOMBS obviously has not the slightest clue – and John Baez quite frankly is a neophyte with not much grasp at all of Earth sciences. Baez may or may not be susceptible to broader aspects of climate science and to practical and pragmatic responses. I don’t know.
But FOMBS doesn’t have a freakin’ clue about anything at all – obviously never bothers reading anything I say – and posts horrendous conflations of random stuff that might have some intrinsic interest but are utterly useless for resolving real issues of the Earth climate system. Tensors for instance – and what precisely could be the Unger/Smolin/Gromov insights to practical (molecular) simulation science – and what possible significance does it have to the big picture of climate? It seems to be science as some sort of cargo cult proof of catastrophic global warming and the need to bring down capitalism. Wave some random science and claim that proves the superiority of space cadet *science* and that calamity is all but imminent.
Network math is something different entirely. It is about understanding the system broadly for what it is. Mind – you need to get past societal and economic transformations in the following link first. Just take it for granted that cheap and super abundant energy sources – other than fossil fuels – are even now stepping up to the the world stage – and that more fundamental social, economic and environmental progress is inevitable this century.
‘Since the biosphere is a massive network of interconnected elements, we expect network theory will play an important role in green mathematics. Network theory is a sprawling field, just beginning to become organized, which combines ideas from graph theory, probability theory, biology, ecology, sociology and more. Computation plays an important role here, both because it has a network structure—think of networks of logic gates—and because it provides the means for simulating networks.
One application of network theory is to tipping points, where a system abruptly passes from one regime to another. Scientists need to identify nearby tipping points in the biosphere to help policy makers to head off catastrophic changes. Mathematicians, in turn, are challenged to develop techniques for detecting incipient tipping points. Another application of network theory is the study of shocks and resilience. When can a network recover from a major blow to one of its subsystems?
We claim that network theory is not just another name for biology, ecology, or any other existing science, because in it we can see new mathematical terrains.’ http://mpe2013.org/2013/02/12/prospects-for-a-green-mathematics/
At least I have both a left and right brain – there is strong evidence that FOMBS has neither.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
In fact it seems quite likely that John Baez would be open to a network model that uses diverse climate data to demonstrate – ‘A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts’.
FOMBS – evidently not so much.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
You say FOMBS has you confused with someone else ? Well, don’t be too harsh on him. He also has John Baez confused with Joan Baez. All he knows is he likes to listen to both. It’s something about age and those neuronal connections getting all jumbled up.
It has been immensely gratifying to read the various scientific works that you praise, Delta Dawn!
Conclusion 1 The statistical predictions of Swanson and Tsonis (2006) have not been affirmed … better dynamical simulation codes are needed … and they’re coming!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
Conclusion 2 The thermodynamical prediction of of Swanson and Tsonis (2006) — namely, sustained anthropogenic warming superimposed upon decadal fluctuations — continues to be strongly affirmed.
Moreover, the Swanson-Tsonis conclusion that “warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models” strikingly affirms the predictions of Naomi Oreskes!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ur_I3mfqvk
Conclusion Climate Etc readers owe you a debt-of-thanks, Delta Dawn, for contributing yet another (!) article that strikingly affirms the consensus Hansen/Mann/Oreskes/Baez/Gromov/Unger/Smolin/Pope Francis climate-change worldview.
Good on `yah, Delta Dawn, for consistently praising climate-chance science that exemplifies commitment, consensus, and consilience!
Delta Dawn | December 21, 2014
“You have me confused with someone else”.
The chiefio, perhaps?
You have picked up some of his angst, for sure.
How I look at it is, Fan is a plant by Mosher to make skeptics look good.
He feeds you one liners.
He puts up rubbish arguments , knock them over.
He goes all histrionic,fantastic, anyone reading here will only be convinced that if Fan is a warmist you would not want to be in his club.
Tease him a little bit but leave off the invective,it makes him look better.
Let him walk out on his limbs and laugh gently when he falls off.
But please keep him commenting here.
He is one of the best arguments himself against AGW ever and he keeps going every day.
Maybe you’d like to read this comment.
Delta Dawn said:
“You have me confused with someone else.”
______
Unlikely. Certain phrases and idioms used are quite distinct. Not hard to figure out.
Fan
I was intrigued by your latest science fantasy posting showing a four degree waming during the 21st century. By this time, how much higher do you expect the oceans to be and what will be the temperature profile of the oceans?
Tonyb
Perhaps your question could be phrased in a more quantitatively nuanced way, TonyB!
TonyB’s Question As we observed the world’s sea-levels rising without pause or evident limit, what Bayesian probability should we assign to the postulate “Sea-level rise-rates will accelerate in the latter decades of the 21st century”?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel5/sl_ns_global.png
FOMD’s answer Fifty percent likelihood (or greater) is a reasonable Bayesian weighting for 21st century sea-level rise-rate acceleration.
Conclusion The climate-science evidence has become sufficiently strong that lesser Bayesian weightings amount to the willful ignorance of denialism.
Don’t you agree, TonyB? What is your Bayesian weighting of the proposition that “sea-level rise-rate will accelerate”?
Fan
Can we just establish that, as with sea level, that your preferred reference points are the satellite records?
In that case you presumably accept the satellite temperature records which don’t seen to show either warming for the past few decades or any record for 2014
Or are they somehow less reliable than the equally convoluted sea level records?
Tonyb
Your presumption is entirely mistaken TonyB!
• The world’s most accurate molecular-dynamics codes predict free energy perturbation (FEP) … not absolute free energy (whose definition is problematic).
• Similarly, the world’s most accurate climate-dynamics codes predict sea-level perturbations … not absolute sea level (whose definition is problematic).
Conclusion It’s far easier to reliably predict acceleration of sea-level rise than it is to retrodict the sea-level of (for example) ancient Roman fish-traps.
http://www.dailyspeculations.com/roman_fishermen27.jpg
Isn’t that right, TonyB?
Still … there’s *ZERO* evidence that two thousand years ago the sea-level was lower by
Conclusion There is no archaeological evidence that sea-level was twenty+ feet lower in Roman times … which is evidence that the present sea-level rise-rates are unprecedented in the historical sea-level record.
Fan
So let’s get this straight
You pick and choose the satellites you like, choosing those that measure sea levels ( that you approve of) and dismissing those that measure temperatures ( that you disapprove of)
You refuse to answer my very reasonable question as to how much higher you expect sea levels to be by 2100 or what the temperature profile of the oceans will be by that time.
You also seem to believe, without any evidence, that sea levels have been rising steadily since roman times, albeit rising more quickly in recent years, and they will uptick even faster in the future, although you refuse to tell me to what levels.
There have been several high water stands, around the 3rd century the 11th and 16th century. A great deal of water was then Locked up during the little ice ages which was the longest and coldest period this side of the Holocene. It is this that started to melt aroUnd1700 onwards, which has caused a continual rise in temperatures for over 300 years and a subsequent modest rise in sea levels.
I have posted you the graphs relating to sea level changes over the last two thousand years many times, but you don’t seem to read them so I won’t bother to do it this time.
Tonyb
Tonyb
again you write a reasoned response and question
your patience will only be met with hyperbole
I keep being reminded of centuries old hell fire and damnation stories
Fan is an Hieronymus Bosch painting
I fear we will have to tolerate this stuff until the apocalypse fails to materialize
John
But it can fail to materialise for a hundred years and new excuses will be found. They have more stamina and money than we do.
Tonyb
DENIALISM’S PUBLIC BREAKDOWN
Citizens see climate-change plainly
Climate Etc readers are challenged again to answer the common-sense question:
Citizens ask: As we watch the world’s glaciers melting and sea-levels rising … without pause or evident limit … how plausible is the consensus scientific postulate “Sea-level rise-rates and ice melt-rates will accelerate in the latter decades of the 21st century”?
The world wonders … about the crucial questions that denialists AREN’T answering.
Everyone’s conclusion Denialism’s utter bankruptcy — its scientific, economic and moral bankruptcy — is evident to pretty much *EVERYONE* nowadays … ordinary citizens especially … eh Climate Etc readers?
“Sigh” more of this again.
http://faculty.washington.edu/scporter/Rainierglaciers.html
It is pretty simple. During the Little Ice Age glaciers advanced, with land use changes and warmer weather they are retreating. The glaciers retreated in the first half the century and advanced from 1950 to 1975 (when CO2 must have been drastically decreasing). Mount Ranier erupted about 1000 years ago so it is unclear if the glaciers disappeared in the MWP before the eruption.
Wait about 100 years and they will be advancing again.
Sigh … PA, how is it that yer most recent ice-loss reference is twenty-eight years out-of-date?
Get with 21st century ice-science, why don’cha?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3046/images/fs20093046_fig02.png
`Cuz PNW folks have *EYES*, yah know!
The glacier is less than a thousand years old. It grew during the LIA and it isn’t growing anymore because it is too warm. It grew from 1950-1975. CO2 can’t be the driver – unless CO2 works backward (like a CO2 fire extinguisher) and actually cools things.
Don’t know what your point is. It will shrink until the temperatures drop in about 100 years (or less).
“Don’t know what your point is. It will shrink until the temperatures drop in about 100 years (or less).”
—-
Pseudoscience statement of the day. Congratulations!
You should concern yourself less with the mote in someone else’s eye than the log in your own Randy.
Not that I mind – it just get’s a lot tedious if you keep repeating the same comment over and over. Makes it quite difficult to hear any signal – should one by some remote chance emerge – over the noise.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg?w=500.
Hmmm…
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
“…A rose by any other name…I smell a rat…” from Shakin’ Da Spear’s greatest hits.
BREAKING NEWS
Citizen-Mountaineers Reject Denialism
http://exotichikes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Anderson-Glacier.jpg
`cuz mountaineers have eyes, eh Climate Etc readers?
“You should concern yourself less with the mote in someone else’s eye than the log in your own Randy.”
_____
Why can’t you stick with just one name Rob, Chief, Delta, Hugh, etc. etc. etc.
Do you think Judith and the Denizens here can’t figure you out?
R. Gates | December 22, 2014 at 6:51 pm | Reply
“Don’t know what your point is. It will shrink until the temperatures drop in about 100 years (or less).”
—-
Pseudoscience statement of the day. Congratulations!
Well, the actual extreme warm periods have been pretty brief.
Since CO2 doesn’t have a good track record of influencing climate in the tiny quantities we are talking about (a few hundred PPM) the climate can be expected to have a brief peak period (the MWP was around 250 years). The temperatures have been ramping up for about 150 years and at some point they will start down again.
There isn’t much chance of the CO2 level reaching 600 PPM – its climb to 400 PPM was natural warming assisted.
If Mr. Gates is somewhat right it might warm a little. If he is mostly wrong it is going to cool a little if he is really wrong it could cool a lot. Without water vapor feedback CO2 forcing is a fun debate but a fairly weak climatic influence.
PA said:
“Well, the actual extreme warm periods have been pretty brief.”
______
Except of course for the mid-Pliocene and Miocene periods– which may be the best analogues we have for what is to come in the centuries ahead. Uncharted territory for Homo Sapiens. You still seem to be living a bit as though it is business as usual. The past may be a guide…but not a past any Homo Sapiens has seen. Think 3.2 million years ago.
“There isn’t much chance of the CO2 level reaching 600 PPM – its climb to 400 PPM was natural warming assisted.”
_____
To know this, you’d have to know how successful humans will be at reducing the burring of fossil fuels and/or beginning bioengineering efforts. Since no one knows this, the statement is pseudoscience or science fiction. as we can only go by what humans have been doing, which is increasing CO2 (and methane and N2O) consistently for quite some time.
R. Gates | December 22, 2014 at 8:46 pm | Reply
“There isn’t much chance of the CO2 level reaching 600 PPM – its climb to 400 PPM was natural warming assisted.”
_____
To know this, you’d have to know how successful humans will be at reducing the burring of fossil fuels and/or beginning bioengineering efforts. Since no one knows this, the statement is pseudoscience or science fiction. as we can only go by what humans have been doing, which is increasing CO2 (and methane and N2O) consistently for quite some time.
Well…
1. It doesn’t matter really how much humans reduce fossil fuels. The sooner we burn it up the faster the CO2 level drops afterward. Right now only 4.2 gT is going into the atmosphere and 5.6 gT is going into the environment. And the amount going into the environment is increasing with the CO2 PPM level. Unless the CO2 emissions rise exponentially there is no way to stay ahead of the environmental absorption. At 11.4 gT (16% higher than the current level of emissions) we will hit equilibrium at 510-520 PPM. And run out in of fossil fuel in 2081.
2. The current ice age started when South America hit North America and the ocean currents changed. It is unrelated to the CO2 level.
3. 400 PPM was supposed to a limit – we are at 400 PPM and everything is just fine. At 500 PPM things look like they will also be just fine. We are advancing toward 500 PPM in the middle of a pause in temperature.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/049.htm
4. Solar warming was responsible for about 0.45°C of 20th century warming.
The IPCC says the confidence interval is 0.4-0.8°C. Solar forcing alone produces warming inside the confidence interval, there isn’t much room for CO2 forcing and what CO2 forcing there is less than solar forcing.
Your nightmare scenarios require 800+ PPM and high forcing with high feedback. You might be able to squeeze the CO2 alone TSR forcing into the confidence interval. You can’t justify the high CO2 PPM or the high feedback. The IPCC actually has charts showing 2000 PPM CO2 as though that were physically achievable. It is on Venus but not locally. A basic problem is you seem to assume earth is the 2nd rock from the sun.
The sooner we burn it up the faster the CO2 level drops afterward.
No because if all the carbon on the planet is converted to CO2 the temperature will rise so high that nature can no longer sequester any of that CO2. That’s the situation on Venus today.
You may wish to argue that Earth’s surface wouldn’t get as hot as Venus’s because Earth receives only half as much insolation as Venus. The problem with that argument is that it assumes equal albedos for the two planets. The albedo on Venus is currently 0.9, meaning that a mere 10% of Venus’s insolation suffices to maintain a temperature of around 740K at the surface.
Earth’s current albedo is 0.3, but if it rose to 0.8 when all its carbon had been converted to atmospheric CO2, i.e. absorbing twice as much shortwave radiation as Earth, the surface temperature on Earth would be the same as that on Venus, namely 740K, well above the melting point of lead or tin.
“the surface temperature on Earth would be the same as that on Venus, namely 740K, well above the melting point of lead or tin.”
Wow! There are still grown-ups believing this fairy tale?
Besides which – we are inclined to believe that if the albedo was 0.8 – we would be reflecting 80% of incident sunlight.
If you can’t laugh at yourself Pratt – what say we help you out?
Vaughan Pratt | December 23, 2014 at 3:04 am | Reply
The sooner we burn it up the faster the CO2 level drops afterward.
No because if all the carbon on the planet is converted to CO2 the temperature will rise so high that nature can no longer sequester any of that CO2. That’s the situation on Venus today.
Ah… another member of the second rock from the sun club. Venus was hot enough to crack its water molecules and let hydrogen escape.
You have it exactly backwards. The earth is so successful at sequestering CO2 that the planet had a photosynthesis crisis a score or two of millenia ago before the interglacial when the CO2 level dropped to 160-180 PPM. Plants didn’t become C4 because C4 sounds nicer than C3. They were responding to CO2 starvation.
People who claim 280 PPM of CO2 is ideal for plants are deluded, dishonest or misinformed. A 280 PPM CO2 level is dangerously close to the 200 PPM starvation level for most plants. A 280 PPM CO2 is a major reason 1/3 of the land area is desert, and why deserts are greening now.
By burning fossil fuels we aren’t polluting, we are saving the planet from dying by slow starvation. CO2 starvation would have killed the planet if man hadn’t come along – we are delaying the inevitable. If we don’t burn fossil fuels now we will eventually have to dig them up and burn them uselessly to generate more CO2.
More CO2 benefits every creature on the planet – especially the cute and furry ones and those ocean mammals Greenpeace is supposed to be fond of.
Mebbe it’s time some climate scientists did the serious
measurements regardin’ the essential naychur of CO2
ter plant life, as Primo Levi and the Chiefio so tellingly
describe it, rather than the OMG ( !! ! ! ) Club of Rome
Doomsday Scenario Alert ( ! ! ! )
But what would I know, I’m only a serf. (
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/of-trees-volcanos-and-pond-scum/
Hi Beth
Climate Scientists? Here is my seasonal treatise as to who is really to blame for the notion of out of control global warming. The answer is of course Charles Dickens.
“Victorian winters. A Christmas Carol. Ice fairs on the Frozen Thames. Cold Cold Cold Cold Cold. Dickens has irrevocably moulded the climate views of generations of Anglo Saxon peoples as TV, Films and plays all promote his image of icy winters in that era. Is this view of Dickens winters correct? We take a look at his life through the prism of climate.”
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/bah-humbug/
Lots of serfs and Toffs in his climate change piece ‘A Christmas Carol’
Have a great Christmas
Tonyb
TonyB, the citizen-scholar weblog Rediscovering Dickens will teach Climate Etc MORE about the roots of Dickens’ art than any amount of diary-mining!
In particular, the market-efficiency associated to child-labor was a life-long concern of Dickens, which began in non-fiction essays, and was transformed into Dickens’ immortal fictional essays.
Here is Dickens’ voice from one of his early (passionate!) non-fiction essays, from a world in which children were cheap; coal-carbon was dear, and by the inexorable law of Big Carbon market-efficiency, death came early to children.
Good on `yah Charles Dickens, for awakening the world to the horrendous realities of market-failure.
Because Dickens himself, as a child, had labored in those grimly efficient factories of early childhood death!
Conclusion It was Charles Dickens who taught the world to reflect, at Christmas-time, upon the amoral realities of efficient markets.
Fan
I wasn’t writing a complete treatise on Charles Dickens, merely reflecting his life in temperatures and pointing out that he lived during part of the LIA AND the great warming that followed.
That his influence on what we think of the climate of the times is considerable, is something on which I am sure you will agree.
tonyb
Tonyb,
I wonder if you have any resources on the sea level aspect of the submergence of the supposedly mythic Island (City) of Ys, that apparently underlies the Breton legend that inspired DeBussy’s “The Sunken Cathedral. It is considered by most to be a metaphorical myth about the engulfment of Paganism by the spread of Christianity through Europe. But, I remember reading some years ago that undersea ruins had been found in the location locals had historically thought the legend indicated.
Wishing you and yours Happy and Healthy Holidays. And a big thanks for your civil, informative and reasoned contributions on this forum. So often when I read your postings I’m reminded of that ole saw, “What are you going to believe, his historical entries or their lying algorithms?”
“It was Charles Dickens who taught the world to reflect, at Christmas-time, upon the amoral realities of efficient markets.”
______
Yep. All your money and profits won’t bring the most important things to your life– and often take you further from them.
‘You have me confused with someone else. There is actual science on the pause.
‘Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
I will include a little more of the quote for Randy the video guy’s benefit. They really do need something in the way of a reminder not to simply stop thinking when they have succeeded in some completely dumbass rationalisation or utterly fatuous toddler witticism. He is able to unmask Superass by dint of recognising certain mannerisms? What an immense perspicacity. Can’t fool Randy the video guy.
That’s actually pretty funny in a mean Superass right over his head sort of way – but I might not give away the punchline. They are so good at sending themselves up that I am superfluous. I am however not going anywhere because I am completely dedicated to the idea that every day has it’s dog. That’s how it works around here is it not?
PA, “More CO2 benefits every creature on the planet – especially the cute and furry ones and those ocean mammals Greenpeace is supposed to be fond of.”
On the other hand, economic factors (GDP per capita) and disease and health factors (e.g. infant mortality, median age, life expectancy) indicate that warmer is worse in a statistically significant way. Humans are less adapted to flourish in warmer temperatures, and that is without accounting for what rapid change does to their food production systems. One thing is for sure. Warmer is the wrong direction for us. Forget the plants.
Jim D | December 23, 2014 at 5:48 am | Reply
On the other hand, economic factors (GDP per capita) and disease and health factors (e.g. infant mortality, median age, life expectancy) indicate that warmer is worse in a statistically significant way.
Humans are less adapted to flourish in warmer temperatures, and that is without accounting for what rapid change does to their food production systems. One thing is for sure. Warmer is the wrong direction for us. Forget the plants.
Hmm (I separated it into factual assertion and opinion).
Well, I guess I will look around at these assertions. We’ll see.
Jim D | December 23, 2014 at 5:48 am | Reply
On the other hand, economic factors (GDP per capita) and disease and health factors (e.g. infant mortality, median age, life expectancy) indicate that warmer is worse in a statistically significant way. Humans are less adapted to flourish in warmer temperatures, and that is without accounting for what rapid change does to their food production systems. One thing is for sure. Warmer is the wrong direction for us. Forget the plants.
Well, that is interesting. However those factor also correlate with IQ and income. If you look at tropical countries with high IQ (IQ is relatively immutable) or at least an IQ over 80 the case is hard to make. And when you compare countries that are reasonable similar the case is very ambiguous. Mexico is better than Ecuador but worse than Colombia and Brazil.
This is a red herring (IMESHO).
The damage from low CO2 is irrefutable. The damage from high CO2 (600 PPM) is mostly theoretical and is countered by significant benefit.
There are more life forms and diseases in the tropics – but a 2/3rds of a degree Celsius daytime temperature change isn’t going to change that.
PA, so your esteemed opinion is that IQ is lower in warmer countries and that explains the other correlations too. Why would a warmer climate make people dumber is the obvious question? Is that another thing to be concerned about in addition to less wealthy and less healthy, less wise. Interesting questions raised here. Care to expand?
Well, if you look at all the relatively pure Han Chinese they have high IQs regardless of per capita GDP (and are in fact the smartest people on average on the planet).
If you look at South America – IQ correlates well with ethnic composition. So IQ is relatively immutable. GDP has some correlation to IQ – but countries with natural-resource-driven high GDPs frequently have relatively low IQs (it isn’t GDP that drives IQ – IQ drives GDP). Because other factors – such as socialism – can screw up GDP it isn’t a perfect correlation.
Head start failed because you can teach people skills but you can’t make them smart. There is a little give in IQ so you can make some small marginal gains.
PA, so why would IQ be correlated with temperature? Do people with higher IQ’s prefer cooler conditions, or do cooler conditions lead to higher IQs?
It correlates with the amount of DNA from other species. So this causes one of those “are they smart from living in the cold for millennia because living in the cold is difficult or because they ran into Neanderthals, etc. etc. or because the smart people bailed from Africa first?” questions.
A study found that grey-eyed people have the fastest reaction times. So pigmentation is shown to be associated with neurological performance.
DNA studies will sort it out eventually.
So today the healthier, wealthier and wiser people live in cooler conditions. What do these three gradients tell us about the preferred climate for the species? Warmer or cooler?
Confusing cause and effect again, I see
Jim D | December 23, 2014 at 10:30 am | Reply
So today the healthier, wealthier and wiser people live in cooler conditions. What do these three gradients tell us about the preferred climate for the species? Warmer or cooler?
That isn’t quite how it works. If you believe in evolution, man evolved in the tropics and the basic body plan is designed for the tropics.
Only the smartest and toughest could survive in the North during the ice age. So they adapted and evolved.
I’d call the fate of Northerners, karma – paid for by their ancestors who endured the hard times.
I find that “skeptics” are very resistant when facts on the surface go against their meme. It can’t be that simple they will say, and then they will go off and look for the real cause or just deny the facts in the first place.
Here is something you will like, jimmy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/22/miamis-climate-catch-22-building-luxury-condos-to-pay-for-protection-against-the-rising-sea/
Did you know that Christmas is on Thursday? Don’t you have some things to do, other than bombard this blog with the same old, same old, day in and day out? Merry Christmas, jimmy!
Don M, Merry Christmas. The piece on Miami is a sign of reality there. “Sunny day flooding” puts a nice face on it, I guess. Seems the target demographic for buying those condos is rich people who consider such homes as disposable.
I know a lot of rich people. They don’t in disposable real estate. You don’t know much about people, jimmy.
Don M, if you are a rich South American, like those buying the new Miami condos, you are not using it as a primary home, mostly as an investment, time-share, or renting out. If its value declines as sea-level rises, it is either not a big loss to them, or they don’t know about sea-level rises affecting Miami due to a good sales job.
Jim D, looking in your mirror again, I see
“I find that “skeptics” are very resistant when facts on the surface go against their meme”
____
A sure sign they are not skeptics, but simply deniers in every sense of the word.
R Gates, you evidently didn’t follow the thread back to see what he was on about.
Wow – this post is code blue. And I don’t mean in a good way – as in high IQ. .
http://robertlindsay.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/800px-iq_by_country-by-current-resident-majority.png
IQ is far from immutable. It can be increased with better nutrition, health care and education. It is to a large extent a product of market success – which is far more the defining characteristic of capitalism than market failures. A gift that keeps on giving.
Let’s make a New year’s resolution.
By 2030.
1. Reduce by 50% or more malnutrition in all its forms, notably stunting and wasting in children under five years of age.
2. End the epidemics of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases reverse the spread of,and significantly reduce deaths from tuberculosis and malaria.
3. Achieve universal health coverage (UHC), including financial risk protection, with particular attention to the most marginalized, assuming a gradual increase in coverage over time, focusing first on diseases where interventions have high benefits-to-costs.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus
The warming between 1944 and 1998 – the high points of the last two multidecadal warming regimes – was 0.4 degrees C at some 0.07 degrees C/decade. Thus we can factor in – to some extent – both natural warming and cooling include the period of accelerated emissions of CO2. How much of that was anthropogenic still seems quite an irresolvable problem at present. It is not however necessary to solve that problem to pursue objectives of social, economic and environmental progress that would ameliorate – on a broad front – greenhouse gas emissions.
The problem of providing sufficient energy resources for humanity is only resolvable with energy innovation – and the creative destruction of capitalist markets.
‘The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation—if I may use that biological term—that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism.’ Joseph Schumpeter
These are things that are simple in principle. The real problem this and every Christmas to come is to find the courage, spirit and confidence to imagine a Stella Maris to lead the way for this century.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
These are things that are simple in principle.
Communist ravings are for the simple-minded.
There are things that are simple in practice – people who think in slogans notably.
Want to actually expand on that Waggy? Something remotely rational perhaps? Or are you just content with a Hugh Jass honourable mention?
Funny thing is, Canadian oilsands is the biggest reclamation project of a natural disaster every attempted by humanity.
Repost at end of thread (hopefully)
;
What is the basis for that assertion?
I don’t see how that could be achieved. The EU ETS includes on 45% of EU emissions. If that’s the best the most developed countries in the world can achieve, how can all countries, including the poorest, be expected to achieve 80% to 90%. That would require countries like Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mogadishu and Somalia monitoring and measuring emissions from every cow, sheep and goat to the quality standards that will inevitably be required for legally binding international agreements. It’s clear to all if the measurements aren’t of ISO standards and have low bias and uncertainty. The result will be never ending disputes about who’s cheating.
Gates,
I’m still waiting on those “facts” regarding the negative impacts from global warming. I’ll assume you are too busy trying to coin new busswords to bring any facts forward.
Let us skeptics know when you find a fact with with to dazzle us.
Cooler climes makes humans and other animals more industrious, jimmy. Have to prepare for winter. Accumulate and bury nuts. Got to build houses and burrows. Can’t just lay around on the beach sipping coconut water and rum. Where do you go for vacations, jimmy?
Don M, I am on vacation, and yes it is a different timezone, and yes it is sad that I am still reading your comments on vacation. Hopefully the next couple of days will be a bit more festive.
Looking at the Richard Tol article, has being a Prof. become a license to take public money in exchange for pretending to be, holier than thou.
Who’s pretending?
You spend very little time reading my comments, jimmy. A good part of your existence is squandered incessantly scolding strangers on a denier blog. Do you believe that you are having any meaningful effect on the unbelievers , jimmy? Why don’t you get one of those anonymous masks the activistas wear these days and hit the streets. Shut down a shopping center. Chain yourself to a smokestack. Organize a cough in.
Jim D,
The curse of the tropics is parasites. The necessary adaptation to over-wintering to survive as a species has kept many of the most loathsome parasites and the infectious diseases they carry at bay further to the north. Bitter cold or even hard frosts limit the range of lots of nasties, making adaptation to cold an appealing path for many host species, including us. Even better is to control this downside of the tropics through technology and return to the roots of our species, that is sunbathing by the water hole with a cold beer.
Some random thoughts:
My grey eyes would explain my fast reaction times.
Some of my ancestors were Neanderthal.
Cold weather stimulates me. Warm weather makes me just want to lie around and drink iced tea.
Colder is better, unless you are a reptile.
We are Siamese if you please.
We are Siamese if you don’t please.
==========================
Low IQ people are more successful in warm areas.
Cold climates are less forgiving for low IQs.
Hmmm … a silver lining for a cold climate. What will we do for politicians if that happens?
aaron:
In a nutshell
All the fearful guilt-ridden Narrative in the world can’t change PA’s 5:01 AM Fact.
Climate scientists’ hand written notes, on twitter via Tol above, are a trip. How this grand social illusion came to be is and will long be, a wonder.
===============
Uh no. Not all carbon on Venus is in the form of CO2.
Equally, even if all the carbon on Earth were somehow converted to CO2 magically – first of all, we would no longer have to worry about it because we’d all be dead.
Secondly, Venus’ atmosphere is rotating at a fantastic speed.
Thirdly, Venus is significantly closer to the Sun.
Fourthly, Venus has no magnetic field to speak of.
So – besides your magical hypothesis (all carbon converted to CO2), a fine mental construct…for a science fiction writer.
Surface temperature of Venus.
Try these:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/hyperventilating-on-venus.html
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/06/venus-models-and-adiabatic-pump.html
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/05/greenhouse-effect-and-adiabatic-lapse.html
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/venus-surface-temp-correctly-predicted-from-lapse-rate-in-1967-but-is-it-the-whole-story/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/the-lapse-rate-is-independent-of-greenhouse-gas-content/
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Venus.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609649
Vaughn re; earth and Venus
The earth is about 1000C 40 kilometers into the crust.
Greenhouse rocks?
Hahaha
Venus’ atmosphere insulates the hot interior of the planet better than earth’s. That’s what drives the surface temperature. Add a buttload of insulation to the earth’s crust, say like a 90 bar CO2 atmosphere [wink wink] and its crust would be much hotter at the surface of the rocks too but not because of solar heating because of interior heat.
PA said: “Unless the CO2 emissions rise exponentially there is no way to stay ahead of the environmental absorption.”
—-
Honestly, your entire post was a huge study in pseudoscience but this is the cream of the crop. With current emission rates all natural sequestration is being overwhelmed. The proof is in the data. GH gas concentrations continue to rise specifically because natural feedbacks can’t keep up to the emission rate of the Human Carbon Volcano.
Gates goes for the double play. Both of his buzzwords in the same post.
Where can you be found if you are wrong?
My previous post was intended for PA, not FOMD. Sorry
let’s start with 2 very different data sources. Argo salinity and GISP2 temperature and snow accumulation.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/map3.jpg
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
Argo salinity shows little change – amongst substantial variation. Salinity reflects the balance of freshwater inputs and evaporation. The GISP2 plot shows snow accumulation increasing to 2000 – and other data shows it still increasing. It is a function of temperature amongst other things. Higher temps and more evaporation.
The temperature changes show large scale changes in temperature that occur rapidly. Considerably more than plus or minus 0.1K and not ever likely to sum to zero over a 100 years. What causes these changes?
An open Arctic, snow accumulation, a low NH summer insolation, a turn down in THC and runaway ice feedbacks?
The US Pacific North-West is – btw – one of the many places where most of the warming is quite natural. I’d suggest that the natural modes are turning down strongly.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/sst-north-pacific.png
https://swfsc.noaa.gov/news.aspx?Division=FED&ParentMenuId=54&id=19504
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
Fan
Agreed that it was a vacuous piece of abuse.
Also glad though that it would have directed people towards the solid climate science such as that indicated in my posts about Variations in Sea level through the ages and variability in glacial advance and retreat.
Would still like to know what you think the sea level will be in 2100 and also the ocean temperature profile?
tonyb
FOMD’s Bayesian answer is above, TonyB!
Hmmm … it appears that denialist abuse has again fubar’d the threading once again (which is no surprise) … so here’s a reasoned respectful responsible rational Bayesian response to TonyB’s question!
FOMD’s Bayesian weight It’s likely that sea-level rise will accelerate in coming decades, and steric expansion (from ocean-heating) will contribute to that acceleration.
How likely is this rising/heating climate-change postulate in your view TonyB?
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/2014/09/gw-impacts-sea-level-rise-coastal-storm-wave-flooding-house.jpg
More likely than fifty-fifty? Or less likely?
The world wonders why denialists won’t (or can’t?) bring themselves to answer even the simplest Bayesian questions.
FOMD has it right. Ocean’s will continue to add roughly 0.5 x 10^22 Joules of energy per year down to 2000m, and sea levels will continue to rise through the year 2100. Accelerating mass loss from Antarctica and Greenland are the big unknowns. Oceans rising by up to a meter or more by 2100 are not outside the window of possibility.
R. Gates, “Oceans rising by up to a meter or more by 2100 are not outside the window of possibility.”
Neither is the possibility that the oceans may actually recede somewhat. Cold oceans are less likely to build glacial mass than warm oceans.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig3.3-tedesco.jpg
Fig. 3.3. Monthly mass anomalies (in Gigatonnes, Gt) for the Greenland ice sheet since April 2002 estimated from GRACE measurements. The anomalies are expressed as departures from the 2002-2014 mean value for each month. For reference, orange asterisks denote June values (or May for those years when June is missing).
You had an accelerating mass loss trend for Greenland that suddenly checked itself. Box seems to blame albedo and the NAO for the loss.
“The 2011 summer average NAO index
anomaly was 2.4 below the 1970–1999 average (Fig. 8).
Consequently, the 2011 atmospheric flow was characterized
by warm air advection from the south along the western ice
sheet (Fig. 9). The persistence of this pattern 2007–2011 is
without precedent in the period of record since 1950. The
circulation anomaly led to more anticyclonic circulation,
with less summer snowfall and larger S # than normal over
the southern portion of the ice sheet, allowing albedo to
remain low during the peak S # period of the summer. Under
this circulation regime, numerous ice sheet melting records
were set (Fettweis et al., 2011c).”
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/821/2012/tc-6-821-2012.pdf
Note, Unprecedented since 1950. His focus was albedo feedback in that paper.
This thayer Study tends to blame albedo reduction due to forest fires for the greenland melt.
http://now.dartmouth.edu/2014/05/study-climate-change-fires-melted-greenland-ice-surface/
The fires are of course caused by Global Warming and weather patterns that tend to steer Global Warming Caused Smoke towards Greenland aren’t really “natural”.
Of course if natural weather patterns shifted so that more snow would fall on Greenland, the ice mass would increase. Kinda like the eastern Antarctic that is gaining mass while western portion is losing mass.
‘Delta Dawn wonders about “Tensors for instance – and what precisely could be the Unger/Smolin/Gromov insights to practical (molecular) simulation science – and what possible significance does it have to the big picture of climate?”
Delta Dawn, your mathematical curiosity is well-founded!
Anashin and Khrennikov’s textbook Applied Algebraic Dynamics (2009) illuminates (with practical examples!) the fabulous 21st century frontiers that Unger/Smolin/Gromov/Baez (et al) are so bravely exploring.
Wonderful questions Have you ever wondered why entropy increases, both in Nature *and* in humanity’s dynamical simulations? And just what *IS* entropy, dynamically speaking?
These 21st century mathematical works freshly illuminate these wonderful questions!
Best wishes for sustained mathematical learning are extended to you, Delta Dawn, and to *ALL* Climate Etc readers!
What does this mean precisely? My inclination is to think it is all ridiculous bumfluff. Waffling to no effect and to no purpose as usual. You know what it is all about don’t you? How dumb scientific deniers are for not understanding advanced science and maths and therefore FOMBS version of *The Science* must be right.
In reality – in Unger and Smolin we have the ultimate and quite bizarre conflation of progressive social sloganeering and philosophical cosmology. The philosophy – that quite frankly seems as utterly misguided as most essays into philosophical cosmology – of the cosmos proves that capitalism is the enemy of the human spirit. It is quite literally as silly as that.
Quite frankly I think my philosophical cosmology is much more fun. The universe is perfectable – but as light displaces darkness and not through time. A Manichean battle of light and dark – think Star Wars in 4 dimensions.
‘There is light within a man of light, and he lights the whole world. If he does not shine, there is darkness.’
But of course time, space, energy and matter may itself be emergent effects of the inchoate quantum fabric of reality.
This is something I linked to earlier – but really is a lot of fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Fun – but the links to climate science are strained and tenuous. As we all know without a doubt.
Climate is a macro-mechanism of energy and matter, force and momentum, sun, ocean, ice, cloud, biology.
‘The global climate system is composed of a number
of subsystems — atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere — each
of which has distinct characteristic times, from
days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each
subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability,
all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’ Michael Ghil
The theory of abrupt climate change suggests that the system can be pushed by changes in the system – such as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation.
The changes in the regime can be rapid and extreme – but it also implies that the current lack of warming may persist for decades and the future climate evolution is utterly unpredictable at present. Frankly – cooler surprises seem a lot more plausible than warmer as the system overshoots the mean.
On another matter Springer – and his eponymous sock-puppets – has been disappeared yet again. Seemingly somewhat arbitrarily. Don’t get me wrong – I applaud arbitrary in the interest of quality control. Just that it needs to cut a much broader swathe.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
In theory, climatology’s greatest achievement was teaching us how abstract science is.
Captn. D. said:
“Neither is the possibility that the oceans may actually recede somewhat. Cold oceans are less likely to build glacial mass than warm oceans.”
_________
Not sure what point you’re trying to make.
1. Warming oceans=warming climate=reduction in global glacial mass=rising oceans.
2. Cooling oceans=cooling climate=increase in global glacial mass=falling oceans.
The basic physics and the data over many decades now would support #1 happening for the rest of this century and into the next. Short of massive volcanism over an extended period, no much chance of #2.
R. Gates, Your ” 1. Warming oceans=warming climate=reduction in global glacial mass=rising oceans.
2. Cooling oceans=cooling climate=increase in global glacial mass=falling oceans.”
Probably isn’t right. Maximum 65 N solar insolation is ice mass reduction which would be when the oceans are cooler, Maximum 65S solar insolation would mean maximum ocean heat uptake and a greater likelihood of glacial mass formation. The majority of the Glacial mass forms in the NH.
From the looks of the proxy data that appears to be the case. That is also not inconsistent with “Global Warming” warming, higher lower troposphere temperature can hold more moisture which would increase precipitation. It just matter where and when the snow falls.
For Greenland with a 3000 meter altitude, only the fringes in the south up to about 1500 meters ever get above zero. Global Warming doesn’t stop winter, it might just enhance its effects.
Or do you have plans to revise the general Milankovich theory of the ice ages?
Sadly Capt., seems you are way off on this particular point. CO2, sea level, and temperatures are quite in lock step over the past several ice ages. Now that GH gases are literally off the top of this chart, and sea level will follow as global glacial ice mass declines. This has nothing to to with Milankovitch cycles, and everything to do with GH gases rising faster than natural feedbacks can sequester. Warmer warmer we go…
http://alanbetts.com/image/1/1200/0/uploads/vostok3curves-1276876924.jpg
We are boldly going into a climate regime no Homo Sapiens has ever seen– for better or worse.
R. Gates, CO2 has never been credited with having the a$$ to drive climate by itself. If you go to a tighter scale, CO2 most often lags temperature and while ocean warming accounts for part of the CO2, there is a large CO2 impact sequestered in under the ice.
Lawerence and others have a lot of paleo experience and have described the hemisphere seesaw. Warming generally starts in the southern hemisphere with the precessional cycle and then if conditions are right, there is shift to an interglacial period. Originally there was a roughly 41ka period that shifted to a roughly 100ka and can shift to an approximately 20ka period.
Even real climate has said CO2 may be responsible for up to a half of the forcing required to trigger an interglacial transition.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
There is the Alley greenland temperature and accumulation reconstruction. Minimal accumulation during the coldest period increasing with warming.
Nothing particularly magical about this, basic thermo stuff.
Captn,
The paleoclimate data from the natural glacial-interglacial cycle can give us hints about the relative strengths of various forcings and how much CO2 contributed, but we are in completely uncharted territory with GH gases now rising faster than natural sequestration (feedbacks) can control. CO2, methane, and N2O are now off the charts in terms of anything the planet has seen since the mid-Pliocene. Paleoclimate data from that period now become extremely valuable and fortunately, the past few years have seen a new abundance of just such data. Milankovtich cycles or astronomical forcing and feedbacks from ocean outgassing, glacial retreats, sea ice changes, ocean currents are of course still interesting, but humans are causing a much more rapid forcing that is beyond anything natural except for the most extreme of forcing events like periods of volcanism or strikes by large asteroids.
Captn, you of course realize that snow accumulation does not equal glacial growth and is specifically NOT a measurement of that. Rising temperatures mean more moisture in the atmosphere and more evaporation from the ocean in the cold months, but glaciers actually retreat globally as more snow melts and more rain falls on snow in warmer months as the climate warms. This is a generally acceleration of the hydrological cycle we see as the climate warms.
R. Gates, “Captn, you of course realize that snow accumulation does not equal glacial growth and is specifically NOT a measurement of that. Rising temperatures mean more moisture in the atmosphere and more evaporation from the ocean in the cold months, but glaciers actually retreat globally as more snow melts and more rain falls on snow in warmer months as the climate warms. This is a generally acceleration of the hydrological cycle we see as the climate warms..
Glaciers are always advancing and retreating. A big factor in their retreat is albedo, dirty snow melts earlier. Now if you can get rain to fall in an area that is always below freezing, that is a neat trick. Most of Greenland is below freezing all year as is most of the Antarctic. Data clearly shows that there is more accumulation during warmer periods than cooler periods. That is pretty basic thermo, warmer more moist air can precipitate more moisture than dry air. If the area where the precipitation falls in near zero C, that precipitation is snow/ sleet or one of the more unusual types of frozen precipitation.
This is where you need to look at local/regional conditions. Global anomaly will tell you squat about those condition. If you have 10 degrees of Arctic Winter Warming from -30 to -20 C you a “global” change that has near zero impact on glaciers. If you want to know more about glaciers you would want a zero C area plot to see if it is expanding or contracting. Or you could read old IPCC reports that say they will be gone by 2030 :)
Your two “thermodynamics truths” though are false.
Capt.,
The point is about the global cryosphere and mass being added to the ocean as that cryosphere melts. Regional variations are interesting but not indicative of global changes resulting specficically from more net energy being added to the Global climate system. Thus, snowfall accumulation rates in central Greenland are actual a counter indicator to warming/cooling globally, and thus, a warming planet may see accumulation rates increase in certain areas of Greenkand (to a point) even though net glacial mass overall in Greenland may be declining. Greenland in the center versus at the margins is a different dynamic. With a world warming expect to see net glacial mass continue to decline, as it has been for some time, and even accelerate in that decline.
Water is evaporated in warm places and snow accumulates in cold places.
e.g. – http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/05/impact-of-declining-arctic-sea-ice-on-winter-snowfall/
One would expect that it is complicated – but there are all sorts of interesting questions one can approach with data.such as this.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/smeed-fig-71.png
None at all with Randy the video guy’s inane triple plus unscience narratives.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
Is mass being added to the oceans?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/map3.jpg
Perhaps not notably.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
Regarding your link to:
– Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall –
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/05/impact-of-declining-arctic-sea-ice-on-winter-snowfall/
Interesting article. Judith’s conclusions that
“Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation,” and “The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”
Dr Curry’s study echoes that of other climate researchers such as Jennifer Francis of Rutgers and others who link AGW to diminishing (record low) Arctic ice and large scale changes in the Nrn Hemispheric circulation.
However this study is already outdated. It called 2007 a record low ice year. and since then we’ve had lower years, and actually every year after 2007 has had less ice than any year before 2007.
From a weather point of view, the “colder, snowier” weather is actually fairly small, compared to the much larger warmer areas of the Wrn 2/3rds of North America into much of Nrn Aisia. I am curious if Dr Curry is planning a “Part II study” addressing this?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSST_1200km_Anom1203_2013_2014_1951_1980/nmaps.gif
R. Gates, “With a world warming expect to see net glacial mass continue to decline, as it has been for some time, and even accelerate in that decline.”
Right, The most recent Antarctic survey indicated that there was a “slight” acceleration, based on about 12 years of data. Most of the mass loss was in the Western Antarctic and there was mass gain in the Eastern Antarctic. Greenland, also with about 12 years of data showed an acceleration up to 2013 then a flatline. If you look at the Himalayan glaciers, some are advancing some are retreating and there is a slight mass loss. Based on your thermodynamics all should be losing mass and that loss should be accelerating. Looks to me like there might be more to the story.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/07/dirty-snow-hastens-glacial-melt-in-himalayas/
http://now.dartmouth.edu/2014/05/study-climate-change-fires-melted-greenland-ice-surface/
Looks to me like a lot of glaciers are at albedo sensitive points. At this point in the precessional cycle the NH has the weakest solar and the flattest solar incident angle. Clean snow has an albedo close to 0.9 and dirty snow an albedo close to 0.6 and that could go lower. If it wasn’t for dirty snow, the balance could tip to ice age scale growth. That is what it would take for a new ice age. The current orbital conditions are perfect for it.
“Based on your thermodynamics all should be losing mass…”
—–
Where did I say that? There will always be regional variations in every climate dynamic. Looking at a net global piece of data, whether it be temperatures or glacial ice mass loss is the only way to approach changes brought about by a net global energy imbalance.
R. Gates, “Where did I say that?”
“1. Warming oceans=warming climate=reduction in global glacial mass=rising oceans.
2. Cooling oceans=cooling climate=increase in global glacial mass=falling oceans.
The basic physics and the data over many decades now would support #1 happening for the rest of this century and into the next.”
Right there with your “basic physics” lecture. Albedo, that factor that is constantly assumed to be 0.3, isn’t a constant. By your logic there would only be warm or cold, never a transition. History shows that there have been transitions and with CO2 lagging temperature in most cases it has never been the trigger. It appears to assume the role of a regulator with a limited range or there never would be transitions.
Milankovich provided a better theory, with limits as well, and one of those limits is dirt/dust/smoke and black carbon. Drier conditions would mean more erosion and fires, dirty snow, wetter conditions, cleaner snow.
I doubt that we will experience another “Ice Age” because technology won’t allow that, but one or two nasty winters could trigger a longer term cooling regime. As long as the snow stays clean and the albedo high, there would be an abrupt climate shift. Should sea level fall just a bit, more Arctic ice would become fast, providing a base for more snow to accumulate.
Capt.,
The postive feedback from increased forest fire ash being deposited on the ice is a great example of what might cause an acceleration in mass loss from Greenland.
Point well made R Gates,
I see a lot of skeptics make this mistake…as well as trying to use sunspot activity (instead of solar radiation directly measured at the earths surface) to make some absurd solar argument,..forgetting that due to the solar wind sunspot activity doesn’t directly correlate that well with measured radiation at the earth’s surface.
Seems one needs lots of bad science to be a skeptic these days. (lol)
The oceans are huge carbonated drinks. CO2 naturally goes up and down with temperature. This is simple, well understood, basic science.
The GISP2 Ice Core plot shows 10,000 years of a lot of snow accumulation in warmer times. To predict that that snow/ice will move to the oceans now, is to run in front of the parade and pretend to lead it. What did we expect such a quantity of increasing mass to do in perpetuity? It’s not just the CO2, it’s the result of the prior 10,000 years as well I think. The Earth deforms under such a weight. “Results suggest that basal temperature evolution plays an important role in setting the stage for glacial termination.” “…Moreover, our results suggest that thermal enabling of basal flow does not occur in response to surface warming…” http://scienceofdoom.com/2014/04/14/ghosts-of-climates-past-nineteen-ice-sheet-models-i/ I think we are looking at the base, and not the surface to control movement. I don’t see how the CO2 is increasing at the base of the ice sheet.
PA said (regarding glaciers):
“Wait about 100 years and they will be advancing again.”
_____
Thermodynamically speaking, very very unlikely. Global glacial ice mass likely to continue to decline for many centuries with GH gases at their highest in at least 3.2 million years.
R. Gates | December 22, 2014 at 2:48 pm | Reply
PA said (regarding glaciers):
“Wait about 100 years and they will be advancing again.”
_____
Thermodynamically speaking, very very unlikely. Global glacial ice mass likely to continue to decline for many centuries with GH gases at their highest in at least 3.2 million years.
The null hypothesis is that climate is due to natural trends. That the warming is due to solar activity and will accordingly plateau. The pause is undermining what little case the AGW crowd had. The peak of natural cycles is about 200-250 years and we are less than 100 years from a return to the refrigerator that CO2 might take the edge off but is powerless to resist.
5.6 gT of carbon left the atmosphere in 2013. The rate of carbon loss from the atmosphere basically varies as (PPM-300)*5.6/100. So if we level off at the 11.4 gT of carbon emissions per year (the 16% extra from the Chinese) we run out of the 2790 gT of CO2 inducing fossil fuel reserves (760 gT carbon), in about 67 years or 2081. After which the atmospheric carbon will decline about 11 gT per year.
You can dance around about CO2 all you want – high CO2 levels, which to this point have had little proven effect on temperatures – will last decades not centuries.
PA, going by your numbers, you should be supporting forward-thinking policies for transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewables at least at 20% per decade, so that we don’t run into your imagined carbon depletion brick wall in 2067. This is close to the kinds of transitioning rates that the IPCC WG3 is evaluating, so they are on the case already, even if for different reasons.
Jim D | December 22, 2014 at 3:37 pm | Reply
PA, going by your numbers, you should be supporting forward-thinking policies for transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewables at least at 20% per decade, so that we don’t run into your imagined carbon depletion brick wall in 2067. This is close to the kinds of transitioning rates that the IPCC WG3 is evaluating, so they are on the case already, even if for different reasons.
I’m kind of ambivalent about the global warming debate. I actually think there is some CO2 based warming – but there is no way to put enough carbon into the atmosphere to create a problem.
Fossil fuel energy is expensive to extract and transport. Economics will transition us away from it. Other mature energy technologies will easily out-compete fossil fuels in the future.
I don’t see any reason for the global warmer’s panic. Spending trillions to put early adopter technologies into the ground is indefensible. It wastes resources, money, and causes unnecessary pollution.
We will transition to other energy sources, it is inevitable. If we let the market take care of it, the transition will be more seamless and less painful.
“The pause is undermining what little case the AGW crowd had.”
______
Let’s see, the past 5 years were the warmest 5 years period on record. The past 10 years, were the warmest 10 year period on record, and 2014 will likely be the single warmest year on record.
Very odd sort of way to undermine the case for AGW. I guess the climate is cooling in a warming kind of way.
We are in a warm period. We had the Roman Warm period and then a cold period. We had the Medieval warm period and then the Little Ice age. We are supposed to be in a warm period. These warm records are on schedule. They were going to happen and they did. These warm records will continue for several hundred years while the snow falls to take us into the next Little Ice Age. This is a normal and natural and needed warm period. The warm periods are when the snow falls to bring on the cold periods that always follow. This is not odd, this is how the Polar Ice Cycles work. Look at the past data in the ice core records to really understand what is happening.
“You should concern yourself less with the mote in someone else’s eye than the log in your own Randy.”
_____
Why can’t you stick with just one name Rob, Chief, Delta, Hugh, etc. etc. etc.
Do you think Judith and the Denizens here can’t figure you out?
I think it is pretty obvious that Hugh Jass is more a reflection of the quality of commentators. The irony seems lost on Randy the video guy.
Randy repeats the same narratives over and over and characterises everything he doesn’t understand – which let’s face it is most of it – as pseudo-science and generally behaves like a Hugh Jass. Only one is certain with Randy the video guy -. If he ever sounds reasonable it’s time to up your meds.
‘A new stomatal proxy-based record of CO
2
concentrations ([CO2]), based on Betula nana (dwarf birch) leaves from the Hässeldala Port sedimentary sequence in south-eastern Sweden, is presented. The record is of high chronological resolution and spans most of Greenland Interstadial 1 (GI-1a to 1c, Allerød pollenzone), Greenland Stadial 1 (GS-1, Younger Dryas pollen zone) and the very beginning of the Holocene(Preboreal pollen zone). The record clearly demonstrates that i) [CO2] were significantly higher thanusually reported for the Last Termination and ii) the overall pattern of CO2 evolution through the studiedtime period is fairly dynamic, with significant abrupt fluctuations in [CO2] when the climate moved from interstadial to stadial state and
vice versa. A new loss-on-ignition chemical record (used here as a proxyfor temperature) lends independent support to the Hässeldala Port [CO2] record. The large-amplitude fluctuations around the climate change transitions may indicate unstable climates and that tipping-point situations were involved in Last Termination climate evolution. The scenario presented here is in contrast to [CO2] records reconstructed from air bubbles trapped in ice, which indicate lower concen-trations and a gradual, linear increase of [CO2] through time. The prevalent explanation for the main climate forcer during the Last Termination being ocean circulation patterns needs to re-examined, and alarger role for atmospheric [CO2] considered.’ https://www.academia.edu/2949675/Stomatal_proxy_record_of_CO2_concentrations_from_the_last_termination_suggests_an_important_role_for_CO2_at_climate_change_transitions
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/steinthorsdottir-fig-9.png
The likelihood that they have a good handle on CO2 dynamics is vanishingly small. It may not be a hockey stick.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
If we warm at a rate of 1/1000 of a degree per year…each of the next 1,000 years will be the ‘warmest on record’.
So what?
Endlessly blathering on about ‘its warmer’ so you should be afraid is nonsense without showing that it is ‘substantially warmer’ with ‘negative impacts substantially exceeding the positive impacts’.
“Climate change is clearly human caused,” Park Service Director
The Nisqually Glacier, the one of Rainier’s 28 named glaciers most accessible to visitors, has been receding rapidly since 1983. It’s at a historic minimum, and this summer it shrank toward the mountain’s summit at unprecedented speed: more than 3 feet every 10 days.
BUT
** It’s also a fact that it’s impossible to say precisely what the effects of climate change have been or will be in the park.
** The park’s weather varies so widely year to year and decade to decade, it obscures long-term changes.
** In 2010 and 2011, when weather at the park was influenced by strong La Nina conditions, the Nisqually and Emmons glaciers grew in volume. In 2011, mountain lakes stayed frozen longer than in the previous six years of record keeping.
** By the way 1966 photo end of winter, 2014 photo end of summer?
Photo date jiggling perhaps? Show us your dates.
Fan
For Christmas, why don’t you get one of your loved ones to buy you
‘Times of Feast times of Famine’ by Roy Ladurie.
It might help you to put past events into their proper historic context, in this instance concerning glacier movements which come and go at glacial speed and also occur rapidly. I graphed the movements of glaciers using thousands of references by such as Ladurie and Pfister back over the last 3000 years. Here is the result (A new and better version should be online shortly )
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image010.jpg
A blue line at the top of the page equals glacier retreat, Blue line at the bottom equals glacier advance.
It might help you to see the context of the ever changing climate and stop you worrying so much if you would read the works of past climatologists instead of thinking that climate change only started when James Hansen started writing papers.
tonyb
Tacoma Water started monitoring the glaciers on Mt Rainier in 1913 because they ‘feared’ they would soon melt completely and there would be no more water.
100 years later and there is still plenty of water for the residents of Tacoma to enjoy.
100 years of fear mongering that the Cascade glaciers would melt and the glaciers are still there.
Next thing…someone will be telling me that they finally figured out how to get Edison’s Battery Powered car to compete with gasoline powered cars….another 100 year story of being wrong year after year but still proclaiming the ability to ‘accurately’ predict the future.
In the past decade, the rate of melting has been six times the historical rate.
your historical time period is too short. If you include the warming into the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, you have no data to support the claim this modern melting is six times the historical rate.
There is no archaeological evidence that sea-level was twenty+ feet lower in Roman times
The roman Emperor went into a cave at the Isle of Capri, The Blue Grotto, at sea level, in a rowboat, in Roman times. My wife and I went into that same cave, in a rowboat, at sea level, in 2007, so there has been little change in sea level since roman times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Grotto_%28Capri%29
If sea level did rise by 20 feet, the cave entrance would be underwater.
Archaeological evidence shows sea level is close to sea level in roman times.
Conclusion 1 The statistical predictions of Swanson and Tsonis (2006) have not been affirmed … better dynamical simulation codes are needed … and they’re coming!</i
'as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.
Conclusion 2 The thermodynamical prediction of of Swanson and Tsonis (2006) — namely, sustained anthropogenic warming superimposed upon decadal fluctuations — continues to be strongly affirmed.
‘… as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’
Conclusion Climate Etc readers owe you a debt-of-thanks, Delta Dawn, for contributing yet another (!) article that strikingly affirms the consensus Hansen/Mann/Oreskes/Baez/Gromov/Unger/Smolin/Pope Francis climate-change worldview.
‘… as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’
Anashin and Khrennikov’s textbook Applied Algebraic Dynamics (2009) illuminates (with practical examples!) the fabulous 21st century frontiers that Unger/Smolin/Gromov/Baez (et al) are so bravely exploring.
Which particular bits have relevance and how do they to a particular problem? Apart for Baez’s network approach – in it’s early days yet – that I quoted.
Wonderful questions Have you ever wondered why entropy increases, both in Nature *and* in humanity’s dynamical simulations? And just what *IS* entropy, dynamically speaking?
Have I ever wondered why entropy increases? What a silly question. For Earth – I recommend a book of nonlinear thermodynamics. Don’t forget to come back and give us a detailed account.
These 21st century mathematical works freshly illuminate these wonderful questions!
Perhaps there are but FOMBS seems not much past the stage of posting Youtube videos and random covers and titles. .
@book{Anashin:2009zr, Address = {Berlin;
New York}, Author = {Anashin, Vladimir and
Khrennikov, Andrei}, Publisher = {Walter De
Gruyter}, Title = {Applied Algebraic
Dynamics}, Year = {2009}}
So what do we get from FOMBS messianic fervour? That’s the question to ask.
A cherry picked quote from a study – one I quoted – that uses a network approach to climate. Lauding of quite uninteresting philosophical cosmology. Random covers and videos with a hallelujah chorus on the progress of dynamic science.
It amounts to little more than a desperate and quite facile distraction from this – http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/19/week-in-review-38/#comment-657001 – it all seems utterly mad.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
popesclimatetheory | December 21, 2014
“There is no archaeological evidence that sea-level was twenty+ feet lower in Roman times”.
Good to know but not much value. Different ares have different subsidence and elevation rates. Some cities off Egypt definitely buried in 2 millenia, Areas of Scandinavia and Scotland quite elevated. Caspian sea empty? No use for tide gauges there.Mediterranean infilling multi millenia ago. Sea rise and fall can have multiple causes.
Fan’s argument therefore specious.
“Got no idea what this can mean. No one imagines any more – and haven’t for millennia – that math is anything more than a symbolic language.”
Tell that to Max Tegmark or Penelope Maddy
Don’t Imagine that the philosophy of mathematics is a settled science Rob.
Son et lumiere.
===========
Have folks forgotten a fundamental Universal Law? If so, I’ll remind everyone: (1) Don’t pull on Superman’s cape; (2) Don’t spit into the wind; (3) Don’t try to pull the mask off the ‘Ol Lone Ranger; and (4) Don’t mess around with Kim!
“The average trend of the models should be the average of the actual climate trend.”
err no.
Warm is good – Cold not
Lomborg highlights an economic/climate study:
A preliminary analysis of economic fluctuations and climate changes in China from BC 220 to AD 1910, Zhudeng Wei, Xiuqi Fang, Yun Su Regional Environmental Change, December 2014
Understanding the socioeconomic effects of past climate change is valuable for sustainable social development. However, quantitative analyses of the long-term relationships between climate change and human society have been limited by a lack of long-term high-resolution data that indicate socioeconomic processes. Here, based on 1,091 records extracted from 25 books on Chinese history and economic history written by leading contemporary scholars, an economic proxy series for China with decadal resolution is presented that encompasses the period from BC 220 to AD 1910. A method for semantic differential and integrating descriptions with multi-time resolution is developed. The statistical results show that warm and wet periods were associated with above-average economic performance, while cold and dry climatic scenarios greatly increased the possibility of economic crisis. Temperature was more influential than precipitation in explaining the long-term economic fluctuations, whereas precipitation displayed more significant effects on the short-term macro-economic cycle. It is proposed that the climatic effects on agrarian economic development were highly dependent on the social vulnerability, which is determined by particular social, economic and political backgrounds. From a deep time perspective, our study may provide new insight into the current intense arguments regarding the economic effects of global warming.
Supplimentary: List of books used to extract descriptions with multi-time resolutions, including books of general Chinese history, economic history and related thematic economic history
Lomborg posts their graph of economy, temperature, moisture
David, thank you. The book about the little ice age looks interesting. I should see if my public library has it or can get it.
Using records extracted from books as a proxy is skeptic bait. I’m interested, but not enough to pay $39.95 for the book.
Tibetan tree rings
Untouched by the Piltdown Mann,
Proxies bell well rung.
===============
Better second line:
Untouched of hand, Piltdown Mann’d.
==============
Keith DeHavelle makes me jealous.
=============
Max
You can get preview glimpses of the Little Ice Age
David L. Hagen
Brian Fagan’s the Little Ice Age is a great book!
https://books.google.com/books?id=MYc8PgAACAAJ&dq=little+ice+age&hl=en&sa=X&ei=48KVVI-sAojaoAT5mIAg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ
Dr. Fagan is a warmistacrat, but I love his books. A good follow-up for “Little Ice Age” is “The Long Summer”, which, you might have guessed, is about the current inter-glacial. He is an interesting guy and an excellent writer.
Though I am a skeptic, I have never read a skeptic book, I am too afraid of confirmation bias. I am very skeptical of skeptics.
See more good news about many forms of climate change. Enjoy it; we don’t know how long it lasts. [link]
fun
We are skeptics who have devoted much of our careers to practicing and promoting scientific skepticism.
They definitely need the practice – they simply aren’t very good at it.
Perhaps they simply aren’t all that good at earth sciences. By far the most interesting earth science problem is the abrupt shifts – more or less extreme – in the climate system that occur entirely as a result of the interaction of system components.
‘Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.’ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=R1
This is the starting point in climate science – the dynamic mechanism at the core of climate. It is clear that intellectual heavy weights like FOMBS just don’t get it. How they don’t get it is a mystery that has me plumbing the depths of human psychopathology – not all that pleasant a prospect for an Earth scientist. Nonetheless – I have braved the murky waters and come to a conclusion – yep – it’s just plain crazy.
It is downright amusing that *The Science* is so wrong – and the NAS is pretty definitive on this – but outright annoying are the dystopian visions of the future.
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.” Michael Oppenheimer
Oh – the horror. I’d rather see the world go to hell – abruptly – in a hand basket than to curtail social, economic and environmental progress for dangerously mad motives.
What we really have to do is stop taking these first world nut jobs seriously.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
You don’t have to be a scientist to be a skeptic. All you need is the ability to utter the following four words: “I don’t believe it.” Many have little ability beyond that.
Denial ain’t a river in Egypt Maxy.
I wasn’t referring to you, who have the ability to utter enormous quantities of words without even thinking.
Well I could agree with you – Maxy – but then we’d both be wrong.
Max
The scientific issue is equivalent to “I’m from Missouri – Show me”. Its not an issue of “belief” but objective validation. See Richard Feynman on scientific method
and Cargo Cult Science.
(At the same time – Christian “belief” is based on the facts of the resurrection, not emotion.)
“…plumbing the depths of human psychopathology …”
That is the right place to look for the answer to that question. It’s grim business, earth science is much better.
Well, the real problem with global warmers is that they believe the universe exists to please them.
They believe that if you create a model that shows increasing CO2 causes unlimited warming and turns the earth into a cinder – increasing CO2 in the real world will cause unlimited warming and turn the earth into a cinder.
Anyone from a engineering background looks at this and wonders if we shouldn’t require psychological testing for climate scientists.
If a model doesn’t match data from the real world, first you check the data (to make sure you are measuring what you think you a measuring). Then you check the model to make sure it is modeling what it is supposed to be modeling. At that point if the two are still different – the model is wrong and must be fixed. It is just that simple.
PA declares “Anyone from a engineering background looks at this and wonders if we shouldn’t require psychological testing for climate scientists.”
I surmise PA has appointed himself to speak for all engineers.
Heck, if you can self-appoint yourself, why fool around. I am appointing myself to speak for GOD.
Dadgumit, I just realized millions have beat me to it.
Max:
If you went to school for godhood and have a degree in godhood (and some degree of divinity and divine powers) feel free to speak for god.
damn… Delta
well said
the strong and the few
Science has been corrupted for political purposes. All of the money spent on climate science has been wasted and we must start over without academia’s monomaniacal fixation on humanity’s CO2. Having failed to consider all of the factors – even the factors we knew about – the General Circulation Models (GCMs) upon which global warming alarmism rests are nothing more now than weathered symbols of a lost age like pyramids buried in the sand.
Frm robert stavins “at least one negotiating team … maintained that analysis and comparisons of INDCs will be carried out by NGOs and research orgs (including universities) will provide the needed transparency and therefore the needed encouragement for greater ambition”.
In other words, we will continue to enlist the aid of those organizations that will promote the lie of human caused global warming so that we can get developed
countries to become more ambtious about throwing more money away on failed “green” energy projects like wind and solar until they devolve to third world status.
BREAKING NEWS
The “PAUSE” PAUSES
Now *THERE’S* an obvious-yet-deep postulate: climate-change deniers are always wrong!
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/f7/3d/64/f73d64851a43046edcd790e7e6364078.jpg
Why don’t deniers recognize this themselves?
http://basicinstructions.squarespace.com/storage/2010-09-26-crackpot.gif
The world wonders!
“The world wonders!”
Not in your case.
The World raises one eyebrow a couple of millimetres, shakes its head in amazement and strolls off chuckling gently.
So what are the fans of more renewables going to do next? I’ve been pulling teeth to get a temperature anomaly plot from the Fans of More Renewable Energy but I keep getting cartoons.
So CO2 puts thermometers up, the world turns into a sauna, it’s getting a bit sweaty here in Australia. Thank you for the Comic, Fan. Did Hansen and Mann go to the moon in Apollo 13?
This very thought will color my perception of climate change for ever. Why did you have to do this Fan, my innocence is destroyed and every time you put up a post I will not be able to treat it seriously.
Reminds me of the irony of those who attempt to conflate climate “deniers” with moon landing conspiracy nutjobs, when in fact at least one of those so-called “deniers” actually walked on the moon.
He’s kind of a big cheese.
========
This has been bothering me all week, things that caught my eye, more economic see saw? A few paragraphs if I may.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/19/crisis-what-crisis-2/
Dwindling resources and increasing worldwide consumption have put us on a collision course between what we have and what we use, including the increased waste and pollution from fossil fuel emissions and increased contributions to greenhouse gases and global warming. For a society based on a previously abundant supply of oil, new strategies are needed – such as renewable energy and reduced use – imperative if we hope to continue our modern ways.
We seem to grow without concern for sustainability, but a world that cannot reduce its over-consumptive ways may itself be consumed. A world that cannot reduce its waste may itself soon become waste. Growing financial assets for the already excessively wealthy to expand our lust for more is just crazy.
To be sure, the balance is out of whack because government has once more relaxed essential measures put in place to stop what is known to happen whenever the market is run as a free-for-all – whether loosening the amount of money a bank must keep in reserve that frees banks to expand their lending sprees, or nixing the idea of controls on derivatives. Proceed at your own peril.
John K. White, an adjunct lecturer in the School of Physics, University College Dublin
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/12/no_author/anything-that-can-wrong-is/#
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/12/16/russian-ruble-collapses-conspiracy-or-warning-of-things-to-come/
Consequently, additional proof that this is not limited to Russia is just open your eyes. There is a crisis in ALL EMERGING markets. As the dollar rises and commodities decline, this is part of the cycle that sets in motion the Sovereign Debt defaults.
Russia’s central bank raised its key interest rate to 17 percent in the early hours of Tuesday morning in an emergency move to halt a collapse in the ruble as oil prices decline and the country’s sanctions-hit economy slides towards recession. We are looking at a major decline within the world economy. This is part of Big Bang. We will produce a major and very serious report on this entire subject matter after the closing of 2014.
http://youtu.be/hTdx6vEUtIA
My comments appears all these years later, ‘mission accomplished’ for the Bankers. They run this country. They let you think that the politicians are in charge, but they are just PR reps.
Wall Street Bankers looted this country for decades with predatory lending & deregulation and got rich because of it. After crashing the economy and ruining millions and millions of lives they get bailouts, police protection and Congressional backing to do it all again. Don’t worry, the poor Tax Payers will pay for it. All of this passed in mere days, but if a crumbling road or a dangerous bridge needs repair it takes years or decades to get the bill passed.
My husband and I were long time subscribers to the Skeptical Inquirer, a lovely little journal in pursuit of scientific truth — and reality.
I was disturbed to read their recent letter (which seems — ? — to have fallen off Judith’s “things that caught my eye this week” list).
(Looking at the site I found two slightly different versions on the letter on their site. Again, strange.)
Outside of the backhanded slap at James Inhofe for use of a little political hyperbole, what is the letter about, except to egg on much of the incompetent and funding-corrupt “scientists” today who feed upon government confirmatory largess and love to bandy the insult “denier?”
The signatories from James Randi to Douglas Hofstadter, a Nobel Prize winner, and the webmaster for Quackwatch, which seems to have improved only a smattering over the years since I last looked (and I’m surprised the likes of Randi and Hofstadter are in that company…) are mostly quite impressive.
What is the point of this open letter? Besides Inhofe, who are they smearing the “denier” label upon? Judith? Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre?
This seems very fishy to me. I wonder if someone held a gun to someone’s head? …..Lady in Red
Inhofe’s basket of bread turned to roses.
========================
Answer Your memory is mistaken, “Lady in Red” … `cuz the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s “Open Letter” never *WAS* on this week’s Climate Etc ‘things that caught my eye’ list.
Postulate Climate Etc’s self-proclaimed ‘skeptical eye’ has become a one-way ratchet promoting lower climate-change risk.
Prediction For precisely as long as Climate Etc sustains its one-way ratchet, Climate Etc will continue to enjoy the favor of the
[name redacted] Foundation[name redacted] Institutehttp://www.seppo.net/cartoons/albums/cartoons/environment/climate/deniers_club_credit_eng.jpg
*EVERYONE* understands *THESE* common-sense skeptical/denialist realities, eh Climate Etc readers?
You “critical thinking abilities” have long been apparent, here.
The world would not benefit from an adoption of the policies I fear you advocate. But a large gaggle of cronies would. ….Lady in Red
I love to see it reduced to trolling cartoons. I actually look forward to them.
Lady in Red – I used to get that magazine as well.
My take is that the group could have gone the other way. Michael Crichton had three pieces that by design would have appealed to that community and its perspectives, Aliens Cause Global Warming, Environmentalism as Religion and The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming. I wonder if the first piece turned off many who were enamored with Carl Sagan because it was critical of his pet SETI project. Fans of Sagan (who was at least a bit of an alarmist as regards nuclear winter) gradually pushed the group to adopt a near “groupthink” reflexive intolerance to avoid climate discussions that did anything but uncritically advance the “orthodoxy”. The “orthodox” view has solidified and the leading skeptic conference, The Amazing Meeting in 2014 welcomed and celebrated Michael Mann. The CS letter above seems to signal the takeover is complete.
Does anyone know if there remain places within the skeptic community where the climate orthodoxy can be questioned?
Planning Engineer….
This all just “feels” strange to me, corrupted.
Frankly, I am appalled by the inclusion of Stephen Barrett and Quack Watch in their family of luminaries. Barrett states that QuackWatch is a labor of love. If so, he does a damn good job of fronting for Big Pharma and the cancer industry to no, apparent, financial end.
One doesn’t even have to be much of a scientist to contrast and compare Barrett’s site with this:
MnWellDir.org
*That* is interesting, wide-ranging medical research, a kind of one man NIH. ….Lady in Red
Lady – Here’s my speculation as to how it happened. I’d like to hear others take on this, but don’t know where that forum might be.
The skeptic critique of so called climate denial was set up by their earlier opposition to creationism. In addition to confronting the evidence aroudn creationism, they argued that since creationist did not publish in the literature and since creationists made up virtually none of the faculty at major universities – their views should not be in textbooks or taught in school. When it came to climate however the same approach had a much different underpinning and a much lower bar. They concluded that since 97% climate scientists are in “consensus”, climate issues should not be criticized or disputed in any forum.
William Dembski and Michael Behe were criticized not only for their scholarship, but for being an insignificant part of the academic establishment and residing at smaller less prestigious institutions. In the case of creationism, critics within the skeptic community went into great detail about the shortcoming of the approach and arguing over evidence. The issues were debated ad nauseam. Creation challenges and skeptical responses can be found all over the internet. Climate debate did not work well and concepts were not as easy to argue, so the old model was abandoned for consensus. Debate wasn’t needed because the idea of a credentialed majority had taken hold. Limited talking points were developed. (One being no point arguing any more we’ve argued so much – its over.) Anyone outside of Climatology was disqualified for not being an expert and disagreeing with experts. Anyone within questioning the “majority” was equated to Behe and Dembski.
Planning Engineer, I suppose you could make a connection between Creationism and Climate skepticism as far as left anf right politics.I wanted to point out a scientist that is very pro consensus, taught anthropology, but believes in Creationism as he is very Christian but it will take a while to find him again. I know there are not too many of those but I used it as an arguement that not all the beliefs are political and there is not necessarily a connection between Creationism and Skepticism. I am surely, myself, not a Creationist but I am skeptical about some of what is proposed in climate science. I am an atheist and have studied anthropolgy in college as well as a hobby reader. I point out my bias to demonstrate why I think Creationism is an absurd copy cat of anthropology in my view.
As far as political leanings and beliefs I don’t know if you can directly connect the two. I’ve seen many polls that show really high numbers for a religious view or creationism and it somewhat reflects belief in religion where 85% are Christain and less than 15% atheist. In contrast I think most polls show a slight majority who believe in AGW of which I am one just not hook line and sinker. So, in my opinion, your connection may be more of looking at it through the left right prisms rather than the actual beliefs of people.
Planning Engineer
I think climate and evolution are proxy battles
I grew up in a small southern town
Billy Graham country
I recall little or no conflict between science and religion
the current conflict was created by professional political operatives in the 1980s when other hot button issues become stale
no more Vietnam, progress on civil rights
climate is being used today in a similar way
operatives saw an opening and exploited it
I think this explains the odd, I think, attacks on Judith
Curry
it explains skeptic = denier
it appears to me that the science is clearly unclear
the political lines are stark
in my youth, no imagined fear could replace nuclear war
“climate change” fills the void
the “use by” date on climate change and creationism may be fast approaching
Ordvic – I know politics and religion color our evidence and where we look for evidence. I was trying to be neutral on those issues. My opinions and perspectives cross party lines and allow me to be disliked by people of all political persuasions. Like the skeptics original intent – I try to go where the evidence takes me. There are a lot of ways I wish the world work, but believing things that aren’t true doesn’t help the world work that way.
My personal take is that that the current understanding of evolution is the cornerstone of biology, well grounded with evidence, that leads to many useful insights and expectations for science. I think the skeptics were up for the task of critiquing the “evidence” for a 6,000 year old earth. In countering creationism I think they used good evidence and arguments as well as some argument forms that might have had less validity.
Those less valid argument forms formed the background for their stance on global warming.
As I’ve said before, if the evidence is that we need to stop carbon emissions immediately to save the planet and we all could agree on it – It would make my job interesting, challenging, more rewarding and I would be honored to be a part of working to solve that problem. But I hated almost every minute I put into Y2K preparation.
Well, the right vs left split about global warming means it isn’t a science issue it is a political issue.
The models represent the consensus view on global warming. The models are wrong so the consensus view is wrong.
The use of badly flawed propagandistic studies, Alinsky tactics, consensus arguments (the debating tactic of fools), “the debate is over” pronouncements, and broadly vicious attacks on anyone who isn’t promoting disaster, dilute the global warming message.
Further, use of these tactics tend to alienate anyone who isn’t on the CAGW bandwagon, and make one suspicious of the facts and motives of global warmers, since their words and actions are not those of honest people. Until the global warmers learn to act in a trustworthy and ethical way their arguments will be less than persuasive.
PE @ 4:32 yesterday details the mechanism for the ironic inversion of skepticism suffered over climate. Is there nothing global warming can’t do?
=================
@ Lady in Red
“PS: Although creationism is pleasantly fanciful, the older I get the more I wonder if there are not a *lot* of missing puzzle pieces in the evolution theory.”
It would seem so to the ‘casual bystander’, wouldn’t it?
Fred Reed ( http://www.fredoneverything.net ) addressed that obvious observation in his column of March 7, 2005, here:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/EvolutionMonster.shtml
He asks some ‘Could you provide a few additional details as to how ‘this’ was the result of evolution?’ type of questions and provides an example of why invoking time and random chance does not necessarily advance the evolutionary case.
The aforementioned ‘casual bystander’ appears to be faced with two leading theories:
A. ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth………..’
and
B. In the beginning, there was nothing. At all. Then, for no apparent reason, there was around 1e54 kg of stuff, a universe to put it in, and a bunch of ‘laws’ to keep it ticking along smoothly. 15 billion years and a lot of evolving later, here we are.
He is told that one is scientifical as all get out; the other primitive superstition.
His task is to run them through his ‘plausibility filter’ and determine which is which.
* Just to help him along, he is now told that theory B. requires that in addition to the 1e54 kg of stuff that we can see, there is around 1e55 kg of stuff that we can not see, touch, or detect with any instrument we have devised to date, but whose presence, behavior, and distribution is required to make our observations of how the universe IS behaving match our unquestioned and unquestionable theory of how it SHOULD behave.
Confirmed by FOMD!
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/calvin.gif
Good on `yah, James Randi and Michael Mann, and the entire community of reasoning, respectful, responsible, rational climate-change skeptics!
Fan of More discourse – James Randi had done a lot of good, but I’m afraid his organization is working to marginalize themselves. When MENSA first started there were all these ideas that their membership would be a brain bank helping inform policy, providing thought leaders, solving major problems and the like. Instead they found they were good at social activities like having interesting conversations, throwing parties, making jokes, solving puzzles and riddles.
Similarly “skeptics” are deluding themselves if they think their critical thinking skills allow them to referee and resolve matters of science. (Evidently they haven’t hear of a Kuhn revolution.) Michael Mann was a poor choice for a group supposedly supporting the open scientific process. If that was not clear to you before, his efforts to muzzle dialogue are opposed by the ACLU and many media organizations. Whether his science is good or not, his methods to not benefit his placement as a poster child for skepticism.
I knew nothing of this, Planning Engineer….. I did, once upon a life, study the QuackWatch website and I must say, scientifically, it is pretty thin. Like much of the “climate science” mainstream, it is merely filled with ridicule, no science at all.
(I do know a smattering about Linus Paulling’s Vit C and cancer work and subsequent trials which failed. Long rebutted…. And Mann’s hockey stick lives on. .)
I guess James Randi is just getting very old? ….smile… …Lady in Red
PS: Although creationism is pleasantly fanciful, the older I get the more I wonder if there are not a *lot* of missing puzzle pieces in the evolution theory.
Planning Engineer:
You brought up Kuhn. From the Wiki:
“Kuhn states that scientists spend most (if not all) of their careers in a process of puzzle-solving. Their puzzle-solving is pursued with great tenacity, because the previous successes of the established paradigm tend to generate great confidence that the approach being taken guarantees that a solution to the puzzle exists, even though it may be very hard to find. Kuhn calls this process normal science.”
“For modeling the planetary motions, Copernicus used the tools he was familiar with, namely the cycles and epicycles of the Ptolemaic toolbox. But Copernicus’ model needed more cycles and epicycles than existed in the then-current Ptolemaic model…”
“The Ptolemaic approach of using cycles and epicycles was becoming strained: there seemed to be no end to the mushrooming growth in complexity required to account for the observable phenomena. Johannes Kepler was the first person to abandon the tools of the Ptolemaic paradigm.”
The above reminds me of curve fitting by adjusting the various cycles and other inputs. Also the building of bigger GCMs. That they’re approaching the climate problem the same way as these men figured out the solar system. They’re trying to duplicate the climate by adding more and more gearwheels to the machine.
The JREF is really embarrassing itself with its uncritical promotion of the controversial Michael Mann. The real story of Mann and his hockey stick should actually be of great interest to skeptical organizations and it offers many cautionary and ethical lessons. The serious allegations of hiding and manipulation of data, not disclosing methods or adverse R squared results and his strange promotion of himself as a Nobel prize winner should at least require some kind of rebuttal. They would never let a creationist or bigfoot hunter get away with such antics. It’s sad to see an organization like JREF, which prides itself on uncovering deceptive practices, turn a blind eye when it suits the political views of many of its members.
Canman, I’ve tried to get people to discuss/rebut basic points in the whole Michael Mann saga. It almost inevitably fails. You can see the “rebuttal” I got in one instance in the last topic on this site, here. I’m not sure I’ve ever gotten a better response. I’ve gotten a number which were significantly worse though.
Brandon, interesting thread. It’s hard to expect someone like Max_O to not reject all logic regarding the hockey stick story. But the people at JREF should at least look into the issue. I would think that they would want to get to the bottom of it. The only thing I can think of is that they maybe skimmed over posts by someone like Deep Climate or Eli Rabett without going into the details. I think when it comes to environmental issues, a large proportion of scientists and other interested people are too emotionally invested and don’t want to know the truth.
Here’s something depressing. Mann’s been made a hero in a comic book:
http://planetasustentavel.abril.com.br/herois-do-clima/pop-pdf.shtml?ln=IN
One panel says:
I don’t remember any allegations of forged documents in Climategate. Perhaps they’re confusing it with “Gleikgate”.
“In 2009 His email was hacked, documents were forged, and he was presented to the public as a fraud. ”
That isn’t true – the emails should have been released under FOIA. The emails were acknowledged as true and no evidence has been presented by anyone that they aren’t.
Mann’s email wasn’t hacked, emails from the CRU were released by someone on-site.
He wasn’t presented to the public as a fraud, at least by the email incident. The emails were released to the public and smart people read them and drew their own conclusions (mostly negative). It didn’t take any presentation – you just had to read the emails (I actually focused on the software developer’s emails).
Canman, that comic is depressing. Did you notice it completely misrepresents Michael Mann’s work? From one panel:
But Mann’s work tells us absolutely nothing like that. Mann’s work used the modern temperature record to establish temperatures of the last ~100 years. He had nothing to do with that work. His work dealt only with temperatures before then.
It’s pretty pathetic when people defending Michael Mann from his critics misrepresent his work in ways even Mann himself would acknowledge are wrong.
Canman said on December 20, 2014 at 8:11 pm
“Brandon, interesting thread. It’s hard to expect someone like Max_O to not reject all logic regarding the hockey stick story.”
_______
Call me pigheaded, but its hard for me to accept supposition as fact.
Max_OK:
Or do anything to check the veracity of what you consider to be “supposition” if you don’t like the possibility of what you might find. We all understand how difficult it is for a person to actually investigate ideas, even when presented evidence and detailed discussions are made readily available.
It’s far easier to just say, “I don’t know” and make absolutely no effort to remedy your ignorance.
Call me lazy, but it’s not my job to check out the veracity of Brandon’s suppositions. As the supposer, the burden is on him to prove what he supposes is true is true.
Call me skeptical, but I find it hard to believe Brandon has psychic powers that enable him to know what Michael Mann is thinking. If Brandon wants to remove my doubt, he can send a message to me through telepathy.
==> “Outside of the backhanded slap at James Inhofe for use of a little political hyperbole,”
Classic.
Regarding CO2 enrichment and forest growth the Idso’s just published a lengthy review on the topic:
http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/forests.php
They also have an extensive database of the science:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
The US Feds (CEQ) have just released for public comment draft guidance for including (the Administration’s wild view of) climate change in NEPA environmental impact assessments. Emissions are used as a proxy for impact, meaning these are basically emission reduction rules. Lots of project stopping potential here. Comments due within 60 days.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/Press_Releases/December_18_2014
Unlike the endless academic debate these rules are real and probably irreversible. Another US loss for skeptics. They are mounting up.
Mr. Wojick
“loss for US skeptics”
are we playing a game?
irreversible rules
can’t have enough of those
US
look elsewhere for losses on your scorecard
Not a game, real name. It is a serious policy struggle and the skeptics are losing. Read the CEQ guidance,which is just the latest green hit.
The USA economy loses. Eventually Obama will be seen as a very educated, slightly misguided bum. I voted for the guy, so I’m guilty. My only excuse was bush. I really hated his performance.
Mr. Wojick
hmm…
so government writing rules is proof of a thing
policy
the lofty goal
the legacy of empire
Hopefully, the Republicans can muster some resistance. But sometimes it appears they are working for Obama instead of the people who put them in office, and I don’t mean the big crony businesses.
From the article:
Oil, gas and coal interests that spent millions to help elect Republicans this year are moving to take advantage of expanded GOP power in Washington and state capitals to thwart Obama administration environmental rules.
Industry lobbyists made their pitch in private meetings last week with dozens of state legislators at a summit of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an industry-financed conservative state policy group.
The lobbyists and legislators considered several model bills to be introduced across the country next year, designed to give states more power to block or delay new Obama administration environmental standards, including new limits on power-plant emissions.
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-bolstered-by-gop-wins-work-to-curb-environmental-rules/2014/12/07/3ef05bc0-79b9-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html
Yes, the coming battle between Congress and the President will be very interesting.
It’s about humanities but is climate “science” any less driven by left-wing agenda??;
http://the-good-news.storage.googleapis.com/assets/pdf/psychology-political-diversity.pdf
Actually it’s worse since the bulk of the field would only exist with the AGW meme and the green coerced funding derived from deception and self-delusion of like minded academia and the rabble it transacts with.
Calls for political diversity will likely fail on all fronts but will never even be acknowledged in the blinder culture of climate “consensus”.
Answer Your memory is mistaken, “Lady in Red” … `cuz the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s “Open Letter” never *WAS* on this week’s Climate Etc ‘things that caught my eye’ list.
Postulate Climate Etc’s self-proclaimed ‘skeptical eye’ has become a one-way ratchet that is biased toward lower climate-change risk.
Prediction For precisely as long as Climate Etc sustains its one-way skeptical ratchet, Climate Etc will continue to enjoy the favor of the
Charles [name redacted] Foundation[name redacted] Institutehttp://pub.arhien.org/wp/respectingnature/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/polyp_cartoon_Esso_Climate_Change1.jpg
*EVERYONE* understands *THESE* common-sense skeptical/denialist realities, eh Climate Etc readers?
Wrong, Fan of More Trolling,
“everyone” does not agree with you. Thus, once again you are purveying false information and dishonest opinion (yours) as fact. You are incorrigibly malicious.
Me and my science-respecting buddies!
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/09/130919_FG_PopeFrancisLiberal.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Penn_and_Teller_with_James_Randi_TAM-2012.JPG
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140222120836/candh/images/5/55/HobbesHeartsCalvin.jpg
BREAKING NEWS
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Penn_and_Teller_with_James_Randi_TAM-2012.JPG
Good on `yah Penn Jillette and James Randi … for reasoned respectful responsible rational climate-change skepticism!
Randi a couple years back made a few statements about not seeing the evidence for alarming climate change and the forces for conformity swooped down on him. I felt really sorry for hime withe Heat he was getting, but then he recanted and was accepted back as a beloved member of the community. .I heard Penn Gillette say recently he doesn’t have any reason to believe one way or the other , other than he trusts his good friend Lawrence Krauss and Dawkins. Teller as far as I know, has remained silent.
My favorite Penn Jillette environmental video:
So these guys seem on the ball – as opposed to such as FOMBS.
We can make real progress on food security, resilience to disaster, biodiversity and climate – all at the same time.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/17/ethics-and-climate-change-policy/#comment-656298
It requires moving past global warming tunnel vision.
Fan is attempting ter control this thread by message inundation ….
‘Not only sands and gravels
Were once more on their travels,
But gulping muddy gallons
Great boulders off their balance
Bumped heads together dully
And started down the gully.
Whole capes caked off in slices.
I felt my standpoint shaken
In the universal crisis.
But with one step backward taken
I saved myself from going.
A world torn loose went by me.
Then the rain stopped and the blowing,
And the sun came out to dry me.’
– See more at: http://allpoetry.com/One-Step-Backward-
H/t Robert Frost.
It’s a beautiful day Beth …
… so let’s go exploring …
http://backyardphilosophy01.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/calvin-and-hobbes-lets-go-exploring.jpg
… exploring beyond denialism’s shrinking self-imprisoning bubble, that is!
BREAKING NEWS
http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/23/calvin_and_hobbes.jpg
Good on `yah Penn Jillette … for reasoned respectful responsible rational climate-change skepticism!
What’s so odd is that when we have tragedies like 9/11 many people use that tragedy to say, “We need a stronger government and more draconian laws.” For climate change, there is the idea that there is a horrible emergency so we need a stronger government and more draconian laws. I wish we would at least consider, when given a tragedy or emergency, the idea of trying to solve it with more freedom instead of less. Pen Jillette
I know let’s just swap cartoons – that way FOMBS will feel right at home
http://www.chrismadden.co.uk/images/cartoons/carbon-footprint-climate-change-conference-cartoon.gif
Hey fan, I’m more into Penn and Teller gettin’ hippies
ter sign a ‘ban water’ petition. )
http://knowyourmeme.com/videos/44616-dihydrogen-monoxide-hoax
Nasty stuff that. Kills thousands per year.
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” David Brower
This is the dystopian future they imagine for the rest of us. It is doubtful that they recognise even how profoundly mad such a vision is.
The real promise of the future is social, economic and environmental progress to a prosperous and peaceful global civilisation this century.
http://shakedownsocialism.com/images/Yellow_Crossroad_Wealth_Pov.jpg
This is the future we want.
http://vactruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/baby-vaccinated-unicef.jpg
Economic growth is the path to this future. All else emerges from the richness of the human spirit and the creativity of the human mind. We have relatively recently evolved mechanisms to set people free – democracy, the rule of law, capitalism – and the continued development of these structures creates a stable environment for spirit and creativity to flourish.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
Delta Dawn, there’s far more to ordinary life than the 20th century’s stale dichotomies!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W01rRJeCwKI
*EVERYONE* appreciates *THIS* emerging — and wonderful! — reality of the 21st century, eh Climate Etc readers?
Talk about sad and stale – the same video and the usual chimerical thought bubbles.
People need resources to pay for the basics – food, housing, education, health. The forms in which these best flourish are the enlightenment norms of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and capitalism. These are the foundations on which the human spirit and creativity flourish.
There is little point in telling this to such as FOMBS – but it is mainstream and the real world will continue to roll over these fringe extremists and their dystopian visions of dire futures.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
Roberto posits some truths about the creative abilities of man but then wildly turns to progressivism as a means to homogenize society and maximize those creative abilities; bloviating from his academic perch and divorced from reality.
http://i.cdn.travel.cnn.com/sites/default/files/styles/624×312/public/2014/01/02/main-northern-lights.jpg
Societies that rationally and pragmatically check-and-balance these four objectives are indeed the happiest places on earth (objectively speaking)!
Good on `yah, foresighted Scandinavian nations!
Your well-balanced insights are appreciated, Delta Dawn!
http://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/74064/cover/9781107074064.jpg
That’s why Roberto Unger’s new book with cosmologist Lee Smolin will be appreciated by Climate Etc readers of every scientific and political persuasion!
Unger’s main point is quite short, however …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKBZpmGxniw
Thank you for appreciating this central point rls!
Countries that are free – as in free markets – tend to be peaceful.
https://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/MapofFreedom2014.pdf
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/free-markets-and-civil-peace.pdf
They also tend to be happier.
http://cf.datawrapper.de/9VAki/4/?ABCnewsembedheight=500
The top 20 seem mostly South American and South-East Asian for reasons I haven’t looked into.
In general you would look for democratic governance, government at about 22% of GDP, fair, open and transparent regulation of markets, free markets, private property, effective and transparent interest rate management. Broadly – the future of the world is this plus free trade.
As far as time is concerned – while not suspended it is yet complicated.
‘Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent “now” objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.’ Albert Einstein
I would doubt that FOMBS can add anything of any interest to that – as opposed to pontificating self importantly on things he little comprehends.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
Get with 21st century quantum notions of space-time, why don’cha Delta Dawn-Rose?
Good on `yah for 21st century advances in scientific enterprise, Roberto Mangabiera Unger and Lee Smolin!
He continues to be a space cadet living in a bizarro universe in which a *quote* from Einstein is *bafflegab*, relativity doesn’t continue to provide the most fundamental insights into time and space and where energy, mass and momentum are not conserved.
http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/bizarro_world-baseball.jpg
Lol something tells me that Climate Etc’s denialist-denizens will dislike Mikhael Gromov even more than Roberto Unger and Lee Smolin!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn1wkHYmSD8&list=PLx5f8IelFRgF7MS8sccvWFX2ABDY1i8UG&index=4
Happy mathematical learning, Climate Etc readers!
http://hotchickshotpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/motivatemxyzptlk.jpg
Bonus Super-Points For knowing this gent’s name!
LMFAO. A question might be why FOMBS is in a rut – but it is not terribly interesting. Much like nebulous social philosophy of Unger and the *new age* cosmology of the other guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEhAMnQb9p4
Quantum gravity might be a fun problem but network theory might be more relevant to climate.
In order to convince people that AGW is real and dangerous, climate conformists has as one of their main mantras that AGW has caused extreme weather events. It has been shown over and over again that this is false and that in fact the opposite is true being that extreme weather is more common during cold dry times as demonstated by the Fabius Maximus article.Yet this mantra remains, unabated, a main talking point of the conformists.
The motivation behind this is postulated by the SF Cronicle article that points out that the conformists are not interested in soloutions but rather want to use their propaganda to berate, belittle and ostrasize the opposition. This should be no surprise to anyone who pays attention to the tactics of some radical political agendas.
In light of this, I would ask that suppose everyone did go along with the proclaimations of the conformists? Every time a screaming conformist issues a procaimation everyone goose step marches, cheers and gives the Dr Strangelove high five celebrating the new decree. What would be the outcome of all of this? Would we be better off if we all just … get along?
It has been shown over and over again that this is false and that in fact the opposite is true being that extreme weather is more common during cold dry times as demonstated by the Fabius Maximus article.
What if it turned out that extreme weather occurred during abrupt climate changes, and became less extreme after the climate settled into its new regime?
In that case those blaming extreme weather on cold dry times would be just as wrong as those blaming it on hot times, because the extreme weather was the result of neither of those but simply of the abruptness of the change.
Vaughan Pratt:
And what if it turns out that it doesn’t?
Weather is largely driven by the differential between the tropics and the poles. In colder times that differential is greater.
Like the abruptness of change between summer and winter? Or between day and night?
Interesting thought…transient response. We can adapt to predictability.
Vaughn Pratt,
Point taken. I should have left out the opposite being true as I was simply going by what I previously read and the same being mentioned in the article. Thanks for correction.
Sorry I misspelled your name.
From the article:
…
Judy Curry recently noted that Phil Jones’ 2014 temperature index (recently the subject of major adjustments in methodology) might be a couple of hundredths of degree higher than a few years ago and alerted her readers to potential environmental NGO triumphalism. Unsurprisingly, it has also been observed in response that the hiatus continues in full force for the satellite records, with 1998 remaining the warmest satellite year by a considerable margin.
Equally noteworthy however – and of greater interest to CA readers where there has been more focus on model-observation discrepancy – is that the overheating discrepancy between models and surface temperatures in 2014 was the fourth highest in “recorded” history and that the 5 largest warm discrepancies have occurred in the past 6 years. The cumulative discrepancy between models and observations is far beyond any previous precedent. This is true for both surface and satellite comparisons.
…
http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/11/unprecedented-model-discrepancy/
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/Howskepticsandrealistsviewglobalwarming_zpsbe492f60.png
This is where I started – a vision for the future that isn’t dark and dystopian. A vision that has economic, social and environmental progress at the heart of civilised aspirations this century. .
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/19/week-in-review-38/#comment-657001
It is contrasted with the millennial paroxysm of fringe climate extremism. Of course they can’t see it – it is part of the madness. The madness stands in the way of both social, economic and environmental progress and rational science.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg?w=500
Pingback: Veckan som gick - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen
Well there are all sorts of sons and many sounds of lumiere about this late on this drawn and quartered thread. I heard and saw the noise and view of Frank, above, yesterday.
I’m much reminded of approaching a limit when I think of sensitivity today. Thank Gaia it is small enough to remain beneficial. Too bad, the flip side, it is not strong enough to beat the next Ice Age.
=====================
Robert Stavin’s article suggests that a breakthrough has been achieved as all countries (Annex I and Annex II) rich and poor are participatory in a mitigation strategy:
“Importantly, the Lima decision provides that each country’s INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) shall include a clear statement of emissions mitigation, and may include quantifiable information on reference points (such as base year), time frame of implementation and coverage, assumptions and methodological approaches for estimating and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, as well as each country’s own assessment of its INDC’s fairness and ambition.”
Stavin’s goes on to make the distinction between “may” and “shall” include a clear statement. Stavin also points out that Green Groups don’t like the lack of mandates upon rich countries and that rich countries are concerned about legal liability, essentially rich countries writing a blank check to poor countries.
Everything will be said and done by December 15, 2015 and an agreement signed.
Ah, let’s see. The US Senate has to approve such treaties, not Harvard Professors of Environmental Economics. So, what is the mood in the Senate come December 2015 regarding a treaty on handing money, no strings attached, based upon self determined and ephemeral CO2 mitigation targets, that don’t have to be met? I guess that President Obama can declare some commitment for the USA hoping that the 2016 election will replace the Republican Senate with a Democratic Senate.
The first images from the CO2 sensing satellite have been released for October & November 2015 and to my eyeballs, the Southern Hemisphere has the most CO2 emissions. That is also where the many Annex II countries are located. Hmm. the calculated CO2 emissions from economic data and the measured CO2 emissions from satellite imagery may not match up. Another case of model vs observation divergence. If perchance the economic models used to calculate CO2 emissions are wrong (going along with all models are wrong theme), what does that do to mitigation calculations? self-determined mitigation strategies? etc etc etc.
Now if the CO2 signal in AGW remains a mystery for much longer, aren’t all these climate conference negotiations a huge waste of money, time, and resources?
Ooops
October November 2014 not 2015
Wow, I allowed email notifications of replies thinking I would be notified when replies to the single posting I put up were posted.
Instead it seems I’m getting all replies by anyone to anything.
The only item of note: it appears there are 2 or maybe 3 people who are comprising 90% of all replies in the last 24 hours.
I wonder if the Swedish “Troll Hunter” program is interested in doing some analysis here.
Green light for world’s largest planned tidal energy project in Scotland
The project has the potential to power nearly 175,000 homes through a network of 269 turbines on the seabed at Ness of Quoys in Caithness, north-east Scotland.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/19/green-light-for-worlds-largest-planned-tidal-energy-project-in-scotland
Max
As a proponent of a country us8ng renewable energy horses for courses the tidal project is good news.
Nowhere in the UK is more than 70 miles from the sea and we have sadly neglected our tide and wave potential in favour of the somewhat dubious benefits of wind power and the laughable (in at our latitude) benefits of solar power. My solar power installations effectively gave up the ghost during October.
tonyb
Yes, but what about the toll on endangered kinds of fish from swimming into those underwater turbines?
Max
If they swim into the wrong plaice and hit the turbines hard they might get a haddock.
Tonyb
Good one, tonyb. I think kim would like it too.
Nuclear power was the very first thing I thought about when the idea about need to suppress CO2 production surfaced many years ago. It all seemed to make sense but to my surprise events did not even start unfolding that way. It took a while to understand why. First reason is that green organizations hate nuclear power. This revelation actually helped me to realize who is te actual force behind all this global warming scare.
Second reason is more serious: there is not enough uranium. There are only so many sources of cheap uranium in the world and current nuclear power is generally utilizing them to 100%. Add more nuclear power plants and uranium becomes noticably more expensive as you have to deliver more of it. Technically it is possible to extract uranium from sea water but when you get there, nuclear power is already way more expensive than any other reliable power source. And that’s IMO the main obstacle with the idea of replacing coal power with nuclear.
Uranium plants burning up their own waste would be important step towards mitigating irrational fear of nuclear power out in the public, but won’t solve the problem with uranium supply.
That’s why I hope someone will succeed making a working thorium reactor. I’m not buying most of the hype around thorium reactors but at least their fuel is much easier to come by.
A review of the new book “CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS 2014” by about 24 authors.
The best and most relevant chapter in this new book is that by William Soon, namely Chapter 4 “Sun Shunned” in which he discusses things such as the eccentricity of the Sun’s orbit that I have also pointed out as the principal regulator of glacial periods.
The rest of the chapters on the “science” do not discuss the valid physics which is really what does determine Earth’s surface temperatures. Instead the “lukes” all reiterate the false claim that carbon dioxide causes significant warming of the surface by radiative forcing. Nowhere is the assumed process of forcing actually discussed. We just get the usual false paradigm that carbon dioxide traps outward radiation and thus supposedly makes the surface warmer.
Carbon dioxide does not trap thermal energy. It disposes of what it absorbs either by subsequent radiation or by sensible heat transfer (via molecular collisions) to other air molecules which outnumber it by 2,500 to 1. It also helps nitrogen and oxygen cool through such collisions, and may subsequently radiate the energy thus acquire out of the atmosphere.
All radiation between regions at different temperatures can only transfer thermal energy from the warmer region (or surface) to a cooler region. This means all heat transfer in the troposphere is generally upwards to cooler regions, with a proportion always getting through to space. There is no thermal energy transferred to a warmer surface. The energy transfer is the other way. The Sun’s radiation is not helped by radiation from the atmosphere which is only sending back some of its own energy now with much lower energy photons. Radiating gases reduce the insulating effect by helping energy to escape faster, and that is why moist air in double glazed windows also reduces the insulating effect, just as does water vapor in the troposphere.
Nowhere in the book do we see the surface temperature explained correctly using Stefan Boltzmann calculations. No one ever does this, because it is an absolute stumbling block for climatologists. The mean solar flux entering the surface is only about 163W/m^2 after 52% of the solar radiation has been either absorbed or reflected by the surface, clouds or atmosphere. But such a low level of radiation would only produce a very cold -41°C. That’s even colder than what the IPCC claims would be the case, namely -18°C without greenhouse gases. They deduce that by assuming that the whole troposphere would be isothermal due to convective heat transfer, including sensible heat transfers by molecular collision.
Hence all the “luke” authors fall for the trap of not actually explaining the existing surface temperature, let alone what carbon dioxide might or might not do. How could you work out the latter if you don’t know your starting point? The truth is that you cannot calculate the surface temperature of any planet that has a significant atmosphere by using radiation calculations. Hence all the considerations pertaining to radiation and absorption by carbon dioxide are totally within a wrong paradigm.
That assumption by the IPCC (and thus by the “lukes” who have written this book) that the troposphere would be isothermal was rubbished in the 19th century by some physicists who understood the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is still being rubbished to this day, and even more so, now that physicists realise that the Second Law is all about entropy increasing to the point where there are no unbalanced energy potentials. In a gravitational field this state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained when all the energy potentials involving gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy and radiative energy balance out. That is when the environmental temperature gradient is attained, and the very fact that it exists enables us to explain all planetary surface temperatures (and the required energy flows) without the slightest reference to back radiation, let alone trace gases like carbon dioxide. Only water vapor has a significant effect in lowering that gradient because of its radiating properties. It thus cools the surface, and that puts a big spanner in the works for the IPCC et al.
‘Have you heard the one about the grinning
Cheshire Sunspots pulling a joke on all of us
here in Wonderland?’
H/T kim CE 12/01/13.
Then there’s the Chiefio on :: sun shock ::
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/sorce-says-sun-did-it/
What caught my eye this week:
While I have learned a gazillion times more on science issues from Dr. Curry — I am also a big fan of Dr. Katherine Hayhoe. NPR chose her as one of the top interviews in 2014: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=372236813&m=372257278
Katherine’s message that I value so much is targeted to my Faith and political conservatism. One can be a Christian and a Conservative, etc. and still believe that AGW is happening — one doesn’t have give up their core values and become an Atheist Treehugger or Liberal/Socialist.
Hmmmm …searched my New Testament for verses teaching that “Corporations are people” …
http://www.cartoonmovement.com/depot/cartoons/2012/06/zfb_wFOtTMWDBX4avQn2nQ.jpeg
… didn’t find any such verse.
Did find plenty of Bible justification for Christianity’s immensely strong tradition of socialism
More thread unlinking …
Hmmmm …searched my New Testament for verses teaching that “Corporations are people” …
http://www.cartoonmovement.com/depot/cartoons/2012/06/zfb_wFOtTMWDBX4avQn2nQ.jpeg
… didn’t find any such verse.
Did find plenty of Bible justification for Christianity’s immensely strong tradition of socialism
The world wonders … at denialism’s obsessive cherry-picking … in science, in economics, and in religion too!
FOMD’s Bayesian weight It’s likely (meaning, more than a fifty-fifty chance) that sea-level rise will accelerate in coming decades, with steric expansion (from ocean-heating) contributing substantially to that acceleration.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/2014/09/gw-impacts-sea-level-rise-coastal-storm-wave-flooding-house.jpg
Question How likely is this rising/heating climate-change postulate in your view TonyB?
More likely than fifty-fifty? Or less likely?
And what scientific elements enter into your reasoning? Heat-transport theory? Energy-balance analysis? Dynamical modeling? Empirical curve-fitting? All of them? None of them?
The world wonders why denialists won’t (or can’t?) bring themselves to answer even the simplest Bayesian questions about climate-change, using even the most traditional scientific methods.
A fan of *MORE* discourse | December 22, 2014 at 10:16 am | Reply
tonyb is gripped by desire “Would still like to know what you think the sea level will be in 2100 and also the ocean temperature profile?”
FOMD’s Bayesian weight It’s likely (meaning, more than a fifty-fifty chance) that sea-level rise will accelerate in coming decades, with steric expansion (from ocean-heating) contributing substantially to that acceleration.
Well, the MWP had 6 inch higher sea levels.
Since we are supposed to be as warm as the MWP the correct answer is 6 inches.
If we aren’t as warm the answer will be less.
Bayesian analysis has been frequently shown to have all sorts of problems including confirmation bias, positive trend bias, and so forth.
In fact, even Lewandosky has at least one paper talking about this – outside of his denier attack papers:
http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/conferences/2007/cases-rules/griffith2.pdf
In plain English: You’re tossing about big words, but it is all Sound and Fury, signifying nothing.
… and yet no-one dispenses with it entirely!
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/frequentists_vs_bayesians.png
*EVERYONE* appreciates that Bayesian reasoning has common-sense foundations, eh Climate Etc readers?
Denialism’s unanswered question: How likely is it that sea-level rise will accelerate in coming decades, and steric expansion (from ocean-heating) will contribute to that acceleration?
A1 More than fifty-fifty (`cuz global warming *IS* real).
A2 Less than fifty-fifty (`cuz “regression to the mean”).
How is it that denialism can’t produce straight answers?
The world wonders!
Ooh, nice try to reframe.
If you fail to address the point raised, then you are – in reality – simply a loudmouth.
But then again, the above statement was already quite clear.
However, just for fun, I can arbitrarily reframe as well:
A1: Sea level rise is 1 meter in the next century. Nobody cares, because it makes no difference whatsoever in real life given that the actual change is literally slower than a snail’s pace
A2: Sea level rise is less than 1 meter in the next century. See A1
A fan of *MORE* discourse | December 22, 2014 at 11:39 am |
c1ue proclaims “Bayesian analysis has all sorts of problems …”
… and yet no-one dispenses with it entirely!
Well, global warmers drew a trend line through the 90s and said it was going to continue forever if we didn’t make draconian sacrifices. That was 14-16 years ago and the intervening years have not been kind to their theory.
Bayesian statistics don’t trump knowledge of the situation.
In a car on curvy mountain road we are approaching a curve. A global warmer applies bayesian statistics and concludes we are going over the cliff and jumps out. Normal people think, “we turned at all the other curves so we will probably turn at this one” and stay in the car… until the car gets around the curve – at which point we stop and go back to help the global warmer and get him back into the car.
Fan
Being an eternal optimist-as distinct from you who always seems to be in the climatic slough of despond-I have this hope that one of these days you will answer one of my straightforward questions in a straight forward manner.
As regards sea level here, once again , is the sea level graphic illustrating the regular ups and downs of the oceans.
https://b24ef414-a-6233b4b2-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/glaciology.net/grinsted/Home/PDFs/Announcements/gslprojection/PRfig-shadow-smaller.png?attachauth=ANoY7cqxDSsmpfOxZtsFsc0UjmukRtiVhyAUwLWzW3EM1l_O7OykU52cuLBnEJUJAKTsEz8FC96wFrMwOW3_Ho6yC3-jufdngn2Yxt7XGme4FVYFpMzZhxmRkcfaGTAzMAx8rREjhioQkMmlYWYR98mj8c3_c7e4ibdeBlr8C8LoYB4y99UWt40_a2NQPQa1xnRdcHzEwjLhaumQptk7oso54965HeF3LgvjavSNIWvnyUD8X7fPTeeClO_w-eOANxFuwp26mJuSjxsDaQL_rNbUVWirfpREjQ%3D%3D&attredirects=0
Lets make things easy and ask whether you agree with the projections to 2100. To do this you merely need to answer 1) yes or 2) No.
1) Yes
2) No..
If you don’t agree, what do you think the levels will be?
The second part of the question is equally easy, which is to confirm, that in order for the oceans to rise to whatever apocalyptic level you believe will occur by 2100, what will be the temperature profile of the oceans?
I look forward to your straightforward answer
Your ever hopeful English friend
tonyb
Fan
You might find this link works better
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/document.pdf
Go to the very last graph for sea levels. I think a number of people here are looking forward to your answer.
tonyb
I can only answer simple questions, TonyB?
Simple Question Is it likely that sea-level rise-rates will accelerate in coming decades, as the oceans warm and the polar ice melts?
Simple Answer Yes.
http://climatestate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/SLR-Sea-level-rise.jpg
What is your simple answer, TonyB?
Ooh, a photoshopped picture of alarmist doomer porn.
The facts: The island of Manhattan has more land area now than it did 100 years ago.
That’s because there are lots of other factors besides sea level: landfill prominent among them.
A significant part of the Netherlands is actually below sea level – and that nation literally borders the ocean.
Fail.
Two words …
http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kigconference/abt_karstfeatures_files/fig1.jpg
… porous karst.
Which makes Dutch-style dikes useless.
It’s a pleasure to augment your geological knowledge “c1ue”!
FOMBS strikes again!
FOMD
I’m going to have to disagree with your analysis.
Sea level rise is pretty much all steric (temperature driven). Since Greenland as of June 2004 had only lost 9 gT of from the previous June that is especially true (even AR5 WG1 concedes the Antarctic will have little effect on sea level).
The MWP had about a 6 inch higher sea level.
Since the MWP presumably didn’t have all the CO2 driven polar melting, the MWP was a lot warmer. Perhaps a degree or so. So you are basically arguing that we can stop natural sea level rise in the natural temperature range of temperature variation by tweaking CO2. That won’t wash.
Until the sea level rises 6 more inches you don’t have a case for a CO2 impact on sea level – or any basis for predicting it’s effect on sea level. A continued pause would make the issue of sea level rise moot.
Just curious: what does the literature say with regards to medium and longer term changes in the water cycle? If in fact increased CO2 actually does change jetstream patterns and so forth, is not one possibility that more snow gets deposited than the status quo today?
Also curious as to what a change in the water vapor content of the atmosphere has on sea levels.
I wonder because the predictability of sea level rise due to the effects of CO2 doesn’t seem to be that much better than the predictability of worldwide temperature.
AR5 WG1 says:
“It is likely that circulation features have moved poleward since the
1970s, involving a widening of the tropical belt, a poleward shift of
storm tracks and jet streams and a contraction of the northern polar
vortex. Evidence is more robust for the NH.”
AR5 doesn’t seem to stake out a predictive position on the jet stream.
So in other words – this is yet another area where the “settled science” isn’t really settled.
Thanks for the info.
I figured out this iteration. When people cannot figure out was they’re saying is settled, I grab flush handle.
Well, if you get away from the some do this some do that Ar5 statements…
There are some presentations (not IPCC) that less arctic sea ice reduces the temperature differential with the temperate zone which results in a slower jet stream and more blocking patterns.
If you think sea ice is related to CO2 then CO2 is indirectly responsible. If you don’t believe the sea ice extent is due to CO2 – then no it isn’t.
I’ve just deleted 30 comments, and one person is in moderation.
If you would stand up to the little creeps who are only here to bite your ankles and poke your denier denizens with a sharp stick, you wouldn’t have these problems.
Judith
The denizens need fresh meat regularly or they get restive (not festive)
tonyb
And I haven’t even commented on this thread.
Stalin apparently tricked a group of geophysicists into believing they could “save the world from nuclear annihilation” in Oct 1945 by hiding the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima in Aug 1945!
These geophysicists had little or no understanding of nuclear energy as the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of atoms, lives and worlds.
But a year earlier, in 1944, Nobel Laureate Max Planck had described the Force that holds together the whirling electrons in each atom of a steel girder to create the illusion of solid matter:
“There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a FORCE which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together …”
“We must assume behind this force the existence of a CONSCIOUS and INTELLIGENT MIND. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
http://www.greggbraden.com/resources
These words by Max Planck illustrate how science, religion and spirituality operated before 1945 as separate paths to the basic truths that underlie all constitutional governments and respect for the basic right of humans to self-governance.
Restoration of Max Planck’s respect for religions, science and spirituality is the key to restoration of sanity in today’s troubled society and an end to the global climate debate.
The second half of the comments have certainly taken a turn for the visual, even including comics. Are we getting festive?
Seems so, David and so:
Judith and CE denizens et al,*
May Santa’s blessings on yer fall.
* not ‘Al.’
Thanks, Beth,
After five years of disappointments, Christmas 2014 is bringing Climate skeptics a big red rubber ball, Truth !
FOMD says:
“igh … PA, how is it that yer most recent ice-loss reference is twenty-eight years out-of-date?
Get with 21st century ice-science, why don’cha?”
_____
Considering that ice mass loss from Antarctica especially seems to be accelerating, probably best to use the most current data available.
FOMD
interested in your glacier photo montage
one thing is curious to me in the climate debate…
would you be happy if the glaciers were advancing?
what terrors have descended upon us as a result of their current retreat?
the question IMHO is not what goes on in the mind of skeptics
but what is the pathology that would that make one imagine climate stasis is achievable?
a denialist wonders
John Smith, or you could ask if rising sea level is any worse than falling sea level. 70 mm since 1990 is quite a rate.
Jimd
It will need to quadruple from that rate to meet the dire predictions of the ipcc and r gates. Perhaps fan has a lower estimate?
Tonyb
70 mm, eh? 2014-1990 = 24, 70/24 = 2.91 mm/y, the MWP was 152 mm higher, 152/2.91 = 52 years.
Ok, by 2066 we will finally be at the sea level of the MWP.
We are within the natural variation of sea level and have 52 years to determine if we are having a negative effect on it. Let’s take our time and get good information. It isn’t like we have a lot of time pressure – you can do a lot of science in over half a century.
PA, coastal planners are already having to take this into consideration when thinking about infrastructure to last a few decades. However, yes, you need not worry yourself about this. Take the Florida attitude and refuse on political grounds to acknowledge the rise rate in planning. I heard the southern part of Florida wants to split away because the conservatives in the state house don’t care about sea level planning and Miami is already feeling the very real effects.
JD – the real sea level rise rate is about 1.7 mm/year.
Miami is subsiding 2.2 mm/year.
The net is 3.9 mm. But even if we stop the sea level rise (the MWP was 6 inches higher so about 6 inches or 152 mm is out of our control) Miami still has a sea level problem. But it is unrelated to rising tides.
Yeah, those progressive blue counties in S. Fla. should split away, jimmy. And take the rest of the nation’s blue counties with them. Would solve most of our problems.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrTcdqzkZhUCVgApzIPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw–?p=red+counties+blue+counties+2014&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dred%2Bcounties%2Bblue%2Bcounties%2B2014%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&w=1280&h=825&imgurl=25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lwzzp8DFEL1r3aqywo1_1280.jpg&size=452KB&name=tumblr_lwzzp8DFEL1r3aqywo1_1280.jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnybydzine.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F15066855885%2Fforget-the-states-its-red-blue-counties-the&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnybydzine.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F15066855885%2Fforget-the-states-its-red-blue-counties-the&type=&no=3&tt=120&oid=5e8cbad002e639b83a2cc79aa0b3c317&tit=View+high+resolution&sigr=12o91dvkb&sigi=11n5e1df9&sign=113iv478r&sigt=103vg5ole&sigb=13b0f4i7c&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
Link no good. If you don’t get it, Goggle blue counties red counties.
A link
http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/10/22/florida_2_states.html
That is really hilarious, jimmy. The so-called city of S. Miami, with it’s population of 12,000, wants to secede and take half of the freaking state with it. Only in the minds of looney progressives can these plots be hatched. Goog luck with that one, jimmy. Sheeeesh!
John
In 1835 John Ruskin was involved in painting a large number of glaciers. He observed then that the glacier was retreating.
http://ruskin.ashmolean.org/collection/9006/9037/9359/all/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/seqn./object/14352
Gordon Manley constructed CET to 1659 and he observed that the retreat of the glaciers could be dated to around 1750
At 3 .49 below I posted an image of glacier movements over the last three thousand years derived from thousands of observations and records. They show glaciers advance and retreat on a regular basis.
The climate is not static
Tonyb
More evidence of Pacific trade wind fluctuations being closely tied to 20th century warming and “hiatus” events:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2321.html
PA said:
“A continued pause would make the issue of sea level rise moot.”
______
Given that the oceans have not had any pause in energy accumulation, your use of the term “continued” seems more than a little misplaced. The oceans continue to accumulate both heat and mass, and as every school boy and girl knows that means they will continue to rise quite robustly for many decades to come.
R. Gates | December 22, 2014 at 3:03 pm | Reply
PA said:
“A continued pause would make the issue of sea level rise moot.”
______
Given that the oceans have not had any pause in energy accumulation, your use of the term “continued” seems more than a little misplaced. The oceans continue to accumulate both heat and mass, and as every school boy and girl knows that means they will continue to rise quite robustly for many decades to come.
Well, there are a couple of assumptions there:
1. They will continue to warm.
2. They will warm robustly instead of robrokely.
Where is the current warming coming from? Fewer clouds and high solar flux. More clouds and lower solar flux will stop the oceans from accumulating heat and may induce cooling. You assume that endless heating due to CO2 will occur.
At the current 0.03 °C per decade of upper layer (700 meters) warming we can wait a decade or two and see who is right. We aren’t under any time pressure. The CO2 level is only increasing 2% per year and so far it has been beneficial to the tune of trillions per years. We can afford to rake in our ill-gotten gains while waiting for science to get a better understand of climate and fix their models.
“Well, there are a couple of assumptions there:
1. They will continue to warm.
2. They will warm robustly instead of robrokely.”
___
As long as GH gases continue to accumulate to higher levels, oceans have no where to go but up in heat content and level. Basic physics. Climate is making a beeline path right back to the mid-Pliocene or perhaps Miocene. Simply too much energy accumulating too fast. The little wiggles in that path are simply a bit of noise and natural variability.
R. Gates | December 22, 2014 at 3:03 pm | Reply
“as every school boy and girl knows that means they will continue to rise quite robustly for many decades to come.”
I’ve always wondered who you consult about future trends. So it’s school boys and girls. That explains a lot.
PA said:
“The null hypothesis is that climate is due to natural trends.”
______
PA, in science a hypothesis and its null must be mutually exclusive, which your’s is not, since climate can be affected by both man and nature. So scientifically speaking, your null is useless.
Now, if you want to assume man can’t affect climate, you lack a hypothesis for your null, again making your null useless.
Please don’t think I am trying to tell you what you should like. It’s none of my business if you like useless things.
The null hypothesis is of course a statistical proposition that there is no relationship between two measured quantities. Say CO2 and temperature. We presume there is a relationship anyway – just for the hell of it – but in reality the system is far too complex to unravel in that simple way.
So PA is technically correct – although presuming that the null hypothesis prevails is far too opportunistic.
Maxy as usual grabs the wrong end of the stick as he pulls it out of his butt.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/blue-rose3-e1418789192370.jpg
PA is ‘technically correct” ????
That H0 is nonsense – what the hell is “climate”??
The null hypothesis is that there is no causal relationship between temperature and CO2.
Michael’s incoherent muttering – and seemingly political incorrect characterisation – notwithstanding.
Occasionally I have discussions with people who know even less about statistics than I know. This is such an occasion, and I want to thank Delta Dawn and PA for their participation, and for making me feel a little better about myself.
There is someone who knows less than Maxy? I’m sceptical.
You could include yourself. Your reference to a pair as “someone,” suggests you believe 1 + 1 = 1 , 2 = 1, and 1 = 2.
Dare I suggest he master English and arithmetic before moving onto statistics.
I really have to stop saying how stupid can you be. I think Maxy is taking it as a challenge.
Call me a pendant, but Webster’s dictionary say “someone” is a person, not two people. Your split personality may explain your confusion.
You’re a pendant Maxy. There you dared me to call you a pendant and I did.
I suppose I could ameliorate his confusion by wondering if there were a pair of someones who knew less than him – but it’s straining credulity. After all – he is someone who has to look up someone in a dictionary
Hugh Jass thinks I’m a gem. That’s nice.
Trenberth described the null hypothesis quite differently. I recall it as something like the warming is natural (therefore not human made). Something like that. Then his article tried to say that it was time to flip the null on its head – which I gather didn’t go over so well with other scientists.
Anyway – I don’t recall the definition of null having to do with the relationship of just two variables.
Well done Rob, you’ve got it wrong again.
Crikey!
PA is ‘technically correct” ????
That H0 is nonsense – what the hell is “climate”?? Michael
The problem with being a smartass Michael – is first of all you have to be smart. I don’t think this qualifies.
Keep trying Rob, surely you’ll get it right eventually.
I could always agree with Michael – but then we’d both be wrong.
‘Null Hypothesis Definition: The null hypothesis is the proposition that implies no effect or no relationship between phenomena. The null hypothesis is popular because it can be tested and found to be false, which then implies there is a relationship between the observed data.’ http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/g/Null-Hypothesis-Definition.htm
Example – there is no relationship between Michael’s random interjections that show the sophistication of a 3 year old – and rational discourse.
Right-wing news site shifts blame for global warming to squirrels
Knowing right-wing media is reluctant to admit mankind is responsible for global warming, I wasn’t surprised when the dailycaller.com identified squirrels as the culprit. I was repulsed. Framing these little guys for a consequence of man’s selfish behavior is shameful.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/22/now-squirrels-are-being-blamed-for-global-warming/
Max, they linked a preposterous warming fear story and you blame the “right-wing” messenger?
Nice critical thinking, try again.
I thought of it as mockery of mockery, not a try at critical thinking.
We’ve seen Maxy try critical thinking – it’s a train wreck.
Is stupidity a superpower and does Maxy wear tights?
Another warmer conspiracy theory, back to their roots:
http://publiccitizen.sonomaportal.com/2014/12/19/oil-price-skeptic/
Trillion dollar industry foregoes billions in revenue to kill climate deals, right.
From the article:
…
While it is easy to find gullible residential system owners to sign long 20/30 years leases and PPAs, commercial owners are unlikely to sign these long term leases. Commercial owners are far more likely to figure out the fleeting nature of utility rate models and will demand significantly faster payback periods. We expect the lease times to dramatically shrink as the industry comes to grips with the installed issues.
In summary, unlike residential solar, which is likely to be not economical for another decade, we believe off-grid commercial customer defections are likely to cause much consternation and heartburn to utilities by the turn of this decade. The beneficiaries of this emerging market are likely to be low cost solar panel makers like …
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2774605-how-real-is-the-off-grid-solar-threat-to-utilities-part-ii
From the article:
…
The closures have been particularly acute in Canada, where some 40 oil and gas rigs have been taken out of operation recently. In fact, it’s not clear if economists fully appreciate what’s about to transpire with the Canadian economy. This decline in rig count is just the beginning.
Consider for example the situation with the Canadian oil sands — one of the more expensive sources of crude production. Even if prices recover somewhat, oil sands production will be winding down — nobody wants to operate money-losing businesses for a prolonged period. And those who believe crude will be back above $80/bl any time soon is deluding themselves.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2774325-if-energy-prices-remain-near-current-levels-canadas-economy-is-in-trouble
R. Gates – “…mid-Pliocene…”
Something has changed since the Pliocene – the closure of Panama, which may have triggered NHG.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X05004048
Thx Tony,
Classic fiction yet cross referenced in the historical record.
Give serfs the ice fairs on the Thames compared to them
cherryorchard climate models based on suss tree ring data
any day. Have a great Christmas yerself.
bts.
“On another matter Springer – and his eponymous sock-puppets – has been disappeared yet again.”
I have?
I grew up in the Dakotas in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. It was cold as heck. We grew tons of food and export a high percentage of it. Life was great. Winters were fun.
R. Gates, “The postive feedback from increased forest fire ash being deposited on the ice is a great example of what might cause an acceleration in mass loss from Greenland.”
Nope, you are not allowed to change theories in mid debate. you made your bed with the warm/cold “Physics”. Fires due to natural weather variability are outside your theories range :)
“captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | December 23, 2014 at 9:37 am | Reply
R. Gates, “The postive feedback from increased forest fire ash being deposited on the ice is a great example of what might cause an acceleration in mass loss from Greenland.”
Nope, you are not allowed to change theories in mid debate. you made your bed with the warm/cold “Physics”. Fires due to natural weather variability are outside your theories range :)
____
Oh, you’re right and forest fire activity must only be related to natural variability. No external forcing could alter forest fire activity. I forgot the boxes that pseudoscience must live in to hold together its rather rusticate view. Pardon my black carbon blindness…
The Tol tweet is interesting: It looks like a grammer school project for one.
PA, I think you need to be pretty smart to survive in the tropics too. The conditions are challenging to the health, and the shorter lifespan may even limit individual accomplishments and wisdom to some extent.
A study relevant to natural variability. This suggests that in periods of weaker Pacific tradewinds warming increases like 1910-1940 and 1970 up to 15 years ago, while in stronger tradewinds like now and in the 60’s, warming weakens. Each phase is up to 30 years and it suggests warming will strengthen again as the tradewinds weaken.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/corals-show-how-pacific-trade-winds-guide-global-temperatures-180953703/
the WP Miami condo spin
laughable obvious spin by alarmist
FLA real estate is being bought by wealthy international investors
who do their homework
and as a result have little fear of loosing their investments anytime soon
the sea level rise boogeyman is the dumbest thing in this debate
and just about all the alarmist got as far as I can tell
I suggest Mann and Hansen hold their breath until real estate prices in Manhattan start to decline
I wonder how much smaller the island is since it was bought for beads and copper
prior to the horrible onset of anthropogenic global warming
More on ongoing and expected sea-level rise in various US cities here.
http://mashable.com/2014/12/20/washington-dc-sea-level-rise/
The government of DC is overrun with democrats as anyone viewing over the beltway knows and this is typical of their stupidity (it just might be endemic to the area and democrats are just more affected).
DC is about 150 feet over sea level. The locals are aware that the Potomac flows downhill which means they aren’t at sea level.
There is no combination of awful outcomes short of an asteroid strike that would cause a “sea level” problem for DC. If you did melt all the ice on the planet (the glacial isostatic adjustment or rebound, would mitigate much of the sea level rise – but we’ll ignore that) they might – just might have cause for concern. But 6-10 inches isn’t going to threaten the city.
Also in recent news, Dr. Robert Simpson, hurricane research pioneer, died at the age of 102.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/robert-simpson-co-creator-of-1-to-5-hurricane-model-dies-at-102/2014/12/20/3ecfa5ce-87b0-11e4-a702-fa31ff4ae98e_story.html
Jimd
Why not be a festive greenie like me? There is still time to buy a tree and save the rainforest
http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=7f6acdfec667a0ba0f47cb8a4&id=7cbe72b5be&e=50953ab0a1
Happy Christmas
Tonyb
Tony, Merry Christmas to you. I wonder if anti-greenies use rainforest trees as XMas trees just to spite the greenies.
Bad News for Republicans
U.S. growth rate hits 5%, strongest in a decade
http://www.nytimes.com/
Tony, I’m sorry for putting my post in the wrong place. It has nothing to do with your tree.
Max
They are not My’ trees. They are everyones trees. We can all agree that the rainforests are being logged too fast
Tonyb
Oh, I thought you bought a tree. I read fast, but not well.
That’s a pretty dense thought process even for you Max:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVwx3uplU9G0Ah2xx.9w4;_ylu=X3oDMTB1a3B1azdzBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA01PVVMyNjdfMQ–?_adv_prop=image&fr=iphone&va=fed+balance+sheet
How many trillions printed to achieve a lame recovery by every historic measure??
A healthy economy should make it easy for Hillary to defeat the Republican candidate. That’s why the recovery is bad news for the GOP.
I have a burning climate science communications question for the Climate Etc. readership: How do you embed a JPG, a PNG, or a GIF image inside of a comment?
Paste the URL ending in JPG or PNG into your message, e.g., this should work.
https://cdn0.iconfinder.com/data/icons/IS_Christmas/256/christmas_tree.png
That hasn’t worked for me in the past using URLs that point to images stored on Photobucket, but let’s see if it works with your example PNG:
https://cdn0.iconfinder.com/data/icons/IS_Christmas/256/christmas_tree.png
The key is how the URL ends.
So far so good …. let’s see if it works with one of mine stored on Photobucket:
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/ag108/Beta-Blocker/GCM/CMIP5-RCP-Hottest-Year-Trend-01_zps8c4278d7.png
Very good! Thanks for the help!
Dr Curry,
I found your link to “Arctic sea ice may be more resilient than many observers recognize” quite a bit misleading. If one actually reads the article they find:
“spacecraft observed 7,500 cu km of ice cover in October when the Arctic traditionally starts its post-summer freeze-up. This was only slightly down on 2013 when 8,800 cu km were recorded.”
So its basically saying that the ice cover this Oct was slightly LESS than lat Oct. And everyone knows that 2012 was the all-time record late summer low in Arctic ice cover.
The article confirms that: “the ice is still much reduced compared with the 20,000 cu km that used to stick around in the Octobers of the early 1980s” .
Then the author (likely a non-scientist) makes a bizarre assertion:
” there is no evidence to indicate a collapse is imminent.”
Well, no one is saying that total collapse is imminent by say next year, but being down over 60% from levels just 3 decades a go is huge. Even the researcher later in the article concludes that the slight rise from 2012 levels may be just a temporary thing:
“So, what may be occurring here is a decline that looks a bit like a sawtooth, where we can lose volume but then recover some of it if there happens to be a shorter melt season one year,”
Here is the latest late Summer Arctic Ice Chart thru 2014:
https://climatechangeinthemedia.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/101814_1550_theproblemw1.png
Anyone claiming there is no issue with shrinking Arctic ice, you’ll only have a shred of scientific support when Ice cover levels get back to 1980’s levels.
Basil
Here is the extended version of my article on arctic sea ice levels from 1920 to 1950
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-two/
It contains hundreds of references many of them from contemporary scientists from that era.
Arctic ice levels were at a high point in the 1970’s when satellites first started recording. Ice levels in the 1920 to 1940 period were similar to today.
The highest temperature in Greenland for two consecutive decades remains the 1930 to 1949 period.
The northern sea route also opened up allowing the wartime arctic convoys. My next door neighbour, now 91 , was awarded the ushakov medal for his part in it by the Russian ambassador just last Friday.
It was also warm during the 1818 to 1860 period. Also several decades around the mid 1500’s. We are all aware of course of the melting during the arctic period.
The current era is not remarkable for the arctic ice levels
Tonyb
The northern
Tony, from your article is a reconstructed late Aug 1938 ice cover map.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticSeaIceAugust1938.jpg
versus late August 2012
https://feww.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/arctic-ice-extent.jpg
Seems like a HUGE difference…Alaska Coast thru Far NE Russia is mainly ice free in 2012 but choked with ice 1938.
And the long term trend shows we’ve never been anywhere close to low ice this territory before. From the Kinnard article you linked:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/clip_image005.jpg
So I am puzzled…were you trying to say that there is a significant loss of Arctic ice that is unprecedented?
Or were all these graphics above somehow falsified?
Nice cherry picking – choosing to end when the pause began…
WordPress.com Basil Newmerzhycky commented: “Tony, from your article is a reconstructed late Aug 1938 ice cover map. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticSeaIceAugust1938.jpg versus late August 2012 https://feww.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/arctic-ice-extent.jpg Seems like a HUGE di”
Basil
You are cherry picking. Read the articles and their context. The charts are like comparing apples and oranges. Ice extent at the end of September is the matrix. They demonstrate considerable annual variability. Numerous contemporary reports illustrate the rapid melting of ice.
Tonyb
Cherrypicking????
Very well, show me some spatial images that show ice cover earlier in the century anywhere close to levels of 2012?
Cherry pick a year if you like, but I fear the cherry basket is empty for that.
Anecdotal tales like “My uncle Vladimir remembers seeing a seal on the open water of the Kara Sea in 1933” does not hold scientific mustard.
Basil
Your two NSIDC maps show the area that is covered by at least 15% sea ice. How do you think anyone was able to differentiate those areas with 14% sea ice from those areas with 16% sea ice when it occurred 1400 years ago? Seems like a lot of precision regardless of the paleo reconstruction methods.
‘The impacts of AO on North American weather can affect our daily lives, but climate scientists want to know how the AO influences sea ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean. While over the long term, sea ice extent has been declining, during any particular winter extent can vary due to weather conditions. Meier said, “The Arctic Oscillation primarily affects sea ice through winds that cause changes in where the sea ice drifts.” When the Arctic Oscillation is in its negative mode, he said, the winds and ice tend to flow in a clockwise direction, generally keeping more of the older, thicker ice in the middle of the Arctic. In the positive phase, that old ice tends to get pushed out of the Arctic along the Greenland coast. Meier said, “This means that the sea ice tends to be younger and thinner and more prone to melt after a winter with a strong positive Arctic Oscillation.” The AO is just one of many weather wildcards that could spell the difference between a low sea ice year and a record low year.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/02/02/the-arctic-oscillation-winter-storms-and-sea-ice/
The AO turned negative after 1995.
http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/atm/images/ao_long.gif
Ice has multidecadal trends.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/polyakov-et-al-2003.png
So does the AO.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/smeed-fig-7.png
As does Arctic temps.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/chylek-arctic-temps1.png
Unless ya got a handle on natural variability – ya got nothin’.
Wow Tony,
I wasn’t sure if I was reading a scientific discourse or a long chapter in Tolstoy’s War and Peace.
Summing it up, you appear to rely on anecdotal info in order to challenge more official ice records. I looked at some of these and found them worthless, for example there was a contention of steady Allied shipping to the USSR during WWII in the 40’s. While true that is IRRELEVANT since most of the Allied shipping went to Murmansk, which is NORMALLY OUTSIDE THE MAIN ZONE OF SUMMER SEA ICE during much of a normal summer year. In addition to having an advanced degree in Meteorology, I also am a WW II history buff.
So forgive me if I find your anecdotal Arctic ice cover contention quite weak. I am always willing to look at alternative scenario’s like yours to see if there were similar Arctic ice levels to the past 10 years, but you (or others) have not been able to show any data, or even a schematic map showing anything to the contrary. I suggest you come out of this denialist bunker and accept the fact that our late Summer Arctic ice levels are unprecedented and causing significant changes to our climate. Even Dr Curry’s study points this out.:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/05/impact-of-declining-arctic-sea-ice-on-winter-snowfall/
So just relax, no need to reply…just think about it.
And have a Merry Christmas.
‘Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter, and the northeastern and mid-west United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters.’
Sorry to interject – no – not really. I don’t think anyone is disputing a relatively open Arctic – just how much is quite natural and how do the feedbacks work. Pretending that you know is pretty funny really.
Tony, this is where I think you might have gone off track.
You showed this chart: But notice it ends in 2000.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/polyakov-et-al-2003.png
But what has happened since then? RAPID decline not shown on your chart (below). The ice minima shown in the 1940’s when extrapolated thru the late 1990’s and taking that level to 2007-2014 would put current levels below -600 on your above chart, basically “off the bottom” of your chart.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/Arctic_September_sea_ice_decline.png
I hope hat clears it up for you. I applaud your research into this, but in the end, the truth does emerges, that the current late summer ice levels are MUCH LOWER than the 1940s.
Basil
I hope your meteorological knowledge is better than your knowledge of world war two.
Most convoys went in the winter not the summer. As the northern route directorate commented the route only became possible due to melting in the 1930’s.
Here is the medal my neighbour was awared ladt week for his part in the arctic convoys. He was able to give me first hand accounts of the winter conditions.
http://www.rusemb.org.uk/arcticalliedconvoys/
Also, I do not rely on anecdotal information. You will see numerous reports from arctic scientists who, in their day, were as famous as Hansen and Trenberth.
Don’t bother to reply basil but have a happy christmas
Tonyb
Plus one fer the article on the ushakov medal and the winter
convoys in the northern sea route, tony.
You’ve got Tony mixed with me. But you construct a narrative based on framing a narrative around data that has different coverage and different precision. Not to mention somewhere above mixing data that has vastly different smoothing periods. Not a terribly impressive performance.
The ice has decadal to centennial to millennial variability and the planet should be cooling on all those timescales – and the ice responding.
Does this outweigh CO2 forcing? I think so – you don’t – you’re wrong.
Tony, congratulations to your neighbors medal, but your anecdotal example excludes one very important fact: Most of the nortthwest coast of Russia along the Arctic, including its main port for Allied shipping in Murmansk REMAINS ICE FREE YEAR ROUND.
“The port of Murmansk remains ice-free year round due to the warm North Atlantic Current and is an important fishing and shipping destination.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murmansk
The shipping route your link showed from the North Sea across the top of Scandinavia into Murmansk on the Arctic coast also remains ice free even thru most of the winter in normal years, due to warmer currents and stronger winds from North Atlantic storms, so your Allied shipping example along that route means nothing.because of this.
This anecdotal, issue remains irrelevant because combining
your 1900-2000 chart with 2000-2014 data shows clearly that the last 7 years had MUCH LESS ice in the Arctic than in the 1930’s and 40’s. See a similar database below:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/08/Figure5.png
Check mate on this one my friend.
Basil
All the googling in the world won’t disguise the fact that you thought the convoys operated in summer when instead they operated in winter and, despite the melting, in often harsh conditions as ice is a frequent but not constant visitor to those parts.
You also seem to overlook the fact that I did not claim the ice levels were at those levels that pertained in 2007 or 2012
For some reason you also seem to want to ignore the numerous scientific references from individual scientists and organisations that observed ice conditions at first hand. There was considerable melting that was understated in the modern records of those times.
Tonyb
Basil
Sorry, but I also failed to see why you posted that modelled chart. The observations begin after the period I referenced and with a straight face makes predictions to 2100
Tonyb
Tony,
You just stated:
“You also seem to overlook the fact that I did not claim the ice levels were at those levels that pertained in 2007 or 2012”
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/19/week-in-review-38/#comment-657877
But this is what you had claimed just a few days ago:
“Ice levels in the 1920 to 1940 period were similar to today.”
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/19/week-in-review-38/#comment-657567
Just like a boxer who’s been knocked to the canvas for the upteenth time and keeps staggering to get up again, sometimes its just better to stay down.
Tony,
Just to clarify, I think you might have misinterpreted a chart from my earlier post.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/19/week-in-review-38/#comment-657592
You (and another blogger) seemed to feel that I had “cherry-picked 1938 because it was a high ice year.
But from the reconstructed ice chart provided by the person who continuously makes a “Hugh Jass” of themselves, 1938 is quite close to the early 1940’s minima, and a good average of ice from 1940-1950.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/polyakov-et-al-2003.png
If you extrapolate the early 1940’s minima and compare it to the late 90’s minima and the above chart, then the early 1940’s comes in near 7 million sq/km. Compare that to the chart below and 2014’s approximate 5.7 sq km or 2012’s 3.5 sq km or 2007 4.3 sq km, or any year in between and there’s no comparison. Even the most recent 5.7 sq km is 20% less ice cover than the early 1940’s minima.
https://climatechangeinthemedia.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/101814_1550_theproblemw1.png
p.s.
Relying on Anthony Watt, someone who occasionally reads weather reports on the radio, and is a non scientist with no known university degree is not a good science source. At least Dr Curry has some street cred in the field.
Basil
Up thread you said the Curry study stated low Arctic sea ice levels were “unprecedented “. The study says no such thing. Straight from Mosher’s lips to your eyes “comment less, read more”
Not a rafter,
from the paper itself:
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/pnas.pdf
“since the record low Arctic sea ice during 2007”
I hate to be Captain Obvious…but a new record IS unprecedented.
The problem is – satellite records didn’t start until the 1970s. Thus there are NO equivalent records going back, and even in the 40 years since satellite Arctic ice imagery has been accessible there has been dramatic swings in ice coverage both up and down. Throw in the ongoing LIA recovery, and future Arctic ice cover losses due to anthropogenic CO2 are more than a little bit of handwaving. If the models cannot predict global temperatures even remotely, the ability to predict Arctic ice cover is even less credible. Certainly the performance of said models has been extremely poor, to be charitable.
WordPress.com Basil Newmerzhycky commented: “Not a rafter, from the paper itself: http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/pnas.pdf “since the record low Arctic sea ice during 2007″ I hate to be Captain Obvious…but a new record IS unprecedented.”
“And everyone knows…”
lol I love propaganda tells.
Andrew
The thing is, the area of 5 metere thick Arctic Sea Ice is wedged against the Canadian Archipelago. Fluid dynamics explains this, thermodynamics do not.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif
Lucifer,
That’s a nice real-time ice cover animation.
But it doesn’t really relate to anything new here…that type of ice pattern “wedged against the Canadian Archipelago” is the norm, and has been the same all the time and has already been well accounted for in the “mean ice cover” pattern for decades.
The reason why its always more open water on same latitude across the North Atlantic and Scandinavian side is because strong Atlantic storms (and their ice destroying winds) have a much larger natural pathway to the higher latitudes of the Arctic there. Meanwhile, Alaska/Canada and far NE Russia act as a natural “land-block” for Pacific ocean borne storms, preventing their winds from penetrating significantly into the Arctic, which is why its usually more ice covered there.
So overall its actually a combination of “synoptic-dynamics” and “terrain alignment” on why more ice piles up N of Alaska but not typically on the same latitude off the Scandinavian coast,
But this is all irrelevant from the year to year decreasing Arctic ice cover as a whole.
Yes, the flow of ice out of the Arctic explains the decline:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/np2013/DriftMap2013.png
and the location of dense ice is consistent with flow, but not so much with thermodynamics.
Yes there flows and currents in the Arctic Ocean and the ice does move in that 2013 example, like it does in most other years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/BrnBld_ArcticCurrents.svg/640px-BrnBld_ArcticCurrents.svg.png
But how does that explain the past 35 years? Because it (fluid dynamics) doesn’t..
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/10/monthly_ice_NH_09.png
There is no proof of any anomalous Arctic current over the past few decades. Sorry, the main answer is THERMODYNAMICS.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Basil
It is Christmas Eve morning over here so you will appreciate I have better things to do than continually check up on the doings of this blog, especially as the nesting seems to be all over the place due to deletion of other comments.
I suggested you were being selective and did not read the context of the material I presented, as I mention the likely high ice year of 1938 and your comments about 2012 exactly reflect the comments I made here in the conclusion.
—— ——–
“However, the conclusion must be that drawn that warming was more widespread in the arctic generally -not just the Atlantic side-than is currently noted in the official sea ice data bases covering1920-1945/50 and that the official records appear to substantially overstate the ice area extent. Some of the thinning of the ice and reduction of glaciers noted today appears to have had their genesis in the period referenced, or earlier.
The 1920-1940’s arctic sea ice melt can therefore be seen as remarkable, albeit the caveats about apples and oranges need to be applied. Looking at the evidence available from each of the arctic oceans means the ice extent probably (but not certainly) lies somewhere within that experienced during the first half of the 2000’s, but was almost certainly not as low as 2007 and 2012, the causes of which are out with the scope of this paper.
We commenced this article with Skeptical Science and the Neven arctic sea ice blog, referencing the Sunday Times article paraphrasing Dr Christy as saying there is ‘anecdotal and other evidence suggesting similar melts from 1938-43 and on other occasions.” The assumption (by this author) being that he is comparing historic data with those of the modern era that commenced in 1979 with satellite measurements.
In that context the ‘similar melts from 1938-43’ seem unlikely, as this short period included a well referenced temporary increase in ice in at least two years, but ‘other occasions’ seems rather plausible. The 1930’s and 40’s were the two warmest consecutive decades in the record according to Professor Phil Jones (measured around Greenland-see reference for context) and there is a considerable body of scientific and anecdotal evidence suggesting the warming was widespread and lasted -with short remissions-for several decades.
No doubt the ‘Back to 1870’ project will objectively look at the available information from all sources and put the period to 1870-and especially 1920-1940/50- into its proper context to today.”
—– —– —-
So I will wish you a Merry Christmas and we will all no doubt look forward to dissecting the results of the labours of Florence and her colleagues with the ‘Back to 1870’ findings.
Tonyb
You guys are using the wrong metric.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Ice volume looks to be over 2 standard deviations over the trend line by the end of winter. Springtime volume has been increasing since 2011.
It’s sad that the progressive’s newspaper of record is disintegrating. Mayor DeBlasio needs some help in the PR flack department. He should be able to absorb about half of them:
http://observer.com/2014/12/new-york-times-insider-multi-million-dollar-shortfall-causing-drastic-cuts/
Captn. D said:
“The biggest treat to Greenland ice is still black carbon not atmospheric forcing.”
____
This makes the nonsensical assumption that atmospheric forcing is not related to black carbon. The increase in forest fire activity already being seeing in the extreme northern hemisphere of course is related to a generally warming globe with an even faster warming northern area. Forest fire activity increases black carbon on the ice. All an interrelated web of relationship, much to the dismay and even disbelief of Libertarians.
R. Gates, ” Forest fire activity increases black carbon on the ice. All an interrelated web of relationship, much to the dismay and even disbelief of Libertarians.”
That is a stretch. The number one rule of AGW is that it will increase water vapor which will feedback and cause twice as much warming as CO2. So far the wild fires have lots of other confounding factors like weather patterns, land misuse practices, like slash and burn plus water divergence. What you just made is yet another exceptional statement that requires exceptional evidence.
Forest fires are increasing:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/01/US-Forest-Fires-Increasing.jpg Why? Probably because of years of unwise fire suppression efforts that cannot be sustained against nature. Generally the more we suppress the easier it is to burn. It’s the attempt to maintain rigid stability that leads to a collapse thing. Forests make soot, and forests advancing North will make more soot eventually. So it might be the trees that finally do in the sea ice. That’s poetic. Reminds me of the trees versus the grass where each Fall the trees drop their leaves, trying to kill the grass so that the trees seeds don’t have to compete with the grass. The grass turf forms a kind of barrier preventing tree seed germination.
Smokey Bear was alive and well in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Why didn’t they increase then?
JCH:
From about 1970 to the mid 90s, Smokey The Bear could claim victory. I think it was just fire delayed though. The hippies suggesting a Let It Burn policy were right after all. Kind of looks like a bit of a Western monopoly:
https://www.forestfoundation.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/1/352b3ba5e0c0a2b62fc49a6144eb975f/misc/forest_ownership_map.jpg I don’t know who else to blame the recent increase on?
I think fuel loads were just as high then. Talk to somebody has fought forest fires for 30 or 40 years. They will tell you what is different. It’s hotter.
Fire suppression policies changed at the same time the slope in the graph changed. Why wonder when you can get facts so easily?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppression_in_the_United_States
Well, CSIRO says global plant growth increased 11% since 1982. There will be an even greater increase where it is dry.
So… modern fuel loads should be 11% higher unless the fires occur more often.
12/16 8:16 PM ET
OIL___________55.43__-0.50
BRENT________59.94__-0.07
NAT GAS_______3.637__0.018
RBOB GAS_____1.5426__0.0016
12/17 6:15 PM ET
OIL_________56.24__-0.23
BRENT______60.64__0.63
NAT GAS _____3.691__-0.011
RBOB GAS___1.5535__-0.0127
December 18
OIL_________54.88
BRENT______59.81
NAT GAS_____3.667
RBOB GAS____1.54
The electronic oil futures are still in a $4 contango a year out which indicates pressure to lower prices, so I’m not sure if this bump up will last.
12/19 6:35 PM ET
OIL_________57.13
BRENT______62.15
NAT GAS _____3.464
RBOB GAS___1.5595
12/23 3:50 PM ET
OIL_________57.03
BRENT______61.64
NAT GAS____3.178
RBOB GAS__1.5702
12/26 8:33 PM ET
OIL__________54.73
BRENT_______59.52
NAT GAS _____3.007
RBOB GAS___1.5087
12/29/14 9:53 PM ET
OIL_________53.72
BRENT______57.95
NAT GAS_____3.169
RBOB GAS___1.454
12/30 10:37 PM ET
OIL__________53.84
BRENT_______57.54
NAT GAS______3.099
RBOB GAS____1.4495
John
I covered the drowning of the islands off the west coast of Britain here
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/document.pdf
It included the scillies and the lands off of north Wales so I hint it is all related. The relevant bit starts on page 6
Tonyb
John
If you look at page six onwards of hi article
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/document.pdf
You will see it deals with the lands off the west coast of Britain including the scilly isles and wales. I think it covers the same period as the Breton reference
Tonyb
“Nuclear: Carbon Free, but Not Free of Unease” is the title of a article in today’s NYTimes.
The article closes with the following quote from Peter A. Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
“You can’t rationally bet a big part of your climate change abatement plan on a technology that you may suddenly find you don’t want to use anymore,” Mr. Bradford said. A major accident, for example, might force the entire industry to shut down, at least temporarily. “There’s no other low-carbon alternative with the potential to develop a large hole like that.”
For more about the problems facing nuclear power, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/science/nuclear-carbon-free-but-not-free-of-unease-.html
Again I post in the wrong place.
There are things that are simple in practice – people who think in slogans notably.
Want to actually expand on that Waggy? Something remotely rational perhaps? Or are you just content with a hugh Jass honourable mention?
A couple of recent articles relevant to discussions here.
Greenland
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/greenland-ice-sheet-shifts-melt-18448
Response time to CO2 emissions
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-peak-heat-18394
JimD, said since I have no clue where this will end up, “A couple of recent articles relevant to discussions here.
Greenland
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/greenland-ice-sheet-shifts-melt-18448
Response time to CO2 emissions
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-peak-heat-18394”
So we are doomed. For a few weeks in July 20102 most of the surface of the Greenland ice sheet has some melt. That melt water seeped into the firn through cracks and crevices producing ice and water lakes. Since CO2 has a response lag of about 10 years, in 2022, we will probably lose the ice sheet since that “unprecedented” melt was caused by “GLOBAL WARMING”. Let’s party like it’s 2022.
Well, under nearly identical GLOBAL WARMING conditions, the Greenland ice sheet didn’t lose mass and didn’t have a major melt in 2013 and 2014. GLOBAL WARMING, must have a mischievous spirit.
Most of this discussion has been on the “other” factors, like the ice sheet albedo and natural variability in weather patterns that could cause extensive melt in one July and not other July’s and other months when Greenland has 24/7 daylight. Greenlands peak solar insolation is in the ballpark of 500 Wm-2 during this portion of the precessional cycle and in about 11,000 years it would be about 535 Wm-2. Some how Greenland survived about 7% greater solar input every 20,000 years or so for at least the past 6 or 7 of those cycles. Now how can that be? 35 Wm-2 additional solar at Greenland’s base summer temperature would be about 8 times more forcing than the current CO2 equivalent gases impose.
What we have here is a conundrum. If all forcings are created equal, Greenland just could not have survived. there appears to be more to the story and than mischievous GHG inspire GLOBAL WARMING.
You have albedo at the ice sheet surface which if it is above around 0.75, there is no melt and albedo feedback at the surface where some melt reduces albedo leading to greater melt. In addition you have another albedo in the sky, clouds which have an effective radiant forcing.
Theoretically, clouds have a huge influence on surface temperatures by amplifying the GHG effect so the doom of ice melt should be preceded by thick warming cloud cover. Instead we have sunlight inspired melt enhanced by dirty, lower albedo snow on the top of ol’ Greenie. We also have a paradox to some of warmer temperatures leading to more snow fall and fresh clean snow would have the highest albedo in 0.9 plus range.
To a skeptic, the situation looks like a reasonable complex natural feedback loop. To a believer it looks like CO2 done it, nothing more to discuss.
I believe JimD is in the nothing more to discuss group with some ABCD nonsense to follow,
Robert Stavins says:
What is the basis for that assertion?
I don’t see how it could be achieved. The EU ETS includes on 45% of EU emissions. If that’s the best the most developed countries in the world can achieve, how can all countries, including the poorest, be expected to achieve 80% to 90%. That would require countries like Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mogadishu and Somalia monitoring and measuring emissions from every cow, sheep and goat to the quality standards that will inevitably be required for legally binding international agreements. It’s clear to all if the measurements aren’t of ISO standards and have low bias and uncertainty. The result will be never ending disputes about who’s cheating.
Global warming will cut wheat yields, research shows.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/23/global-warming-cut-wheat-yields-research-shows
Yes, warmer is not better for plants. Plants do best in the temperatures they are accustomed to.
Another misplaced post. I’m on a roll.
http://aciar.gov.au/files/mn-158/img/Figure_03.5.png
The study used 30 wheat models (the average was more accurate than the individual models).
Several points:
1. I come from a farming background. We misplaced posts occasionally. It is no tragedy, you just dig up the post and move it,
2. It was a model study that didn’t take CO2 fertilization into account and claimed cultivar didn’t make a difference. There weren’t any field tests and the closest they got to a crop was at lunchtime.
3. It claimed that Western Australia had a 6% loss between 1980 and 2010. Actual Western Australia data above.
There are a number of flaws in their approach.
This is basically thumb twiddling
I read a study once where they simulated crop growth under conditions of global warming. They simulated less rain along with it and deprived the plants of moisture. Since then I ignored the studies and compared crops grown in warmer climates to crops grown in cooler climates with the same level of technology. I didn’t see a difference so lost interest
The “warm harms plants” studies tend to have one of more of the following failings:
1. Model studies (no field work). What is worse – the model studies can predict past “harm” and when you compare them to historic growth performance the result is dismal. CO2 fertilization is swamping any “harmful” effect.
2. They ignore cultivars. The same wheat isn’t grown in Canadia and at the equator. A 1°C difference is a 60 mile drive further south. Real farmers would drive 60 miles further south, buy seed, and drive home.
3. They use “average” temperature. AGW is 1/3 during the day and 2/3 at night. The high temperature of a 1°C average AGW rise is a daytime increase of 0.67°C or less so they are exaggerating the potential harm.
4. They introduce “stressors”. The AGW environment will have less water, less nutrients, etc. for . Without introduction of stressors – a more warmth more CO2 field test just shows a fertilization effect and more growth.
A high CO2 environment reduces plant water consumption and stimulates growth.
About the only place there could be a problem is the equator. There is ongoing research to create higher temperature wheat strains for tropical use (although a lot of wheat is grown in the tropics now). Wheat isn’t a tropical plant. It is a domesticated Turkish grass strain (40° North Latitude). It shouldn’t even grow well in Australia since it doesn’t grow upside down in its native habitat.
At around 23 minutes, The end of space and time video. How come all electrons are identical? Because there’s only one electron in the universe. Wheeler & Feynman. That was certainly interesting.
Anything is possible in the quantum universe if it happens to fast to be detected? One electron because it travels backwards and forwards in time. Most interesting talk.
This diagram at about 24 minutes:
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/ted-dijkgraaf-091217065703-phpapp02/95/robbert-dijkgraaf-29-728.jpg?cb=1261054763
Our climate this instant could be thought of as many trajectories passing through the rectangular plane of now from below. Our future would follow each trajectory.
From the current SoD post: “If model simulations give us probabilistic forecasts of future climate, why are climate model simulations “compared” with the average of the last few years current “weather” – and those that don’t match up well are rejected or devalued?
It seems like an obvious thing to do, of course. But current averaged weather might be in the top 10% or the bottom 10% of probabilities. We have no way of knowing.”
We don’t know if the climate might currently be at either end of the distribution. Comparing it to the models doesn’t seem wise. Suppose the climate is towards the upper end of its range now (warm) which seems possible. The average real climate or probability distribution of it might in fact be cooler. It seems we should look at our climate now as one possible outcome, that is we should put error bars around it before we can say what it is. If models were evaluated against the 1978 to 1998 measured climate, using the approach highlighted by SoD might have meant the actual climate during that time was near the upper range of the probability distribution. Putting error bars around the measured 2 decades above might allow one to consider the possible climate then could have been cooler.
Arctic Sea Ice Blog is dying from lack of continued ice melting.
Anyone care to make some helpful comments there for Neven?
I have been moderated so cannot boost his number. He does put up good, although well out of date graphs which complement WUWT graphs.