by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
Policy/politics
Rupert Darwall: Playing politics with weather [link] …
Bjorn Lomborg: The alarming thing about climate alarmism [link] …
UK Decarbonisation Plan In Crisis As Hinkley Point Is Stalled By Costs [link]
Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement: [link] …
Green consumerism diverts attention from political arenas that matter [link]
Death rate rises as cold snap grips UK [link]
Energy
Valuation of Distributed Solar: A Qualitative View [link] …
Can EPA’s climate plan work without a national transmission plan? [link]
Cow power – literally [link]
Science
Climate Audit: A must read analysis by Nic Lewis about the Marotzke/Forster Nature paper of last week; paper’s results are flawed: [link]
Are Some Scientists Overstating Predictions? Or How Good are Crystal Balls? [link]
MIT Prof. Paul O’Gorman: Global warming won’t prevent massive snowstorms [link]
New paper finds an Arctic glacier is much larger today than during most of the Holocene [link]
Study finds that post 1950 global warming was due to anthropogenic CFCs . . . . now in sharp decline. [link]
The suppression of free speech on university campuses is reaching epidemic levels [link]
Cowtan and Way compare their analysis of 2014 global temperature with NASA, NOAA and the UK Met Office/CRU [link]
Climate wars
Good article: Is focusing on a 97% consensus really the best way to end bickering over #climate? [link]
David Rose: Climate of hate: what happens when you raise questions about climate science and policy [link] …
Andrew Weaver, Canadian Climate Scientist, Wins Defamation Suit Against National Post [link] Court brief [link]
Good essay: “Yes, I’m a climate change believer, but I will be siding with the deniers” [link]
HotWhopper: Calling scientists frauds and fakers just pisses them off [link]
Chris Mooney: New research suggests climate ‘skeptics’ and believers really, really don’t like each other [link]
Science of Doom: ‘ The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof’ [link]
Bob Ward: MichaelEMann battling for justice against MarkSteyn [link]
On your mark. Hey, this isn’t a starter’s pistol.
==========
Dang, missed ‘starter’s epistle’.
===========
Mann and Steyn, pistols at 20 paces? Who would be the seconds?
Skeptical Science also summarize the Marotzke paper here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-climate-models-overestimate-warming-unfounded.html
It should be noted that Lewis did not attack the part that is presented here, which is the central idea, but only the added part in the Nature paper where they use regression models, and different people do regression models in different ways. A lot of people are having trouble understanding Lewis’s attack, however, because he is only looking at regression model fits rather than data, which seems to miss the main point.
JimD, You are persistent I will give you that.
If someone wants to argue what Lewis has done, I have some questions for you. I have looked at it. Unlike Maroztke, he didn’t show his results which is going to make it hard for anyone to argue for him. I have questions about his short-term regression variability, or at least the way he states it.
JimD, Showing “his” results would be immaterial, “his” focus was pointing out flaws in the method not to determine attribution. There is is pot/kettle thing you guys need to learn to deal with. Wrong is wrong and it doesn’t picks sides.
He put forward an alternative method that he claims produced completely different results, but we don’t see them. Is it asking too much to see them? I’m skeptical.
Even Stokes shies. When will you learn that the SkepSci crew lives amongst straw walls with straw domestics and straw dogs?
================
JimD, “He put forward an alternative method that he claims produced completely different results, but we don’t see them. Is it asking too much to see them? I’m skeptical.”
Showing an alternate method to do the statistics doesn’t mean that there was any merit in the initial concept, just that the approach was wrong. In Redneckese, the project started as crap and got worse.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-PFgyEN5SKm0/VNWDPJ6NcXI/AAAAAAAAMkg/uRS1OIo5TgE/w923-h491-no/sst%2Band%2Bmodel%2Btropics.png
A simpler way to show how wrong they were would be to compare absolute temperatures instead of anomaly. With anomaly you can cheap by shifting the baseline to minimize spread. Real temperatures don’t lie.
If yo have an alternative method that gives essentially the same result, that is quite different from one that gives a different result. If he is claiming a different result, he needs to show what that looks like and how different. He didn’t. Why not?
As I mentioned, the part shown by Skeptical Science was not criticized by Lewis. So you can read that for what it is.
OK, straw control tower, straw runways, and look at the pix of them with the straw earphones on.
============
Jimd, “nic Lewis was critiquing a method, that was his goal. My goal is to show just how completely screwed up the entire process is.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/comic_rollercoaster_610.jpg
This is the crap pushed by NOAA wtf NOAA, a cartoon that remarkably illustrates how far they have slid from scieticif giant status.
Anomaly, is an excellent tool but has basic requirements. Anomaly initially has to be calibrated to a real temperature so all the temperature dependent processes “scale” to the variation in anomaly. That requires very close attention to absolute temperature.
Every revision of the GMTA that uses higher latitude, lower specific heat capacity regions makes the models worse not better. The NUTS, to use a poker term is the tropical oceans. Miss them and your models are crapola. We do live on a water world last I checked.
JimD, here is a good example of my issues with improper use of anomaly.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_tas_Amon_one_rcp26_0-360E_-90-90N_n_+++.png
That is the real uncertainty range of the latest CMIP5rcp26 model runs. There is a +/- 3.5 C envelope.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_tas_Amon_one_rcp26_0-360E_-90-90N_n_+++a.png
When you average or baseline the models to an assumed meaningful anomaly, it artificially reduces uncertainty. Now if you adjust the anomaly to a “real” temperature so that the various temperature dependent processes scale properly, like C-C and convective triggering, you would be cooking with gas. To fix the problem you would require best guesses of absolute temperature initialization and a likely range of actual absolute temperature so the models would be producing meaningful what if scenarios. So basically the anomaly for different initial conditions would shift in that +/-3.5 C range.
Marotzke/Forster was assuming a best case before the math mess up while ignoring the worse case. Not the way to do things.
Little jimmy dee does not have the guts or the chops to carry his silly little butt over to CA and make his criticisms to Nic Lewis. You have zero credibility, yimmy. Why don’t you take your silliness to SkS, where it will be appreciated?
captd, you seem to miss the point. If the 15-year observed trend is 0.3 C per decade, and 15 years later drops to 0.1 C per decade, would you not agree that when models produce 0.2 C per decade through the period, they are not necessarily running hot? The SkS piece shows that the range of variability of observed 15-year trends is consistent with the variability of the models. I can show an approximation to decadal trends from WfT using 15-year and 30-year smoothed temperatures. There is an enormous reduction in short-term variability when you just double the averaging period. It shows that 15 years is far too noisy to draw long-term conclusions from.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:240/mean:120/from:1900/derivative/scale:120/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:120/mean:60/from:1900/derivative/scale:120
JimD, sorry but you are missing the point. The range of model to observation is based on an adjusted anomaly, so you can’t tell if the models run hot or cold and you would have the minimum variability in observation and model. That is the absolute best case. To determine “likely” range you need to consider the worst case as well.
captd, I am sure some models are warmer and some are cooler in the mean. They all have trends, and this is about the trends and whether the trends are faster than observed. When they claim the models are running hot they are referring only to trends. The SkS piece shows the trends. You went off on a tangent.
Jim D: I have looked at it. Unlike Maroztke, he didn’t show his results which is going to make it hard for anyone to argue for him. I have questions about his short-term regression variability, or at least the way he states it.
Post your objections at CA and see what response you get.
JimD,” You went off on a tangent.”
No, you have this wishy washy some models are this some are that blah blah. I have this, why is that model high or that model low approach. Models that more closely “get” absolute temperature tend to forecast less warming, models that grossly under-estimate absolute temperature tend to forecast more warming. The reason is that many parameters require an accurate initial temperature. Supposedly if you run the models long enough they will “discover” boundaries even if the initial conditions aren’t close. That may not be true if the parameters are “calibrated” incorrectly. Water freezes at 0C if it is fresh, about -2C with standard salinity and between -2 and -50C in the atmosphere. You are ahead of that game if you initialize temperatures to realistic values instead of hoping the models will discover the right values. That is simple for most folks to understand.
One of the more critical model parameters is convective triggering. Somewhere between 27C and 28C there is a greater potential for deep convection. Deep convection is a beyatch of a parameter because it impacts all levels of the system from sub surface to stratosphere including ozone, stratospheric water vapor, cloud cover, pole ward or wall energy transfer, surface wind velocity, atmospheric relative humidity, precipitation, arctic winter warming, sudden stratospheric warming, sea ice concentration and likely a few more fairly important feedbacks.
The people that should be the most critical of the model performance should be the modelers themselves. Many though have shifted to the circle wagon defensive mode so it is impossible to criticize their “babies”. When “I am sorry old chap, but why is there this discrepancy?” stops work you tend to get a bit more direct, especially if you are a redneck with not a great deal of patience. Squeaky wheel and all that doncha know.
captd, if you have data that models that are too warm don’t warm enough, and models that are too cool warm too much, you need to show it, because I have never heard of such a thing before. It is unlikely that the global mean bias has any relation to the warming rate.
JimD, let me introduce you to Climate Explorer.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-oZfH4uV9zF8/VNKT_19ndmI/AAAAAAAAMhw/Xdwldax4o9c/w851-h411-no/bejing%2Bclimate%2Bmodel.png
This model gets tropical SST very close and based on it’s DWLR run “projects” about 0.6 C of warming in the tropics for the next close to 100 years. They have another version without the m that also has SST close to observations.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-9Myr7dIVe0k/VNJbPNIIs1I/AAAAAAAAMg4/rKEpAZgcqFc/w971-h430-no/2%2Bgiss%2Band%2Bgfld2.1%2Bversus%2Btropics.png
Here are a few GFDL and a GISS model of the tropics with ERSSTv4 tropical SST. Notice the difference?
The generic Warmist response is something like, “OMG! we cannot figure it out so it has to be worse than we thought!”
Now with Climate Explorer in your favorites files you too can do some investigating without sniffing up Skeptical Climate’s backside. I look forward to your unbiased future comments :)
Even Stokes shies.
What on earth is wrong with you? Nic Lewis, that I can see, did not provide a link to the actual paper. Stokes left a link. That is called being a nice guy.
JimD, If you want to avoid climate explorer you can stay right here on Climate Etc.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/presentation17.jpg
That is what happens when you get SST right.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/pause-tied-to-equatorial-pacific-surface-cooling/
Now that doesn’t explain why there is cooling, but the models “get” things closer when given a chance.
captd, you are all over the place, and I can’t follow you. First it was all about bias, now it is about variability. Nobody argues that the E. Pacific variability was much to do with the forcing, so the Xie work shows that natural variability is the driver of short-term variations including the pause, doesn’t it.
JimD, “the Xie work shows that natural variability is the driver of short-term variations including the pause, doesn’t it.”
No it shows that with accurate SSTthe models perform better.
Try to follow the conversation, the M/F work is crap. Why? they don’t know what they are doing. You say Nic Lewis should show something he didn’t. No, Nic merely noted M/F was crap. You keep on about how well the models do. I point out the real error range and how adjusted anomaly hides the truth. In that process I screwed up and actually gave you the reason why, low SST. You wander back to how well the models do. No, I say they are crap because they don’t get SST. You want me to show that, I did. Now you are assuming Xie proves something it doesn’t
The way this conversation should have gone:
Nic lewis: M/F is crap.
JimD: yep.
Next topic.
or
nic lewis: M/F is Crap
JimD: nope
Group:
Take it up with Nic at CA
Next topic.
captd, I think Nic Lewis messed up when he claimed that dF is correlated with dT. It isn’t because of dN. dF is always a smooth function with none of interannual variability of dT. Separating it into two canceling components did not help Nic at all. I put it down to him not being a climate scientist. I predict that when the pros come along, they will take him apart on this point.
JimD, “captd, I think Nic Lewis messed up when he claimed that dF is correlated with dT. It isn’t because of dN.”
Then you should tell Nic that. From a totally different approach, I agree with Nic’s assessment.
“Separating it into two canceling components did not help Nic at all. I put it down to him not being a climate scientist. I predict that when the pros come along, they will take him apart on this point.”
Forster et al was the origin of that separation and he’s a climate scientist.
However the issue here is statistical and experimental, would you continue to apply this logic?
HAS, do you agree that dF is a smooth function that should not contain interannual variability? Do you agree that dT and dN contain large interannual variability that mostly cancels? Would you not think that dF is better as an independent predictor of dT than either a*dT or dN? These are the questions.
No Jim D they aren’t. I don’t see Lewis expressing a view one way or other on this when dealing with his main point. He just takes ΔF = α ΔT + ΔN from Foster et al as the basis for how they diagnosed ΔF for each model.
Lewis is making a much more basic criticism than whether the variables are well behaved enough to support the analysis.
As I said if you don’t understand happy to try and explain in terms you might.
dF is a better independent variable because it does not contain things like the ENSO cycle. Lewis split this into terms that do contain these. Forster derived dF in such a way as to eliminate this kind of circular T-dependence, and Lewis undid that by not understanding what dF represents.
I’m not sure that helps me.
dF was taken by Marotzke from Foster, Lewis didn’t intervene and in particular didn’t split it into anything.
It may surprise you that Lewis’ argument doesn’t particularly depend on him (or anyone) understanding what dF means, just that Marotzke used Foster’s model-derived values to compare with dT in the analysis of forcing, feedback and internal variability in those models.
As I said before it may be that there is other independent information about this system that might overcome this problem, but if you think this is the case I need you to be clearer than you are.
Perhaps step back from making it all about what Lewis did wrong and try and deal with the problem he’s identified in Marotzk’s methodology.
It matters a lot what dF is and especially whether it is correlated with dT on a year-by-year basis. If it is not, which it isn’t by design, then Lewis’s circularity argument goes away.
Jim D, let’s take this a bit more slowly.
The circularity derives from using the same information twice in different parts of the analysis .
Do you understand this and do you understand how Lewis’ claims this to be the case? Can you summarise Lewis’ argument for me?
HAS,
Only lurker on this part of the thread, but I very much appreciate your approach and the explainations.
If you take the dF=a*dT+dN, it might look like dF includes dT, but in fact dF was derived so that all of the interannual dT was in dN. In words, ENSOs are not regarded as forcing. Forcing changes have a very limited meaning, GHGs, volcanoes, aerosols and those go into dF. This varies more slowly and in a more specified way independent of temperature in the CMIP5 models. It is important to know that the forcing does not depend on temperature, which is key to knowing what dF is. This is a subtlety that may have been lost on Lewis.
Jim D
Let me try another approach.
Foster et al use the relationship you refer to (dF=a*dT+dN) to develop a time series for F from the GCMs. To do this they need to first estimate the value of “a”. To do this they use a 4XCO2 stimulus that they claim gives a useful estimate of “a” that can be used “to make accurate estimates of the climate response in other, more realistic, scenarios”. With “a” estimated they can then produce time series of F for various scenario runs for each model.
This they report and “a” is not 0 (which it is possibly what you are incorrectly asserting). So the F that Marotzke pick up and use is partly a linear function of dT.
So when Marotzhe then says “Hey I’m going to estimate the internal variability in the models using the dF that Foster gave me” he’s actually just chasing his tail – he’s using the T information Foster extracted from model runs to estimate the T information from the same model runs (approximately).
So anything he derived from that process (eg the internal variability) is totally unreliable.
Have a look at the papers. It’s an important methodological issue that is more fundamental than the appropriateness of the models used (Lewis also criticises these).
Danny Thomas, appreciated.
Jim D: If it is not, which it isn’t by design, then Lewis’s circularity argument goes away.
Nic Lewis showed that dF is computed from dT. Can you point to a specific flaw in that argument? Otherwise, dF is related to dT by design.
Forster’s method of computing dF is to first compute a, and dN is given by the models. It is good that you are now looking at what Forster did because there you can see that dF really is the forcing: volcanoes, GHGs, aerosols. It does not have the short-term dT signal in it. How does he do that, you ask? Likely he takes a pair of periods, determines the mean dT and dN change between them, and dF is proportional to that mean dT change via a. The key is how do you take the mean dT and dN change between two periods. You take a long enough averaging time to remove the short-term noise. This is how dF does not contain the noise, yet depends on dT, but only in a time-averaged sense.
JimD, Since you are wondering about dF in a paper that was hopelessly flawed from the get go here is a simple illustration.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3jfwPc_RldE/VNey7tky57I/AAAAAAAAMmU/E12drG_m98g/s1600/cmip5%2Ball%2Band%2Bmean%2Bwith%2Bobservations.png
That is two versions of actual global mean temperature compared to the CMIP5 model mean actual temperature. To compare dF to dT you need to know one or the other. Since the models are starting outside of any valid actual temperature range, the range of dF would not be valid. Since models were supposed to “discover” actual temperature and haven’t, scientists should have “discovered” the problem.
Capt. Dallas and Jim D, et al.
This just posted on WUWT: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/marotzke-forster-response/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=marotzke-forster-response
Danny, thanks, I was waiting for their response to all this.
Yo, jimmy! Here is McIntyre’s take on the M&F response:
“I’ve done a quick read of the post at Climate Lab Book. I don’t get how their article is supposed to rebut Nic’s article. They do not appear to contest Nic’s equation linking F and N – an equation that I did not notice in the original article. Their only defence seems to be that the N series needs to be “corrected” but they do not face up to the statistical consequences of having T series on both sides.
Based on my re-reading of the two articles, Nic’s equation (6) seems to me to be the only logical exit and Nic’s comments on the implications of (6) the only conclusions that have a chance of meaning anything. (But this is based on cursory reading only.)”
You better get over to CA and tell him where he went wrong, jimmy dee.
Don
You were talking about water vapour on the previous thread. Did you see this?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/
Tonyb
Getting up just now I too saw the response at Climate Lab Book.
What they seem to be saying is what they really did was what Lewis suggested in his equation 6; fit ΔT = ΔN / κ + ε . This avoids the circularity but as Lewis notes “this equation only deals with the element of forcing that is associated with ocean etc. heat uptake, not with the (larger) element associated with increasing GMST, and it does not include α”.
It isn’t however what they described in their paper, nor what Jim you seemed to be going on about.
Don, that is what you get with amateurs. They don’t know the meaning of dF, or what the term “forcing” means in the climate context.
I hope that this repost gets into the correct thread:
Danny Thomas, thank you for the link to the rebuttal by Marotzke and Forster. It looks to me as though it restates rather than rebuts the claim by Nic Lewis that dF is computed from dT.
To me, the main point of M&F is that the 15yr 62 yr trends have been shown to be never reliable.
I am still puzzled about whether deltaT in M&F’s regression refers to difference in temperature or difference in linear trend.
HAS, it was as I said, because the high-frequency parts are contained within dT and dN and these cancel by design to leave dF without the high-frequency part of dT. Nearly at the beginning I said that dN decorrelates dF with dT. This was the point. dF and dT are not correlated to the extent that Lewis thought. There is only a long-term correlation through the a constant.
Danny, “Because radiative forcing over the historical period cannot be directly diagnosed from the model simulations, it had to be reconstructed from the available top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance in Forster et al. (2013) by applying a correction term that involves the change in surface temperature.”
Since you don’t know dF you have to use T to estimate F.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-TK-j4kIR1Bs/VNfSxwOCAOI/AAAAAAAAMm8/Jbj3Rlp4WbA/w928-h511-no/model%2Bv%2Btemp%2Bas%2Bwm-2.png
That is the approximate F using Hadley products and Berkeley combined with NCDC products with the model mean F estimate based on the model mean T. You determine the approximate F using 5.67e-8x(T)^4 Since you don;t have a direct measure of either T or F since everything is approximated anyway, you have a large range of possible Fs and Ts to chose from but without independent physical measurements they are inter-related. that would be circular. Converting an estimate of F based on T at the surface to an estimate of F at the top of the atmosphere, doesn’t get you away from the original T that had to be measured or assumed to begin with.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3jfwPc_RldE/VNey7tky57I/AAAAAAAAMmU/E12drG_m98g/s1600/cmip5%2Ball%2Band%2Bmean%2Bwith%2Bobservations.png
That gives you a range of guestimates for T(surface) and base on that you get the range of estimates for F(surface). Now which one are you going to used to estimate TOA dF and call independent?
CaptD,
I so appreciate your work and commentary, but I’m leaving the physics to the side as I’m still gathering a foundation of “the entirety” so I can grasp the bigger discussion. Since I know it will not be me solving the physics side I can put that away (for now) except superficially (if there’s such a thing re: physics). Others are so much better to address with questions. I’m reading but cannot offer anything of value. I just found the link was posted at WUWT and since many here were still in discussion felt you’d want to see it.
Best and continued thanks.
Capt. D,
I wasn’t clear. I do read all that you write!
Thanks tony, I saw that. Will read it again.
Jimmy, stop clowning around. Read what captd said. If you don’t have the guts to go over to CA and take it up with Nic Lewis, you should fade out.
Don, Lewis’s response to the response will be very interesting.
JimD, “Lewis response will be interesting?”
You think, “see I told you so.” is interesting?
captd, that would be a sign he didn’t understand the response. In what world would he interpret no circularity as circularity?
Oh, jimmy. Are you actually going to visit CA to read Nic’s response? Aren’t you afraid they will catch you and do whatever it is that you fear they are going to do to you? You better stay here, jimmy. I will tell you what says.
JimD, “captd, that would be a sign he didn’t understand the response. In what world would he interpret no circularity as circularity?”
Saying it’s not circular isn’t proving it’s not circular. Just about every one that has looked at the response noted it affirms Lewis more than it shows Lewis’ error.
I will give them this, it is a “novel”: approach :) Introducing non-physical models into physics though isn’t generally the way to get ahead.
I like this part, “Of course one could legitimately ask how accurate this correction is, and we would hope that in future generations of coordinated model simulations a better direct diagnostic of F is possible. But for the CMIP5 models used in our study and in Forster et al. (2013), applying equation (3) has been the only approach possible.”
It’s my wild assed guess and I’m sticking to it :)
At CA, Lewis seems to have sunk without a trace, but McIntyre has said he doesn’t understand even when Richard Betts tried to help out. We’ll see if they can resolve it among themselves.
The halt leading the blind, but it’s the halt that’s blinding.
===================
The circularity remains in the faith in modeled forcings, but that is a machine illusion. It’s amusing to see this reckless enthusiasm for self-delusion via computer hypnosis in conjunction with dawning public awareness of bias in the climate science arena, ironically from the perception of machine manipulation of the temperature record.
Where’s my pen? I just had it around here somewhere. And the phone, my phone? What’s this ‘no service’ business all about, anyway?
==============
I like it, moshe. The machines went nuts and dragged a lot of well meaning people with them.
==================
Jim D
Just getting back to this after work it does seem that the defense is that F from Foster is independent of T. I had a few question as a consequence:
I’m bemused that you kept asserting statements about the nature of things in climate models rather than addressing the statistical/methodological issue under debate. If someone says F from Foster is contaminated by T and therefore subsequent use of T to estimate is circular, the response is “no, F is completely independent of T”.
It isn’t good enough to assert F is partially pure. Earlier on today (and previously) you had talked about “the high-frequency parts are contained within dT and dN and these cancel by design to leave dF without the high-frequency part of dT”. Now stripping out the high frequency component doesn’t make dF independent of dT.
Second on this score I note that M&F in their response say “the two terms [N and aT] are of comparable magnitude over multi-decadal timescales, and the first term dominates over 15 years”. This is saying that the low frequency part is where T dominates. If as you say they only strip out the high frequency part, how does F become independent by leasing the bit where T dominates (relatively)?
Foster calculate “a” independent of its relationship with F, so there is no guarantee it is in fact independent of T. It could still carry the T signal through.
Following on from that since it is fundamental to the subsequent analysis, where do M&F demonstrate that F is in fact independent of T. They don’t. One has to suspect they didn’t even think about it.
And in the end I can’t quite get my head around the thought that F and T are totally independent and basic equation M&F use is :
ΔT = ΔF / (α + κ)
So much to learn, so little time.
4th para
leasing = leaving
HAS, it is the causality. T is dependent on F, at least the a*dT part of it is. They demonstrate how much T is dependent on F through the pure CO2-doubling tests. Obviously lots of other things happen to T apart from F, and that is what dN takes care of, and this part is called the internal variability.
Jim D
Your response is basically a non-sequitur. In a sense no one cares about causality it is about the amount of information available to estimate the parameters and residues used in the models and the subsequent analysis.
You haven’t shared your background so I can help put this in terms that you might understand.
Go back and try and answer the question I posed. One by one. It will help both of us understand what the issue is.
If you don’t know or you feel out of your depth then at least say so. At least we’ll have a basis to go forward on.
Little jimmy isn’t interested in clearing anything up. If it were so, he would carry his silly little butt over to CA and hash it out with the big boys. I’ll tell you about jimmy dee’s background. He is an obfuscator. He will just waste your time and never give an inch.
HAS, I am the one trying to explain it to you. You don’t seem to take Marotzke’s word for it in their response that the purpose of using dT to get F is to take out the part that isn’t a*dT. Unfortunately neither in Forster’s paper, nor the earlier FT06 one they reference give details on the exact mechanism by which they obtain F from the time series, but they show the results that indicate that F has just CO2, aerosols, volcanoes and probably solar forcing in it, which was the goal. Remember these derived F terms and methods were in earlier publications that no one was complaining about.
Jim D
Getting up this morning I see the debate has moved on a bit overnight. On your comment above I assure you I understand and accept M&F’s reasons for trying to make the correction to N to achieve F.
The thing you are missing is that the way they did that won’t work, not for any reason grounded in climate science (forget what these time series are meant to represent or causality between them). It won’t work because the estimate of F from Forster relies on using the T series, and then F series is again used with the T series to estimate the internal variance of the models. This is what Lewis is referring to by circularity.
I appreciate that this isn’t instinctive to you. There are analogies in other disciplines that might help you understand it. But it is important to try and do this given your interest in climate science. Its the foundation that it is built on.
Climate science is built on confirmation bias and they will use novel statistical methods to make things line up properly. Jimmy the shill is just going along with the program.
HAS, I haven’t yet checked where CA are on this today, but this paper took F from the Forster et al. (2013) paper where they explain that it derives from the model a values and dN. Given an averaged dN and dT between any two periods, along with a, you can get dF between them. They plot it and show that it does in fact represent the forcing. As such, it is perfectly valid as a regression term for the temperature. Remember they are trying to see how much of the temperature variance on 15-year and 62-year time scales come from the model response to its forcing and other related parameters. It turned out, very reasonably to me, that the forcing and its related parameters only matters on long time scales and more so towards the end of the series, and hardly at all in 15-year time frames. This shows that they have correctly separated out the noise from the forcing, otherwise you would have got the self-correlation mess that Lewis mentioned where the forcing explains all the variance even year-to-year.
Jim D
We aren’t worried about the noise in the forcings it’s the T.
HAS, I have now caught up with CA, and it is an interesting case of mathematicians and physicists talking past each other. In this case Steve and Nic versus ATTP. I am more in the physicist camp and agree with ATTP’s comments. The problem is the formula. Let me put it more like a mathematician would see it. A+B=F, where F is a forcing term, such as a sine wave in time, and in its absence A and B are just functions that cancel each other. Now the mathematicians should see that F holds a special place, which is why they usually put forcing terms on the right. Given only A and B they can obtain F from the formula. It doesn’t mean that F depends on either A or B. It is the forcing. Hope this helps.
Waaaahhhh! It’s still the T, yimmy. You don’t have F without the T. Noa fala Portuges, yimmy?
SteveF, who is lot smarter than, our yimmie:
I get the feeling I am trying to converse in Portugues with someone who knowns no Portuguese.
ATTP keeps saying that the forcing is independent of the model temperature. For the true forcing, that is cirrect. But the forcing from Forster et al is NOT the real forcing, it is a value for forcing calculated from the temperature rise in the model, after taking into accout the model diagnosed TOA imbalance. There IS NO explicit data for forcing… it is 100% inferred from the temperature and TOA imbalance. It is not possible to remove the circularity with arguments about energy conservation; it is implicit in the Forster et al calculation. This is a very strange thread.
Mathematical physicists are familiar with the equation for a free harmonic oscillator with zero on the right, while if it is forced, that F term is on the right. You can determine the forcing by observing how the oscillator behaves even if the forcing does not depend on the oscillator. It is like that. I think this is the key for the mathematicians, or at least the mathematical physicists among them, perhaps not statisticians, to understand.
You know what, jimmy? That makes half-sense. I wonder why none of the physicists thought to try that out. Why don’t you run over to CA and spring it on em? If it works, I will apologize for razzing you on this one.
PS: Is that how M&F got F, jimmy?
Your physicists have taken another torpedo and they are listing badly, jimmy:
“Spence in UK:
ATTP is not only wrong on the statistics, he’s wrong on the physics as well.
The idea that conservation of energy in a GCM is narrowly closed on GMST and TOA imbalance is quite wrong. There are plenty of energy transfers in GCMs, the obvious ones being the rest of the atmosphere and the ocean, but many more subtle ones as well, and the conservation of energy closes around all of them, not narrowly GMST and TOA radiation.”
You better go help them, jimmy.
I think those statisticians need to have some mathematical physicists or mechanical engineers tell them what a forcing is, and how you can derive a forcing from a response. The statisticians seem to behave more like pure mathematicians where an equation is devoid of all physical meaning, and all terms are treated equally.
JimD, “I think those statisticians need to have some mathematical physicists or mechanical engineers tell them what a forcing is, and how you can derive a forcing from a response.”
Why don’t you show us? Doesn’t it start with 288K is 33K than 255K which is the temperature the surface should be with 240 Wm-2 Ein equaling Eout?
Jim D
Pause for breath, you aren’t getting anywhere. The problem isn’t what’s on the left or the right of an equation, or mathematicians vs physicists vs mathematical physicists ….
The problem is there is not enough independent information available to estimate the parameters M&F wish to, particularly the internal variability.
To help you I’ve taken the following example of misspecification that is analogous to what M&L did. It’s from “Stats With Cats Blog” https://statswithcats.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/regression-fantasies-part-ii/ that I know nothing about – it was what Mr Google offered me as first hit:
“Misspecification involves including terms in a model that make the model look great statistically even though the model is problematical. Often, misspecification involves placing the same or very similar variable on both sides of the equation.
“Consider this example from economics. A model for the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was developed using data on government spending and unemployment from 1947 to 1997. The model:
GDP = (121*Spending) – (3.5*Spending2) + (136*Time) – (61*Unemployment) – 566
had an R-squared value of 0.9994. Such a high R-squared value is a signal that something is amiss. R-squared values that high are usually only seen in models involving equipment calibration, and certainly not anything involving capricious human behavior. A closer look at the study indicated that the model term involving spending were an index of the government’s outlays relative to the economy. Usually, indexing a variable to a baseline or standard is a good thing to do. In this case, though, the spending index was the proportion of government outlays per the GDP. Thus, the model was:
GDP = (121*Outlays/GDP) – (3.5* (Outlays/GDP)2) + (136*Time) – (61*Unemployment) – 566
“GDP appears on both sides of the equation, thus accounting for the near perfect correlation. This is a case in which an index, at least one involving the dependent variable, should not have been used.”
In physics and engineering, there is the concept of a free system and a forced system, e.g. a harmonic oscillator. In climate, dN+a*dT=0 is a model of an unforced climate. The terms just cancel. This doesn’t mean T can’t change. It can as long as dN cancels it. For example T might warm due to an El Nino, so dN has to be negative representing a radiative deficit due to the warmer surface. By deficit, I mean the earth is radiating more than it is receiving. That deficit is relieved as the warm water loses its energy to space when dT and dN return to zero. The radiative balance acts like a restoring force such that T deviations can’t get too large. In a weakly forced climate a*dT still nearly cancels dN, but not quite due to dF, which is really only comparatively large over long enough time scales. dF might be due to an increase in solar strength for example. If we wanted to see how much the sun was strengthening, we can derive it from how the net of a*dT and dN change. It doesn’t mean that the solar strengthening is dependent on dT seen on earth, it just is dF and it can be seen through how T behaves. This is a physicist’s or engineer’s perspective that helps understand what forcing is. You can derive a forcing from a response even if the free system has terms that interchange energy with each other.
Jim D
Thanks, yes I’ve done a bit of mechanics in various guises in my time.
Two things to understand.
(1) You are not studying a mechanical system here, forced or otherwise. You are studying climate models – mathematical constructs – and how they behave. While they may have been set up to model systems that exhibit some of the characteristics that physicists, engineers and applied mathematicians study under the general heading mechanics, when you are in the business of evaluating the models you can not import “truths” from the physical domain to use as part of your investigation into the validity of those models. It is that very relationship and how well the models are at it you are trying to assess.
(2) The statistics are essential to estimating the parameters of the models, regardless how they are characterised (eg free, forced etc) or the discipline doing it.
So forget all about all your preconceptions about forcings and how they might behave. They are irrelevant. You have some complex mathematical models and you are estimating parameters that describe aspect of their behavior so you can compare those results with the real world.
IMHO your preconceptions of what is being modelling is getting in your way of seeing the issue. Thinking about it in another discipline you might find it easier to understand. Take the GDP model for example. Your current preoccupation with the mechanics and how forced systems behave is like someone saying the GDP correlation from the model must be right because it fits with their Keynesian view of the impact of government spending. It may or it may not, but that doesn’t make the model any better specified, or its structure and parameters in it any less duff.
HAS, the thing you get with a model is the ability to know why it does what it does in quantitative terms. There is a forcing and a response and all the energy is accounted for. The climate system equation is one of energy conservation, and the earth obeys this TOA balance too. Understanding which of the three terms is forcing and which are internal and responses is just part of the way to understanding climate. Some are not quite there yet, not fully understanding what is meant by the terms in dN+a*dT=dF. Those are the same people who don’t understand the Marotzke and Forster paper. The debate at CA is very revealing of how mathematicians can fool themselves with an equation when they don’t ascribe physical meanings to the terms. It is a mental block.
Yes HAS, you have hit on one of their big problems. They think they are so smart that they believe they have created actual representations of the real climate. They think they are literally climate models. They even have a website called realclimate. Poor things.
Jimmy, jimmy! Here’s what nicky said about the circularity related to the F faux paus:
“In fact, the close association with the “canonical equation” is not surprising. F et al say:
‘The FT06 method makes use of a global linearized energy budget approach where the top of atmosphere (TOA) change in energy imbalance (N) is split between a climate forcing component (F) and a component associated with climate feedbacks that is proportional to globally averaged surface temperature change (ΔT), such that:
N = F – α ΔT (1)
where α is the climate feedback parameter in units of W m-2 K-1 and is the reciprocal of the climate sensitivity parameter.’
IOW, they have used that equation to derive the adjusted forcings. It’s not surprising that if you use the thus calculated AFs to back derive the temperatures, you’ll get a good correspondence.”
BAM!
And here is an explanation even little jimmy can’t shine on:
A smart guy called fizzymagic:
“What ATTP does not seem to understand, and what is absolutely critical to any statistical analysis, is that for statistical analysis the important thing is not whether the true physical values are independent or not, but rather how the estimates for those true physical values are obtained.
In this case, the estimate of the physical value for dF was obtained by using dT. Doesn’t matter if the true values of dT and dF are independent or not. The very fact that dT was used to estimate dF means that, for statistical analyses, the two are NOT independent.”
Get physical wit dat, yimmy.
Jim D
It’s statistics that is being discussed, not mathematics.
Given the role statistical mechanics/physics has in climate modelling and its fundamental role in making inferences and parameter estimation to do the model experiments on which the climate science industry depends it is a pity you don’t have some grasp of statistics.
Or for that matter even understand it is distinct from mathematics.
Unfortunately I don’t think our little chat has helped you at all.
I can tell I am not dealing with people who have thought about the physics much. Think first of the unforced system where a*dT+dN=0. This is just natural internal variability that I mentioned above, and necessarily the two terms cancel to conserve energy. Now add a small forcing (which climate forcing mostly is except with large volcanoes). These two terms still cancel except for that forcing, whether it is from CO2, volcanoes, aerosols, the sun or some combination. In a given year dF may contribute a hundredth or two of a degree. Meanwhile dT is several tenths for El Nino years, and still is almost canceled by the equally large dN term with the difference now being the subtle forcing term. When you get to decades the three terms become comparable. To a first approximation dN and a*dT cancel, and this is why dF is not correlated with either in 15-year windows which is what M&F demonstrated. Just as you can infer an increase in solar strength from dT, knowing dN, you can infer other forcing changes from the temperature record too. The claim that you can’t get the forcing change when you know dT and dN is just confused thinking.
Jim D
You probably need to sit down.
I’m going to try and break it to you gently.
The papers we’ve been discussing are not about physics.
They are about climate models.
HAS, you can do the same thing with real temperatures. Take a 15-year window of global temperatures. Can you see the forcing? Even Pinatubo is difficult to pick out. No, and that is because even though there is forcing, the internal variation dominates in 15-year windows. Multiply the forcing by two and it is still difficult to pick out. Take a 62-year window, and you are more likely to see the variation of forcing against the background if you add or subtract 50% of it. This is the analogy of the Marotzke study in the real world. It is just common sense that the forcing is uncorrelated with the internal temperature fluctuations, both in the model world and the real world. The temperature fluctuates whether you have forcing or not. How did Lewis do the Lewis and Curry paper if he doesn’t assume this separation of the forcing and fluctuations? He takes time averages to remove the fluctuations and leave the forcing effect. It is exactly the same procedure. You can use the temperature series to get the forcing effect, and he did.
I personalized this for you, jimmy:
What sorrowful time-wasting little jimmy dee does not seem to understand, and what is absolutely critical to any statistical analysis, is that for statistical analysis the important thing is not whether the true physical values are independent or not, but rather how the estimates for those true physical values are obtained.
In this case, the estimate of the physical value for dF was obtained by using dT. Doesn’t matter if the true values of dT and dF are independent or not. The very fact that dT was used to estimate dF means that, for statistical analyses, the two are NOT independent.
Stop the shucking and jiving, jimmy. What’s your argument against Dr. Stokes who called out your nemesis Willis for committing the same sin of circularity using the Forster junk:
“In fact, the close association with the “canonical equation” is not surprising. F et al say:
‘The FT06 method makes use of a global linearized energy budget approach where the top of atmosphere (TOA) change in energy imbalance (N) is split between a climate forcing component (F) and a component associated with climate feedbacks that is proportional to globally averaged surface temperature change (ΔT), such that:
N = F – α ΔT (1)
where α is the climate feedback parameter in units of W m-2 K-1 and is the reciprocal of the climate sensitivity parameter.’
IOW, they have used that equation to derive the adjusted forcings. It’s not surprising that if you use the thus calculated AFs to back derive the temperatures, you’ll get a good correspondence.”
@Jim D | February 9, 2015 at 7:11 pm |
“… The statisticians seem to behave more like pure mathematicians where an equation is devoid of all physical meaning, and all terms are treated equally.”
This is the only way to use maths – unless you’re an engineer who makes casual approximations and cancels terms that are not mathematically equivalent (probably because the same letters are used like the delta-t in differentials)
Within the (mathematically) chaotic atmosphere, there’s very seldom a valid reason. But then again, Marotzke & Forster (2015) tell us why they think it’s OK to use a ‘fudge’:-
“The important point is to recognise that, physically, radiative forcing is the root cause of changes in the climate system …”
Is that the standard model these days?
People need to read my analogy to applied mathematics again. This equation is like a harmonic oscillator, A+B=0 for a free oscillator where A and B have time variations that cancel, or A+B=F for a forced oscillator, where F is a specified function of time that is independent of the actual values of A or B. Just because A and F appear in the same equation, it does not mean that F has become dependent on A or has to oscillate in the same way. However, you can use A and B to determine F. The equation is a*dT+dN=dF. Here a*dT and dN exactly cancel, if dF=0. The residual between them is dF and is correlated to neither, being independent of dT itself. Meaning is everything in the harmonic oscillator equation. There is a free motion and a forcing term. Even pure mathematicians should be able to appreciate applied mathematical concepts like this.
When bored with the unbendable, take up the indefensible.
=========================
Climate debate has altered what I thought was my pretty good understanding of human nature, speaking of defending the indefensible. Then again, I still can’t make up my mind how sincere some of these people are. All I know for sure is the oxygen in the alarmist camp is thin and stale and I wouldn’t last two days among them.
‘n doggone reprehensible
Jim D, Ross M has posted an excellent summary of the issue on Nic’s post at CA . If you ready that, you’d realize the issue is the circular logic. And that according to M&F the two most important factors used in climate models have no impact on dT. Now that’s a great one!
It is the variation among models of these parameters that has little effect on 15-year trends. This is not surprising.
Jim D
“It is the variation among models of these parameters that has little effect on 15-year trends. This is not surprising.”
Actually looking at this I suspect you are missing Lewis’ point.
The objection to M&F isn’t empirical. There simply isn’t enough independent information available to draw any conclusion. The experiment is over constrained.
If you let me know what you background is I can perhaps put the point in terms that you can relate to from your discipline.
Marotzke finds that model regression-derived parameters are important on longer timescales especially later in the 20th century when the forcing is starting to take off, but if you take 15-year windows there is no correlation of trends to the model regression parameters because of the natural variability trends that the models represent too. This is not surprising either.
Marotzke finds that model regression-derived parameters are important on longer timescales
The constraint on pseudo parameters is well known ie that you learn less from the model decay eg Nalimov.
If the researcher is satisfied with approximating the function by a first-order polynomial. then all regression coefficients can be estimated with zero correlation coefficients. All troubles connected with parameter estimation and their confidence limits disappear. But the initial parameters of the model disappear too; they are replaced by pseudoparameters, that is, regression coefficients. Hence it follows that the less we wish to learn , the more definite becomes our knowledge (the experimental potentiality being the same).
Or to put it another way, you learn more and more about less and less, whereas upon reaching unity, you find you know everything about nothing.
Hi
Yes I understand what Marotzke found. What’s being discussed here is the experiment he used to produce the results, and whether it was well specified.
Do you understand Lewis’ point?
If not, my offer stands to try and explain it in terms you might be able to relate to.
If you do, what additional independent information (in this case presumably a relationship) are you suggesting Marotzke should have added to his experiment (or is in there but Lewis overlooked). I can’t see where Lewis made any assumptions about the timescale in which correlations between dF and dT are high or low. As I asked below can you show where this occurred?
I am confused by the notation used by Marotzky et al in equation 4. In the text, they seem to describe using the 15-year trend errors as the dependent variable, but in the equation preceding equation 4 the dependent variable is denoted by “delta T prime sub j”. In Equation 4 the dv is denoted “delta T hat sub (reg, j). The text in between says “The complete GMST trend is obtained by adding the ensemble mean trend to the regression for the across-ensemble variations:”
It looks to me like Nic Lewis has written a lot about a poor notation.
“It looks to me like Nic Lewis has written a lot about a poor notation.”
Nope the problem is with the regression model.
HAS: Nope the problem is with the regression model.
What is the dependent variable in the regression model?
According to the authors “We thus perform for each start year a multiple linear regression of dT’ against dF’, a’ and k’. The regression residual e is interpreted as the contribution from internal variability.” The ‘ is the across ensemble variation.
This seems to me to be as Lewis describes, and subject to the circularity.
HAS: We thus perform for each start year a multiple linear regression of dT’ against dF’,
Let me rephrase my question: is dT’ the difference in temperature (at time j) or the difference in regression slope (at time j). The circularity highlighted by Nic Lewis comes (I think) from the fact that dF’ is computed from the temperature difference.
Sorry you’ve got me there, I don’t understand. The regression model is derived from Marotzke’s equation 1: ΔT = ΔF / (α + κ) where we are dealing with trends on both side.
As they go on to say: “… we determine the extent to which the across-ensemble variations of ΔF, α and κ contribute to the ensemble spread of GMST trends ΔT, …”.
Matthew Marler, if you referring to the Nature paper, j is the model number, not time. There are regression coefficients for each model.
Jim D: Matthew Marler, if you referring to the Nature paper, j is the model number, not time. There are regression coefficients for each model.
from the paper, preceding equation 4: We thus perform for each start year a multiple linear regression of DT’ against DF’, a’ and k’. The regression residual e is interpreted as the contribution from internal variability. The complete regression-based prediction for GMST trend is obtained by adding the ensemble-mean trend to the regression for the across-ensemble variations:
The index for time is suppressed in the equation. alpha and kappa were changed to a and k in the cut and paste. There are not regression coefficients for each model, there are regression coefficients for each year, for dF’, a’ and k’.
Jim D
I note that these comments have wandered away from your specific points. k scott denison has made the point that the Lewis objection is that Marotzke’s “central claim” that models overestimate the response to forcings is unfounded depends on circular logic.
The objection to Marotzke’s approach is really quite simple, and you can understand it without having to understand complex regression analysis. The forcings Marotzke used to compare with the models were themselves derived from the models. Marotzke compared models with models – and that can tell you nothing about the models’ response to forcings.
Contrary to your claim that Lewis didn’t “attack” the central claim, because of this error the whole paper comes tumbling down (as no doubt you can now see).
I’d also note that Lewis didn’t attempt any alternate analysis, just demonstrated the error, so you later comments criticising him for “not showing his results” and claiming he “put forward an alternative method” in later comments are also misplaced.
I hope that helps you understand the issues. There are probably better places to find out what is happening in Climate Science than rely on Skeptical Science.. They seem to have particular fish to fry, despite their title.
Correction penultimate par “..claiming he didn’t ‘put forward …”
Yes, it seems they think dF must be still correlated to dT when dN is added to it. The forcing change, dF, is a much smoother function than dT, because dN decorrelates it. It is unlikely that dF has much correlation with dT in individual years if these models have any internal variability, so that would mean that the circularity argument is wrong. It hinges on whether dF and dT are strongly correlated on a year to year basis. I don’t think so.
HAS, you say he didn’t carry out an alternate analysis, but he has a paragraph that starts with “I have carried out a regression analysis based on equation (8) using the same set of models.” then goes on to say his result contradicts Maroztke on 15-year trends without showing it.
Go over to CA and ask them to explain it for you, yimmy. They won’t bite you. Or you could ask someone here to carry your water over there for you, like you did when you wanted to play gotcha with Willis, but you didn’t have the guts to go to WATTS and do it yourself.
Yes, on the alternative analysis I should have been clearer – Lewis wasn’t presenting this as part of the article (and his thesis) but he did mention that he had done this. I was responding to your point about whether the post dealt with Marotzke’s central point, and Lewis’ aside and the ability to replicate it seemed irrelevant to your central point (whereas you were claiming the lack of detail was somehow relevant to the point under discussion).
On your statement “It hinges on whether dF and dT are strongly correlated on a year to year basis. I don’t think so.” I can’t see that assumption in Lewis’ work, can you explain?
Jim D: The forcing change, dF, is a much smoother function than dT, because dN decorrelates it.
What do you think is the dependent variable in Marotzky’s regression model?
HAS: On your statement “It hinges on whether dF and dT are strongly correlated on a year to year basis. I don’t think so.” I can’t see that assumption in Lewis’ work, can you explain?
Nic Lewis is quite clear that dF is computed from dT, so they are necessarily correlated.
Forster shows how dF and dN relate to dT and, dF does not contain the interannual dT signal because that is what dN is there for. dF is basically the time-dependent forcing that includes GHGs, volcanoes and aerosol effects as derived from the model outputs. It excludes internal variability by design.
Jim D, substitute dF + dN for dT and you now have dT on both sides of the equation. It is a simple as that.
Jimmy, you should rush over to CA and get all over this character Paul K. Dazzle him with your SkS chops:
Paul_K
Posted Feb 6, 2015 at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Reply
Nic,
Another excellent catch.
Yet, in a certain sense, the findings of the authors are correct and inevitable i.e. that, based on the use of Forster’s abstracted forcings, the temperature gain in the models is not dependent on feedback and ocean heat uptake, provided that the values are also taken from the same source.
There should be a giant bell ringing here for Forster, quite apart from the glaring problem with this paper. The circularity in this argument does not start with this paper. Since Gregory and Forster 2008, an entire edifice of Escherian stairwells have been built, founded on the same illusions. It starts with the unnecessary and demonstrably inapplicable use of a degenerative ocean model (the “kappa model”) to analyse GCM results. It continues with the demonstrably inapplicable assumption of an invariant feedback in the GCMs, an assumption absolutely rebuffed by the GCM data themselves. It continues with the simultaneous abstraction of Adjusted Forcing (AF) values and feedback values from the inapplicable model, having (only) the properties that (a) in combination they will track the late-time temperature behaviour to the given ECS of the GCM and (b) unknown forcings can be estimated as an approximately scaleable function of temperature. It is readily shown that the estimated feedbacks are unrelated to the “true” feedbacks apparent in the GCMs since the shorter-term feedbacks (upto several decades) are eliminated arithmetically by a mechanical reduction of the actual forcing; and the resulting AF values are then so disconnected from the emulated GCM’s reality that the forcings cannot be related to verification of that model’s RTE against LBL code, nor indeed to any independent estimate of forcing.
To give an example, under this Escherian architecture, Hadgem2-ES ends up with an AF value of 2.9 W/m2 for a doubling of CO2, against an estimated stratospheric adjusted forcing of over 4.0; the derived AF forcing value in 2003 for the historical runs is then 0.8 W/m2 – less than half of the average of the AF values abstracted from the other models, but this is the value required to match the Hadgem2-ES temperature evolution.
This amounts to taking a poorly qualified emulation model, plugging in physically meaningless values, and then scaling the historical forcing values to produce some sort of a match to the GCM results. Marotzke et al’s results should therefore not surprise us, but it was still a very nice catch.
Matthew R Marler
“Nic Lewis is quite clear that dF is computed from dT, so they are necessarily correlated.”
Yes
Perhaps brevity isn’t always the bet – I should add, “but not as a consequence of an assumption by Lewis”.
HAS: I should add, “but not as a consequence of an assumption by Lewis”.
I understand and agree. How about this: Not an additional assumption made by Lewis
The whole point of using the forcing is that it is not dependent on dT. It is based on GHGs, aerosols and volcanoes. Why is this so hard to understand? For example, in the forcing you see Pinatubo, but you don’t see El Ninos which are part of dN.
Not read the blog – don’t on principle. The paper is not all that impressive and Jimmy D is orders of magnitude sillier. Notice the increase in IR emissions in El Nino. For two reasons relatively clear skies in the central Pacific and warmer atmosphere.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/loeb2012-fig1.png
Nick appears to be occupied at the time as he has not made the usual updates on his own site. He is a scientist, but he is not a climate scientist. He has also had problems commenting at CA. He is not obligated to defend or attack any paper.
I would say 15-year trends are all over the place, but they indicate there was a substantial amount of warming in 21st Century.
cooler trends
hotter trends
That means the pause is all post 2005, and that there are definite signs it’s dying.
JC SNIP
Go tell your story on CA. They are waiting for someone to come by that they can use as a foil.
Nic’s criticism is fatal. If this paper is not retracted, or completely revised to look like some other paper, it will only be a zombie paper. A slow walking, stinking testament to the corruption of climate science.
Jim D: As I mentioned, the part shown by Skeptical Science was not criticized by Lewis.
The part of the paper that stands is the showing that the errors in the15-year and 62-year trends are not consistently high or low. Those errors are however autocorrelated. The part of the paper that is a failure is the attempt to explain the over-predicted trends and under-predicted trends using a multiple regression analysis. Because the trend errors are autocorrelated, and the recent trend predictions have been high, a simple induction is that the trends modeled for the next few 15 year periods will also most likely be too high.
The model trends only 15 years ago were low, and in 15 years time they could again be low. This is just noise.
Jim D: The model trends only 15 years ago were low, and in 15 years time they could again be low.
They “could be” low, but the autocorrelation implies that they are more likely to continue high for a while before they become low. What happens 15 years from now is unpredictable on the evidence given.
Jim D: He missed that dT and dN contain canceling high-frequency components because dF, by definition, is only low-frequency forcing determined from the slow part of the temperature change over longer periods.
Nevertheless, as dF is computed from dT, the ultimate regression model is circular, as claimed by Nic Lewis. It’s the formula for computation of dF that is used, not the verbal “definition” of dF.
What matters for regressing is whether dT and dF are correlated. They are not. Forcing is defined as being independent of temperature. The dN term has the role of decorrelating dF with the natural variations in dT. You don’t see El Ninos in dF, but you do in dT and dN.
JimD, “What matters for regressing is whether dT and dF are correlated. They are not.”
Why would anyone expect a series of wild assed guesses to be correlated?
Jim D: Forcing is defined as being independent of temperature.
I hope you are not denying that the estimate of forcing used as IV is calculated from the temperature. Regardless of how forcing “is defined”, the regression uses the calculated estimate.
Basically, Marotzky el al illustrate that when you run a regression as
T = b1*(f(T+e)) + b2*U, with f monotonic, then with short sequences the random e and U make the regression fit non-statistically significant, but with long sequences the regression of T on a*T is statistically significant.
Are you sure you are up to speed on these things?
Jim D, here is what Nic Lewis said about the calculation of deltaF:
The ΔF values were taken from Forster et al (2013)[v]. For each model, historical/RCP scenario time series for ΔF were diagnosed by Forster et al using an equation of the form:
. ΔF = α ΔT + ΔN (4)
where ΔT and ΔN are the model-simulated GMST and TOA radiative imbalance respectively, and α is the model feedback parameter, diagnosed in the same paper.
and that leads to: ΔT = (α ΔT+ ΔN ) / ρ + ε (5)
Are you saying that he is wrong?
He missed that dT and dN contain canceling high-frequency components because dF, by definition, is only low-frequency forcing determined from the slow part of the temperature change over longer periods.
I see that this debate has moved onto the Climate Lab Book (Forster’s site) and CA, and the statisticians still don’t see the equation in physical terms. Let’s put it this way and see if it helps. Take, first, the unforced system and let’s use temperature units to give dT+dN=0. Here we see that the temperature perturbation and imbalance have to be anti-correlated, not approximately, but exactly. What does this mean? It means a very simple thing. If you start in equilibrium and perturb the temperature by dT, the imbalance is dT. It just measures the distance from equilibrium so it has to be exact. The way the climate acts, this dN also provides a restoring force towards a dT=0 state.
Now, having understood the simple meaning of dN, we can add a forcing, dT+dN=dF. In very short time scales around one year dF is still essentially only a few percent of these other two large canceling terms. Over longer time frames dF gets large and dT and dN both follow it to some extent while also keeping these canceling oscillations. Later when dF goes to a future steady state, dT rises to oscillate around its ECS value and dN returns slowly to oscillate around zero. The TCR is dT/dF, and given dN, you can also get the ECS as (dT+dN)/dF.
It is always useful to have a physical concept of the terms, and especially why dT and dN are exactly anti-correlated in unforced conditions.
Danny Thomas, thank you for the link to the rebuttal by Marotzke and Forster. It looks to me as though it restates rather than rebuts the claim by Nic Lewis that dF is computed from dT.
To me, the main point of M&F is that the 15yr 62 yr trends have been shown to be never reliable.
I am still puzzled about whether deltaT in M&F’s regression refers to difference in temperature or difference in linear trend.
Jim D
The graphic shown in your SkS link shows the expert opinion adjusted likely range of warming, not the models actual projections. This adjustment was thoroughly discussed in the APS panel discussion that Judy posted here.
The circularity remains within the faith in the modeled forcings, and these are machine illusions. What’s amusing is this display in conjunction with the public’s dawning awareness of bias in the climate science discipline, ironically enough through the perception of temperature series machine manipulation.
Where’s my pen? I just had it around here someplace. And the phone, my phone? What’s this no service business mean anyway?
==================
“climate-models-overestimate-warming-unfounded”
Funny thing, if that were true, I couldn’t use models and observations and plot them like:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/SatelliteEraTemperatures.png
But I can.
Link to the arctic glacier study is just the abstract w/paywall. Here’s the full study:
https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Rothe_QSR_2014.pdf
This is an excellent and very interesting paper, well worth the read and displays how complex the factors are that go into regional glacial dynamics (summer insolation, moisture source, sea ice, etc). One very interesting series of graphs is this one:
http://i62.tinypic.com/k1431x.png
R. Gates, that obviously has to be wrong, there was no MWP or significant LIA.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/comic_rollercoaster_610.jpg
At least according to this NOAA wtf NOAA approved history of Holocene climate.
Schul rule, fool drool.
================
Hi Captn. I don’t stop by here all that often, but always know you’ll be good for a laugh when I do. Thanks!
And by the way just to put things in perspective, while it is true that during the past few thousand years or so, the glacier has been in the range of largest size during most of the Holocene, primarily it seems because of the declining summer insolation since the Holocene peak, most recently the Karlbreen glacier has been strongly retreating for many decades, just as most glaciers around the world have been. Overall, the Karlbreen glacier makes an excellent yardstick to measure the rapid warming going on in the Arctic. This glacier could likely be one of the ones globally that disappears completely in the coming decades.
Gaia dissolves a pearl into a teardrop.
===========
Rgates
Here is the record of glacier growth and recession over the last 1000 years I derived from thousands of NH observations from E Roy Ladurie, Pfister, Lamb, Groves and others.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i9qkeglbck7h2fc/revised%20glaciers.docx?dl=0
It is shown with CET overlain in the top graph and with the Hockey Stick and CET overlaid in the second. The HS appears to sail on serenely at much the same temperature whilst glaciers grow and recede around it. WUWT?
I don’t claim pin point accuracy as there are many warm years during general glacier growth and many cold years during general glacier recession, but its a reasonable approximation.
tonyb
Hi Tony,
Not sure exactly what point the simple graph you presented is trying to make, but glacial growth is far more complicated than simply a warm/cold issue, though certainly temperatures are one factor. It is always a balance between how much snow falls in the winter and how much melts in the summer, and multiple factors impact that balance such as summer insolation, sea ice extent over moisture sources, sea surface temperatures, and of course overall atmospheric temperatures. Winter snows only amount to glacial growth when they are followed up by cool summers when that snow does not melt away, but additionally, we have to have moisture sources available to create those big winter snows, and greater sea ice means less moisture sources at high Arctic latitudes. A puzzle with many moving pieces to be sure, but globally those pieces have fallen into place so as to reduce global glacial ice for many decades. The Karlbreen glacier is an excellent “canary in a coal mine.”
Rgates
I know all that about glaciers, thank you. I am merely trying to point out the glacial changes in a generalistic way, which is why I said that they are affected by short term conditions counter to the long term ones.
The second point is that the Hockey stick temperatures barely move, whilst glaciers change for a reason. Temperatures are not static.
tonyb
Rgates
Karlbreen appears to have melted several times during the Holocene and attained its most recent peak during the latter stages of the Little Ice Age.
As would be expected, most glaciers are melting from the high point reached then, as the LIA included some of the lowest temperatures during the Holocene
https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Rothe_QSR_2014.pdf
Why is today any different to the other times the glacier has waxed and waned and melted?
tonyb
Tony,
Great question! How does the current retreat of the Karlbreen glacier differ from past retreats? I think this graph is most telling:
http://i60.tinypic.com/2prv7h1.png
The dotted represents the current ELA. We see generally rising summer temperatures over the past few centuries, and a corresponding retreat of the glacier. Thus, the warmer summer temperatures are generally causing the glacier to melt more than the snow added throughout the cold months.
No doubt some of the warming temperatures in the region over the past few centuries are LIA “recovery”, but certainly not all, and most of that “recovery” was complete by 1900. Temperatures are now exceeding those seen during the MWP, prior to the LIA. The fact that the higher latitudes of the globe are warming faster than the planet overall and this is exactly as GCM’s have shown would occur with rising GH gas forcing is worth considering as a cause by most reasonable people.
Just a few additional observations about the Karlbreen glacier:
1) The ELA only needs to retreat about 20-30 more meters and it will be the highest point in over 1750 years even though summer insolation has generally been declining.
2) The rapid rise in temperatures in the region over the past century, again even though summer insolation has generally been on the decline, does have a striking resemblance to the upward curve at the end of a hockey stick.
Also one side observation, using the reconstruction from this study, I noted this large drop in summer insolation around the 8.2 ka cooling event:
http://i60.tinypic.com/28ap9at.png
While a Bond event is generally associated by some to this 8.2 ka event, the sudden drop in insolation at this exact point is quite interesting and might seem to have volcanic origins. We know from evidence that several volcanoes including Grimsvotn in Iceland had very large eruptions right around this time frame. The coincidence of the timing of a drop in solar insolation and increased volcanic activity right at the 8.2 ka event leads me to be skeptical that we fully understand the 8.2 ka cooling event. A higher resolution ice core study of the 8.2 timeframe would be interesting to see related to volcanic aerosols from the NH and SH.
R Gates: ” …summer insolation has generally been on the decline…”
Question1 : Are you talking about the waning M-cycle obliquity over the last 10ka?
Question2: Do you believe that there is another, yet undetermined, non- M-cycle driver of the Pleistocene glaciations? If no, why do inter-glacials occur only every two or three obliquity cycles?
Question3: Is global ocean current conveyor driven primarily by summer polar melt?
Question4: Is interruption of the conveyor a likely explanation for ice ages?
Thx
Mr. Graf , yes it is.
Insolation increase at the start of interglacial is far too slow to explain rapid warming and melting of x1000 meters of ice. Milankovic cycles are far more effective in pulling tectonic plates apart, by the time max is reached rapid spread is nearly over.
Lava pours out in huge quantities just north of Iceland. Warm water is far more efficient in melting ice from below than sun from above, having in mind high albedo of the ice.
5 ridges at South Kolbensey
5 interglacials
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ice.jpg
As we progress from tip of Reykjanes ridge northwards rate of plate spreading increases rapidly, so does the amount of lava, reaching crescendo at Kolbensey ridges just north of Iceland.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HIGP/Faculty/hey/images/Fig.1_Reykjanes_Ridge_1000px.jpg
Note: Milankovic cycle is just over the max, plates spreading is down at only 1-2 cm /annum.
You have been warned; Hansen said twice ‘think of your grandchildren’, once in 1970s and then again recently.
Ps. Interglacials at this stage of the planets evolution are the abnormal state of global climate.
R. Graf,
I am speaking about the peak summer insolation at 60N. It reached a Holocene Max about 9500 years BP and has been declining since. That decline seems to a driver of the growth of this particular glacier. I do believe that glaciations are associated with Milankovitch of course, but there are some interesting feedbacks going on and some interesting research indicating relationships to volcanic activity and Milankovitch.
Vukcevic, thanks for your very informative reply. I am still curious as to your best guess if a halt in the Iceland leg of the thermohaline conveyor that triggers the start of cascading temperature decline by not helping the arctic summers to melt the high albedo growing ice cap. And, if you think it possible, do you think volcanic eruption, meteor strike, neither or both could kick it off?
R Gates, do you have an opinion on the above or whether the conveyor has a part in polar melt?
Question: Milankovitch does not change overall insolations just degrees of seasonal variance, correct? So both summer and winter become more extreme at the peak of incline to the Sun 9.5Ka ago, right?
Warning: my view is exactly opposite to the conventional understanding of the current science.
It may be wrong (as postulated by many) that thermohaline ever shuts down, it does opposite. Down-welling has two locations, one on each side of Iceland. Once the area to north is ice covered, the sea surface contact with atmosphere is lost, that part does shut down.
South leg is not only active even at extremes of the ice age, but also increases its strength moving (with ice) further south to the ice free region, note the subpolar gyre is part of this set-up. It is generally assumed that cloudiness and evaporation decreases during ice age, another wrong assumption.
With gyre moving south closer to equatorial region more warm water is circulated to mid latitudes, more evaporation leading to semi-permanent cloudiness further north (transferred by jet stream) which blocks the sun, and so not only preventing more intense summer snow melting, but the summer rain, which is very effective in melting snow, now turns into summer snowfall (1 m of snow makes only few cm of ice), thus x1000m of ice can accumulate.
Vukcevic, that is fascinating stuff. So poles get the double-whammy of increased cloudiness in addition to the globe’s overall energy loss due to increases in albedo from reflective clouds and their snowfall.
If the cloudiness inhibits summer melt it would make sense that the circulation loop would shrink further from the poles. Perhaps the greater intensity of flow could be explained by an increase in northern flows off summer land melt, like out of Labrador. Perhaps as the glaciation proceeds to a point that that Labrador gets sealed by a glacial dam preventing summer run-off that the circulation loop is slowed bringing less moist air to continue the cloudiness and snowfall. Snow loses albedo as it gets dirty and crystals grow or become ice. When the circulation resumes the water will also be warmer having stewed at lower latitude. What if the collapsing glaciers became a runaway train due to size and pressure on their water undermined bases, (ice skating effect)? Perhaps this momentum would override the return of cloudy conditions from the increased circulation.
On a different note, I was surprised to read that snow, although reflective in the visible is about as absorbent as water in the IR. With the low water vapor at the poles CO2 effect should be more pronounced there even with no increase in GMT. Do you agree?
Ice ages are still enigma.
Critical point for the warm current to stop flowing north is when the westerlies are striping sufficient amount of heat across whole of the N. Atlantic (currently happens just to the SW of Greenland and in the Nordic Seas) in which case since currents down-well below six hundred meters, the way to the warm waters to the Arctic Ocean would be barred by the Greenland – Scotland ridge
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/G-ScotlandRidge.gif
Efficiency (strength) of down-welling pump (driving thermohaline) will increase due to the reduction of its distance to its source of warm water i.e. the equator.
Milankovic cycles effectiveness is still questioned, In defence of Milankovic did not succeed to dispel all of the doubts, but if combined with plate tectonics I think some of the problems could be eliminated.
I am in process of writing an article, which no doubt will be flatly rejected.
regards m.v.
across whole of the far N. Atlantic (currently happens just to the SW of Greenland and in the Nordic Seas)
Thanks for the link to the paper itself. Interesting read. One takaway is strong paleoevidence that the ‘regional expectations’ assumption in all homogenization algorithms (and BEST) is simply fallacious. Especially if other Svalbard glaciers did not behave similarly in synchrony. Gives me a little research project and a possible new essay.
A regional expectation is never fallacious.
It is a prediction.
All prediction has error. They don’t aim
At true or false. They
aim at minimizing error. And there are several traditional methods for
Measuring the error.
You have used none of those methods.
Steven, no quibble with any of your points except the last. Perhaps my meaning was not clear. It is indisputable that for at least a decade, the past has been cooled and, in some cases, the present warmed compared to ‘raw’. That is so for USHCN, GHCN, BOM Acorn, NIWA… Moreover, the tendency has been increasing, documented by simple archival comparisions of regional and global temperature series at different points in time. For example, Between 1999 and 2011 NOAA NCDC cooled CONUS 1933 and warmed 1999 by a net total of 0.7C and erasing the mid 1930s heat record. It is also indisputable that all this opposite to what NASA GiSS says it does in homogenization to resolve UHI, using Tokyo as the illustration. It is also indisputable that GHCN homogenization has with statistical ‘certainty’ a warming bias. See the Europe AGU 2012 paper available at http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1212. All examples and more in essay When Data Isn’t, with footnotes.
These things do not in general suggest minimizing error, although I am fully aware from having read the BEST documentation that is the intent of your methods. (And spotchecking places like Reykjavik, Sulina, Debilt, Darwin suggests BEST does indeed do a better job than GHCN,)
Now, there are two possible explanations for the tendencies and biases to ‘enhance’ warming. Conspiracy between governmental agencies in various countries cannot be ruled out, but is very improbable. Much more likely are subtle flaws in the ideas behind all homogenizarion instantiations, which have not been caught owing to confirmation bias. BEST 166900, BOM ACORN 82039 (amongst several others), and GHCN 62103943000 are all clear illustrations of where homogenization via regional expectations is plainly wrong.
Looking at local paleoglacier advance and retreat, then at the glacier behavior since 1900 compared to raw v. Adjusted local temps, might be another way to get a handle on the magnitude of this issue using a physical proxy. Local Raw temp flat or cooling and glacier not retreating despite adjusted local temp rising. Don’t know if there are any such cases, or enough for even a qualitative conclusion. There was enough resolution to debunk the recent Lena Delta warming inferred from ice wedge cores by using BEST 169945, Tiksi. The new idea is to invert that investigative process.
” It is indisputable that for at least a decade, the past has been cooled and, in some cases, the present warmed compared to ‘raw’.
wrong again.
Do you mean rawng or rawight?
===============
Here is what you dont get rud.
1. The algorithm we use and the algorithm NOAA uses have been tested in a double blind test using synthetic data with errors and baises introduced.
2. those test demonstrate that the methods are able to correct for these biases. biases in both directions.
3. As a matter of fact our approach cools africa ( for example ) while in the US there is a warming ( 20% of the globe versus 5 %)
4. On the whole the method adds a scientifically INCONSEQUENTIAL
amount of warming to the global record
5. Locally on the continental scale, down to the state scale, down to the site scale, one can find warming trends that are muted ( cooled) and cooling trends that are warmed.
6. Politically, skeptics have focused exclusively on cooling trends that have been warmed. They ignore sites ( like SNOTEL, or reno or other places ) where the method has corrected sites are warm more rapidly than the regional expectation.
7. Even using ONLY RAW DATA with NO ADJUSTMENTS the record is clear
A) it has warmed since the LIA
B) the sensitivity you can calculate from this record ( using lewis and curry ) is still within the boundaries suggested by the IPCC.
I’ll put it another way
A. Watts and D’Aleo in their SPPI hit piece attacked NOAA for the great thermometer drop off. based on this attack and others ( by mckittrick) we decided to use ALL THE DATA so we could no be acccused of cherry picking series.
B. Skeptics such as Christy have suggested and and themselves used an approach that made sense to us. When a station changes instruments, or moves, of changes TOB, then its a NEW station.
Dont adjust it with some process that is open to human fiddling.
We did that. we call it slicing. We got the idea from skeptics.
C. All over climate audit and the blogesphere we heard the same message: use KNOWN methods from stats like kriging.
D) Bring on professional statisicians. We did. In fact our head stats guy and RomanM are old buddies. We looked very closely at romanM’s method. We extended it.
E) bring on critics. If you go back to 2007 to 2011, you will find that I’ve been a critic of GISS, CRU and before I joined BEST I was critic of their approach on UHI. I was a critic until we tested my idea and I was proved wrong.
F) Everyone demanded code and data. So we did that. There is even SVN access for folks who want to keep track of changes. Funny there are even folks for whom this is not enough.
G) folks demanded independent testing of homogenization with synthetic data. We did that. Of course, even this is not enough.
H: raw data. some folks demand only using raw data. So we start with unadjusted daily data. Looking at raw verus adjusted… we find NO scientifically interesting difference
1. No difference that improves our understanding of AGW
2. No difference that would challenge the fact that c02 cause warming
3. No difference that would change the fact that the LIA was cooler
4. No difference that would materially change attribution arguments
5. no difference that would materially change sensitivity calculations.
6. No difference that suddenly make the sun the cause of all change
7. no difference that would change a climate reconstruction
8. no difference that would magically make GCMs fit observations better.
9. no difference that would suddenly make mann right about the MWP.
get the idea.. its a difference that makes no scientific difference. It’s of interest only to guys who care about the technical details of various methods. spatial stats nerds and homogenization nerds.
in short adjustments to the record are interesting only to technicians. Adjustments to the record are a side show. A distraction from the primary scientific debate over attribution and sensitivity. Adjustments might touch those debates but only in a minor way.. single digit percentage points. in other words.. you might end up with TCRs that are 1.6 as opposed to 1.7 but nothing paradigm shattering. C02 will still warm the planet even if we disappear the entire observation record. Even if wwe know nothing about the past, we still know that C02 warms the planet.
Now skeptics have a choice. They can join the big debate in science over attribution and sensitivity. They can join nic lewis and judith curry and collectively put their brain power to that real problem, that real debate.
Or they muck about in other areas that have no real leverage in the debate. And remember every watt of brain power you waste on peripheral issues is a watt that you dont spend on the key issue. And while you waste time, president O has his phone and pen.
For years the skeptical approach of scattershot attacks.. attack everything in every way using every tactic was all you could do.
But today you have a different battle field. Time for some new tactics
Attack the phony strongly positive water feedback assumption! That scares the crap outs em.
Steven, regards. I published the indelible evidence you deny in my new ebook, essay When Data Isn’t, with a foreword from Judith. Read it. Rebut those facts and archived illustrations and footnotes. Then get back. Maine from NOAA NCDC Drd964x in 2013 to nClimDiv in 2014? Explain.
Oh, by the way, I passed the Harvard econometrics Ph.D exams as an undergraduate. Know about stuff like heteroskedascity and autocorrelation and skew bias. Bring math and stats next time, not FUD.
No matter how much you claim stuff was ‘double blind’ tested, we can still look at the results and spot apparent logical flaws like those cited above. None of which specifics you address in your general appeal to authority. For example, the 2012 AGU paper I cited proves your ‘double blind test’ result was statistically warm biased. Disproving your points 1 and 2. Where is the flaw in that paper that says it is wrong and you are right? I could not find one; but then you are soooo much smarter. So, enlightened one, where is the flaw in that paper I could not find?
The past has been progressively cooled, the present warmed. Increasingly (not by BEST). Egregiously. Indelibly. And climate models are increasingly divergent from observations to the point of now self proclaimed falsification despite the new Marotzke kerfuffle. And so on. For which you offer only gobbledygook explanations. Better to explain the multiple specifics cited above, which you have avoided. See your points 1 and 2 above.
I keep offering olive branches to BEST as best of the available land data sets IMO after some checking. BESt still shows the ‘pause’. Why keep defending the indefensible at GISS, GCHN, and so forth? You only provide ever more macrodata concerning the overall CAGW divide, Mueller’s faux scepticism, and the ‘clarity’ of thinking in Berkeley environs.
Oh, and Steven, as to the rest of your angst ridden post that Obama still has his phone. Yup, but he lost the Senate. And has bigger Obamacare problems with Gruber and SCOTUS, foreign policy problems with Putin and ISIS, and so on. But you digress into non climate areas where you presume, but do not know, what I think or know. Nice Berkeley ad hom try. FAIL. Read my first ebook Gaia’s Limits if you really want to know what I think generally. You would probably be very surprised.
Yes, anthropogenic CO2 must have some warming effect. How much is not clear, since the pause has not only falsified climate models, but also the underlying attributions. GCMs are hopeless.
Do know for sure CO2 attribution as the main climate driver has now been provably falsified. And for sure many of the predicted CAGW consequences are based on provably false premises, and are not occurring as ‘projected’. Many essays in Blowing Smoke.
You notice that moshe didn’t include Richard Muller with Nic Lewis and Judith Curry as engaged in the ‘the real debate, that real problem’.
Yeah, sure, and Obama’s pen and phone will solve sensitivity and attribution. Actually, he could do something with them on that debate, that real problem, but won’t.
Wouldn’t be prudent.
===============
Moshers list of conclusions seems pretty sensible to me:
These bland results are why I can’t get very fired up about temperature measurements. The hockey stick, OTOH, is like learning about the history of the Mormans.
It’s high time Obama got busy with his pen and his phone correcting all those denialists denying the temperature record. Doesn’t he have a red pen? We know his phone isn’t red. That line goes straight to voicemail.
By the way, ‘denialist’ is slithertongue for ‘denier’. I so want to post that over at the Rice Frenzy, but I’ve pretty much sworn off foreign adventures.
===================================
Steven Mosher,
7. Even using ONLY RAW DATA with NO ADJUSTMENTS the record is clear
okay, just do that with appropriate error bars and maybe you won’t have to put up with the likes of this.
deal?
KenW
I specifically asked Mosh to respond to that-and relayed articles-yesterday morning. Does he agree or not? Can we have the arguments in a comprehensible form in order to support his conclusions?
Tonyb
Note: guest post from Zeke and Mosh coming tomorrow
the deafening silence of bated breath :-)
Judith
Hope the article will specifically deal with the alleged retrospective cooling issue in a comprehensible and factual manner.
I am no conspiracist but these issues keep resurfacing and need dealing with
Tonyb
I’m tellin’ ya. It’s the Machines wot dunnit.
In the lab, with a program, climate scientists for fall guys, and uh, dolls.
=========================
shivers of antici-pation…
I’ll bite, multiple times
Steven Mosher | February 7, 2015 at 1:38 pm |
“A regional expectation is never fallacious.It is a prediction. All prediction has error. They don’t aim At true or false. They aim at minimizing error”
Of course it can be fallacious, the fact that they don’t aim at true or false does not mean that they are not attempting to be true. When they fail, [ All prediction has error???] then they are fallacious.
Note this is even without adding malice [Mann] into the equation or debating your other wrong comment [ All prediction has error].
I’ll bite, multiple times note [ *] means I agree with Mosher]
Canman | February 8, 2015 at 10:32 am |
“Moshers list of conclusions seems pretty sensible to me:”
*1. No difference that improves our understanding of AGW
I take it you mean no one has proved attribution yet
* 2. No difference that would challenge the fact that C02 causes warming
Factually wrong, people are using the discrepancy between CO2 rise and Global temp pause to state that CO2 may not cause warming. You are correct that CO2 causes warming. undisputed. But what feedbacks does this cause that might reduce the amount of warming [also indisputable] is the question.
* 3. No difference that would change the fact that the LIA was cooler
4. No difference that would materially change attribution arguments
see 7 below.
5. no difference that would materially change sensitivity calculations.
!!!This is a surprise, Mosher has said in the past that the continuance of the pause would cause him to drop his sensitivity range. Fact.
* 6. No difference that would suddenly make the sun the cause of all change.
Suddenly the sun , 99.9% of all forcing, is relegated to the basement.
Sadly your argument is all semantic about the use of the word “all”. As Judith could tell you there is a world of difference between “all”, mostly , some and nothing.
7. no difference that would change a climate reconstruction
Get real, of course the widening discrepancy yells out that climate reconstruction, as it is, needs changing.
* 8. no difference that would magically make GCMs fit observations better.
If they do not fit , they do not fit.
* 9. no difference that would suddenly make mann right about the MWP.
R. Gates: https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Rothe_QSR_2014.pdf
Thank you for the link.
I read the Marotzke/Forster Nature paper with great interest myself and came away thinking “huh?”.
See my comment below. Huh for sure.
The Bob Ward article struck me as the kind of empty contentless clanging typical of the alarmist side. If the science can be deconstructed by the ~cue ominous music~ notorious conservatives in pay of big oil, it wasn’t exactly built on a good foundation in the first place.
==> “Students’ unions are not just a pc-gone-mad sideshow but a prism through which you can see Western civilisation doing away with itself.”
Uh-oh.
The “denizens” are going to be climbing over each other to be the first to denounce this “alarmism,” to complain about the chicken-littles, to point out that this suicidal Western civilization is saving exponentially more children in Africa from starving…
Or maybe they’re too busy with their moans of horror because of the massive impact from the politically incorrect use of the term “denier?”
It is actually getting very bad in Britain.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/07/censorship-campus-no-way-fight-fanatics
Judith Curry, the questions raised by this week’s Week in Review comment “New paper finds an Arctic glacier is much larger today than during most of the Holocene” are thoroughly answered by an even NEWER and more nearly GLOBAL study!
Conclusion The history of glacier advance and retreat, considered globally over millennial time-scales, comprises a strong body of scientific evidence that further justifies political leaders, military leaders, and religious leaders in advocating strong measures to mitigate climate-change.
http://pewsitter.com/application/img/uploads/francis_climate_two.jpg
Good on `yah, Pope Francis, for fearlessly showing the world outstanding science-respecting leadership … even though you (and climate-scientists too) will endure plenty of narrow-minded abuse and ridicule for doing so!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/universities-and-colleges/11387191/The-suppression-of-free-speech-on-university-campuses-is-reaching-epidemic-levels.html
This bad news, but not really news – it has been going on for decades now. The universities are not encouraging a universe of conflicting ideas and lively debate, they have become enforcers of new cultural norms. For a long time the sciences were on the sidelines of this one-sided game, a cultural landslide. With climate science, it appears the universities are “all in”.
Just in case there is someone on this blog that hasn’t seen this yet, here’s an analysis for the National Association of Scholars on the impact of political activism on the competence of the University of California.
http://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf
invisibleserfscollar.com
The Early Bird has found the Worm.
===========
==> “This bad news, but not really news – it has been going on for decades now. The universities are not encouraging a universe of conflicting ideas and lively debate, they have become enforcers of new cultural norms.
Indeed. I hope that if your bunker isn’t finished, at least you’re making good progress.
I mean just look at the devastating impact from the university-led conspiracy to stomp out debate, enforce cultural norms, and stifle free speech.
I know that you can only get away with expressing your views by encrypting blog comments and using elaborate identity-concealing software, and I feel for you.
Even that doesn’t work, Joshua.
================
Joshua
Did you read the NAS paper? Did you read the telegraph article? Have you experienced, read about, or even been a perpetrator (likely) of campus speech enforcement? So, who is in the bunker? I think you are projecting. Get some help, it is never too late.
Joshua, you wrote:
“I know that you can only get away with expressing your views by encrypting blog comments and using elaborate identity-concealing software, and I feel for you.”
If you think you know the unknowable, you are deluded. Get help.
I think that “campus speech enforcement” refers to come pretty complex issues, that are easily polemized by those who want to see themselves as victims, and easily magnified as having a far more magnified impact than they do in reality.
But maybe I’m wrong – so why don’t you show me the evidence you use to conclude some reduced presence of lively debate; that is, if you aren’t too busy hand-wringing and pearl-clutching from a fainting couch about the politically incorrect use of the term “denier?”
LoL … JustinWonder, when it comes to Nobelists and Fields Medalists (etc.), the ratio of National Academy of Science members to National Academy of Scholars members exceeds even the celebrated 97-to-3 ratio of climate-science … doesn’t it?
Climate Etc readers who seed to appreciate the real origins of declining scholarship should consult, not the National Academy of Scholars, but rather PhD Comics!
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd091514s.gif
Question Why is the National Academy of Scholars so lamentably disadvantaged in respect to verifiable scholarly achievements?
The world wonders!
Further background regarding the lesser of the two organizations known as “NAS”:
Conclusion The charter, board, and funding of the National Association of Scholars provide scant grounds to expect that its white papers reflect the views and traditions of any broad community of scholars.
*THAT* reality is evident to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
The cartoon is wrong; NIH is current funding about 12% of grant applications, but less than 10% of cancer research grants that are funded are attempting to generate therapeutics or treatment. Many at NIH believe that funding for therapies should not occur at all, via the NIH. NIH fund the study of, and no cure of, cancer.
Declining scholarship, declining leadership – Naomi Klein
admits that her Marshal Plan fer the Earth would cost
lots, hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars, but
not ter worry,
need some money?
Print some.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388535/crumbling-climate-change-consensus-john-fund
… and the funding odds are far worse for researchers under thirty-six years of age.
http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/age-of-R01-investigators.png
Young researchers appreciate this grim reality, needless to say!
http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd050508s.gif
Conclusion As more-and-more academic medical centers evolve into low-cost service providers to faux-efficient health-care markets, the real-world consequences are becoming more-and-more distressing for patients, families, physicians, and medical researchers.
*EVERYONE* at the NIH understands *THAT* sobering reality, eh DocMartyn?
Fact Check Per the CIA Factbook, the per-capita US healthcare cost (as a percentage of GDP) is higher than any nation having universal healthcare, while the US healthcare outcome (as assessed by infant mortality for example) are worse than any nation having universal healthcare.
Why is this? The world wonders!
“US healthcare outcome (as assessed by infant mortality for example) are worse than any nation having universal healthcare.
Why is this? The world wonders!”
Er, because different nations use different metrics to defined infant mortality, with the US using one of the most robust definitions.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AHYrJeKjfKw/VDTOwix-mDI/AAAAAAAA6HY/SCdQIzk-u24/s1600/health-infant-mortality-rate-per-1000-live-births-oecd-2011.png
In health-care as in climate-science, scientific data trumps ideological prejudice and quibbling, eh Climate Etc readers?
Confessions of a congressman
9 secrets from the inside
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/5/7978823/congress-secrets
What if we somehow traded a carbon tax for taxpayer funded elections?
Currently, the only way to begin to fix this mess is essentially dead.
Lewis’ takedown of the fatally flawed Marotzke paper is a big deal for two reasons. First, it exposes yet another failed effort to salvage climate models from falsification by “the pause”.
Second, it exposes shoddy ‘pal’ review and editorial confirmation bias at Nature. That is, I think, much more important because it lays bare the corruption of ‘hallowed’ scientific processes and institutions by climate ‘science’. To wit:
Both the abstract and the main conclusion contain a glaring illogic. Lewis explained how and why this came about. But the fundamental issue is the illogic itself: Marotzke purported to show that (his definition) the two most important emergent structural properties of CMIP5 models, alpha and kappa, do not statstically impact model multidecadal modelled temperature outputs! Alpha is climate feedback (~1/ECS). Kappa is ocean heat uptake (heat not available for GSMT). That is an absurd conclusion on its face. Screaming siren, flashing red light absurd. A clear indicator that something was deeply flawed in the methodology producing such an absurdity. And neither the reviewers nor the editors caught it in their eagerness ro salvage CMIP5 from falsification by now 18+ years of predicted/observed temperature divergence.
Binary thinking never goes out of style, does it?
Do two.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/06/maher-gmo-and-vax-skepticism-are-ok-but-not-climate-change-skepticism/
I thought you should find out about it first.
Is that what they think?
I find it very interesting that progressives don’t believe science when it declares something safe (vaccines, cell phones, power lines, GMOs), while conservatives don’t believe science when it declares something dangerous (tobacco, GHGs). Scientists get in trouble from both wings depending on their results.
Personally, I don’t ever “believe science ”. I do recognize that when nothing’s gone wrong “science ” has a good chance of being right. But the flip side is Kuhnian Revolutions. And things do tend to go wrong when politics gets too involved. One way or another.
It also is another nail in the coffin of science. Will they every learn about or understand the value of credibility?
You are saying that Bill Maher, is the scientist now?
Do you believe Marotzke is Bill Maher?
You know Joshua. You tell me.
???
Social justice warriors believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor speech and promote fringe lifestyles while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the internet activist arm of Western progressivism that acts as a vigilante group to ensure compliance and homogeny of far left thought.
The true definition of SJW is up for debate, but most generally it has become a catch-all term that describes feminists and liberals who actively try to solve the perceived social injustices of modern society by organizing in online communities to disseminate propaganda, censor speech, and punish individuals by getting them terminated from their employment. They have also been successful at positioning themselves in the upper echelons of universities, media organizations, and tech companies.
http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-a-social-justice-warrior-sjw
Hmm … I think I should have looked into this web site before posting. I was just trying to find the definition of “social justice warrior.”
Compare the lilt of he who hasn’t enough with the guilt of he who thinks he has too much.
I’m sorry, this is a bird of prey against a precious cockatoo.
===========
Wait. This can’t be, right?
Must be some mistake:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/us-electricity-demand-flat-since-2007
Just guessin’ that energy intensive products are now made in China. Emissions aren’t down, we just moved them half-way around the globe, and at latest report, the stuff is not getting back here by clipper ship.
Sure – Good points.
We should be careful about equating total global emissions with electricity demand in the U.S.
But there is something interesting about the implications of the data presented to the simplistic argument I often see that access to energy = economic growth = fewer starving children.
Life is more complicated than the visions in the heads of climate change policy advocates – no matter their stripe.
Gee, Joshua, you think there might be some form of nonlinear relationship between low cost energy and economic wealth? Or are you implying that African nations will be able to pull themselves out of poverty without low cost energy?
scott –
==> “Or are you implying that African nations will be able to pull themselves out of poverty without low cost energy?”
I’m arguing against simplistically equating advocacy for renewables (or ACO2 mitigation, or reducing particulate matter emissions, or less enriching of civil-rights depriving autocrats) with more starving children in Africa.
Joshua
“The U.S. economy has grown 8 percent since 2007, but the annualized electricity demand growth has been zero over that same period. That’s the first time in recent memory that U.S. energy use remained flat over multiyear span during which the economy expanded.”
An 8% growth over 8 yrs; 1%/yr. Close enough to zero to cause flat energy use!
Bloomberg is showing its ignorance.
Richard
rls –
==> “An 8% growth over 8 yrs; 1%/yr. Close enough to zero to cause flat energy use!”
Dude, are you serious?
An 8% GDP growth along with no electricity demand growth is what it is.
Joshua
An economy that is growing at 1% per year is an economy in the doldrums. It is an economy in which people and businesses are struggling and unemployment is increasing and/or people are leaving the work force. It should be no surprise that electricity demand was flat. The person at Bloomberg who wrote that is clueless. This is basic stuff, ask any economist.
Richard
rls –
==> ” It should be no surprise that electricity demand was flat.”
This isn’t that complicated. The rate of growth per year (and growth in electricity demand) isn’t the issue except in absolute terms. Over the time period, the economy grew and electricity demand didn’t – suggesting a decoupling.
No economist need be consulted. Really.
Or, until recently the economy didn’t realy grow. It’s primarily financials, really inflation that isn’t considered inflation.
Surprise at this demonstrates simplistic preconceptions regarding the linkage between value and energy. Books, movies, computer games, etc. offer substantial value without the need for additional energy expenditure.
With the advent of 3-D printing, and custom clothing manufacture, I would expect the trend to grow mightily: huge values in portfolios of design patents for items that can be created on demand only when needed via 3-D printing, and other 1-off custom manufacturing methods. At the same time, the energy spent in mass-manufacturing for the sake of anticipated demand, and storing and transporting all those mass-manufactured goodies, will be reduced.
A decade from now, it’s quite possible every modern home will have a 3-D printer in the living room, just as it has a washing machine in the
laundry roomwherever and a fridge in the kitchen.And there’s still plenty of energy usage to be soaked out of today’s air-conditioning. Especially controlling humidity independently of temperature, and heat exchange systems for exchanging outside and inside air. Warm and dry is really more comfortable than cool and damp, and can be achieved with less energy.
I have a naive (mis)understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, but wouldn’t creating more order require creating even more entropy in the form of waste heat, and thus co2?
“[N]aive (mis)understanding of the second law of thermodynamics” indeed.
AK,
I was looking for clarification, perhaps redirection …suggestions?
OK, let me start by pointing out that the “order” involved in changing human conditions is completely different than the “order” involved in 2nd law calculations.
Thus, using a 3-D printer to create needed/desired objects has no natural comparison in energy consumption with factory production. It depends on details either way. But eliminating the overproduction on speculation, and shipping, warehousing, and trash-removal of unsold goodies would be an energy savings.
WRT the GDP, or money supply, or however you want to measure a polity’s net “wealth”, increasing the amount of “wealth” bound up in highly valued intellectual property (IP) can produce huge increases in GDP (or whatever) with little corresponding use of energy.
“Growth” depends on perception, and an increase in the number of computer games you can choose to play, or the number of designs you can choose from when creating you new furniture, clothes, and other toys could very well lead to a perceived growth in wealth without any increase in energy usage.
And “wealth” is (almost) nothing but perception anyway.
I was talking about order in the sense of moving molecules around or flipping bits in a computer. To do that, you need power, there is no free lunch. So, to create that order, entropy must increase. Is that statement true?
With respect to economic activity, or any activity, we have a tendency to do more, as much as we can, as power becomes cheaper. If gasoline is cheaper we drive more, up to some limit perhaps. If electric power is cheaper, we deploy more devices to save labor, buy more time to do other things, or entertain ourselves. We consume even more power. Is that true, in your opinion?
True, but irrelevant. The actual amounts of energy really needed are several orders of magnitude smaller than what current technology uses. And there’s on-going improvement:
[…]
Yes, with caveats. Up to a point. Why drive to the store if you can order it over the internet and get it delivered? A “smart” appliance doesn’t have to use any more energy than a “dumb” one. Computer games or other entertainments are valuable due to the sophistication of their creation, not the amount of energy they use. It seem likely to me that net personal energy usage will level off at some point, as increasing wealth becomes dependent on other things than energy usage.
As for production, and other “societal level” per capita energy usage, I would expect a similar leveling off, as improvements concentrate on “smarter” production facilities, rather than higher energy usage. Not that I think there’s any reason it should level off. There’s plenty of energy falling on every square kilometer of land and ocean. We just need the technology to grab a few buckets of it. But it will, IMO, because with smarter production it simply won’t be needed to provide what people want.
I don’t think 3-D printers are going to be more efficient than mass production. What they offer is customization. They are the mass production of customization. I don’t think 3-D printers will be built with 3-D printers.
There are several trade-offs here. When the ability to specify the desired product adds to its value, and a number of possible specifications are possible, at some point the added costs of manufacturing the various combinations of specifications, warehousing and shipping the result, and handling the discarding of unwanted product will make such mass-produced products non-competitive with one-off customization. Depending on the product, of course.
And depending on the 3-D printer. Current 3-D printers, AFAIK, offer only a single type of material (sometimes in several colors). But for use creating more than tiny toys, they will probably have to use multiple nozzles with different types of material: high-tensile-strengh load-bearing material, mechanical filler with good compressive strength, light filler (perhaps foamed) with good vibration damping ability, wear-resistant surface material, etc.
This is obviously for the future. But once there, a customer could specify customized furniture, utensils, etc. and have them made one-off without the need for mass manufacturing of alternative options.
Another trade-off involves the number of parts. For instance, in creating the main body of an automobile, thousands of parts have to be specified, and assembled, into a final result that could probably be created in a single pass by the right type of 3-D printer. Many of those parts would require targeted production runs, although the majority could probably be selected from standard designs (e.g. screws, nuts, bolts). Then there’s the cost of assembly, transport and warehousing of parts and finished products, etc.
Note, also, that it’s not a binary decision. Mass-produced parts could be included in a general structure built using 3-D printing. Thus, for instance, a generalized structural frame could be cast, specific manufactured parts assembled and held in place, and the whole thing put together using 3-D printing.
From the article:
…
The Shanghai-based construction firm WinSun Decoration Design Engineering has unveiled a five-story apartment building made entirely with a giant 3D printer, and is calling it “the world’s tallest 3D-printed building.” With a terra cotta brick-like exterior, the building is on display at the Suzhou Industrial Park, along with a 1,100-square-meter (11,840-square-foot) 3D-printed neoclassical mansion.
The buildings were made with a patented “ink” created from a mixture of recycled construction waste, coursed through a 150-meter long printer. This is the same technology that the company demonstrated last year when it printed 10 affordable single-story houses in 24 hours, a feat that captured the imagination of architects, humanitarian aid agencies, and governments looking for alternative housing solutions.
…
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/01/china-built-giant-apartment-with-3d-printer/384948/
Here is a printer used to create molds in which metal can be cast:
http://www.3ders.org/articles/20140911-lamp-3d-printers-to-transform-manufacture-of-complex-metal-parts.html
3-D printing chocolate.
http://www.3ders.org/images2014/dutch-supermarket-albert-heijn-debutes-chocolate-printer-2.jpg
Energy efficiency doesn’t decrease energy used.
Ha
I heard that on npr
Is it true or false? Just curious…
Both true and false. And likely true that he heard it there, oh where, oh where.
===============
Danny –
Just saying that cost to consumers (in the sense of amount paid by end user for electricity demand) is more meaningful in the real world than price – of course, with considering whether there is some contemporaneous change in standard of living.
You said “cost” and the chart said “price.”
Primarily, my interest is with respect to the oft’ heard, absurdly simplistic argument, that necessarily points to cheap energy (without consideration of the ratio of positive to negative externalities) as a single factor in reducing starvation of poor children in Africa (without considering myriad other variables).
I kinda think that exploiting starving poor children in Africa is not the best road towards reasonable discussion about energy policy.
Joshua,
You are correct. I miswrote and should have said price.
To your “Africa” point. The price of US electricity has no bearing on the price or cost of same in Africa. My concern is the price of US electricity and the cost to US consumers. And, that has risen by 20% since 2007, and done so while natural gas has dropped in price. So for now, and I understand your larger point, lets focus here.
May I post pertainent questions to you? Why has the price gone up since 2007? Who does that price increase affect? And who does that price affect the hardest?
Danny –
Good questions, one and all. I don’t know the answers. Do you?
Again, I think that it is important to deepen the discussion w/r/t what you describe as “price” having gone up – as price and cost to end users is not necessarily the same. For example, if you compare price in Germany to what people pay in other countries where the cost is less, you find that the relationship between price and what people pay (cost) is somewhat complicated. What is more relevant, IMO, is what people are paying and whether there is some kind of related sacrifice taking place. Consideration of energy assistance for poor people is one important consideration that, IMO, should be a part of the accounting related to your question. Also, we’d have to consider weather as a factor.
I don’t have answers. I would be interested in finding them out.
Joshua,
I know part of it. Part of it is shuttering coal plants caused prices to go up, and the hardest (most negative) impacts are on the poor (and taxpayers subsidies) and fixed income.
Price/cost. The chart indicated “retail price in the U.S.” as an average. The IEEE was in averages also. Different consumers pay different rates. Industrial power is at a “wholesale” level, but they also consume more in volume. I think it’s safe to say those costs in commercial applications are passed on to the consumer, and in residential the individual users pay. Either that, or businesses absorb some. Either way there is a downstream economic impact. It’s an assumption, but I think you’d agree. I don’t have a complete breakdown for you right now, but you can research as easily as I and I must go to bed as I work tomorrow. Certainly weather and individual end user costs need to be considered, but subsides come from the general economy in some fashion either via taxes or the dollars being passed along. There’s no free lunch. If you need more from me, I’ll try to do some tomorrow as there are good questions to be addressed. One regarding weather is is more energy required to heat vs. air conditioning as that applies to warmer climate.
Heh. Sorry ….”…to other countries where
costprice is less…It’s easy to do!
its clear.
just use the pre cautionary principle WRT to increasing energy prices for poor people.
Declining emission rates for all the developed nations and soon for China, and for the world in 15 years.
Better start thinking about what the next panic will be because this one’s dying before your eyes.
Go with The Rock, Joshua!
Joshua,
Increased cost of electricity in the U.S. plus greener building codes? (URL included in case image is a no show).
http://media.gotraffic.net/images/i_LWbkjXr79E/v19/-1x-1.jpg
Danny –
Perhaps more useful would be info on trends in real dollars in amount people are spending on electricity…and hopefully, how that breaks down demographically.
Joshua,
Not sure what you mean by “real dollars” (inflations has been lower, but still there in the same time period). But the IEEE wasn’t broken down by demographics just US averages so I just put out the averge US retail price of electricity. Happend to find it as an overlay of reduced natural gas as an added tidbit that I thought you’d find of interest.
The 2nd part of my comment was in part based on this from IEEE:”Although the trend has been going on for nearly a decade, the slowdown or rollback of energy efficiency policies, especially at the state government level, could mean the flat line representing electricity use will start to creep back up in the coming years.
Commercial facilities have led the move towards efficiency. Many cities and states have started establishing policies for commercial building energy benchmarking, a requirement that has been in place in many European cities for years. Building codes are also being updated; 10 states adopted more stringent building codes in 2014.
Efficiency measures in public buildings, including federal facilities, have also become considerably more commonplace in recent years. Many of the states and cities that require energy benchmarking are leading by example and benchmarking their own building stocks, while also looking at the reduction of energy expenditures as a way to cut costs. In 2013, the U.S. government’s energy consumption was at the lowest level it had been since 1975, when record keeping began.
In homes, appliances and consumer electronics are becoming increasingly energy efficient. Those gains, however, are largely offset by the fact that there are more devices overall. Instead of home energy use being substantially lower, it is just stagnant.”
oops:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/07/week-in-review-42/#comment-672266
And btw – FYI – and to avoid previous misunderstandings, I am not characterizing your arguments.
Hard to decide who is more ignorant here, Joshua or Bloomberg News. Let’s call it a toss-up.
Joshua
Don’t know about you, but if my salary increased by 1% per year for eight years, it would not cause me to be optimistic, my energy use would not increase.. If my business grew by 1% per year it would not allow me to expand and increase my energy use. This is too simple: 8% over 8 years is not a growth economy. Every beginning economics class teaches the time value of money/wealth. Of course it will not mean a bricks difference to me or the world if you and Bloomberg stay stuck in stupid; ‘cept Bloomberg may lose readers.
Cheers,
Richard
rls –
==> “Don’t know about you, but if my salary increased by 1% per year for eight years, it would not cause me to be optimistic, my energy use would not increase..”
But we’re talking about GDP growth versus energy demand growth. Your optimism w/r/t your salary growth isn’t really relevant.
==> “If my business grew by 1% per year it would not allow me to expand and increase my energy use.”
Also, not really relevant.
The economy grew over this period by 8%. All other things equal, if GDP growth and electricity demand are “coupled,” then we would expect increased electricity demand. Economic growth = growth in electricity usage.
Maybe all things aren’t equal. Or maybe GDP growth is not as “coupled” as we often see is asserted.
==> “Every beginning economics class teaches the time value of money/wealth.”
Do you really think that the people who wrote the source material quoted don’t understand basic economics?
==> “Of course it will not mean a bricks difference to me or the world if you and Bloomberg stay stuck in stupid; ‘cept Bloomberg may lose readers.”
Good point. Calling people stupid because they disagree with you is a compelling argument.
Joshua
Saying “stuck in stupid” is not equivalent to “you are stupid”. If stuck, there is a way out. In many cases it only requires logic.
It appears that the 8% came from the Obama administration. It is propaganda, a misleading number trying to hide an abysmal economic record. There is no direct link between US GDP and electricity demand and there should be no surprise that electricity demand remains flat during mediocre economic growth.
Your link appears to be an activists organization merely doing what such organizations do. Touting its accomplishments at the expense of truth.
Keep warm,
Richard
==> ” There is no direct link between US GDP and electricity demand
Your completely confident argument is interesting, given the economic arguments I often see from “skeptics” about how ACO2 mitigation will reduce GDP growth and cause children to starve in Africa.
So help me to reconcile your argument with the ones I see so often here at Climate Etc…
So does the lack of direct link that you assert in the US apply to all countries? If not, what are the inclusion/exclusion criteria that you use as the basis for determining where there is/isn’t a direct link between GDP growth and electricity demand?
Yeah. Keeping warm’s going to be an issue. Looks like we’re about to be buried with another 1’+ of snow, and temps down to -9 on Friday (with a high in the single digits).
Too bad I’m not a “skeptic” – when I might be tempted to see an upside to this kind of weather.
Joshua
I have no theory regarding a direct link. It’s in the data:
GDP growth 1985 4.2% 1995 2.7%. 2005 3.4%
Pleased show that electricity use decreased between 1985 and 1995, and then increased between 1995 and 2005.
Being a skeptic probably makes life more livable, accepting things as they are. Snow and cold can be fun, as can sun, beach, and water. My dogs love rompin in the snow, the husky bouncing in it like Tigre. Going to Charleston (Seabrook Island on the beach) in April with all the kids and grand kids.
Have a great new week,
Richard
Tigger, A..A.Milne and ‘ the more it snows…’
Hi Beth. Thanks:)
rls –
==> GDP growth 1985 4.2% 1995 2.7%. 2005 3.4%…Pleased show that electricity use decreased between 1985 and 1995, and then increased between 1995 and 2005.”
???
There was economic growth in each of those years. Thus, one would expect an increase in economic activity in each of those years. Thus, one would expect increased energy demand in each of those years. Based on your stats, assuming a coupling of GDP growth and electricity demand, what we would expect to see are changes in the rate of increase in electricity demand, not absolute decreases in electricity use.
So, again, I often read “skeptics” talking about how electricity demand and economic growth are coupled. Maybe that’s true. I don’t know. But if it’s true, then what explains a flat trend in electricity demand that was contemporaneous with economic growth? Danny has some theories, although them seem rather vague and not terribly well-supported, IMO.
Yeah. My dog loves it too. Pitt bull. Sweetest dog in the world. I take her when I go snowshoeing for a couple of hours on on the property adjoining mine. She likes to bound around, but when it gets real deep she’s figured out how to let me break trail. :-)
Joshua,
Please let me clarify. I used the term “direct link” to mean a calculable link, that an 8% increase over 7 years cannot be used to calculated an expected growth in electricity consumption; that level of economic growth is anemic and cannot logically warrant electricity growth. The organization that wrote the piece was claiming that their efforts were responsible for a lower than expected demand (that the demand should have been higher because of the 8% GDP growth). Here’s a perspective on the 8% growth from 2007 to 2014:
GDP 2000-2007. 12.2 %
GDP 1993-2000. 31.4%
GDP.1986-1993. 22.0%
Richard
rls –
IMO – you keep bringing in irrelevant factors. No one is arguing that the recent years were a time of strong economic growth relative to other periods of economic growth.
And your last comment asking me for evidence of decreased electricity demand during times of economic growth kinds of takes the cake.
Looks like we aren’t going to come to any agreement here.
Have a good night.
Not that surprising. Industrial demand has been slow to come back. Economies always use energy more efficiently as they mature (BTUs/GDP). To say that energy use rose 1% per year from 2007 to 2014 is to ignore nearly everything that mattered in the data. The classic linearization of a non-linear relationship.
IMO the relatively flat growth is in no small part due to the increased penetration of LED lighting. Also see Jevon’s paradox….not much of a paradox at all IMO.
These freewheeling week in review and open thread forums are joshie’s meat. They don’t tax his non-existent science-fu and they give him the latitude to get just as silly as he can. Happy trolling, joshie.
Hi Don. How ya’ doing?
Well, I am rich, tall, handsome, charming, witty, got a beautiful young Jewish-Jamaican wife, big strong son and my few mild personality disorders only make me more interesting. So I am doing well. How about you, joshie?
Jamaican wife?, man you must have a tight leash :)
She never lived in Jamaica. Her grandpa was the Jamaican Consul in Costa Rica. He married a Costa Rican of Jamaican-Indian from India-Jewish-Scottish descent. My wife’s dark father was working on Phd in physics at UConn, where he met the mom, studying Eng Lit, who is a blue-eyed blonde Cohen-McCord, from Rio. Jewish side emigrated to Brasil from Europe, the McCord in the woodpile was a Confederate officer who emigrated to Brasil, post Civil War. Google Confederado.
We were in Brasil for my brother in law’s wedding, when my son was 3. His dark grandpa took the blue eyed blonde monster for a ride in his stroller and the kid started hollering for help. Grandpa fearing a lynching from onlookers thinking a kidnapping was in progress ran home as fast as a physicist can run pushing a stroller. Interesting in-laws, but good people.
Wow Don, I bet your wife is a beauty, and your son too! Have you read Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers”? He is the son of a Jamaican woman and English mathematician. I married a Brazilian woman of African and Native-American descent and my kids are pretty handsome too, but I am biased. :)
Brazilian women are da bomb, Justin. I used to make sure I had some business to do often down there, before I got married. I can’t go there now without a chaperone.
One fella tells the another that his wife is going to the Caribbean. Other fella says ‘Jamaica?’. First fella says ‘No, she’s going of her own free will’.
===============
If judith tries to build a bridge, you have to expect some trolls will find a home under it.
Interesting:
and
Naw, just a trial. Begum, begorrah, but not the agora.
============
Nice one, Steven. Yeah, we call it Cardboard City down there.
ya joshua you have to own it.
there is nothing wrong with being a troll, nothing inherently wrong with it.
People having a conversation get to decide that you are disrupting that conversation. You don’t get a vote. They get to decide. and they do.
That’s just the facts. There are times where your disruptive behavior appears to serve a good purpose. There are times where it appears to be more personally driven. That’s a much harder question to answer, far more subjective than the simple determination that you are disruptive.
Own the fact that you like to operate by disrupting conversations. That’s ok. Sometimes people’s conversations are boring and need disruption.
Sometimes its just fun. If you’ve ever taught you know that kid in class who is disrupting the class to be a clown or star, versus the one who is disrupting things because he wants to learn more.. although sometimes its hard to tell.
You can also try Not disrupting conversations. just for grins.
steven –
==> “ya joshua you have to own it.”
Already answered that on the other blog. Did you duck?
Not interested in discussing it further here, as I’d hate to be “off-topic.” It’s on topic there, and I’d be happy to respond there, if you care to deal with my response (and not duck?)
I will add this, however…
OMG – The T-word?
The horror. This is just like calling someone a “denier.”
Trolls eat children.
By calling me a troll, mosher is exploiting the eating of children.
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!1!!!!1
Does anyone have any extra pearls and hopefully a spare fainting couch?
http://vadeker.net/articles/cyberculture/dont_feed_the_troll.jpg
I don’t expect congratulations for pointing out the obvious, but thanks for the recognition.
Also, the earth goes around the sun.
sorry joshua.. it’s hard to feed a troll at so many blogs.
trolling trolls is fun.. that is the beautiful thing about trolling.
So I get that you dont want to own it here. that’s ok.
trolls eat goats.
trolls eat kids so mosh and joshua are both correct
tonyb
Trolls, being narcissistic and sadistic, feel that they are ok. It’s no problem for them. They derive pleasure by provoking others and enjoy watching them suffer. They are masters at baiting.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists
Don, is that Jamaica as in th Caribean or Jamaica as in Queens?
I am in Austin Texas visiting kids and grandkis. Austin is as Green and Progressive as it gets in Texas, but not really. You gotta see this place to believe it.
I also have an ex Costa Rican daughter inlaw and a Scottish Jewish friend.
I am also tall and my,holocaust surfing spouse, seems to think I am handsome in my own Semitic manner?
Who knew we had so much in common?
Surfing was supposed to be surviving!
Bob Marley’s Jamaica, Mark. My wife was born in Conn. and grew up mostly in Brasil and Costa Rica. She returned to U.S for good, when she started university.
I been to Austin. Almost moved there to avoid California taxes. But after I stayed there a couple of days to get the lay of the land, I realized that I had gotten the lay of the land in about 36 hours. There are good reasons why people pay the big bucks and put up with all sorts of foolishness from the locals to live in California.
I am happy to have much in common with you, Mark.
I have some issues with the 97% column. First, the 97% figure came from a deeply flawed junk paper. Second, it is being used to claim the ‘science is settled’ just when a number of things like the pause are showing it to be deeply unsettled. Third, analogies to Galileo and Darwin aren’t apt; their new insights made no claims requiring immediate, massive, and expensive public policy changes like the IPCC and UNFCC are calling for.
OTH, the appeals to authority (IPCC says) and the ad (Obama’s Flat Earther remark) don’t much help clarify matters.
Rud
Your mention of Darwin prompted me do some checking; how settled is the theory of evolution? Turns out that many scientists are not convinced.
http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
Richard
I agree with David Rose’s conclusion that the “political” debate has heated up recently. This week I found a cartoon that was clearly beyond the pale and probably the most offensive thing I’ve ever seen related to the debate.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2146274-155/bagley-cartoon-anti-scientists
We live in very interesting times–I hope that someone is keeping track of all this. :-)
That is due to the semantic confusion. Most skeptics are anti-science they are anti-stupidity
that should be aren’t anti-science of course
It’s good they can publish that cartoon. Let’s keep it that way.
Wow. That cartoon is… something.
Is the rise of radical Islamism in the world simply a reaction to the rise of lock-step consensus science and the merger of church and state in the west?
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/the-merging-of-church-and-state-continues/
Oliver K. Manuel
That huffpo article on the vicious climate skeptics is one of the most fair, balanced, and objective articles I’ve ever read.
There has been a short squeeze this past week, but the year out contango is still $9, putting downward pressure on prices. The downward trend should continue, barring any unexpected events.
11/27. 10:42 ET.
OIL________68.92___-4.77
BRENT______72.49___-0.09
NAT GAS_____4.22___-0.1357
RBOB GAS____1.91
12/30 10:37 PM ET
OIL__________53.84
BRENT_______57.54
NAT GAS______3.099
RBOB GAS____1.4495
1/16/15
OIL_______48.69
BRENT_____49.90
NAT GAS____3.127
RBOB GAS___1.3588
1/23/15
OIL_______45.59
BRENT_____48.55
NAT GAS___2.986
RBOB GAS__1.3479
1/30/15
OIL_______45.68
BRENT_____50.11
NAT GAS____2.684
RBOB GAS___1.3641
2/6/15
OIL_______51.69
BRENT_____58.16
NAT GAS____2.579
RBOB GAS___1.559
Oil field job cuts, from the article:
…
Over 21,000 of those cuts were directly attributable to the recent decline in oil prices, the report said. There were 42% more layoffs in the energy industry in January than the sector cut in all of 2014 put together.
…
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/challenger-reports-63-rise-in-layoff-announcements-on-oil-price-collapse-2015-02-05
Meanwhile, crude inventories up about 7% from last year. This inventory overhang will likely continue to build and will exert a downward pressure on prices as it is worked off – whenever that might be.
https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2015/01/US-Crude-Inventories-2015-01-08.png
http://marketrealist.com/2015/01/energy-investors-closely-monitor-eia-crude-inventory-report/
From the article:
…
Production in Texas rose to 2.3 million barrels a day in November, according to preliminary figures from the Texas Railroad Commission. Adam Sieminski, director of the federal Energy Information Administration, recently said he expects the coming year to see “new drilling in the major shale areas in North Dakota and Texas, which account for most of the growth in U.S. production.”
…
So how is it possible that U.S. oil production is still rising as companies slash their budgets, announce huge layoffs and decommission rigs?
“The reason is well productivity. We are getting a lot more out of the wells that are being drilled than we were before,” said Rusty Braziel, president of the oil industry research firm RBN Energy.
In the Eagle Ford shale of South Texas, it took 22 days to drill a well four years ago, Braziel said. Now it can be done in less than nine days.
That means a single rig that could drill 16 wells a year in 2011 can now drill 41 of them.
“And the initial production rates out of those wells have increased from 533 barrels a day up to 767 barrels a day,” Braziel said.
A major reason for that, he said, is that horizontal wells can now stretch much farther than they used to. The drill bit, once it is deep underground, is moved sideways thousands of feet. The longer it goes, the more oil-rich shale rock it touches.
…
Some wells, though, are profitable at prices as low as $30 a barrel, according to Moody’s Analytics, “so they will continue to be drilled and their production brought to market.” While producers cut back on marginal fields, they are still drilling their “sweet spots,” places guaranteed to get results.
Often companies already have made investments, and so they might as well move ahead. Some drillers have expensive leases they’ll lose if they don’t drill.
…
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/02/05/255664/oil-layoffs-abound-but-were-pumping.html
So, Greenpeace and Exxon seem to agree that CO2 emissions are peaking soon:
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/exxonmobil2012energyoutlookdcfr-120523113128-phpapp02/95/exxon-mobil-2012-energy-outlook-19-728.jpg
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2014/12/17/china-coal-peak-iea-missed/
Forcing rates peaked 25 years ago and it appears that CO2 trends will continue the decline.
Human history is full of worry about the wrong things – CO2 has been no different.
And you believe that the slow down in emissions is not related to the global concern regarding climate change which began in the 90’s? And that that same concern won’t lead to further reductions in the future?
Of course not!
You didn’t buy an iPhone because it was more energy efficient than an ancient PC from the 1980s – you bought an iPhone because it was cool and capable. Apple made it more energy efficient because users wanted longer usable battery life. Businesses didn’t switch to flourescent lighting in the 1990s, they switched to flourescent lighting in the 1950s because it was cheaper.
The “global concern regarding climate change” may have tipped a few delicate balances, though.
How do you know? What about the energy efficiency regulations in the US? What about the efforts by the EU to reduce emissions? You are telling me that those efforts accomplished nothing? And as I think has been pointed out earlier a lot the energy intensive manufacturing moved from the rest of the world to China. So considering that. I think I would say the globe excluding China only made modest gains controlling their emissions.
“And you believe that the slow down in emissions is not related to the global concern regarding climate change which began in the 90’s?”
What a nonsense!
First, there’s no slow down in CO2 emissions (yet). CO2 emissions rose 2.3 percent in 2013 and are on track to increase by another 2.5 percent in 2014. The growth in emissions is still exponential (approx. 2 – 3% growth rate). Even if the emissions plateau soon, they will do it at over ~40 GtCO2/year, possibly higher.
http://3x1qur3dtgnp3mn1dc2sgvwsksn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CO2-emissions-800.jpg
Second, the ‘global concern’ does nothing to reduce the emissions.
Europe and North America are flat and have been for a while now. The growth is mostly China.
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Regional-CO2-Emissions-1965-through-2013.png
Of course the growth is mostly China – the growth in energy consumption is in China. Europe and North America are flat because the energy consumption is flat (mainly).
https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/comparison-of-energy-consumption.png
Lucifer,
Next up! At what level do we halt the reduction in CO2? 350? 310? 280? Gotta hit that “optimum”. (Must have something in the que, eh?)
I just watched the trailer for Merchants of Doubt. Michael Shermer, please go to the counter and pick up your copy of To Serve Mann before boarding the Hockey Stick Express at Gate 3.
Steyn online regularly refers to Mann now as “Mr. Fraudpants.” So I don’t see it settling out of court, which is great. Think of the movie rights to the trial of Hockey Stick vs. Steyn.
We are slowly losing our individual freedoms to the government and corporations. This trend is accelerating due to technology. Once all of your “things” and your car are hooked up to the internet; the government, corporations, and hackers will control what you can do and what your stuff does.
I don’t agree with everything the EFF does, but I’m definitely behind them anyway.
From the article:
…
As the White House reacted to the drone crash with a call for more regulation, the manufacturer of the downed quadcopter announced it would push a firmware update to all its units in the field, permanently preventing those drones from taking off or flying within 25km of downtown Washington DC.
This announcement may have been an effort by the manufacturer DJI, whose Phantom model is one of the most popular consumer drone units, to avoid bad press and more regulation. But it also reinforced the notion that people who “own” these drones don’t really own anything at all. The manufacturer can add or remove features without their agreement, or even their knowledge.
In this case, there are reasons to restrict the airspace above Washington, DC, so DJI’s unilateral action may find support in community norms. But its action also underscores how your ownership of the stuff you buy is overridden by the manufacturer’s ability to update or change it—a phenomenon that is proliferating to anything with a networked computer. In 2015, that’s a huge portion of the things in your life.
…
One is a report in the New York Times last September, which documented the practice among lenders to install GPS trackers and “starter interrupt” devices to remotely locate and disable cars when, say, somebody falls behind on payments or drives outside of a certain area. The Times tells the story of a woman who couldn’t bring her daughter to the hospital because she was three days late with a payment, and another of a woman whose car was found and towed a day after she left the agreed-upon radius in order to flee an abusive boyfriend.
…
These examples are from companies changing the products they control because it’s in their self-interest to do so. But of course, the threat is not just from the manufacturer, but from anybody who can compel, coerce, or compromise its ability to issue those remote updates. These possibilities are not hypothetical. BMW announced just last week it would be fixing a vulnerability in its cars that would allow an attacker to hijack a remote unlock mechanism. And over a decade ago, the FBI attempted to take over OnStar voice-operated dashboard computers to snoop on drivers—a plan only foiled because it would have interfered with emergency operations of the devices. The government’s ability to use official update channels for their own ends too goes back years, as revealed by examinations of the Stuxnet malware.
…
Without those DRM laws, users could replace the firmware on their devices with new software that was trusted and auditable. But instead, the law casts a shadow of doubt on users that would modify that software, researchers that would examine it for security vulnerabilities, and companies that would create competitive alternatives. It’s a law that’s overflowed its banks, affecting technology that touches almost every aspect of our lives.
For evidence of that legal excess, look no further than the list of exemptions proposed in the DMCA’s currently ongoing triennial rulemaking process. From security researchers worried that the DMCA keeps them from uncovering life-threatening vulnerabilities, to the Software Freedom Conservancy’s request to access the operating system of so-called Smart TVs, to many, many others, it’s clear this law is no longer about “content,” but about control. Control that’s being denied to users.
(Yes, we’re requesting exemptions for people to be able to repair and conduct security research on cars. Sign our petition to support those requests.)
…
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/who-really-owns-your-drones
==> “We are slowly losing our individual freedoms to the government and corporations. This trend is accelerating due to technology. Once all of your “things” and your car are hooked up to the internet; the government, corporations, and hackers will control what you can do and what your stuff does.”
Another day, more “alarmism” from “skeptics” at Climate Etc.
In the Huff Post’s view sites like this are part of a “propaganda campaign on climate change denial.”
Yah. Alarmism is popular on both sides of many issues.
Actually we are losing individual freedoms to lawyers. We have a legal system based on an idea of a precedent – not a bad idea in itself, but the framework just keeps growing and all the procedural rules mean that in a lawsuit the better lawyer wins, regardless of merits of the case. Time to inject a little respect for merits.
R Graf – EFF works frequently with the ACLU. Don’t understand what Huffpo would get huffed about.
From the article:
…
Tucked into the privacy policy of the South Korean electronics behemoth’s Smart TV are a few paragraphs that may send chills down the spine of some consumers. According to the document, the unit’s voice recognition protocols can “capture voice commands and associated texts so that [Samsung] can provide you with Voice Recognition features and evaluate and improve the features.”
The boilerplate language—which granted few people read in its entirety—sounds fairly anodyne. That is, until the company adds this warning: “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition.”
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102407345
Be afraid, jim2
Be very, very afraid.
From the article:
…
Yesterday, Jim Clifton, the Chairman and CEO of Gallup, an iconic U.S. company dating back to 1935, told CNBC that he was worried he might “suddenly disappear” and not make it home that evening if he disputed the accuracy of what the U.S. government is reporting as unemployed Americans.
The CNBC interview came one day after Clifton had penned a gutsy opinion piece on Gallup’s web site, defiantly calling the government’s 5.6 percent unemployment figure “The Big Lie” in the article’s headline. His appearance on CNBC was apparently to walk back the “lie” part of the title and reframe the jobs data as just hopelessly deceptive.
Clifton stated the following on CNBC:
…
After getting that out of the way, Clifton went on to eviscerate the legitimacy of the cheerful spin given to the unemployment data, telling CNBC viewers that the percent of full time jobs in this country as a percent of the adult population “is the worst it’s been in 30 years.”
…
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/gallup-ceo-i-may-suddenly-disappear-for-telling-the-truth-about-obama-unemployment-rate-video/
From the article:
…
But there are problems. The enzymes needed to break down plants’ primary structural components—cellulose and hemicellulose—into simple sugars are expensive. To ferment the simple sugars, the microbes also need nitrogen to grow and divide. So researchers add fertilizer to their fermentation vats to boost the ethanol yields. It is estimated that an ethanol production plant may be spending more than $1 million on this a year.
The new study may offer a solution to this latter problem. Microbiologists at Indiana University, Bloomington, started with miscanthus, a type of tall, woody tropical grass that grows quickly in many places where food will not grow. But instead of using yeast to ferment their plants into fuel, they turned to Zymomonas mobilis, a bacterium also capable of doing the job. The bacteria need high levels of nitrogen to thrive, something miscanthus can’t offer.
So the researchers looked at the amount of ethanol that the microbe could produce with and without additional nitrogen fertilizer being supplied and found that it did better without it. This shows that the microbe has an unusual ability—it can use (or “fix”) nitrogen from the atmosphere.
…
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/02/fill-your-gas-tank-bamboo
Jim2
Interesting post. There is great potential to use bacteria and archea in many areas – it’s going to get interesting.
If only I could spell archaea … :)
Now here’s a man who knows how to deal with Muslim militants. We need to watch, learn, and do the same. From the article:
…
“He said there is going to be retribution like ISIS hasn’t seen,” said Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr., a Marine Corps veteran of two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, who was in the meeting with the king. “He mentioned ‘Unforgiven’ and he mentioned Clint Eastwood, and he actually quoted a part of the movie.”
Hunter would not say which part of “Unforgiven” the king quoted, but noted it was where Eastwood’s character describes how he is going to deliver his retribution. There is a scene in the picture in which Eastwood’s character, William Munny, says, “Any man I see out there, I’m gonna kill him. Any son of a bitch takes a shot at me, I’m not only going to kill him, I’m going to kill his wife and all his friends and burn his damn house down.”
…
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/after-isis-execution-angry-king-abdullah-quotes-clint-eastwood-to-u.s.-lawmakers/article/2559770
Huff Post’s promo article on new movie “Merchants of Doubt” equate climate change denial with smoking, both being examples where scientist’s warnings were hampered by influential corporate campaigns stifling action.
So if you’re a skeptic of harmful GCM predictions you are likely a smoker. They’re also pretty sure climate denial is related to a propensity toward alcoholism and STDs, (peer reviewed paper pending).
BTW, this site is a perfect example of deniers conspiring to propagate their doubt and smear good men like Professor Mann, who had to resort to use of civil action to protect his good name from smear-miester Mark Steyn. And, don’t write any mean letters to Prof. Mann or they might be read in the follow-up documentary, “Zombies of Merchants of Doubt.”
R Graf,
“Give that man/woman a cigar”! (Sorry, no, I’m really sorry. Just didn’t stop myself).
Speaking of which, Naomi just rear-ended a regression dilution and caused a fatality to her thesis.
=============
Fascist to the core?
I’m currently heavily supporting two campuses now and a third in two more years. I hope online universities are thriving in time for my grandchildren.
Yes, you nailed. Young people are passionate and their brains, and their empathy, are still developing. The professors and admins have no excuse.
Valuation of Distributed Solar: A Qualitative View [link] …
That is a good article, but their argument against net metering isn’t applicable everywhere. In my neighborhood, San Diego Gas and Electric bills me separately for actual electricity I consume and for maintenance of the line. If I had roof-mounted solar and exported electricity to my neighbors, that electricity would flow through their meters, and SDG&E could collect the full retail cost of the electricity without having produced any of it, while still billing me and them for the line maintenance. For this billing scheme, I think net metering for roof-mounted solar is fair, because my neighbors do not subsidize my backup from the grid.
The only part of this billing system that is like a market now is the bidding and buying of the electricity between electricity producers and SDG&E.
They’re beating a(n almost) dead horse. With battery storage for night, and a backup generator using gas from the line (with a backup butane tank system if appropriate), you could skip even the costs of connection to the grid. Costly of course, but value is relative. It would have a far lower carbon footprint, and be much more reliable. If that’s what you value.
AK: They’re beating a(n almost) dead horse.
Maybe. I use much less electricity than my neighbors. I would like to maintain my grid connection and recover part of the cost of the PV panels by selling my surplus into the grid. Without selling into the grid, I could never recover the cost of an independent system.
Do you suppose the current rate structure is helping you steal from your neighbors?
That’s my take on it.
AK: Do you suppose the current rate structure is helping you steal from your neighbors?
No. I may have given the impression that I have the PV panels installed, but I do not. If some of my neighbors do have roof-mounted PV panels, I may be getting electricity from them while paying SDG&E for it.
I should repeat for emphasis that we already are billed separately for the electricity we use, maintenance of the grid, and some other stuff.
But it’s not that simple. The utilities pay different amounts for power under different circumstances. AFAIK they charge at least some of their customers different amounts per KwH for power used at different times. But in most net-metering schemes, they’re required to pay the top rate for everything coming back from solar, at all times. This is fine in warm sunny areas when the penetration is low, everybody’s air conditioning tends to raise the demand at pretty much the times when rooftop-owning homeowners are trying to sell their excess. But with increasing penetration it becomes less fair, because the utilities are being required to buy, at top prices, energy they could be getting much cheaper from baseload installations elsewhere.
For the feed-in tariff scheme to be fair, the utilities should be paying the same rates to residential roof-top owners that they would otherwise be paying to more traditional sources at that time.
Even there (if I understand correctly), you have the problem that increasing penetration by roof-top solar with feed-in is increasing the variation of demand, which increases the net capital cost of the utility-level power supply, which has to be recovered by increasing the connection charge for everybody.
Mr Marler says:
I do hope that that you and all your PV-panel-power-feeding friends are also paying ALL the costs for the utilities’ extensive efforts to maintain grid stability which is needed because of your erratic supply. And that you guys are also paying ALL the costs for those powerplants that are idling during the day so they can ramp up at night or when a bunch of clouds spoil everything!
But somehow I doubt it. I will be billed for those costs as well I fear. Not really fair IMO…
AK: But in most net-metering schemes, they’re required to pay the top rate for everything coming back from solar, at all times.
I agree that net metering should be well thought out. We here are billed for electricity use depending on how much we use (that is, the rate per kwh is higher at higher usage levels) and the load on the system at the time of use (or at least, on time of day, based on the predicted loads at the times of the day.)
Meanwhile, without net metering SDG&E is paid for electricity that they have not provided.
John: I do hope that that you and all your PV-panel-power-feeding friends are also paying ALL the costs for the utilities’ extensive efforts to maintain grid stability which is needed because of your erratic supply.
I agree.
Let me repeat that I do not have solar. And let me repeat that without any net metering at all SDG&E receives payment for electricity that it has not generated. Where I live people turn on power-consuming appliances (hot tubs, electric cars, etc) erratically — grid stability is not more threatened by roof-mounted PV panels than it is by all that other erratic demand. One of the biggest daytime demands is air-conditioning, and PV electricity supply is approximately proportional to A/C demand. I am billed separately for line maintenance and for the electricity I actually consume; I do expect that the charge for the line maintenance covers the actual costs, and still would if I installed PV panels.
Hmm. I think this story ends up being about charges made by the utilities, for the utilities, and blaming solar homeowners… because they can.
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/why-are-we-blaming-solar-customers-instead-of-the-utilities/
Cui bono?
Cost of your grid connection is all fixed costs. If you are billed at a variable rate based on energy usage for transmission and distribution, as I am, then it is just a number next to a line item…..not true cost of service billing for T&D. The entire point is that producing electricity (generation) is only a fraction of the full retail cost of electricity. DG is being paid full retail rates to produce only generation resources.
In the link about Siding with the Deniers, his 8 examples of actions proposed by the true believers being worse than doing nothing are succinct and excellent:
“>Label wood as “renewable” and shamelessly burn it. And since Europe doesn’t have enough, then let’s burn the forests of North America!”
Ironic, since England, having cleared the forests of wood for heat and the making of coke, had to begin burning coal, which was unpopular at that time. The rest was history, and here we are.
Coke is made from coal. I think you were talking about charcoal, which is the equivalent for wood, and can be used for smelting iron and gunpowder:
It wasn’t just timber for heating or making charcoal. I grew up in Warwickshire, in the heart of the English Midlands, and as far as you can get from the sea in the UK. I regularly heard the claim (unverified) that Warwickshire had the highest density of oak forest of any county in the UK. The reason: oak was used for shipbuilding. The shipbuilders started with the nearest oaks and systematically moved inland. Building and maintaining two navies used an awful lot of timber.
That’s why we invented Canada. All that lovely Oregon pine. :)
Fusion energy is non-partisan, both liberals and conservatives either never heard of think it had something to do Chernobyl and Fukishima.
That big fusion reactor in the sky…
Planning Engineer — Could you do a blog post on what your Crystal Ball perspective is for new U.S. Utility electricity generation in/for the foreseeable future?
Almost all fossil fuel additions are now from natural gas. These capacity additions come nearly equally from combustion turbine peaker plants, which generally run only during the highest peak-demand hours of the year, and combined-cycle plants, which provide intermediate and base-load power.
Questions I’d like to see addressed:
(1) For C.E.’s general audience, explain what a combined cycle unit (with an HRSG) is.
(2) Are simple cycle Units becoming a dinosaur?
(3) What’s the importance of “load tracking”? Also, could you explain to a general audience the concept of cycling and especially the engineering challenges and costs of doing this on simple cycle base-load and intermediate units?
(4) For most of the U.S. where solar is such a small percentage (0.22% of generation currently), is a “Duck Curve” really something we need to be concerned about if we are bringing on combined cycle Units en masse?
(5) Does having a lot of combined cycle units (as they have in New England) have an impact on how one should view solar (i.e., the back-up power argument)?
Thanks!
Stephen, I too hope Planning Engineer will post on this. He is an expert. You will find some less expert more general answers in various energy essays in Blowing Smoke. For example (1) a CCGT schematic, thermal efficiency (61%) and CO2 emissions compared to USC coal (39%). For example (2) probably not. CCGT cannot ramp as fast as simple GT (steam end thermal mass) and if it is flexed looses almost half its efficiency benefits. So simple gas peakers will probably be around for a good while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_LM2500
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/marine/datasheet-lm2500.pdf
This was for AK below.
Thanks Edim. It does appear to be a remote Aeroderivative, but at 25 tons it certainly fits into the weight class I’m looking at.
Stephen, I’ll take a simple stab here at your questions. A gas combustion turbine is very similar to and and derived from jet engine technology. Combustion of the natural gas turns the turbine blades. CTs are pretty nimble. Not to hard to accelerate power output up and down. They produce power and a lot of heat that goes to waste.
Q1
A combined cycle gas unit has a combustion turbine as it’s base (sometime 2 or more) the otherwise “waste” heat of these units is run through a HRSG (heat recovery steam generator) . Now instead of the heat being shunted off it boils water which turns a more conventional steam turbine. Now you get more electricity per unit of power and per unit of emissions as well. But you had to spend more money and its operations are a bit more cumbersome and a bit less flexible. (You can stop a combustion engine quicker but water through boilers to turbine blades is a slower process/(But like with cars,some are more durable, some have better acceleration, some better mileage – generally there are tradeoffs)
Q2 – NO! NO! NO! Unless you have a ton of hydro or the like, a balanced resource mix should have both simple cycle and combined cycle units. Some amount of you plants are going to only operate a very limited amount of time. It’s inefficient on the big scale to make you limited peaking plants that efficient. See my posting on this most excellent blog titled “All Megawatts are not Created Equal” and look at the picture of the load duration curve.
Q3 – Load and the alternative power generation must match at all hours, minutes, second time scales. Try Duck Curve and All MWs not Equal, with the understanding that this requires units to be brought on and off so that the mix on line “fits” the loads and can ramp up and down as needed. For this the plants have to cycle, that is come on and off. You can imagine bringing a huge jet engine from a cold standstill to an operating point and back will cause expansions, contractions and aging. Kind of like the difference between city miles and highway miles on your auto. Intermittents make conventional technology work harder.
4) The duck curve is only a problem when you have unit types that produce their maximum power before a peak and start to decrease as the peak approaches (SOLAR). Most areas are probably fine if penetration of intermittent remains below 12 to 5%. I don’t think combined cycles contribute to the duck curve problem, though CTs might be somewhat more nimble.
5) Combined cycles are more solar friendly than wind (which can’t help solar at all and may run against it). More friendly than nuclear which won’t budge to balance solar ups and downs CC’s are the same of more friendly than coal (depending on the age and design), CTs and hydro are typicality the best as ramping. But there are limited amounts of hydro and cts are less efficient. .
If you are just backing up wind it makes more sense to use a CT than a CC. The CT is more nimble. If you make the investment to get an efficient combined cycle plant you want to use it.
I found a good resource for gas turbines, but I couldn’t find, there or anywhere, information on typical weights and sizes of turbines and other plant parts.
Here’s what I’m looking at: would it be feasible, and cost-effective, to build a “portable” power plant with a turbine capable of running in open-cycle or CCGT mode built into the air-frame of a hovercraft. For comparison, the Navy’s latest hovercraft boondoggle, the Ship-to-Shore Connector will have a payload of 74 tons.
So my question is, how does that, representing a high-side payload for a hovercraft, compare with various types of CT power plant. Ideally, the turbine and associated equipment for open-cycle operation would be built into the airframe, along with a small LNG system for travel and load balancing. Excess payload should be able to carry the equipment for combined-cycle operation.
The construction would be modular, with important parts such as the electrically-driven lift and propulsion fans removable, so that a small number of such modules could be used with a much larger fleet of power stations, since they would spend most of their time sitting.
I would assume that this could be done with Aeroderivative turbines, but I wonder about relative cost-efficiencies of larger units such as the GE Frame 7/9, Siemens SGT-750, and so on.
Obviously, this is a little futuristic, although I suspect it could be done with large-scale 3-D printing and modular versions of existing components, in a fashion reminiscent of Rob’s recent post. But it would seem to me to have the effect of completely separating the production and permitting process.
Thoughts? Can you point me to where I could find good size and weight info for current turbine models?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1PCJ2-hvqjs/VNaU67DyQxI/AAAAAAAAAeE/uU17F7xZcVk/s1600/GEFrame9F_2592x1780.jpg
The above picture suggests that the GE Frame 9 is under 350 tons, but I still don’t know how much under. Nor about the Frame 7.
Turns out there are hovercraft big enough.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–upEoV20O–/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18yfvo6l5dugzjpg.jpg
The question of cost-effectiveness remains, however.
That turbine engine is really cool, but I bet it would annoy the neighbors.
AK – something to think about for your portable generator based solution. A small utility sized Combustion Turbine is about 75 MWs. You can’t just hook up something that size anywhere you want on the grid. Especially the “ragged edges”. We run short circuit studies, stability studies and load flow studies before plant construction begins based on the unit specifics. They often identify needed system improvements beyond the basic interconnections, which can be significant themselves.
Have played with portable diesels as temporary solutions for peak conditions to avoid line overloads, or for backup for line outages until more permanent improvements could be made.
The bigger the size, the tougher the interconnection logistics. The smaller, the less impactful.
@Planning Engineer…
Thank you for your response, Planning Engineer. I wasn’t thinking of “just hook[ing] up something that size anywhere.” In fact, I was thinking of the converse:
So, once you’ve run your studies, you begin the permit approval process, right? What I’m looking at is whether it’s possible to shorten the time between approval and flipping the switch. How much would it help if the generator could be up and running where you need it a few weeks after the approval?
So it might be that smaller units, based on Aeroderivative turbines, would be cost-effective despite the higher price? Because of the potential quick roll-out?
AK – shortening the time does not seem like a plus at all to me, unless you had a fortuitous specific emergency need. Gas plants have a pretty quick turn around time compared to other elements on the power system. The critical path for new gas units nowadays is the transmission system improvements in many/most cases.
OK. Thanks. That tells me this isn’t an approach worth pursuing. For now.
Hope that helped. In the blogs, my typos improve from wretched to abysmal. Here’s my rough understanding that may help. If I had to build a system from scratch today without special regulation (for comparable environmental performance for most US systems), with today’s gas prices it would be made up of a mix of combustion turbines and combined cycle plants. That would be good enough. Except for areas with a bunch of hydro resources built in years past, you would probably be competing competitively with most mixes in the US. Of course i would take all the hydro I could get especially if it could be built at anything approaching what the cost level was when most of the US hydro resources were built. I can’t imagine what the massive damns and all would cost to complete in the US nowadays. If you are worried about gas prices increasing significantly – you would add nuclear if you think it could get built without a slew of additional costs. In a completely different “environment” (or this one if clean coal technology advanced and was acceptable) you might add coal as well for a hedge on gas price/availability. . Wind, solar, and geothermal could be supplemental wherever their performance could be cost justified but I doubt they climb much above 5% any places (that aren’t islands or have special characteristics).
Maybe storage will change things to make intermittent resources have more value. But it’s not in the immediate planning range.
Great post PE.
RE: Grid storage
I would note having the two most populous states (CA & TX) publicly announce multi-billion dollar system wide investments in grid scale storage clearly puts this past the planning stage. They have a plan, they now want regulatory approval and financing.
The peaker plants would be far less competitive if there were 5-8 gigawatts of strategically placed fast response storage online.
I think it’s too early to incorporate serious storage into the planning process for enabling renewables, but you are right it is being done. Instead of the leading edge of technology, some of us refer to it as the bleeding edge of technology. Kaui burned out their first battery sysytem. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/534266/hawaiis-solar-push-strains-the-grid/ That’s where such mistakes should be made though. They are an island, don’t have easy access to natural gas if it’s going to work anywhere s where conventional technlogy has high costs anyway.
JS, yes but read essays California Dreaming and Wishful Thinking. Legislating something that does not exist does not make it so.
Planning Engineer — If you can do this blog post, could you emphasize what’s going on in most of the U.S. and not California.
In Ivanpah Valley, California roasted squabs fall from the sky. A byproduct of a solar power generation.
One more tidbit. When you retire a coal plant – usually the generator is still in good shape and you have electrical facilities in place and all so it would be really good to build on site and use that generator (though you can’t drive it with coal anymore). One option is to instead of firing the boilers with coal dust is to add natural gas. Usually though gas is too expensive to be used that way. So what has been done is to bring in combustion turbines and the heat recovery steam generator and use that to heat water to turn the generator that used to be driven by coal. This is called “re-powering”. this works well for smaller coal plants especially when you can get significant gas to the facility. It’s harder with larger plants located far from natural gas pipelines.
Planning Engineer — Thanks!
One (for now) follow-up. I wasn’t clear in my 1st post. I meant to say: Do you think natural gas simple cycle Units will become dinosaurs for base and intermediate loads? If no, could you give us your insight? Thanks
i don’t think of CTS operating much above 15% capacity factor as an old rule of thumb. If it’s running a lot you want to convert that waste heat. The cheaper natural gas is the higher the capacity factor it can operate before conversion makes sense, but I that would be well before baseload unless you had waste gas. I see cts with low capacity factors. Maybe theyare bumped up when they have to back up renewables?
In the real world what happens as well is, your cts often get displaced by excess cc capacity from your neighbors.
Stephen – rough summary of what’s going on in the US. As we entered the 90s it was getting harder and harder to build coal plants. Then the CT And CC technology took off. The gas bubble broke and gas was cheap. Utilities and private power producers built a glut of gas plants by the end of the 90s and early 2000s. Gas rose in price, the economy tanked and power usage has stagnated since. With fracking Gas is cheap again. Areas are still growing into some of the surpluses but with some growth and retirements we are going back to adding plants. I think there is one party trying to build one coal plant in the US. One nuclear unit midway to completion and we could see six by 2020, but gas is cheap. Without the clean power plan and renewable portfolio standards, the new mix would shift from coal to gas and small upticks in nuclear,, with hydro shrinking as a proportion but providing the same output. My swag estimate would be transitioning for 60% coal 5% nuke 20% gas 10% hydro 5% other to 40% coal, 6% Nuke, 40% gas, 4% hydro 10% other. Just a swag to lazy to look up, but some parts of the U.S. look something like that.
Planning Engineer: If we table Global Warming and any Environmental Externalities issues, do you agree or disagree that solar (using current technology) is competing (least cost) with natural gas CTs for Peaking Load?
Also, in your planning, how do you address the future cost of natural gas over say, the next 10 to 20 years?
Stephen – Solar competitiveness varies tremendously from place to place. It may be most competitive in places like Kaui where there is a lot of sunshine, where the peak may be better aligned with solar generation and where power generated with conventional technology costs multiple times more than in other places. Seattle, I would guess not, but that area has extensive hydro storage so maybe it works for energy exchange. So Massachusetts maybe not much hope. Southeastern US gets a lot of sun but because of industrial (and residential loads too) the peak is not concurrent with good levels of solar output. There’s a trade off between maximizing kwhs and maximizing peak contribution – and most I’ve seen go for maximizing kwh’s because of the cost structures. You can get solar panels that better track the sun across all hours but that raises costs and hurts competitiveness.
My personal opinion is more often competitive due to the crudeness of the price structures employed but does not really give the same bang for the buck. See the article cited above about solar and peak demand from the Harvard group.
Where in when solar is competitive at peak I think it is and will be used. there may be limited cases where good solar technology is not being employed when it should, but I would suspect that would be very rare. There are many cases where it is being sold far beyond it’s capabilities and leans on other mechanisms to support it’s costs. Tie in that it’s lifetime performance seems to be falling below projections while CTS typically last way longer than their assumed life. If it worked well – you wouldn’t have to mandate it.
Assessing future fuel cost and availability is the million dollar question. That’s why generation planning is challenging and why we have so many competing technologies.
I’m on the Transmission side of the business now. Last large generator I planned was in early 2000. During the plan gas was very cheap. We had projections from gas experts. Their take was that the gas would rise but be capped by a price about set by liquidized natural gas imports (LNG)/ There are tons of natural gas reserves in the former Soviet Union nations. As the plant was completed the gas bubble broke and gas prices rose tremendously. As it came on-line gas prices were multiples above our expected projections. LNG was nice in theory but we didn’t have the LNG capability to bring in gas and the infrastructure takes time.
We had done modeling scenarios with very high gas prices and even at the high levels gas was a better choice than nuclear or coal because of the high construction costs associated with those units. We didn’t’ just build the pant counting on low gas prices forever. The existing coal plants were operating well below the cost of the combined cycle and we used it as little as possible, but it served the growth needs. Back casting models it was still the right choice, but not everyone thought of us as geniuses.
Later as fracking turned up large amounts of natural gas this plants operating cost came way down. Now it’s cheaper than the coal alternative and we are looking smarter. Overt it’s lifetime it looks like it will be an unquestionably wise decision. But who knows what fuel will do.
If fracking is stopped, gas plants will likely be losers till we come up with something else. You can make synthetic natural gas from coal. Or perhaps important all that natural gas from the former Soviet Union (I see reports that they finance anti-fracking activities) Current projections say there is a lot of natural gas and my hope is that it will transition us over the next 20 to 40 years to where we don’t need fossil fuels.
Going out on a limb I’d say for some parts of the country with limited solar capability they are still ahead of the game building gas (even if cost availability crash in 5 to 10 years) and waiting for better alternative technology. Kind of like you can refinance your house 10 times as rates drop a little and make money every time, but if you’d only done it twice you’d have saved a lot more money. We can’t be jumping at every possible marginal decrease in cost as they emerge, especially since actual performance so often deviates from expectations..
Planning Engineer — Thanks for your responses!
One point that I’ve wanted to address is a perception that I continue to see here at C.E. (not by you) on the intermittency of solar — i.e., a major drawback of solar is that the sun doesn’t shine at night.
What this argument fails to acknowledge is that Utilities don’t need this generation capacity at night. Under current technology, solar is to meet peaking load — where solar would be competing against primarily natural gas CTs.
When people cite solar’s low capacity factor they should be comparing this to the capacity factor of Combustion Turbines (which is also very low, per the below graph from the EIA):
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2014.01.15/main.png
What’s important is the availability of Solar within the Peaking window/timeframe that this capacity is needed. This is why some Utilities (Nevada for example) have assigned an availability factor of ~90% to some of their solar projects.
Planning Engineer, I apologize if this has been covered before, but I didn’t want to miss the opportunity to ask you this: Aside from potentially warped market value and cost issues, if residential solar production is not aligned with peak demand, does it actually offset much fossil fuel use? Is the offset “one-to-one” or is some of the solar input to the grid wasted due to overlap with baseload? (I think my question is based on me not understanding how well coal-fired baseload can be ramped up or down on a sunny morning, for example, while I know afternoon peaking supplies can be ramped up and down with demand.)
Current incentives in Colorado lead to east-facing residential solar panels over west-facing panels—you improve total monthly production but it is not aligned with demand, especially not with summer afternoon demand.
The thought that occurs to me is this: why not build out gas CT, with plans to convert to CCGT when appropriate? Expect solar to come down (somewhat, anyway), and plan for replacing the peaking function with flow batteries?
Over the longer run, a combination of solar PV and flow batteries for daily balancing, with CCGT as a fallback for seasonal needs, might well be cost-effective while reducing fossil carbon emissions by an order of magnitude.
ViZn Energy has implemented a flow battery “low-cost, non-acid Zinc/Iron chemistry enabling manufacturing with inexpensive construction materials.” Flow batteries are especially scalable because the power capacity is independent of the storage capacity. Thus, modifying the technology to add storage time is a fairly low-cost option. Although ViZn’s offereings appear to have a fixed ratio of storage to power, modular systems would be easy to design, allowing installation of systems with, say, a few hours of storage followed by optional later enhancement for daily balancing of solar.
And they’re made entirely of commonly available materials. Unlike many flow-battery designs, they do not use vanadium.
http://www.viznenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/GS200-1MW-300×168.png
AK, read essay California Dreaming. To paraphrase, many are called, but few are chosen.
Perhaps. I would question whether the large number of technologies that never make it to market are unworkable, or just seem (perhaps slightly) less cost-effective to potential investors. It’s a key question IMO.
Let’s say that around half of laboratory discoveries could actually be made workable (in production). Then the tiny percentage that actually make it are just the winners of a grand lottery, and if they hadn’t made it other technologies would have.
OTOH, let’s say that around 1% or less of laboratory discoveries could actually be made workable. Then the tiny percentage that actually make it are probably a large fraction of those that ever had any chance.
Which is it? Or where in-between? And how do you know your answer reflects anything beyond your own preconceptions?
My answer, which I admit may well simply reflect my preconceptions, is that a fairly large percentage of such discoveries have the potential to be made workable. That means that, as I see it, the chance that something can’t be done to solve the problems is miniscule. I don’t claim to be able to tell for sure which are which, much less predict which the market lottery will pick as winners.
An awful lot of routine R&D goes into taking something from the lab bench to volume production, as I’m sure you know, and IMO there’s a lot that gets skipped simply because nobody’s prepared to pay for it.
CS – Solar backs off fossil fuel use pretty much whenever it runs in almost any system (unless during a surplus hydro/surplus wind/low loads or any kind condition where overall generation is a waste product- does happen at night in Texas with wind). My guess, unless I’m missing something is that 99+% of the time some fossil type unit will back down most places for solar additions. Now there is some concern that the environmental benefits maybe overestimate (not kWh for kWh) because the back and forth causes units to operate less efficiently/effectively. For instance you often have cts “spinning” like a car idling ready to go as backup for when the sun stops, or when the load climbs. I don’t have first hand real life experience or with simulations there to have confidence in the combined magnitudes of those effects and how important they are.
AK – Good observation that in a future where storage becomes a superior method for peaking over CTs, that cts can be converted to combined cycle.
Photons as weapons of war?
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/the-world-of-warfare-just-changed-big-ships-or-shiny-ships-to-return/
Here’s the results of running a single model thousands of times – while varying inputs marginally within feasible limits. The results are limited are limited to those that resemble observations. There are many other ‘solutions’ that don’t. It is simple enough to chose a solution that is arbitrarily close to observations.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/rowlands-2012-fig1.png?w=500
So why the mismatch to observations in the multi-model ensemble?
MODEL: IPCC5 (RCP8.5): 4.2C/century
MODEL: IPCC4 Warming High: 3.2C/century
MODEL: Hansen A: 3.2C/century ( since 1979 )
MODEL: Hansen B: 2.8C/century ( since 1979 )
MODEL: IPCC4 next few decades: 2.0C/century
MODEL: Hansen C: 1.9C/century ( since 1979 )
MODEL: IPCC4 Warming Low: 1.8C/century
———————————————————————
Observed: NASA GISS: ~1.6C/century ( since 1979 )
Observed: NCDC: ~1.5C/century ( since 1979 )
Observed: UAH MSU LT: ~1.4C/century (since 1979 )
Observed: RSS MSU LT: ~1.3C/century (since 1979 )
MODEL: IPCC5 (RCP2.6): 1.0C/century
Observed: RSS MSU MT: ~0.8C/century (since 1979 )
Observed: UAH MSU MT: ~0.5C/century (since 1979 )
———————————————————————
Denier: 0.0C/century
Looks like LukeWarmers win again.
Looks like they didn’t tune it correctly, eh?
All of these many thousands of solutions are plausible – and indeed are chosen for closeness of fit to observations.
They aren’t close enough to the real thing to be useful. They need to call in a climate model tuner to tighten it up a bit.
Seriously, Rob, why don’t they tune it to center the “real” data? (Maybe they could tune it to replicate the sat data?) Maybe they would have to model clouds differently, knowing they don’t have enough computer power to model them on a finer scale, they could still change that part of the model. Do you think there is more than one combination of parameters that would center the land or sat data? If so, what would that imply WRT to the validity of the model.
Ask more questions.
(Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)
The inputs are necessarily uncertain and by the nature of the calculations exponentially diverge through time from these small differences. So all these thousands of solutions – that are chosen to centre on observations – the thick blue lines – are feasible. You could pick one that that more or less matches observations but it’s evolution is still more or less chaotic. The only solution to the quandary of model chaos is to treat the set of solutions as a probabilistic – rather than a deterministic – projection. There is no single deterministic solution.
This is before we consider the adequacy of the ‘component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth’ in representing complex, multi-scale Earth processes.
That doesn’t explain why the models shouldn’t be adjusted to center the observations.
They take multiple starting points within a feasible range for parameter inputs – select only those ‘solutions’ that are close to observations and project forward.
So these solutions are essentially tuned to observations by changing input parameters – but they continue to diverge after that point.
The reason the multi-model ensemble diverges from recent observation is that they have all arbitrarily chosen one solution from each model that are too warm.
But there are in fact solutions from all models – just like the HadCRML3 model above – that approximate observations. All of the feasible, divergent and chaotic solutions together form a probability space for climate projections. This is all that models can do – define a range called irreducible imprecision – a measure of chaotic divergence from slightly different starting points – and suggest a probability distribution within that range.
You are talking about changing input parameters. I’m talking about changing the internal parameters of the model, such as how clouds are represented.
Changing the model physics introduces something called structural instability – it is a new model which chaotically diverges from the first. But it still has a family of solutions that form a probability space.
And a new model is needed. You seem to be implying they never change the innards of the models. Did they all go home while we weren’t looking?
At any rate, it is known that parameterization is used for clouds and oceans. Probably a lot for other aspects that the computer just isn’t powerful enough to model in fine detail.
So, adjust the model to fit the observation. Do you not want to do this because it would bring down the range of “predicted” temps? Or what?
From the article:
…
The ideal starting point for coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (GCMs) is the present climate; but there are not enough data, nor is there enough computing power, to commence a climatic simulation on the basis of this information. In an attempt to surmount these problems, climate models typically employ alternative approaches, such as parameterizations, spin-ups and flux adjustments that may introduce significant errors into the final result.
Parameterizations are mathematical simplifications of highly-complex physical processes that are utilized in coarse-scale GCMs to reduce the computing power required to run global climate simulations. Such simplifications, however, render small-scale weather features such as hurricanes, thunderstorms, and tornadoes unresolvable, so that the models fail to accurately reflect many highly-important real-world phenomena.
…
The lack of initial data has also led climate modelers to adopt a strategy of “spinning-up” the ocean and atmosphere sub-models separately, using arbitrary initial conditions, after which they are at some point linked; but this strategy ignores real-world transfers of energy, moisture and momentum that could significantly alter the results. In the words of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “ocean models present special spin-up problems since, when forced with specified fluxes, they typically arrive at an unrealistic state because atmosphere-ocean feedbacks are absent” (Houghton et al., 1996). In coupling atmosphere and ocean sub-models, the climate drift produced by the separate spin-ups must thus be ameliorated by a “flux adjustment,” in which the surface heat fluxes are modified by a “correction” or “adjustment” term (Houghton et al., 1996). Such adjustments, however, are physically unfounded and often of larger magnitude than the climatological mean fluxes (Manabe and Stouffer, 1988; Saussen et al., 1988). In some models, in fact, flux corrections in certain regions exceed 200 Watts per square meter (Gates et al., 1993; Houghton et al., 1996), which is 50 times greater than the surface radiative forcing, or impetus for warming, predicted to result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2!
The incorporation of flux adjustments into coupled climate models highlights their lack of climate realism and is a manifestation of “outward symptoms of underlying systematic errors in the uncoupled models” (Houghton et al., 1996). Other studies also suggest that flux corrections may seriously affect the simulated climate signals (Nakamura et al., 1994; Neelin and Dijkstra, 1995; Pierce et al., 1995); and if flux adjustments are needed to simulate the present climate, there is little reason to believe that the models that employ them can successfully simulate future climate.
…
http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/climate_models.php
And this …
Quoting the nine Australian researchers, “there is evidence to reject one model as unsuitable for making climate projections in the region, and another two models unsuitable for analysis of the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ).” And they add that “many of the systematic model biases in the mean climate in CMIP3 are also present in the CMIP5 models,” specifically identifying “biases in the position and orientation of the SPCZ and Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone, as well as the spatial pattern, variability and teleconnections of the West Pacific monsoon, and the simulation of El Niño Southern Oscillation.” In addition, they indicate that unresolved problems also prohibit successful modeling of the region’s cold tongue and the West Pacific monsoon, further adding that there are still “several regions in the world where CMIP5 models show significant differences to observed trends in temperature and mean sea level pressure.”
…
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V18/feb/a7.php
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751
The problem of the representation of the physics of the system – at both fine and broad scale – is quite different to the problem of irreducible imprecision. The latter produces a family of divergent solutions form arbitrarily close starting points.
http://d29qn7q9z0j1p6.cloudfront.net/content/roypta/369/1956/4751/F2.medium.gif
Whatever model you start with they evolve chaotically. .
If you reduce CO2 you could trip a tipping point. If you increase CO2 you could trip a tipping point. If you keep CO2 the same, you could hit a tipping point. Let’s create cheap energy – it’s all the same anyway.
The problem of complexity in the climate system is different from chaos in models.
Tipping points occur when the system is forced to change. Reducing forcings in pragmatic and practical ways is the obvious response.
http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation
Models’ Achilles’ heel, born ter be wild,
tragedy queens, nuthin’ can be done. (
.
But you seem to believe only forcings matter. Internal variability is also at play. So, by leveling off CO2, we could unwittingly be allowing natural variability to hit a tipping point!!! We may need more CO2 to neutralize the natural variability that left unchecked would run us over a tipping point cliff!!
So you have given up not understanding models and now insist on not understanding climate science and climate policy?
It is not primarily about carbon dioxide – but even there a transition to cheaper and more abundant energy sources in relatively short order is inevitable.
Rob, you know in your heart of hearts the models are incomplete and a mere shadow of the real thing. They aren’t cast in stone as you apparently believe.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
So you go from not understanding climate models, to not understanding complexity science and climate policy to making weird suggestions that irreducible imprecision and structural instabilities imply that I have an unfailing faith in models.
A UNIFIED MODELING APPROACH TO CLIMATE SYSTEM PREDICTION – by James Hurrell, Gerald A. Meehl, David Bader, Thomas L. Delworth, Ben Kirtman, and Bruce Wielicki: BAMS December 2009 | 1819: DOI: 10.1175/2009BAMS2752.1
There is not a snowballs chance that they have the physics of the system down. In fact I think I quoted Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer earlier that we don’t even have the mathematical tools. But this is not the root of the model divergence problem.
Marotzke has used unvalidated cjlmate models that have all been sheen to exaggerate global warming to support his argument. He would have to show that the models are valid enough for his purposes to be taken seriously.
Oh them climate models sufferin’ from non-linearity-
black-swan-blindnes. Why, even if we had a reely
good model, wouldn’t jest one small change in one
parameter maybe reverse conclusions? Sometimes
serfs lie awake at night ( in the hovel ) on their bed
of straw, worrying at them Soviet-Harvard-top-down-
decisions that start with a model and then impose it,
with ninety-per-cent-confidence, on tricky Nay-chure,
or the Economy … and serfs.
oops, ‘blind-ness.’
Bts
You can trust those Harvard educated mandarins to make the right decisions for us. Just ask David Halberstam, RIP.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest
Whizz – kidzz,
Justin?
Fergit Socrates’
‘I do not ‘know.’
‘ WE KNOW! ‘
Curiosity
n’ wonder
are so
de trop ).
Beth: Thank you for your poetic reply. Trouble is no one writes equations that rhyme. An age of elegance has passed.
“In the winter of 2012-13, 31,000 deaths were linked to the cold weather, prompting criticism of energy firms’ profits while many Britons were unable to pay the bills.” – The Guardian.
We have some new code for “energy supply which sucks”. It’s “energy firms’ profits”. Good work, Guardian. No wonder you’re the journal of reference for people who buy over-priced sandals online and wear scarves in summer.
This is the most interesting code expression since “China closing old coal plants” was used for “China opening new coal plants”. Or maybe since “Lake Effect flood risk” was used for “blizzard”.
If Arctic ice should increase markedly at Sept minimum, I’m confident the Guardian will find an expression like “dry stored deluge”.
That doesn’t happen anymore because we have reliable energy … oh, wait …
The paper on CFCs is interesting. Granted, CFCs do provide warming. It will take a few more papers to convince many of us that CFCs have such a high warming influence as in the paper Judith linked:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732
But I’ll keep an open mind.
Interesting that folks don’t want to discuss cowtan and way.
This is Cowtan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA. After watching http://www.sealevel.info/Cowtan_unintentionally_vindicates_Booker.html, why would you want to discuss Cowtan.
We are proceeding alphabetically. Cowtan comes after cow power. Please be patient, Steven.
Steven,
I couldn’t find the paper, just the discussion. It appears that they have distinct differences with the fab 4. Didn’t see confidence levels (but again, no paper). C & W gave you props, and at the same time indicated the other 3 tended to “underestimate temperatures over the last decade”. Wish they would have put the “reported temperatures” in the chart and not just the year. The lack of coverage in Africa and Antarctica was of note.
This:’The plateau in Arctic temperatures suggests that we should not necessarily expect runaway Arctic warming or a rapid loss of Arctic sea ice; and the rapid Arctic warming events we have looked at in the CMIP-5 models also tend to be of limited duration. ” I found very interesting.
SS seemed to eat it up as affirmation, but when I look at the confidence levels it gave me pause. :)
Steven, Judith’s link is broken for me, no paper available. I had to go to KC comments at SS to find a summary.
Comments, “So was 2014 the hottest on record?”
Cowtan and Way 2014 came in miles behind, “the temperature anomaly for 2014 was 0.61°C, as compared to 0.63°C for 2010.”
C&W Berkeley GISTEMP NOAA HadCRUT
1 2010 2014 2014 2014 2014=
The usual reason for discarding the most scientific assessments of temp by satellite were given at SS and ignored by C/W.
“This is about the surface temperature reconstructions and the reasons for the differences. RSS and UAH are measurements of tropospheric temperature.”
The forcing adjustments to the C/W algorithm needed to artificially warm the Arctic for 2013 meant that when those Arctic bases dropped in temperature in 2014 the whole world cooled in 2014 for C/W.
Those few bases they use give the data for 10% of the earth’s surface after all.
All of the data C/W use is taken from GISTEMP, NOAA, HadCRUT so they should have had the same result. In fact C/W state,
“When provided with the same station data the GISTEMP algorithm produces similar Arctic temperatures over the study period to the algorithm of CW14, and the results are also similar to those of Berkeley Earth”.
The other data sets gave warmer figures for these areas as they use a different algorithm on the same data.
“The next step will be to find out why the disagreement occurs,” – just explained.
::grin::
====
I like that Robert Way seems to be honest. I don’t like that in their discussion on SkS they don’t use or discuss error bars or statistical significance. That was my only thought when I clicked on the link and glanced at their post for a few minutes. They probably do in some other venue but I have not seen that. I have little interest in the “warmest year ever” parade as during the pause there has been little warming and most of the last 10 or so years are really in a tie. Get back to me in 2025.
“Interesting that folks don’t want to discuss cowtan and way.”
I was just reading more and commenting less. And shall continue to do so at my whim.
Note that Mosher did not take your bait. +10. Well played.
SkS has a good weekly round-up too.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/2015-SkS-Weekly-News-Roundup_6B.html
Good pieces on the road to Paris, the dashboard one from NatGeo, earth’s past climate, Branson, and climate villain may lose his job (Abbott). An alternative selection to the one here.
We’ll get right over there, jimmy.
Free Kool-Aid!
Right, jimmy.
And another one
http://www.skepticalscience.com/meeting-two-degree-target-means-80-percent-coal-unburnable.html
The abstract of the January Nature article by McGlade and Ekins.
“Policy makers have generally agreed that the average global temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 2 °C above the average global temperature of pre-industrial times1. It has been estimated that to have at least a 50 per cent chance of keeping warming below 2 °C throughout the twenty-first century, the cumulative carbon emissions between 2011 and 2050 need to be limited to around 1,100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (Gt CO2)2, 3. However, the greenhouse gas emissions contained in present estimates of global fossil fuel reserves are around three times higher than this2, 4, and so the unabated use of all current fossil fuel reserves is incompatible with a warming limit of 2 °C. Here we use a single integrated assessment model that contains estimates of the quantities, locations and nature of the world’s oil, gas and coal reserves and resources, and which is shown to be consistent with a wide variety of modelling approaches with different assumptions5, to explore the implications of this emissions limit for fossil fuel production in different regions. Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2 °C. We show that development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil production are incommensurate with efforts to limit average global warming to 2 °C. Our results show that policy makers’ instincts to exploit rapidly and completely their territorial fossil fuels are, in aggregate, inconsistent with their commitments to this temperature limit. Implementation of this policy commitment would also render unnecessary continued substantial expenditure on fossil fuel exploration, because any new discoveries could not lead to increased aggregate production.”
Jim D,
At what cost? Electricity has gone up 20% since 2007. Who does that affect? This entire discussion is damned if ya do and damned if ya don’t. That energy is going to have to be replaced and we’re still burning coal. Stop and how much will electicity costs increase? And who can least afford it? Carbon offset? When has a tax ever been given back? Once it’s in pockets does it tend to come out to those who put it there? All based on an unattributable CO2 impacts? Against what percentage of natural variability? Can you answer these? I cannot find those answers in difinitive form, but my olders sisters and their social security have been paying 20% more for the electricity over the last appox. 8 years. How many more are out there? And I’m (not quite sure) a warmer/lukewarmer?
Heh, given what high sensitivity? Remember, the higher the sensitivity, the colder we would now be without man’s input, and will be again when those puny reserves with their apparently pusillanimous effect are used up.
==========
Kim, I can see Jim’s pained and puzzled look, thinking: “Should I worry about the next few generations or next few thousand?”
Oh, policy makers have generally agreed. I bow in awe before that enlightened crowd.
Heh, we’ll get as much benefit from the next two degrees Centigrade rise as from the last two degrees Centigrade rise.
Two degrees was invented and presented to policymakers as a simple target, consistent with alarm soon, by imagined sensitivity then.
It is a mirage; any simple target ignores the plethora of complex phenomena associated with temperature rise.
Paleontology shows that warmer is always beneficial and cooler always harmful. The world has yet to get too hot to harm the biome, and any cooling shows immediate harm.
How this has been so terribly misconstrued remains a mystery to me. When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?
=====================
Lord, he’s aStern, and the vessel much enlightened with his loss.
=============
The bell Tols softly, muffled at two decibels.
==========
Danny –
==> “but my olders sisters and their social security have been paying 20% more for the electricity over the last appox. ”
Have you gone over their bills? Have you adjusted for inflation? Or are you just assuming that they pay 20% more because you’re looking at price increases.
If it is the former rather than the latter – is that typical?
kim
the flowers, and everything else, are under a few feet of snow in New
England…
for the children
“The close proximity of regions of warming and cooling on both the Eurasian
and Alaskan Arctic coasts mean that it is possible for neighboring stations
to show a very different temperature trends. Automated homogenization could potentially introduce unnecessary adjustments to reconcile these trends.” Mr Cowtan.
What on earth does he mean Jim D?
He reconciled the different temperature trends by taking out the 3 stations he did not like.
No “unnecessary adjustments” needed here, hey.
After all “The intermediate reconstructions suggest that the 3 problem stations account for only 40% of the difference between GISTEMP and CW14.”
Just because I know he has many fans were at Climate Etc. – I just wanted to give Ron Paul a shout out for giving us an example of how libertarians reason better than those pinko commie climate scientists:
hmm this libertarian thinks he’s a nut on this issue.
“I just wanted to give Ron Paul a shout out for giving us an example of how some libertarians reason better than those pinko commie climate scientists”
Steven (and Joshua),
Yes. I hope Rand backs away even further from this. There are legitimate questions though as to freedom to not vaccinate. We allow Christian scientists to not vaccinate their kids but then they have to find a school that will let them in without the vaccinations. There are ways to address it without forcing people to get vaccinations. While innocents can get hurt by some not getting vaccinated, it seems that in many cases it would be others who did not get vaccinated that would be hurt. The primary reason people do get themselves and children vaccinated is to prevent the horrible consequences of the various diseases. That should be a pretty good incentive. There are a lot of the folks in Hollywood and people who vote Democratic that are afraid of vaccines as well. Different people from different parts of the political spectrum can be against vaccinations for a variety of reasons.
For each disease/vaccine combination there is some optimal percentage of the population that needs to be vaccinated to have effective control of the disease. That can vary I would imagine from lower numbers like 66% for some diseases to very high for others. For flu, since depending on the year, it is often not a very effective vaccine, in some years 100% vaccination may do very little to prevent flu cases. Because people (until recently) got vaccinations, the percent coverage was high enough that there was not much harm if some chose not to get vaccinated, and it was thought they were hurting themselves. Of course, if they make the decision for their children, it is the kids that get hurt. But, if you start having people afraid of vaccinations and the coverage falls lower then you have bigger problems. It is an interesting issue that needs to be readdressed due to some of the fears in recent years. Hopefully Rand Paul can make a contribution to that discussion and hopefully there really is a discussion rather than the media and spin doctors simply using things like this to score points. I am probably being too optimistic though. :)
Sad thing, the comedians were on this:
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/g1lev1/an-outbreak-of-liberal-idiocy
Outbreaks in those right wing enclaves of California, New York, and Oregon.
There are adverse reactions associated with any vaccine.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmr
Progressive like Joshua have a problem with reality.
==> “There are adverse reactions associated with any vaccine.
Yeah – and Rand (h/t Don) was only pointing out the “temporal” relationship to those adverse reactions….he wasn’t alleging causation.
Right. Just pointing out a “Temporal association.” Normal before, profound mental disorders after..
But he wasn’t alleging causation.
(BTW – thanks for the link:
Ya’ gotta love Climate Etc.
What do you mean by this, joshie?
“Ya’ gotta love Climate Etc.”
Is Rob Climate Etc.? Is Climate Etc. responsible for everything that Rob says? Is Judith responsible for what Rob says? For what you say? Are you a child? Do you really need to be haunting Judith’s blog?
You really aren’t about anything, joshie.
Mild Problems
Fever (about 1 child out of 5).
Mild rash (about 1 child out of 20).
Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (rare).
If these problems happen, it is usually within 5-12 days after the first dose. They happen less often after the second dose.
Moderate Problems
Seizure caused by fever (about 1 child in 1,250 who get MMRV), usually 5-12 days after the first dose. They happen less often when MMR and varicella vaccines are given at the same visit as separate shots (about 1 child in 2,500 who get these two vaccines), and rarely after a 2nd dose of MMRV.
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 child out of 40,000).
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Several severe problems have been reported following MMR vaccine, and might also happen after MMRV. These include severe allergic reactions (fewer than 4 per million), and problems such as:
Deafness.
Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness.
Permanent brain damage.
Because these problems occur so rarely, we can’t be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not.
Yeah – it might have happened anyway – coincidental.
What Josh is about is dishonesty.
Hi Don –
Looks like Judith has a problem when I laugh at Chief. ‘Cause, you know, calling me dishonest is just fine, but pointing out his fallacious reasoning in response is in violation of moderation rules.
But the reason that I love Climate Etc. is because I can find laughable logic like that Chief just displayed.
I catch what I can – A one liner hidden in someone’s post doesn’t jump out at me in the same way as an entire post.
The issue is contributing to the dialogue. A substantive post with an insulting one liner will often get a pass, but not a content free relatively lengthy post that is picking irrelevant nits or insulting someone.
Rob,
You know fever isn’t an adverse reaction in the context of stimulating the immune system?
Chief –
Looks like you must have missed it.
Ron Paul said this:
Then he said this:
See? I even added bold to help. Normal before, profound mental disorders after.. Only temporal association. No causation. Pretty funny stuff, right?
And Chief –
Let’s try this again.
Look at this:
And then look at this:
Can you see the difference? See that “profound mental disorders” part? See the “mild” part? See the “moderate” part? Give it a bit more thought. Sleep on it. Talk to a few folks about it. Get back to me. We’ll talk.
Judith –
If you miss it, you miss it. Perfectly understandable.
Plus, it’s your blog, and you have the hammer. Really, it’s your right to be capricious in your moderation. I am only here as your guest.
But don’t try to offer this as an explanation:
==> ” A substantive post with an insulting one liner will often get a pass,…”
Should I go through all the non-substantive comments that include insults and yet haven’t been deleted? Your explanation doesn’t hold water.
I didn’t see you point out what Chief said that is not factual, joshie. You conflated what Chief said with what Rand Paul said, and then you guffawed. Do you think that makes you look smart, or clever? It doesn’t. And admitting that you are here to laugh at people who are almost universally far more intelligent than you are confirms your status as a lightweight serial troller. Carry on with you foolishness. You are not inhibited by self-awareness, or a sense of decency.
Yeah – it might have happened anyway – coincidental. I quoted from the CDC as an authoritative source – saying the same thing as what’s his name is reported to have said. That severe reactions have been associated with the MMR vaccine. There are other vaccines in which the association with severe reactions are more clear cut. But let’s concentrate on MMR – because it’s babies and that’s where the concern is.
It was simply a silly slur from Joshua against a political class he has this is his usual cultural warrior of the left way. One based this time on the supposed lack of science in questioning vaccines – even in the most responsible way possible.
Did I see Michael chiming in with his medical opinion about fever as well?
The reality of vaccines seems quite as what’s his name is reported to have said. Somehow the CDC saying there is an association – but it might have been coincidental – morphs in Joshua’s world view into another proof of the mental incompetence of conservatives.
I don’t read blogs much – but I have been looking at SoD a little recently. Perhaps not surprisingly – there are many familiar names to be found. Including Joshua. It seems his content is much the same as here. Mostly cheap snipes at Judy’s intellectual perfidy.
Rob,
Any serious discussion of risks associated with vaccines, as opposed to rabidly ideological .delusion/ alarmism, might highlight the very real risks and very serious adverse outcomes of measles, rather than waffling on about some possible coincidences of vaccines.
When the viruses left they said thanks for all the kisses.
==============
Oh for God’s sake – the US Vaccines Court exists for a reason. We don’t need ideologues insisting it is all anti science hysteria for political games.
Rob,
Politicians waffling about “temporally related….profound mental disorders” is all about ideologues and poltical games.
Michael –
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/politics/rand-paul-linked-to-association-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons.html?_r=0
It’s Rand, joshie. Ron is the other ____.
Joshua, You understand that as someone with strong libertarian (classical liberal) beliefs, Rand Paul (even though running as a Republican) can be interested and concerned with the issue of when should people be allowed to not vaccinate themselves or their children, right? The biggest reasons people would not want to vaccinate would be religious objections, or fears of side-effects from vaccines. So he could well believe in vaccinations himself, but understand that others may be fearful of side-effects – even if their fears are unfounded. I’m glad he backed away from this a bit. I have no idea if he was originally a believer in the autism scares and backed away after reading more, or if he backed away for political reasons, or if was simply reporting the truth – that there have been a number of “reports of tragic cases”. Those are called anecdotal evidence and people can use such things to make decisions out of fear, even if there really is no basis for those fears or those tragic stories. He is a doctor, so I think he does have some scientific sense.
Bill –
==> “Joshua, You understand that as someone with strong libertarian (classical liberal) beliefs, Rand Paul (even though running as a Republican) can be interested and concerned with the issue of when should people be allowed to not vaccinate themselves or their children, right?”
Of course.
==?> “The biggest reasons people would not want to vaccinate would be religious objections, or fears of side-effects from vaccines. So he could well believe in vaccinations himself, but understand that others may be fearful of side-effects – even if their fears are unfounded.”
I don’t think that was what he was doing. I think that he was exploiting fear and distrust of scientific evidence-based public health policy, for the sake of political expediency. Part of the reason for my view there were his public statements about public health policy w/r/t Ebola. His own father called him out for political expediency on that topic.
Such political expediency leads to ridiculous situations such as where he talked about normal children with profound mental disorders after vaccination and then saying that he wasn’t alleging causation.
==> “He is a doctor, so I think he does have some scientific sense.”
As a doctor, and as an elected politician who as such is, essentially, part of the public health system, he should take the time to be responsible about discussing these issues and not exploit them for political expediency.
Bill, Rand Paul and Christy both blew it big time on this. The MMR/autism link was an attempted UK financial shakedown. Fully exposed, and fully rebutted by many follow up studies. Wakefield lost his medical license over it. Yet because of correlation (not equal to causation) folks like Jenny McCarthy whimper on. And both politicians pandered to that fringe unscientific belief. Proving neither fit for high office. Paul knew; he is an MD. Christy knew or shoild have known. Simple fitness tests.
Immediately preceding comment’s relevance to CAGW is very important, lest warmunists misunderstand. Sceptics are being portrayed equivalent to vaccine deniers. Ah, but all the evidence in the two situations is semi inverted, so the comparison is exactly false. Vaccine harm, false. CAGW harm, also false. Vaccine benefit, good. CO2 benefits (energy, C3 plant growth) also.
It is warmunists who are equivalent to vaccine deniers.
The only typical vaccination I haven’t had yet is for pneumonia. I’ll be getting it soon.
http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202673075069/Vaccine-Cases-Fill-This-Courts-Docket#ixzz3RCNBagIY
The question is not the efficacy of vaccination – or even the relative safety – but in not sweeping resultant effects on people under an ideological carpet.
The first two paragraphs come from a discussion on Vaccine Court decisions and not the law jouranl.
Joshua, you presume far too much. Really. I do not usually feed trolls, but here is some poisoned bait.
I do not know Rand Paul. But since he is an MD, his measles vaccination position makes him unfit for public office in my opinion. See that example of grossly fraudulent science in my The Arts of Truth. He knows about herd immunity (given measles infectivity, at least 94%) yet panders to outliers who mistake correlation for causation even after the fraudulent Wakefield paper was retracted and his medical license revoked for malpractice.
And just to finish this vent off, I went to grad school with Mitt Romney, and worked directly with him for two years thereafter. And have told everyone I know that from my perspective he was/is not presidentially fit either.
Why do you post such silly blanket assertions on a site dedicated to climate science? The Etc. part is concommitant energy policy and posts from folks like Prof. Rutledge at Cal Tech or Planning Engineer. Do try to get back on topic(s).
Now, if you wish to debate the equivalent of herd immunity in climate science, please bring it on and I will. But you either cannot, or will not since know would lose. But please do try. This is a ‘thrown glove challenge’ directly at you. If you don’t know what that means, read Ron Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton. Worthy read by itself in any event.
Joshua brought up this business of Rand Paul and vaccinations only to rile people. It has nothing to do with Week in review discussion. Why would anyone think there would anything to be gained by biting at the raw meat he dangled?
Cause on topical subjects, joshua is as bad. And still not moderated.
From the article:
…
“Governor Walker believes vaccinations help prevent serious health problems,” spokesman Tom Evenson said in an email to TPM. “That’s why his family is vaccinated and he encourages others to do the same.”
…
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scott-walker-vaccinations
Well, I thought it was a particularly good opportunity to show little joshie up for what he is. Don’t you think we aided him in exposing himself to be a complete fool?
Since Curiosity found the existence of large lakes in Mars’ distant past — does this have any relevance in understanding Earth’s Climate?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/science/space/curiosity-rover-28-months-on-mars.html?WT.mc_id=2015-Q1-KEYWEE-AUD_DEV-0101-0331&WT.mc_ev=click&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1420088400&bicmet=1451624400&ad-keywords=FEBAUDDEV&kwp_0=8826&kwp_4=64915&kwp_1=122124&_r=0
Lowell imagined he was mapping canals on the Martian surface as he peered through is much too weak telescope, only to prove early on that you could be delusional about planetary climate and still have a 50/50.
This subject might be of interest to any Martians:
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-seafloor-volcano-pulses-climate.html
Earthlings find the subject a bit of a bore.
Danny,
To put your 20% figure of inflation in electricity costs from 2007 till now in its proper light I’d point out the cumulative inflation factor in that period is between 14-17%, depending on your start point. On top of that many utilities have moved to tiered pricing. Much of that 20% increase in price has occurred in the upper usage tiers, people and businesses that can usually afford it.
Old retired folks like myself enjoy a nice baseline rate at a great price. Fourthly, here in California we have aggressive programs of assistance to the poor and others to improve their energy efficiency. That includes rebates for energy efficient appliances and great financing for insulating your house.
California, the land where everything costs more, made the decision to get on board the natural gas train decades ago because of air pollution, and it has paid off in many ways. Maybe the rest of the states should follow our lead, whether CO2 is the devil or not. Breathing free in the Golden State.
Just for the record, re “Andrew Weaver, Canadian Climate Scientist, Wins Defamation Suit Against National Post” … having now slogged through this “judgment” … for those who might be interested, the view from here, so to speak:
IPCC-nik Andrew Weaver’s “Wall of hate” wins him $50,000
Wow!
TY for this, and regards.
I wonder if SM will comment. He’s been hot on the trial trail of Steyn.
I liked the time warp, allowing present speech to be future libel.
=============
“As has been anticipated, we show 2014 as the second hottest on record. And not by a close margin – the temperature anomaly for 2014 was 0.61°C, as compared to 0.63°C for 2010.”
“As has been anticipated, we show 2014 as the second hottest on record. And not by a close margin – the temperature anomaly for 2014 was 0.61°C, as compared to 0.63°C for 2010.”
quote from KC at SS.WITH THE PUNCH LINE
“Whether 2014 was hottest or not doesn’t really change our understanding of the science, but the media coverage should make it very clear that it is important for social reasons.”
It’s not the scientific facts that matters, It’s what spin we can put on it to push our view.
Not that I mind too much, By the measurements available 2014 was a hot year. The issue is whether it is part of a plateau that will fall or whether it is a sign of future ongoing warming. Only the future can tell.
The fact that a near El Nino was present for 8 months of the year said that it was a hot year, El Nino’s do not cause hot years. Hot years cause El Nino’s.
The start of this year seems to be cold, does anyone have a figure yet?
A cold start to the year is claimed to be a prognostic sign of a cold year overall.
My views on Arctic Ice extent looking a little sick at the moment.but there is still 5 weeks to go .
What u talkin bout Willis?
I misread what you wrote sorry about that. You can ignore my Different Strokes reference…
Hottest year ever. Darn those anthropogenic CFCs!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Biggest science scandal ever? If by biggest you mean most expensive, no question.
Gary
Yes, I spotted that one too and am glad you posted it.
It would be interesting to hear from Mosh as to whether the various strands of data mentioned HAVE been cooled.
If not, a straightforward explanation by him as to why perception and reality are two different things in this case would be helpful.
tonyb
It’s conspiracy I tell ya. Got to be..
Joseph
I do not believe in hoaxes, conspiracies, frauds, or that Climate scientists are st*p*d.
That is why it would be good to get Mosh’s perspective, as this series of posts by Homewood and prior to that Goddard, keep resurfacing, claiming this retrospective cooling in specific regional datasets
tonyb
“It’s conspiracy I tell ya”
Truer words have never been spoken by a Warmer. Funny how the truth slips out sometimes. Whoops.
Andrew
“It’s conspiracy I tell ya”
And if you don’t the ‘C’ word…
It’s just people selling out people. Which has a rich and glorious tradition.
Andrew
Tonyb
you mentioned that you’ve seen discrepancies in the CET data from the Met office, no?
John
Yes, I noticed that my 2007 printed copy of CET was different to the latest version. I posted about it here and Vuk replied. To hIs credit he had realised the met office were not calculating CET properly and had informed them.
To their credit they had subsequently changed their calculations.
I will see if I can find the part of the thread that detailed all this.
Tonyb
John
Here is the link that led to he CET discussion.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/02/questioning-the-robustness-of-the-climate-modeling-paradigm/#comment-671194
I emailed the met office and they confirmed the changes although they did not admit it was Vuk that had alerted them.
Most of the changes were to warm the past. I noticed the changes as I had written a couple of Years ago that 2011(?) and the first year in the record 1659 were identical in temperature. The adjustment has now made 1659 slightly warmer.
Tonyb
tonyb,
“I do not believe in hoaxes, conspiracies, frauds, or that Climate scientists are st*p*d.”
I believe in hoaxes, conspiracies and frauds. I come across them all the time in my profession. And almost everybody sucks at if. Even Bernie Madoff got caught. (The rule seems to be that the smaller the hoax/fraud/conspiracy, the more likelihood it will succeed.)
I also believe people, even highly intelligent people, are capable of stupidity, including climate scientists.
That does not mean that the folks at the Met Office are engaged in skull duggery; or that those adjusting temps are doing so for nefarious purposes.
But the fact that they do not have ill intent also does not mean they are not subject to other human foibles, like tribalism, confirmation bias etc.
I have seen Mosher’s explanations before about why “we should expect” that the modern adjustments to temperature series almost always make older temps colder, and current temps warmer. And I don’t doubt for a second that he believes what he says. At least when he is saying it. (With Mosher, you never know when he will make the exact opposite argument on any given topic.)
But these are acolytes of the church that fundamentally believes that computer generated data is equal to, if not better than, actual measurements. And that their statistical massaging of temperatures is accurate enough to make huge decisions regarding the global energy economy. So they don’t have the humility to critically analyze their own processes properly.
Hoax? Nah. Fraud? Nope. Conspiracy? They aren’t smart enough to pull one that size off.
Stupid? Depends on how you define the word.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
First there’s theory inoculation, ‘Global Warming’ ter
‘Climate Change,’ then data inoculation, cooling ter
warming.
If the CFC paper is correct, what’s the big deal? The CFC abstract reads, in part:
For global climate change, in-depth analyses of the observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human-made halogenated gases played the dominant role in Earth’s climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively. Remarkably, a statistical analysis gives a nearly zero correlation coefficient (R = 0.05) between corrected global surface temperature data by removing the solar effect and CO2 concentration during 1850–1970. In striking contrast, a nearly perfect linear correlation with coefficients as high as 0.96–0.97 is found between corrected or uncorrected global surface temperature and total amount of stratospheric halogenated gases during 1970–2012. Furthermore, a new theoretical calculation on the greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6°C in 1970–2002.
Interested Bystander,
Assuming you’d replied to me as the poster RE: CFC’s, I found this of interest “Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5 ~ 7 decades. It is also expected that the global sea level will continue to rise in coming 1 ~ 2 decades until the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar O3 hole recovery; after that, both will drop concurrently.”
Two reasons. It further indicates a “self healing” nature of our planet much as “the pause” vs. CO2 (unproven?) and also as an alternative to CO2 being the cause of G.W.
Danny
I note that you referenced a paper by Quinn bin lui who I have corresponded with in the past
He has written a number of interesting papers on ozone/CFCs and if I remember correctly Cosmic rays, which of course were a core component of svensmarks theory for warming as postulated in his book ‘the chilling stars’
Lui seems to continually slightly change his position and I don’t know what stage of his journey he is currently on
Tonyb
Tony B,
I’m a readin’. I’m a readin’.
Gathering evidence, building a foundation, and trying to become educated. Taking on line courses, and maybe a bit of flailing about. But it’s making me think!
Would you suggest “The Chilling Stars” at this point, or to save for future?
Currently in wonderful conversation with Dr. Richard Milne also. He’s a patient man.
Regards,
Danny
Yes, I would recommend the book but it’s not one you coud read whilst watching the tv. It’s pretty heavy going but intriguing. They did a fairly inconclusive experiment on cosmic rays at CERN a year or so ago.
Tonyb
TonyB,
Will add it to the list. I’m becoming a bit of a conspiracy theorist. I think the book, paper, and on line folks are out to get me…………….And I monitor still a couple blogs to make sure I don’t get behind………….LOL!
Thanks for your continued guidance. If you see me running off the rails, please don’t hesitate to hollar!
Danny
Andrew montford from bishop hill, a British blog, carried an item on dr Milne a few years ago concerning the divergence problem
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/14/richard-milne-on-the-divergence-problem.html
Tonyb
Tony B,
Dr. Milne is spending much time with me. Much of what he’s saying is party line. Hottest year ever, so we’re discussing confidence levels and so on. Cowton and Way from Dr. Curry’s link was helpful. But he’s being respectful, polite, patient and communicative (as am I). And he calling to action so we’re debating CO2. He’s making me think and work which is good for me. I’m learning, and he’s tolerating. He knows that I’m visiting blogs as they’re so up to date. He’s a big fan of Skeptical Science. He knows I’m a skeptical warmer/lukewarmer? (I guess that’s my label). It’s quite pleasant and good for my level of understanding.
Thanks for the link. Comments are not kind.
Hi Tony
We may be blessed with few more warm winters, but not much joy for summer.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-WS-Fcst.gif
(man at MO declined details)
Great read from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-obama-the-theologian.html?ref=opinion
Richard
Yep. The thing is, the US does have a poor history WRT blacks. Pathetic even.
But, that is no excuse to let ISIS run free. The King of Jordan is leading from the front – Obama should be right behind him, but I’m not holding my breath.
Jim2
I think the response to Isis has been very poor. It has also been very poor to Crimea and to the fanatics in Nigeria.
Obviously the worlds policeman has given up the role and the rest of the west are fLoundering. We should all be ashamed at our response as evil will grow unless challenged and there is growing evil/ barbarism and a seeming willingness to allow countries like Russia to push the envelope.
Tonyb
Tonyb,
“Obviously the worlds policeman has given up the role…”
Obama has given up, but the entire nation has not. That said, many in the US, perhaps most, are war weary after approximately a decade in Afghanistan and Iraq. We spent much blood and treasure. If Europe, China, India – all have been targets of Islamic terror – are “all in”, we can make some progress. It is a classic case of the “prisoner’s dilemma”.
I wonder what France has been doing lately. I think Spain caved in long ago. Where is India after Mumbai? Indonesia? Italy? Japan? I don’t think it is fair to expect that my two sons are going to go risk life, limb, and mind if the rest of the world is going to wring it’s hands.
Selective bombing will be a good start. Like the King of Jordan said – take out their family, friends, and the clerics who tell them to convert the world to Islam.
jim2
Some say that cultural imperialism, intentional or not, has contributed to Islamic fundamentalism. Perhaps. Clearly western culture has come to dominate the world. Niall Ferguson has described this pretty well. There are a lot of holdouts in the middle east, which is why I think it is odd that the Jordanian fellow quoted Clint Eastwood’s movie character from “Unforgiven”. Why not quote Saladin?
Justin
It’s some years since I was last there but Jordan was very British, from its tv programmes to its theatre. Which is not to say of course that it’s not also very Arabic. The kings wife was British. He went to Sandburst.
The ruling elite are Unlikely to quote Saladin. The man on the street might. At present the man on the street is not the ruling elite so currently westen values still rank highly. Clint Eastwood could roughly be said to be western culture.
Tonyb
Tonyb,
I didn’t know about the relationship between Jordan and GB. I am gonna have to do some reading.
Justin
I travelled all round the middle east and Jordan was by far my favourite country as I felt confortBle there as there were so many British cues. At the border wth Syria the Extremely badly dressed and scary border guards on the Syrian side were in complete contrast with the Jordanian guards who were immaculately dressed and talked with interest on the books in my luggage which included one by agatha Christine. They were fans of hers and one had been to London to see the mousetrap.
Iraq was interesting, especially as I met sadaam Hussein who was taking bribes at the trade organisation I had to visit.
Jordan is small and vulnerable so hope the west will support them. Changing demographics will make them vulnerable to the more extreme forms of Islam so we need to keep them in the western fold and help them in their time of need
Tonyb
Jim2
Two thoughts:
1. My big take-away from the NYT article was the author’s comparison of Obama’s prayer breakfast speech and Eisenhower’s going away speech. They both admitted weaknesses of America, but Obama deftly excluded himself from blame while Eisenhower did not exclude himself (I need to read more about his criticism of the scientific community).
2. When I lived in England I was struck by the displays, in the tower of London, of the torture tools used in medieval England. IMHO, civilization has become more humane over time, there are exceptions though. America of course has also had its dark history, with slavery and the witch trials.
Got to go – my husky wants out; she loves the snow.
Regards,
Richard
Justin
I meant to mention that prince Charles met with the king of Jordan today, so there are still close ties.
Tonyb
You fellas don’t know how bad it is. Bob Woodward is no Tea Party shill:
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/08/woodward-military-upset-susan-rice-telling-generals-how-to-fight/
My friends, who know things, tell me that at least half of the U.S. sorties sent to bomb ISIS come back without dropping their bombs. In other words, on thousands of flights U.S airmen are exposed to the possibility of being shot down or going down accidentally and falling into the hands of ISIS, to take some bombs on a useless round trip over hostile territory. Rules of engagement dreamed up by an Alinskyite community activist. ROE from the O White House have gotten a lot of our people killed and maimed in Afghanistan. Anywhere our people are in harms way, they will have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs and will have to get permission to defend themselves. Obama is not popular with the troops.
DM – Obama is leading from across enemy lines. If anyone in Congress had balls bigger than Tiny Tim’s, they would impeach Obama for treason.
In sharp contrast to the conservative religious views of Ross Douthat, CinC Obama is careful to follow CinC Lincoln’s broad principle: never appeal to intercessory prayer. Needless to say, modern scientific studies strongly support the Obama/Lincoln intercessory-inefficacy principle.
Instead, CinC Obama’s practice is to speak softly and wield a network-collapsing stick
The speak-softly approach has worked a whole lot better than the loud-talking troops-all-in pallets-of-cash approach, eh Climate Etc readers?
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/bush-mission-accomplished.jpg
Conclusion It’s reasonable to speak softly.
Joshua,
Thinking about your previous commentary Re: risk. In discussion with another (younger than I) I recalled this:
I lived in the 60’s when we practiced sitting in school hallways with our legs crossed (Indian/Native style) and hands behind our necks in case “the bomb” was dropped. My sisters (older) sat under thier desks. We had “civil defense” shelters in which to hide.
I lived in the 60’s/70’s in tornado country where we did the same kinds of drills.
I lived in the 70’s and was told about the coming “ice age”.
So living now with “catastrophe” coming due to global warming leads me to be more conservative and less alarmed. And I think about how many others are just like me. These, plus many just before me (and just after me) went to war. My father served in WWII and his folks came up right after “the war to end all wars”. Now this is not to challenge you as I have no idea of your age and what you’ve actually lived through. This is only to provide perspective so you can grasp why others may not respond as you do. Food for thought.
Been there, done all that.
Rosanne Rosannadana!
Obama continues to make his own CAGW based laws:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20150203/want-build-federal-funds-new-order-requires-planning-future-flood-risk?utm_source=Inside+Climate+News&utm_campaign=9080eeb09d-Weekly_Newsletter_2_8_20152_6_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-9080eeb09d-327531733
Controlling people rather than controlling floods is the green way.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html
The insanity of this discussion is total. Each of these models have thousands of divergent solutions starting from arbitrarily close starting points. Here’s one family of solutions.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/rowlands-2012-fig1.png
Each of the solutions in the opportunistic ensemble of the CMIP5 is one possible solution among many. A solution chosen on the grounds of expectations of the modelling groups. They have all chosen warm solutions when compared to observations. I wonder why?
But the HadCML3 ensemble shows that there are solutions – in the chaotic family of solutions – that resemble observations. The wiggles of any particular solution – however – are random and unpredictable outcomes of combinations of nonlinear equations. Meaningless in themselves. Marotzke & Forster (2015) are examining entrails – and everyone else is disputing the interpretation.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
All models have parameter and structural uncertainties that introduce instabilities that will propagate over time. James McWilliams calls the range of divergent solutions irreducible imprecision. It is shown in the range of HadCML3 projections. It is the nature of chaos that Lorenz showed was at the core of these climate models.
If we center observations to the mean of the models, we would be left with a delta-T range of about -1 to 3 at ~2055.
The model results here – as I have said to you before – are constrained to those solutions that more or less resemble observations. These solutions continue to diverge through time giving one estimate of the range of irreducible imprecision.
Anyone seen this one before? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732%20
“These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases. Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5 ~ 7 decades. It is also expected that the global sea level will continue to rise in coming 1 ~ 2 decades until the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar O3 hole recovery; after that, both will drop concurrently.”
From 7th line from the bottom.
FutureGen Coal
Practical economics wins.
Beware of Greeks bearing bonds.
From the article:
…
Athens (AFP) – Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said Sunday the country had a “moral obligation” to claim reparations from Germany for the damages wrought by the Nazis during World War II.
Greece had “a moral obligation to our people, to history, to all European peoples who fought and gave their blood against Nazism,” he said in a key address to parliament.
Berlin has already sounded a firm “no” to requests for reparations nearly 70 years after the end of the war, but Tsipras and his radical left party have vowed to tackle the issue.
…
http://news.yahoo.com/greece-moral-obligation-claim-german-wwii-reparations-pm-192051560.html;_ylt=AwrBJSBVvNdUcTUA4WzQtDMD
The Greeks should welcome a German invasion, the shape they are in.
This is a travesty of science.
From the article:
…
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) (formerly known as Triana, unofficially known as GoreSat[1]) is a NOAA Earth observation and space weather satellite scheduled to be launched by SpaceX on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle on 9 February 2015 from Cape Canaveral[2]
It was originally developed as a NASA satellite proposed in 1998 by then-Vice President Al Gore for the purpose of Earth observation. It is intended to be positioned at the Sun-Earth L1 Lagrangian point, 1,500,000 kilometres (930,000 mi) from Earth, to monitor variable solar wind condition, provide early warning of approaching coronal mass ejections and observe phenomena on Earth including changes in ozone, aerosols, dust and volcanic ash, cloud height, vegetation cover and climate. At this location it will have a continuous view of the Sun and the sunlit side of the Earth. It will take full-Earth pictures about every two hours and be able to process them faster than other Earth observation satellites.[3]
…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory
Rob Ellison
Your “synchronization events of the 1910s, 1940s, and 1970s” were caused by the interaction of planetary magnetic fields with the Sun, there being natural 934-year and superimposed 60-year cycles as shown here in that plot derived from planetary orbits and extending to the year 2200.. You cannot produce any valid physics that would explain warming by water vapor or carbon dioxide, but feel free to try so that I can tear it to pieces.
I suggest that plot from planetary orbits is far better correlated with climate records than anything to do with carbon dioxide, which actually cools, but by less than 0.1% and does not warm, just like water vapor does not raise Earth’s surface temperature. How could it do that and, at the same time, make the “lapse rate” less steep, thus making a huge difference in the area under the plot of the thermal profile, that area relating (roughly) to outward radiation? Such outward radiation would then exceed the incident insolation considerably – not a result you’d like in your efforts to promulgate the radiative forcing hoax that is not supported by the laws of physics.
The ‘synchronisation’ involves modes of ocean and atmospheric circulation. This may be related to the solar magneto and solar UV – but the system response is internal and modulates already broad characteristic periodicities.
Multi-decadal variability in the Pacific is defined as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (e.g. Folland et al,2002, Meinke et al, 2005, Parker et al, 2007, Power et al, 1999) – a proliferation of oscillations it seems. The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947).
There is a growing literature on the potential for stratospheric influences on climate (e.g. Matthes et al 2006, Gray et al 2010, Lockwood et al 2010, Scaife et al 2012) due to warming of stratospheric ozone by solar UV emissions. Models incorporating stratospheric layers – despite differing greatly in their formulation of fundamental processes such as atmosphere-ocean coupling, clouds or gravity wave drag – show consistent responses in the troposphere. Top down modulation of SAM and NAM by solar UV has the potential to explain otherwise little understood variability at decadal to much longer scales in ENSO.
Complexity in the Earth system emerges from the interaction of simple components. Including the atmospheric radiative dynamics that you continue to eccentrically misconstrue with your invalid ‘physics’.
Rob – never argue with a Group. What makes her/him a Group? I don’t know, but a multiple personalities disorder is an option.
The point that our group of six persons with suitable qualifications in physics is making is that temperature records since the Roman warming correlate very well with the plot here and are likely to do so into the future, as is projected there (from planetary orbits) until the year 2200.
Magnetic fields from the planets probably also affect cosmic ray intensity, and that probably then affects cloud formation. Obviously the level of cloud cover affects albedo, so that 255K figure (based on 30% albedo) will vary a little with such variations in cloud cover.
But what does not happen is that the surface temperature can be calculated from a net mean flux of about 390K which is calculated by adding flux of about 340W/m^2 from radiation from the colder atmosphere (which does not penetrate oceans) to solar flux of about 168W/m^2 and then deducting sensible heat flux out of the surface. You could not do such calculations at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus, because there is no solar flux reaching down there, and there’s hardly any IR-active molecules in the first 200Km above that, and there’s no surface either. But from our group’s hypothesis we can calculate the temperature there within about 10 degrees.
‘Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem
to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example—would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the
terrestrial amplification of the Sun’s varying output.’ http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
People have been looking for a solar amplifying mechanism for a long time. Cosmic rays and clouds don’t leap out as being a major factor. It certainly isn’t a 1 to 1 correspondence, there are far from precise periods and there are plenty of indications that the climate is largely the result of complex interactions of simple terrestrial systems.
The radiative numbers from your group of six eccentric sky dragon schism is purely nuts of course.
Rob Ellison
In reply to your allegations please note that none of the members of our group is a member of the sky dragons and we certainly agree with you that their “explanations” of surface temperatures in their radiation postulates are totally incorrect.
Group of six. Exactly a half-dozen clowns.
… sky dragon schism is what I said…
Rob Ellison: See our group’s webpage “Slaying the Slayers: …
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/PSI.html
Dr. Curry et al,
Increase the water vapor albedo and voila`: http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/Mystery-of-the-milky-rain-in-Eastern-Washington-solved–291226971.html?
Problem solved?
last link to Bob Ward article is broken
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/science/panel-urges-more-research-on-geoengineering-as-a-tool-against-climate-change.html?_r=0
For whatever reason you choose to believe, the empirical evidence stands that the centrifugal force acting along any radius in a Ranque Hilsch vortex tube clearly causes there to be a temperature gradient along that radius. It is just as BigWaveDave explained to Tim Folkerts three years ago when he was refuting Robert Brown’s article about the Loschmidt effect on WUWT …
“Because the import of the consequence of the radial temperature gradient created by pressurizing a spherical body of gas by gravity, from the inside only, is that it obviates the need for concern over GHG’s. And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhD’s, it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement.”
Now imagine that they were doing the same kind of stuff with just rocks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2948229/100-sex-cult-sites-Israel-Mysterious-8-000-year-old-stone-circles-filled-phallic-carvings-mountains.html
Eight thousand years and still going strong. At least we do not live in the ‘stone’ age today. We are smarter than all that. Alma Mater, taught you everything you need to know.
I love this rebuttal from Lu; the CFC-warmist:
“In the Comment by Nuccitelli et al., they make many false and invalid criticisms of the CFC-warming theory in my recent paper, and claim that their anthropogenic forcings including CO2 would provide a better explanation of the observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) data over the past 50 years. First, their arguments for no significant discrepancy between modeled and observed GMST changes and for no pause in recent global warming contradict the widely accepted fact and conclusion that were reported in the recent literature extensively. Second, their criticism that the key data used in my recent paper would be “outdated” and “flawed” is untrue as these data are still used in the recent or current literature including the newest (2013) IPCC Report and there is no considerable difference between the UK Met Office HadRCUT3 and HadRCUT4 GMST datasets. The use of even more recently computer-reconstructed total solar irradiance data (whatever have large uncertainties) for the period prior to 1976 would not change any of the conclusions in my paper, where quantitative analyses were emphasized on the influences of humans and the Sun on global surface temperature after 1970 when direct measurements became available. For the latter, the solar effect has been well shown to play only a negligible role in global surface temperature change since 1970, which is identical to the conclusion made in the 2013 IPCC Report. Third, their argument that the solar effect would not play a major role in the GMST rise of 0.2°C during 1850–1970 even contradicts the data and conclusion presented in a recent paper published in their Skeptical Science by Nuccitelli himself. Fourth, their comments also indicate their lack of understandings of the basic radiation physics of the Earth system as well as of the efficacies of different greenhouse gases in affecting global surface temperature. Their listed “methodological errors” are either trivial or non-existing. Fifth, their assertion that “the climate system takes centuries to millennia to fully equilibrate” is lack of scientific basis. Finally, their model calculations including an additional fitting parameter do not reduce the discrepancy with observed GMST data even after their adjustments. Instead, their modeled results give a sharp GMST rise over the past 16 years, which obviously disagrees with the observed data.”
Quite – “obviously disagrees with the observed data” – well except to ‘pause deniers’ whose contrarian ranks now officially include Mosher’s pals; Cowtan & Way alongside Cook & Nuccitelli (disagreeing with himself yet again), all of whom “contradict the widely accepted fact and conclusion that were reported in the recent literature extensively”.
Yes James. The models are wrong because of the initial assumption that without GH gases the troposphere would have been isothermal. We know this assumption is made because we know the 255K temperature is at about 5Km altitude, and yet they say the surface would have been the same 255K. From there they get their sensitivity by assuming water vapor makes rain forests about 30 to 40 degrees hotter than dry regions and carbon dioxide adds a bit of warming also. In fact none of that happens.
The assumption regarding isothermal conditions is inherently applying the Clausius “hot to cold” statement which is just a corollary of the Second Law which only applies in a horizontal plane. That we know because it is clearly specified (as here) that the entropy equation is derived by assuming that changes in molecular gravitational potential energy can be ignored. It is those changes which actually cause the temperature gradient to evolve, so we must always remember that sensible heat transfers are not always from warmer to cooler regions in a vertical plane in a gravitational field
.
So they cannot prove that the Clausius statement they use to get their assumed isothermal conditions is correct in a vertical column of a planet’s troposphere, and so they cannot prove the fundamental building block upon which they built the GH conjecture.
Roy Spencer and all climatologists contradict themselves.
(1) They say the troposphere would have been isothermal without greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor) so that the surface would have been 255K which is the same as the radiating temperature 255K found about 5Km above the surface. Then they say GH gases (mostly water vapor) raise the surface temperature (not the radiating temperature) so that they increase the lapse rate (temperature gradient) to about 7C°/Km.
(2) They say (and know full well) the the GH gas water vapor reduces the lapse rate.