by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses [link]
Predicting arctic shipping routes circa 2050 and 2100 [link]
18 Major Flood Events Have Hit Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas Since March 2015 [link]
Induced climate change ‘tug of war’ keeps scientists guessing on storm tracks [link]
New work from @Scripps_Ocean shows landfalling typhoons have intensified
[link]
When using GCM’s to simulate tropical cyclones, it’s important to include the “cold wake” phenomenon. [link]…
Ever wonder what the inside of an ARGO float looks like ? [link]
Smart buoy for measuring water pollutants [link]
Corn Ethanol Is Now a Climate-Change Scandal [link]
Climate Change, #Arctic Security, and Methane Risks [link]
NOAA: Climate change fueled deadly Louisiana floods [link]
CO2-Enrichment Boosts the Growth and Water Use Efficiency of Two Tomato Cultivars [link] …
Permafrost carbon-climate feedback [link]
Drought-induced vegetation shifts in terrestrial ecosystems: The key role of regeneration dynamics [link]
Massive ‘Donut’ Reef Discovered Behind Australia’s Great Barrier Reef [link]
Climate-induced changes in ecological dynamics of the Alaskan boreal forest: fire-permafrost interactions [link] …
Study: Computer Models Can’t Predict Extinctions From Global Warming [link]
As permafrost thaws, trees grow faster in Alpine Tibetan forests [link]
Research Breakthrough: #Solar-Powered Reaction 100 Times Faster [link]
About science and academia
Publication bias and the canonization of false facts: [link]
Popular mis-estimations of error rates of different forms of forensic proof [link]
“Cognitive bias cheat sheet” [link]
How curiosity can protect the mind from bias [link]
A provocative essay: Science in the age of ‘selfies’ [link]
Uncertainty in the Era of Precision Medicine — NEJM [link] … …
Peter Gluckman: ‘the place of scientific evidence in policy making is neither straight ford nor guaranteed’ [link]
Should we embrace failure in science more? [link]
Nature: Stop ignoring misconduct [link]
“Influence is born of trust and relationships, not having a clever paper” on science<-> policy [link]
“Good enough practices in scientific computing” by @swcarpentry & @datacarpentry wizards http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.00037
All papers at @nature titles now must include info “on whether and how others can access the underlying data” http://www.nature.com/news/announcement-where-are-the-data-1.20541?WT.ec_id=NEWSDAILY-20160909 …
Student Expelled Without Fair Hearing After University Misrepresented His Inoffensive Comment [link]
The war against free speech on campus [link]
Senior scientists must engage in the fight against harassment [link]
The Church Of Climate Scientology: How Climate Science Became A Religion [link]
Why academics are losing relevance in society – and how to stop it [link] …
Climate experts already fine-tune their analysis to appease policymakers [link] …
Great news for climate science in Australia [link]
More great news for climate science in Australia. Dr John Cook gets a new job at George Mason University. [link]
Michael Mann: The Madhouse Effect [link]
And finally, from a tweet from Tom Nelson:
The scripps typhoon data only covers 37 years. It’s a blink of a climatic eye
Tonyb
Induced climate change ‘tug of war’ keeps scientists guessing on storm tracks
I like this one.
Jenifer Francis postulates a weakened, stagnant jet stream.
James Hansen postulates an energized super storm jet stream.
They can’t both be right ( but could, of course, both be wrong ).
But the settled science crowd doesn’t seem to even grasp the contradictory claims as long as one can support a notion of disaster.
A problem with invoking Arctic Amplification as a factor is that AA is a surface ( and lower level ) phenomenon. Forecasters tend to focus on 500mb features, and the jet stream is higher still (300 to 200mb). At the jet stream levels, the Hot Spot would tend to increase meridional gradients, but in reality, there’s little evidence of change:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/HotSpotGradient.png
18 Major Flood Events Have Hit Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas Since March 2015
Most of the floods have involved rainfall of more than 30cm a day for at least some areas.
Below are the GHCN precip data. Indicated are the average number of days ( average of all stations and all days per year ) of precipitation exceeding various thresholds. There does appear to be an increase in 10cm rains, though still not significant. There does not appear to be observational evidence to claim any trend for 30cm rains and surely some are old enough and still around to tell you about 1982 ( Super El Nino ):
https://turbulenteddies.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/ghcn_conus_extreme_precipitation.png
CONUS: Slightly warmer, slightly more moderate rain. Head for the rooftops, Mabel!
Climate Scientology. Another good commentary by Alex Epstein.
The Diciccio paper on ethanol biofuels got a lot of skeptical exposure recently (e.g.GWPF, WUWT). Its very wrong, and the specific problems as usual can be dug out of the SI. Commented extensively on it over at WUWT with a ground up verifiable recalculation. Corn ethanol cuts CO2 maybe 20% on an annual basis depending on pristover, plus distillers grain and resulting manure assumptions about annual corn cropland carbon sequestation. Of course, if the accounting is multiyear then the result is a net increase in CO2. No long term land carbon sequestration in stover plowed in, manure spread corn fields due to following summer bacterial action, plus CO2 from N fertilizer made from Methane plus diesel CO2 from farm machinery and transport.
Ethanol up to the 10% blendwall makes sense depending on season and location. 10% is summer in LA. Ethanol boosts octane (meaning more gas can be refined from a barrel of crude), and is an oxygenate that reduces tailpipe smog contributions. Nothing to do with CO2. Anything more than 10% (E10) is farm lobby greenwash.
I agree with Rud on ethanol use at ~10%. What the naysayers of ethanol absolutely refuse to acknowledge is minimum octane requirements for gasoline. In addressing octane requirements, anti-ethanol folks would have us follow North Korea of Afghanistan to return using lead? Or — we should forget legal precedents where MTBE is banned? Or — how about the use of benzene, toluene, or xylene?, after all concerns on things like cancers are way overstated.
Yep, we should forget all of the above (and more) and accept papers like the one cited by Dr. Curry — funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
I believe that growth in ethanol above the 10% blend-wall (for minimum octane requirements) should be market driven by : (1) Exports; (2) the next generation of fuel efficiency engines (turbo charging) requiring high octane requirements; (3) a lower (effective Btu) market price of ethanol than gasoline.
Glacial & sea level uncertainty exposed. IPCC “only” -217% error – It reported wrong sign +-0.27 mm/y) for Antarctica contribution to sea level vs actual (-0.23 mm/y)
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
Nope. The sat alt stuff is off. See essay Pseudoprecision. I commented here or at WUWT on this concerning the closure problemnot long ago. Diff GPS vertical land motion corrected long record tide gauges show ~2.2mm/year per Moerner’s most recent estimate. Sat alt shows ~ 3.4. Since SLR is the sum of ice mass loss plus thermosteric rise (the groundwater argument is deminimus), then estimates of those two primciple components must about equal any estimate of SLR. It does for 2.2. It does emphatically not for 3.4.
ristvan ???? I agree with your noting the those differences. I don’t see how that applies to the differences I pointed out – which were components – not the Total differences.
DH, I suspect we are in ‘violent’ agreement. The perhaps not well expressed thrust of my reply to your comment is that THERE ARE NO OTHER principle components to SLR as the article postulates. So the Zwally Antarctica stuff plus the revised diff GPS GRACE stuff just show a systematic error in the sat alt SLR. Warmunists do not want this exposed, since when they append sat alt to tide gauge (hiding what tide gauges show thereafter) they can point to SLR acceleration–using a direct equivalent of ‘Mike’s Nature trick’. Regards.
“NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses”
This report on Zwally’s work is from a year ago. It made for a lot of discussion on the difference in ice volume estimates between satellite gravimetry and altimetry. For sticking to his results Zwally found himself suddenly attacked by his alarmist buddies and defended by skeptics.
There is a very interesting two part back story on this told by McIntyre over at CA last year? I am going from memory, so may not be exactly right.
1. The Zwally ICESat analysis was available in 2012 before AR5, but not published until 2015 well after. Ummm…no pressure. Nope (sarc).
2. The previous sat GRACE estimates of ice loss depend critically on GIA adjustments. All the GRACE published estimates until 2013 depended on GIA models. In 2013, actual differential GPS coastline estimates of Antarctica GIA were published. The modeled estimates were about 4x high. When the ‘new’ observational GIA is plugged into the GRACE data, GRACE essentially shows no ice mass loss over its mission history. Another model fail creating undue warmunist alarm.
This incident is a perfect example of the modus operandi of the warmisterium. I never believed amazing GRACE stories of Antarctic mass loss while surrounding sea ice is growing and SSTs falling. Now they are exposed as fraud.
Not sure why this showed up on twitter this week, didn’t catch the date, i thought it was something new (I just glanced at it)
Repetition Is good, since the warmunists trashed Zwally, and never noted either the corrected GRACE estimates supporting him or McIntyre’s ceitique of early GRACE based on the corrected GIA. Now more denizens know the ‘truth’.
The bottom of the article says “Last Updated: Aug. 18, 2016” No idea what was updated.
Zwally was not trashed. He correctly predicted how his work would be abused and by whom.
actual quote from BBC “How curiosity can protect the mind from bias”
“people who are most extreme in there anti-science views – for example
skeptics of the risks of climate change – are more scientifically informed than those who hold anti-science views but less strongly.”
Say wha…?
Earth to progressives …
bias is a survival skill bestowed upon thee by Gaia.
Natural as the methane produced by a polar bear after a fresh seal brunch. Embrace it.
“researchers from the University of Reading in England used climate models to present a highly detailed analysis of how open the Arctic will become to shipping routes circa 2050 and 2100. And the answer is quite open indeed, depending of course on precisely how many greenhouse gases we actually emit in this century.”
Clever how that happens when rising GHG’s are modeled to increase positive NAO/AO, while AMO and Arctic warming are negative NAO/AO driven.
“And there’s little doubt that in the future, the Arctic will have even less sea ice than it does now,”
Rising GHG’s have had little effect on the natural AMO and Arctic warming cycle since 1995, and if they do marginally increase positive NAO/AO, that would tend to increase intensity of the next cold AMO phase.
“New work from @Scripps_Ocean shows landfalling typhoons have intensified”
but western pacific typhoons in general have not intensified
see Figure 16 on page 15
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278730805_A_GENERAL_LINEAR_MODEL_FOR_TRENDS_IN_TROPICAL_CYCLONE_ACTIVITY
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/09/09/california-government-power-back-aggressive-climate-change-bill-america/
“Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory staff scientist Jeffery Greenblatt admitted to the Bee that if California halted all emissions the “global warming picture” wouldn’t really change. Rather he said, the reductions would be a political action, aimed at encouraging others to do the same.”
Re: More great news for climate science in Australia. Dr John Cook gets a new job at George Mason University.
Brought to you by the same crowd that pushed for RICO suits against skeptics.
Almost enough to get me to reconsider Trump’s immigration stance…
From Donald and Stewart Geman paper…
“In the last few centuries, breakthroughs in physics, chemistry, and engineering were magically captured by elegant mathematical models. However, that paradigm has not translated to the studies of biology, medicine, climate, cognition, or perception, to name a few examples. The usual explanation in areas such as brain science is that such systems are somehow “unsimplifiable,” not amenable to abstraction. Instead, the argument continues, the challenges ahead are more about computation, simulation, and “big data”-style empiricism, and less about mechanisms and unifying theories.’
The issue with climate model is that they are robots, they are not simulation computer programs. They drive the climate without knowing what is the actual driver. The mathematical model prevents these mistakes from occurring. I think this important point has been missed by the authors.
Another one for the “about science” section:
“Publication bias and the canonization of false facts”
http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.00494
I am in Agriculture. As such, I react with puzzlement here at CE where increased greenhouse gases effects on plants are discussed.
(1) On one hand people (like Dr. Curry) emphasize the “Wicked Problem” with Climate Change — where a simplistic approach of “CO2 Only” isn’t warranted.
(2) But in Ag — here at CE, the possible existence of also “Wicked Problems in Agriculture” just don’t exist. For example, any Farmer knows about things like “the law of limiting factors”.
To believe that increased CO2 is simply plant food and the more the better just isn’t correct or inquisitive. Its a whole lot more complicated than this, yes a “Wicked Problem”.
Stephen, “To believe that increased CO2 is simply plant food and the more the better just isn’t correct or inquisitive. Its a whole lot more complicated than this, yes a “Wicked Problem”.
A wicked problem is supposed to be due to the complexity of the problem itself not the inability of the problem solvers. If you have actual evidence that atmospheric CO2 greater than X is detrimental for general agriculture, try producing it.
Why? Every time I present information from say, the prestigious Stockholm Environmental Institute you’ll either just say its wrong or there will be silence.
So today, I’ll just be lazy with Google: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=increased%20co2%20harmful%20to%20some%20plants
The vast majority of Commentors on the CE Blog don’t want to look for common ground — they just want to fight in binary terms.
Same ol’ same ol’ if CO2 reduces the need for as much water then plants will uptake less nitrogen and trace elements they get from water uptake through their root system. So if you get roughly 10% reduction in irrigation needed you get about 10% less gluten in wheat. That is bad if you want high gluten wheat but good if you want bigger yields with less water.
Most of the studies though are based on model estimates using the exaggerated BAU scenarios and some weird assumption that “pre-industrial” was agricultural Utopia. Actual CO2 levels drop significantly over a field during growth so if you “force” a constant 560 ppm you are more likely simulating something closer to 700 ppm. In other words, the test results are likely biased to the negative side of things and still show mixed benefits.
The biggest surprise from the study was the discovery that elevated carbon dioxide only stimulated plant growth when nitrogen, water and temperature were kept at normal levels.
The referenced paper is so daft I don’t know where to start with it.
It is typical warmunist propaganda.
i have crabgrass, blue grass, and fescue in my lawn, and temperatures and precipitation determine who is winning at any time of year. California grasslands? Really? I didn’t know California even had natural grasslands.
Further, 50% more precipitation?
“The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote.
California, most of it, is in a drought.
Stanford is in the San Francisco area (20 inches/y precipitation).
Since the 50% more precipitation isn’t likely they appear to have been shopping for problems.
Further this is from 2002.
There have been allegations that the CO2 plots were located in a phosphorus deficit part of the test field.
https://i1.wp.com/media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/123023_web.jpg
Gee, that looks real professional. Given the number of “more CO2 is better” studies since this one came out real scientists would have studied why this experiment is an outlier and fixed it.
PA, “Gee, that looks real professional. Given the number of “more CO2 is better” studies since this one came out real scientists would have studied why this experiment is an outlier and fixed it.”
Funny isn’t it. Forget all the controlled studies in green houses and jump on the “creative” field studies with the results you expect.
Hmmm, 40% increase in tuber yield under high CO2 conditions. Thank goodness I am a potato kinda guy.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2001.00015.x/pdf
To believe that increased CO2 is simply plant food and the more the better just isn’t correct or inquisitive. Its a whole lot more complicated than this, yes a “Wicked Problem”.
This is incorrect. It is a nice problem and there is nothing wicked about it.
Further, the warmunists frenzied efforts to dance around the beneficial nature of CO2 are just embarrassing.
The CSIRO 1982-2010 study indicated 11% more growth globally.
http://i.imgur.com/f1rRwYj.jpg
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160908130838.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
CSIRO made no allowance for deforestation (the brownish spot in Africa is Tanzania that converted 30% of the forest to firewood during the period). The low/negative growth areas match known areas of deforestion/land use change. The exceptions that I’m aware of are central Australia (which has little ground cover) and central Alaska. 10% of wilderness globally was lost in just the last 20 years (per a study reported in Current Biology). A lot of ground cover went bye-bye.
The global increase in average plant growth was the CSIRO 11% plus the roughly 14% of wilderness (using the Current Biology study as a guide) lost during the 28 year study period. The 1982-2011 growth increase in pristine and same use areas would presumably be more than double the 11% CSIRO study estimate.
http://matadorco2.com/wp-content/uploads/co2_enrichment_chart3.jpg
Further, until we get to 1200 PPM more is better, period. We have to get to 750 PPM for C3 plants to be on equal footing with C4.
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/irrigationmap/index50.stm
Further, more CO2 decreases water consumption which is a major limitation on food production. About 90% of human water consumption is for irrigation, without more CO2 people will increasingly have to chose between drinking water and food.
CO2 isn’t simply plant food – it is better than that, it is a planet saver.
it is a planet saver.
Lol… on our American family farms, we produced bumper crops… starting in 1620. We did not need any extra CO2.
JCH, “Lol… on our American family farms, we produced bumper crops… starting in 1620. We did not need any extra CO2.”
Wasn’t “bumper” yields per acre quite a bit lower back then?
Correlation is a tricky thing.
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/us-average-corn-grain-yields-1863-2002-russell-and-sandall0.png
JCH: Lol… on our American family farms, we produced bumper crops… starting in 1620. We did not need any extra CO2.
Yes, well in 1620 lots of people survived into adulthood without vaccines — nevertheless, vaccines are good on the whole.
The claim has been made that increased CO2 will be bad. So far, the evidence is that the direct effect of CO2 on crops and wild foliage is good. You have to find some way not to deny the scientific research
Lol… on our American family farms, we produced bumper crops… starting in 1620. We did not need any extra CO2.
Yes, go back to 1620 crop yields and the world is suddenly starving.
It’s confirmation bias that doesn’t allow those in love with CO2=disaster narratives that prevent them from accepting the obvious fact that they are carbon based life forms, alive only by the fact that plants photosynthesize airborne CO2, a process which increases when CO2 is more abundant.
You’re hilarious. Ever here of seed companies? Happened since 1620. Ever hear of pesticides? Happened since 1620. Ever hear of the plow? Happened since 1620. Ever hear of anhydrous ammonia? Happened since 1620. Ever hear of no-till farming? Happened since 1620. Ever hear of herbicides? Happened since1620. Ever hear a farmer pray for more CO2? No.
If a farmer’s prayer for rain didn’t work, praying for CO2 might be a fallback.
???
an innovation in plows
Ploughs were recorded in the Domesday book in the 11th century. On upland dartmoor the highest farmed land were recorded as having enough land for two ploughs. At that time the land could be farmed to a greater height than it can now.
Tonyb
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/us-grain-yields-and-temperature.jpg
Geological evidence is that the biosphere was much larger in past, suggesting we are far from hitting limits globally. Biosphere growth is accelerating.
Sure, we should wonder about maybe outpacing supply of trace nutrients and local supply, but globally, and given the likely limits to how fast we can consume fossil fuels, it is only plausible we could hit limits to biosphere growth in the sense that anything is possible and nothing is certain.
Don’t forget, those other nutrients are also down in the ground, often in the coal and oil themselves.
Something to think about, but not a big worry.
Wow! So many internationally recognized Ag Research Scientists here at CE. Example quote from a REAL Ag Scientist:
“Generally, experts believe that climate change will have a negative influence on global agriculture, but the way that all the different climatic factors interact with one another in all the different regions of the world is still far from clear.”
New Study on Wheat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/12/climate-change-is-really-bad-for-wheat-which-is-really-bad-for-us/?utm_term=.32b254b6877d
http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3115.epdf?referrer_access_token=CF4cxl4iUvqEEjLq0TZvU9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NLioT3t8jO-W_BnYzoXXSSm2sEgCVqcSISdwSfPPldZOaSY-RBjwH9XVxBzwgldxSUzxRnwrTJEkm7pqSntKyh0Bx_UOnjEWTL2XAbLy_s9FY2SaFz1fmxKX06CDVZZuv4bMsFaK9GpCmu3IWTLmDMK4Ylf9x_1y-ld0U9lXFc-TwE8LB4-vJ-h22cyil7LmG5v4rlWBF4vRLUJ4h5EJ_YAD3WntoXvK3MKTBPT4kqfTvUTAXLwCysMaES06eZfKi63riDMZ6O5eQFR7TmN2ZrC3IyZnF1l7gwCVMSxPFQ71saqqnC88Wpgxa4IlsoilA%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com
I wasn’t aware that only “real” ag scientists published in Nature Climate Change. I guess I am behind the times.
The guys at UF must be part of the deplorables basket.
http://www.research.ufl.edu/publications/explore/v06n2/rice.html
More CO2, more photosynthesis, more carbohydrates less water requirement. Pretty simple really. Warmer temperatures might require changing planting schedule or changing cultivar.
PT Barnum would be proud of you Stephen
Captain Dallas — Your article exactly makes my point. Dr. Curry says all the time “that all things being equal, that CO2 will increase temperatures”. She goes on to say “the problem is that all things are not and do not remain equal” — “We have a wicked problem”.
Re-read what the UF Ag Scientists actually SAID!!! (in the entire article)
Incredulously, you and others want to include “other things” besides CO2 in the Climate Debate. But with crops, nope you only want to look at CO2 (ignoring things like findings such as the detrimental nutrient impact on rice with increased CO2 which I’ve posted here).
Timg56 — Its people like you that make it very difficult to always try and take the high road here at CE. When have you ever provided anything of substance? The answer is never.
Impact of increased CO2 on Rice for all you Ag Experts: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-carbon-dioxide-air-restrict-ability.html
But according to people like Timg56, this type of research should be burned! and anyone citing them should be called names.
At least in the comment section — CE is not an objective cite.
Except with the exception of Rud, I doubt that any of the “expert” Commentors at CE even know what the “law of limiting factors” means in Ag.
Steven, “Re-read what the UF Ag Scientists actually SAID!!! (in the entire article) ”
I did, at the high end of estimates, that would be over 8 degrees F in the tropics which are warming at a lower rate than the 30N to 60N region, there would need to be some adaption to temperature. So you need to make up your mind about what catastrophe you are concerned about since RPC 8.5 appears to be highly unlikely and 2.25 F of warming per doubling skewed the higher latitudes during winter won’t have much impact on crop production. CO2 fertilization offsets some of the need for adaption.
That study like most is biased to a worse and probably unlikely case. Now if you think 10F of warming in the tropics is highly likely, it is too late son. Might as well eat drink and make merry because such are the fruits of over hyping.
Stephen, “Except with the exception of Rud, I doubt that any of the “expert” Commentors at CE even know what the “law of limiting factors” means in Ag.”
You are probably right, I just know that it is September and time to set out tomato plants if I want them to set fruit. Once temperatures get too high, mainly night wet bulb, the dang things don’t set fruit here in the tropics at sea level. Don’t matter how well I tend them.
Captain Unlike you, I’m inquisitive and being in Ag, I know AGW/CO2 is a wicked problem in understanding. Its not a binary subject as you (and others) want to make it.
No, not binary, SS. Just one of many similar attempts to get the warministas to consider the benefits of CO2.
Stephen, “Unlike you,” I am not into making a problem more wicked that it is. Additional CO2 is not going to be a limiting factor. Additional temperature will be a limiting factor in some areas and a reduction in limit in others. Depending on the timing of the increase in temperature, one would need to adjust planting time, warmer winters would increase overall growing season making that practical.
In spite of all the science involved, guessing when to plant is a bit of a black art and guys using the old farmer’s almanac are doing about as well as the guys using long range forecasting. Crop insurance is still a good thing in spite of your choice.
Get real, SS. On their face, the studies are worthless; No consideration of CO2 or precipitation influences.
As Charlie Skeptic avers: Any reliance on models for “projection” of future temperatures is an automatic fail.
Dave Fair
Captain — So when I post a study, say discussing CO2 and C3 and C4 plants, according to you and timg56 I’m just being a “clown” and an Alarmist CAGW type. We have thousands of Research Ag Scientists trying to understand this topic (which many of us consider wicked). Over and out — trying to provide objective thought (where I don’t have all the answers like you do) is throwing pearls to the swine.
I’m a porcine rooter for morrells of truth. I’ll take, however, any any of your pearls relating to the validity of climate model “projections” that seem to concern you and many others so much.
I ask because all the study and speculation about impacts and limiting factors on agriculture of temperature, CO2, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. rely on speculation about unknown future events. We seem to have the cart before the pig. [I just finished feeding the horses and scooping up the inevitable consequences so I choose a different animal to pull the proverbial cart.]
Stephen, “So when I post a study, say discussing CO2 and C3 and C4 plants, according to you and timg56 I’m just being a “clown” and an Alarmist CAGW type. ”
No, I just think you are being a bit irrational. CO2 and Ag is a Ternary problem, good, bad neutral (mixed) which isn’t a “wicked” problem. As I said, most of the papers use the extreme range of projections and find mainly mixed results. The Rice paper is an example, if the worst case happens, it will be more difficult to grow rice where many now grow rice using the methods they now use to grow rice. Other than the worst case, CO2 is mainly beneficial. Now if the worst of the worst cases should happen, there will be a host of other much more pressing issues than maintaining a predominately rice diet. Some people may have to acquire a taste for sweet potatoes perhaps, they will yield bumper crops in a warmer climate with more CO2. Kinda neat that sweet potatoes are a “super food” isn’t it.
I thought you said you were in energy generation.
And before whining about how no one takes you seriously when you link to “science” papers, try evaluating the material first. When the paper is using mostly model output, it is probably as “scientific” as predicting this year’s Super bowl champ based on research you conducted using your Xbox and Madden NFL 2016.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1944424032/ref=cm_sw_su_dp?utm_content=bufferfc084&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
“Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything”
By Michaels & Knappenberger. Now available in an inexpensive paperback. Excellent, non-technical but detailed.
A bit over the top but certainly interesting:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/
Cooling not warming?
As I have said the sun drives the climatic system of the earth therefore any changes in solar activity are going to translate to the climatic system.
The problem is small changes in solar activity are going to be obscured because the climatic system has noise in it.
So when one tries to show a solar climate connection when the sun is not in an extreme mode it gets very difficult and often times the noise in the climate system will actually overcome small solar changes and there impact upon the climate. Hence correlations are poor.
However, if solar changes are large enough and long enough in duration then the solar/climate correlations become more apparent which has been demonstrated when one looks at the historical climatic record, which shows without exception every prolonged extreme minimum solar event has been associated with a drop in global temperatures.
I have put forth those solar parameters /duration of time which I feel are needed to impact the climate and I think gong forward the solar parameters I have put forth will come to be which will then manifest itself in the climate system by causing it to cool. I dare say I think it has started already.
How cool it is hard to say because there are climatic thresholds out there which if the terrestrial items driven by solar changes should reach could cause a much more dramatic climatic impact.
Terrestrial Items
atmospheric circulation patterns
volcanic activity
global cloud coverage
global snow coverage
global sea surface temperatures
global sea ice coverage
ENSO a factor within the overall global sea surface temperature changes.
Solar Parameters Needed and Sustained.
cosmic ray count 6500 or greater
solar wind speed 350 km/sec or less
euv light 100 units or less.
solar irradiance off by .15% or more
ap index 5 or lower
Interplanetary Magnetic Field 4.5 nt or lower
Solar Flux 90 or lower
Duration of time over 1 year following at least 10 years of sub solar activity in general which we have had going back to year 2005.
We may live in an expanding solar system…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
but it will not make a difference now.
“Permafrost carbon-climate feedback” Another prediction of catastrophe in a couple of centuries. No way to prove any of it, however.
Reposting on the proper thread…
Let this be a test of your skepticism. Can you find the obvious piece that has been left out?
Did you find it?
How about: “If we continue emitting ACO2 at the rate we are doing so currently, we run the risk of negatively affecting the climate in terms of the impact on society, and this it makes sense to evaluate policies that will reduce those emissions.”
Gee. I wonder why Epstein left that out?
One can understand Epstein being a tad defensive when the government of his country has practically declared war on his industry.
So, they made him do it?
Regarding: “NOAA: Climate change fueled deadly Louisiana floods”:
“Climate change played a major role in the historic rainfall that caused catastrophic flooding in Louisiana last month, nearly doubling the chance of such a deluge taking place, according to a fast-tracked federal report released Wednesday.”
“The report is an example of single event attribution study released rapidly to catch the public’s eye while an extreme weather event is still fresh in people’s minds, NOAA said.”
This sounds like a propaganda strategy to me. And as usual the report is based on lots of assumptions and models – models which has not been validated by testing. Here is link to the submitted paper: Rapid attribution of the August 2016 flood-inducing extreme precipitation in south Louisiana to climate change
And why should we believe that NOAA is able predict precipitation in a reliable manner? Let´s have a look at NOAA´s prediction of the trajectory of Hurricane Joaquin – note the totally unrealistic uncertainty range:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ScreenHunter_10719-Oct.-08-19.53.gif
“The graphic above shows all of the NOAA forecast tracks, and the “cone of uncertainty” on October 1 and October 7. It is clear that they claim certainty much greater than is realistic.”
– Final Joaquin Scorecard
It seems like NOAA would struggle to meet the Next Generation Science Standards:
“Practice 2 Developing and Using Models
… Although models do not correspond exactly to the real world, they bring certain features into focus while obscuring others. All models contain approximations and assumptions that limit the range of validity and predictive power, so it is important for students to recognize their limitations.”
Extracts:
“Grade K-2
Distinguish between a model and the actual object, process, and/or events the model represents.
Grade 3-5
Identify limitations of models.
Grade 6-8
Evaluate limitations of a model for a proposed object or tool.
Grade 9-12
Design a test of a model to ascertain its reliability.”
NOAA would pass Grade 6-8 – but fail to meet the Grade 9 – 12 standard.
Well, I’m sure if the climate had been in an ice house, the floods wouldn’t have happened. So, obviously, climate change had an impact.
The war against free speech on campus [link]
“Perhaps the most destructive development is the dogma that dissent from social justice orthodoxy constitutes literal violence against vulnerable groups which must not be tolerated.”
“This conflation of speech and violence is the inevitable consequence of the popular dogma that so-called “hate speech” falls beyond the pale of free speech immunity. The idea that opinions can trigger traumatic emotional episodes and that people should be safe from offensive views is a menace to the very idea of free expression.”
You can’t say that.
Money is not speech.
Corporate speech is not speech.
Hate speech is not speech.
Now, You can’t say that on campus.
When people went along with the idea of hate speech they were setting up future sacrifices such as what we are seeing now.
My former student, Golden Hwaung, and I were writing a note on solar cosmic rays this weekend and uncovered this 1998 report by The Millennium Group:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/cosmicrays.html
TMG was informed that we agree with their 1998 report.
This is not big question but I wonder. You really mean Zwally’s paper and not more recent one of Previdi?
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094001/meta
Your weekly list are valuable for me. Thank You.
Senator Malcolm Roberts maiden speech should be heeded. https://youtu.be/VnfEi740iQU