by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
New paper finds sea levels rising at only 1.7 mm/yr or 6.7 inches per century
[link] …
New published paper by Chris Landsea about forecasting the size of tropical storms and hurricanes. [link]
background on #IPCC 1.5º report [link] and doc for decision makers [link]
Aquatic Plants May Accelerate Arctic Methane Emissions [link]
xes http://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X16308662 …
Papers Link Solar Activity, Natural Ocean Cycles To Climate, Warmer Temps During 1700s/1800s [link]…
Why that new study in PNAS does not undercut any “myths” about CO2 and its effect on plant health [link]
Scientists may have solved a key riddle about Antarctica — and you’re not going to like the answer [link]
Feeling the Pulse of the Stratosphere: An Emerging Opportunity for Predicting Continental-Scale Cold-Air Outbreaks 1 Month in Advance [link]
Are rising sea temps & added freshwater from melting ice altering the ocean conveyor belt? [link]
Fascinating story on the debate over use of genetically altered mosquitos to combat diseases like Zika or Dengue [link]
How random is your randomness, and why does it matter? [link]
Climate change not forcing polar bears to hunt humans but lack of baby seals might [link] …
Extreme-weather winters becoming more common in US: Western heat, Eastern cold snaps [link]
First order role of land use change on climate – more evidence -[link] …
About science
The natural selection of bad science [link]
How Climate Alarm Becomes a Self-promulgating Collective Belief [link]
New book: No need for geniuses: revolutionary science in the age of the guillotine [link]…
Lew and Cook: The Alice in Wonderland mechanics of climate denial: [link] …
Lew/Cook skewered [link] [link]
Ioannidis: “The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses” [link]
Is the role of climate scientists to spread optimism or provide critical analysis (even if politically unwelcome)? [link]
Stuff my reviewers say [link]
Andrea Saltelli – Climate numbers and climate wars: a fatal attraction? [link]
Jeroen van der Sluijs: Climate change, the uncertainty monster & post normal science [link]
Chris Landsea article and the 1st order land use link’s not working.
The Chris Landsea article is at:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/cangialosi-landsea-wf2016.pdf
Ken,
Thank you for the link!
Changing ocean conveyor? Short answer, no. Even Yale360 hd to conclude, “Don’t panic.”
Dr. Peter Ward has a different view
https://youtu.be/SdgUyLTUYkg
vukcevic ,’
Please explain why life thrived when the planet was much warmer than now.
The relevant facts are, the planet is in a deep ice age. This is only the second time the planet has been this cold since multi-cell animal life began to thrive. Life thrives much better when the planet is warmer.
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/9mhexie60w4ho2f2/images/1-9fa3d55a6c.jpg
https://www.academia.edu/12114306/Phanerozoic_Global_Temperature_Curve
Furthermore, the planet won’t get out of the current ice age until there is a free flow of ocean currents around the low latitudes again and the free flow of water around Antarctica is blocked again. That’s likely to take tens of millions of years. Don’t wait up!
Peter Lang wrote:
“Please explain why life thrived when the planet was much warmer than now.”
No one disputes that there was life when it was warmer on Earth. (Whether it “thrived” is a subjective question, and irrelevant to manmade warming.)
What scientists are saying is that it’s not clear life can adapt to the present rapid pace of today’s climate change.
“What scientists are saying is that it’s not clear life can adapt to the present rapid pace of today’s climate change.”
There is a distinction between what ‘scientists are saying’ and what ‘science is saying’.
Observations vs models.
Danny: by writing “what scientists are saying,” I of course meant “what the science is saying.”
Danny Thomas commented:
“Observations vs models.”
Which observations do you prefer?
And how do you project loss rates in the future without a model?
David,
“by writing “what scientists are saying,” I of course meant “what the science is saying.”
It was actually more clear in the original form. ‘Science’ (however that’s defined) and the scientists are obviously not on the same page based on observations.
Where are we in our understanding of the ‘segments’ of which ‘climate’ is formed?
Here again today, SLR is not well established. Antarctica is an enigma. So on.
The ‘consensus’ actually envelopes a fairly minor area of agreement.
“Which observations do you prefer?” That’s a broad question and that it is so broad is a question about ‘the science’.
“And how do you project loss rates in the future without a model?” Also a broad question. We’re still establishing ‘the past’.
Here in Wisconsin we adapt to a rate of change of 80 degrees F per year, but life can’t adapt to “the present rapid pace of today’s climate change”.
Remarkable.
Ken Denison commented:
“Here in Wisconsin we adapt to a rate of change of 80 degrees F per year, but life can’t adapt to “the present rapid pace of today’s climate change”.”
The difference in global mean surface temperature between the glacial and interglacial periods of the recent ice ages is 8-9 C.
Are you really claiming that what happens in Wisconsin over the course of a year is 10 times worse than ice age cooling (or warming)?
DA, just arrived back. Your ‘debating points’ are ludicrous.on several grounds. You seem remarkably unaware of that fact. Try to get a life.
The difference in global mean surface temperature between the glacial and interglacial periods of the recent ice ages is 8-9 C.
The external forcing is around 0.1% and as no gcm can get into and out of an iceage we can define the Quaternary excursions as random.
“DA, just arrived back. Your ‘debating points’ are ludicrous.on several grounds. You seem remarkably unaware of that fact. Try to get a life”
Only insults, no science, no analysis, no nothing.
Again, typical.
maksimovich1 wrote:
“The external forcing is around 0.1% and as no gcm can get into and out of an iceage we can define the Quaternary excursions as random.”
We can? They look quite periodic…..
GCMs that look at the 21st century don’t include orbital forcings — no need to.
Are there models of the Quatenary you don’t like? Which?
What I am suggesting is that man can and has adapted very well. This is evidenced by the evolution of where on the planet man lives now versus thousands of years ago. There will, no doubt, be another ice age at some point. But a little warming or cooling over timescales of hundreds of years isn’t going to bother us so much.
The difference in global mean surface temperature between the glacial and interglacial periods of the recent ice ages is 8-9 C.
Are you really claiming that what happens in Wisconsin over the course of a year is 10 times worse than ice age cooling (or warming)?
Again, this is erroneous.
Global, Average temperature did not and does not cause ice ages.
Local, Summer Time Only changes in solar radiance is what did and does determine glaciation (or ablation).
At the end of the Eemian ( when ice began collecting ) temperatures were probably still warmer than today. The temperature range you speak of occurred after the long glaciation.
It is more accurate to say the LGM caused a decreased global temperature than to imply the other way round.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Details-Eemian.png
Of course it’s a broad question Danny. That’s how Appell rolls.
@david appell
“What scientists are saying is that it’s not clear life can adapt to the present rapid pace of today’s climate change.”
So far so good, it seems:
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/
a.ka. “lots of food growing faster thanks to CO2/temperature rise”
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0.pdf
a.k.a. “mankind prefer ‘a bit warmer’ to ‘a bit colder'”
http://cred.be/sites/default/files/ADSR_2014.pdf
a.k.a. “man-made global warming has so far REDUCED the number of casualties, and the cost, of weather/climate/hydro natural accidents”
… and last but not least, from the NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
…. a.k.a. “the terrible and poisonous CO2 is making the planet greener”.
I don’t know for you, but for me all these things can be classified as “life, mankind in particular, can adapt to the rapid change in CO2 concentration”… if that’s a real issue, of course.
Cheers.
On the other hand Susan Lozier, a professor of physical oceanography at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment and Amy Bower, a senior scientist in the department of physical oceanography at the Woods Hole Institution, say:
“Everybody always thought this deep flow operated like a conveyor belt, but what we are saying is that concept doesn’t hold anymore,”
Appeal to authority.
“Authority is strongly enforced by silence” LdV
JVDS on uncertainty monster. Good description, not so good solutions.
…so, there’s a > 99% chance 20th century sea level rise would have been greater 1.4 mm/yr, even if humanity had continued use whale oil for light and walk, or use horses, mules, camels, barks, boats, brigs and yawls to get around?
My claim is the 11 year sunspot so called normal cycle and the climate will not show a relationship because the noise in the climate system obscures the slight solar changes not to mention the variations within the 11 year sunspot cycle from maximum to minimum conditions cancel each other out.
Only when the sun enters extreme prolonged periods of inactivity or activity for that matter are those two issues nullified and hence a solar /climate connection is able to be established. It is no longer obscured.
I have come up with the minimum solar parameters needed in order to accomplish this by looking at the historical climatic record and how it has responded to solar activity. It shows each and every time the sun enters a protracted period of extreme inactivity the response in global temperatures has been down.
That is fact and until data shows otherwise I think the case for a solar/climate relationship is strong.
In addition the sun drives the climate therefore logic follows that any change in solar conditions has to have an effect on the climate to one degree or another. The point is how large is the effect and is it large enough to overcome the noise in the climate system which can obscure small minor solar changes.
The other side is what are the extreme solar changes in regards to degree of magnitude and duration of time needed to change the climate through solar activity changes themselves and associates secondary solar effects?
I am sure every one agrees that if solar changes are extreme enough there would be a point where a solar/climate relationship would be obvious. The question is what does the solar change have to be in order to be extreme enough to show an obvious solar/climate relationship?
Again I have listed the solar parameters which I think satisfy this issue.
G
Re: AMOC.
How are we supposed to know this: “If the North Atlantic current slows dramatically,……….”
and that statement precedes: “But to pin down what the AMOC is going to do, researchers need to better understand what it’s doing right now. And that is proving tricky. “
Ioannidis was speaking about medical meta-analyses. His thoughts are equally apt for the IPCC in both WG1 and WG2.
AGW THEORY IS WRONG.
1. historical climatic record does not support it which Javier pointed out very clearly in a recent post.
2. CO2 follows the temperature.
3. No tropospheric hot spot which was suppose to be due to a co2/water vapor positive feedback which was the cornerstone of this asinine theory.
In addition the AO index has stopped becoming more positive another cornerstone of this theory. The AO on balance is trending to more negative values the opposite this theory called for.
4. IR can not penetrate skin of ocean surface more then 1 mm so it is a non factor in the determination sea surface temperatures.
5. CO2 concentrations are presently at a level that saturation or near saturation is taking place in the wavelengths it absorbs so that adding more CO2 will make very little difference.
As Javier has pointed out as well as myself is, since the Holocene Climatic Optimum the global temperature trend has been down with spikes of warmth from time to time which each successive spike less warm then the one previous to it. This present spike now coming to end being no exception.
SdP, yes, but not for your reasons. I looked at your stuff. Not right. Stop already. You really do not want me to do a factual observational hammer down with hundreds of references as to why your stuff is worse than suspect. Once again I find myself infrequently agreeing with Mosher; there is a sound reason no one is engaging you scientifically. Your stuff is unaound. Mere repetitional posting doea not make it better. Please stop giving the rest of us skeptics an equally bad name.
ristvan you can not prove one item that I had said that is wrong. In addition many agree with many of the thoughts I have expressed.
I am going to repeat it until someone maybe you can prove it wrong with data.
Show us the data to prove what I have said is wrong/? I will be waiting but I do not think I should hold my breathe.
For example ristvan show us the data that shows the tropical hot spot as called for by AGW theory has come about.
Show us the data that the AO oscillation has become more positive.
Show us the data that shows global temperatures rising when solar activity is in a prolonged solar minimum.
Show us the data that shows that the overall temperature trend since the Holocene Optimum has not been trending down with each warm spike not as warm as the previous one.
Show us.
Show us the data that show this period of time in the climate is unique.
You can not do it. Your arguments are empty .
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
ristvan why don’t you educate yourself before running your mouth against what I have propose.
. I looked at your stuff. Not right
RISTVAN SAID.
It isn’t that it is not right it is you just do not agree with it. That is a big difference.
My thing is let the climate do the talking and we shall see.
“4. IR can not penetrate skin of ocean surface more then 1 mm so it is a non factor in the determination sea surface temperatures.”
Discarding the rest of the above that is wrong.
Err, that’s the case on land too.
In fact it’s just the top few layers of molecules.
SO shining an IR lamp on the ground doesn’t warm it?
SO shining an IR lamp on a bowl of water doesn’t warm it?
And no the energy is not completely taken up by evaporation.
No thermodynamical process is 100% efficient.
Have you ever considered that the answer lies in conduction?
That because the topmost layer of ocean is a tad warmer than otherwise, the deltaT to cooler, deeper water is increased and (as we know?) a greater flux occurs whith greater delta but from warm to cold. So less cooling to space.
From:https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/21/mechanisms-for-warming-of-the-oceans/
“One thing we can assert however, is that warming of the oceans by an increase in downwelling infrared radiation to the surface is an efficient process, and the initial rate of heat loss by the mixed layer is only slightly less than the magnitude of the imposed forcing. The average surface forcing due to increased CO2 over the past 55 years was roughly 0.4 W/m2. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that the upper mixed level of the ocean would have warmed by an input of roughly this amount over that time period. Experimental data on warming of the oceans indicate that over the past ~50 years, the average warming was due to a flux of about this magnitude.”
Oh, Salvatore, do please try to take on board what Roy tells you.
Tony prove it.
TONY you are clueless.
The other side Tony.
Type of prediction
Ocean warming
Model prediction
Warming caused by direct heating of thermal radiation at 15 microns.
Actual measurements
Warming of about 0.06 C over 50 years.
More here.
Comment
The absorption coefficient for liquid water as a function of wavelength is given at http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html (see the figure near the end). Thermal infrared in the Earth’s atmosphere is around 10 to 20 microns where the absorption coefficient (A) is about 1000 cm-1. The transmission in liquid water (T) equals exp(-A*L) where L is the depth of penetration. For the case where 1/e or 27% of the incident photons remain unabsorbed, with A=1000 cm-1, the L= 1/1000 cm = 1/100 mm. 98% of the incident photons will be absorbed within 3 times this distance. So one can see from the figure, than practically no infrared photons penetrate beyond 3/100 mm. When I said all the photons are absorbed in the top millimeter of the water, I was being very generous. A more precise estimate of A is 5000 cm-1 at 15 microns where carbon dioxide is emitting radiation, so even 0.03 mm is extremely generous. Since the liquid water is such an effective absorber, it is a very effective emitter as well. The water will not heat up, it will just redirect the energy back up to the atmosphere much like a mirror.
It is worth mentioning for A = 5000 cm-1 at 15 microns, the implied water emissivity is 0.9998 implying that of the incident radiation only 0.02% of it will be absorbed. The emitted radiation will closely follow a blackbody emission curve whereas the incident flux from carbon dioxide is confined to a band centered at 15 microns. The implication of this is that much of the radiation emitted will escape directly to space through the IR windows, so it is a negative feedback. The initially absorbed energy cannot be transferred to the ocean depths by conduction (too slow), by convection (too small an absorption layer), or by radiation (too opaque). It must escape by the fastest way possible meaning upwards radiation away from the water. I don’t see why anyone is having problems understanding basic physics.
The only way to explain the ocean heating in depth is for the solar radiation to change and decreasing clouds, as measured by ISCCP, indicate increasing solar radiation is occurring right where the ocean heating is reported to be occurring. The Willis paper does not even mention the ISCCP data that has a similar geographic distribution to the water warming. Simply put, where clouds decrease in amount, the water warms. It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. A handy plot of the ISCCP results can be found as Figure 3 at http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/11/jumping-to-conclusions-frogs-global-warming-and-nature/ Clouds have large natural variations going up and down entirely independent of any greenhouse effect. The climate models do not predict these variations and apparently Willis and others are unaware of these variations.
Score
1-24-4
The only way to explain the ocean heating in depth is for the solar radiation to change and decreasing clouds…
Brilliant! Just brilliant!
“Salvatore del Prete | September 25, 2016 at 8:16 am |
TONY you are clueless.”
If you say so Salvatore.
However empirical science says I am right. Roy Spencer says so to, with some experiments – and I dare say so does JC.
If that makes me wrong … Then as I say.
If you say so.
Oh, and how about linking to experiments that prove your Dragon-slayer, down the rabbit-hole hand-waving.
agree to disagree. end of story
For the record I agree with Dr. Spencer , other then the fact that the GHG effect is a result of the climate not the cause.
IR radiation can cause warming but not the oceans because it does not penetrate the surface to a great enough depth.
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.
Good to see A Chemist in Langley weighing in on the hyped-up study trying to downplay the positives for plants from higher CO2 and warmer growing seasons. My analysis was from a different direction but came to the same conclusion.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/09/07/researchers-against-co2/
Both good posts on other limiting factors.
There is another significant bias problem with this PNAS paper that neither post mentions. So it is highlighted in this comment.
I looked up the main grass genera mentioned in the study. Turns out that in the Mediterranian (chapparal) biome ALL the species in both grass genera are C4 rather than C3 plants, evolved to be significantly less sensitive to CO2 in the first place. The evolutionary pressure is evapotranspiration. The whole study was off from before the beginning. The only main food crops that are C4 are corn and sugarcane, both ‘grasses’. Wheat, rice, barley, potatoes, pulses, tomatoes and all other fruits and vegetables, alfalpha, are all the significantly more CO2 sensitive C3 pathway. Lots of papers on the deltas at different elevated PPM.
Yes, that is a critical point. By restricting their research to C4 grasses, they ensure their results do not pertain to 95% of food plants.
My analysis was from a different direction but came to the same conclusion.
Well, yeah.
If you look at the Ag studies, drought and heat tolerance is increasing for the common field crops and the greatest soybean yield increase is at the equator. If yields are increasing fastest at the equator the “heat is bad” meme can’t be honestly pushed by an informed person.
The inprovements in crop tolerance makes it dubious that future warming will be relevant as a crop threat.
The “1.5°C to 2.0°C” warmunist limit must be indexed to crop tolerance to have any value. Two decades from now the warmunist limit may be in the 3.5°C to 4.0°C range.
PA wrote:
PA commented:
“If you look at the Ag studies, drought and heat tolerance is increasing for the common field crops and the greatest soybean yield increase is at the equator.”
Which studies are those?
I’m trying to get a handle on this field, so would appreciate any references.
I looked at this a while back and posted some study links to US drought/heat tolerance studies and global yield increase studies.
From just a quick look I got this study:
http://plantstress.com/Articles/up_heat_files/Heat%20Tolerance%202007.pdf
It describes the heat issues in some detail.
Will post some links if I get time to search, a quick check netted breeding studies.
They said I wouldn’t like the answer to the question of marine life found to high on the ice:
Scientists may have solved a key riddle about Antarctica — and you’re not going to like the answer
I was kind of expecting the answer to be counter to conventional wisdom of global warming advocates. How Naïve! That it confirms everything they thought about GHG should not have been a surprise. I guess I was mistaken about who they considered to be ‘you’ (you’re).
Apparently they believe the reader is part of uninitiated without benefit of the other 12,579 apocalyptic articles about Antarctica. Poor souls. What is life without a few nightmare scenarios.
I like the pun “atmosfear” as proposed in the collective alarm piece:
http://www.cato.org/blog/you-ought-have-look-how-climate-alarm-becomes-self-promulgating-collective-belief?utm_content=buffera395b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
An atmosphere of fear about the atmosphere.
Note that I too describe this cascade of alarm, but in much more detail, here: http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding.
Even better: An atmosphere of fear of the atmosphere.
Reading IPCC SR outline on 1.5 degree C:
* Man has caused an increase in extreme weather.
* Climate models accurately predict CAGW.
* Third World economics and social justice are the proper models.
* The IPCC can manage the world (societies, economies, technologies, etc.).
* The IPCC need only ramp up propaganda to succeed.
The only thing missing? A review of the history of socialist control of anything.
Charlie Skeptic
Ioannidis’ title:
Ioannidis’ fall:
Well played, Professor!
Willard I dissected AR 4 WG1 in some depth in the climate chapter of Arts of Truth. What I found concerning water vapor feedback was gross, obvious, easily provable selection bias in three forms: outright dismissal of weather ballon data on false grounds (the dry biases have correction envelopes for each instrument, ignoring contrary papers, and mistatement of papers cited. All documented with footnotes. Also did elsewhere in the book an analysis of medical/dietary meta analysis showing that most authors did not disclose conflicts of interest as was mandatory for the underlying papers. Ioannidis is on pretty firm ground.
> I dissected AR 4 WG1 in some depth in the climate chapter of Arts of Truth.
That’s very good, Sir. The only bits I’ve read were crap.
Not that it matters with Ionnanidis’ point, which is reinforced by the title and the fall of his paper.
Pity for you then that Richard Lindzen disagreed with your own dismissive assessment. But that figures given where you appear to come from.
He did me the kind favor of reviewing and critiquing that entire climate chapter several months before the book went to the publisher. Gave me half a day of his time in his office in return for me buying lunch at the MIT faculty club. His comments helped me rewrite for clarity and clean up several loose ends and imprecisions, like in the feedback equation prose discussion. In fact, he actually critiqued the whole book. The long Svalbard footnote to the continental drift example is a specific Lindzen suggested addition.
> Pity for you then that Richard Lindzen disagreed with your own dismissive assessment.
Did Dick spot your factor-of-ten error, Sir Rud, or you had time to delete the whole chapter?
From where I come from, we write Laurentides. Plural.
Willard, you do love to twist words and denigrate. Apparently your standard MO. Lindzen agreed with me, not you. I was there, and you were not. How you could have misconstrued that simple observation says much about you. Nothing good.
Pingback: Rafe’s Roundup Sept 24 | Catallaxy Files
Feeling the Pulse of the Stratosphere: An Emerging Opportunity for Predicting Continental-Scale Cold-Air Outbreaks 1 Month in Advance. “We have discovered that Cold-Air Outbreaks over the two major continents in the Northern Hemisphere on average tend to take place within a short time period from 1 week before to 1 to 2 weeks after anomalously strong mass transport into the polar stratosphere (i.e., the pulse of the stratosphere or PULSE). We also showed that an operational model, such as the CFSv2, is capable of predicting the PULSE, namely, the timing of strong mass transport into the polar stratosphere at a lead time of 20–40 days.”
I hope this effort will actually lead to reliable predictions. So far everything is in a hindsight.
I tend to doubt it. Weather happens mainly in the troposphere, and the lead time isn’t 40 days or even two weeks. No ‘operational model’ has been able to predict actual weather beyond maybe 3-5 days. More computer game ‘science’.
The beauty party is “1 week before to 1 to 2 weeks after anomalously strong mass transport into the polar stratosphere”. So if we observe a strong mass transport, we would predict that a cold air outbreak occurred one week ago, or that it would occur within next two weeks. That would help to time Obama’s military action, just as it helped Eisehower’s invasion in 1944, 72 years ago. Meteorology develops so fast …
Anyone who thinks a Cook and Lewandowski paper has any use other than lining a bird cage is a nut job or a CAGW religionist.
So, the Antarctic cratered back when CO2 was 400 ppm. I guess that MUST mean CO2 was the culprit. I mean, what else could it possibly be??
Unicorns.
you know people who believe that building 7 wasn’t taken down by the collapsing twin towers, well, at least they have an alternative theory..
a crappy one.. but at least they realize that you dont get to play skeptic in the real world.
Buy a watch or give us your explanation of how the building collapsed into a pile of ruble almost ten stories high in almost six seconds. I would like to hear it, Steven.
I get to play skeptic in the real world.
“I get to play skeptic in the real world.”
Not really jim.
In your everyday life, its impossible to play skeptic
Abrupt building change, geez?
Mosher – your opinion is inconsequential.
Maybe, ask him…
This guy should have enough street cred to suit you too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk
G
jim2 said:
Maybe so.
But in Mosher’s Alice-in-Wonderland world, where the unicorn method and not the scientific method rules, he gets to play scientist.
http://s9.postimg.org/dyv6m74un/Captura_de_pantalla_1459.png
> your opinion is inconsequential.
It actually is, jim, and you should feel it every time you shave.
Should you stop using Google, Facebook, and Twitter? (And your bank’s web site?) From the article:
…
It’s no secret that more companies are getting hacked now than ever. The government is getting hacked, major corporate companies are getting hacked, and even news outlets are getting hacked. This raises the obvious question: why aren’t people investing more in bolstering their security? The answer is, as a report on The Register points out, money. Despite losing a significant sum of money on a data breach, it is still in a company’s best interest to not spend on upgrading their security infrastructure.
…
https://it.slashdot.org/story/16/09/23/1831214/sad-reality-its-cheaper-to-get-hacked-than-build-strong-it-defenses
OT, but this problem is why I still use mostly paper checks and postage stamps with just a few ‘safe’ automatic remote exceptions. Plus multiple bank accounts with different banks and credit cards just in case one goes south.
I was travelling in Europe a few years ago for about 10 days when my main Citibank business card (very high credit limit) got denied. Had to rely on the seldom used business backups. Got back to the US, called Citi, finally found out it wasn’t me that got hacked, it was them! That led to quite a business discussion. They won’t arbitrarily cancel my new businss card ever again without warning me first. If they do, they know what will be financially coming their way. In writing, pre- agreed. Not to mention the loss of all future business from my companies if it ever happens.
My significant other banks mostly online, and she has been significantly hacked three times in last two years. Just again last week. Two days with specialists cleaning out apparently phished malware, another two days arguing with that bank about reversing the false charges.
Wow!. That’s really scary. A massive threat to life on plant Earth.
Let’s enjoy David Appell’s and the deniers’ attempts to defend their ideological beliefs.
Very mainstream, but with a subtle warmunist undercurrent. In the literature for the past couple of decades has been ~1.7mm/yr last century. Problem is, sat alt shows 3.2-3.4, enabling the SLR acceleration claim The 1.7 is too low because of vertical land motion; the best diff GPS corrected estimate is ~2.2. And ~2.2 closes; neither the too high sat alt 3.2-3.4 nor the too low uncorrected tide gauge ~1.7 does. See recent previous guest post on SLR.
Hi Rud,
I really don’t care if it’s 1.5 mm or 3.5 mm per year. It’s not a significant threat to humanity or to the World economy or to the environment, either now or in 2100 or beyond.
The big picture is: life thrives when the planet is warmer. And our GHG emissions are reducing the threat or time until the next abrupt cooling event.
PL, you are conceptually correct, but I care very much that reported observations be as careful as possible given true uncertainties. The closure triangulation says that neither long record but un land motion corrected, nor sat alt, are plausibly correct. An example of the uncertainty monster.
Rud,
Thank you. We can’t all follow every detail of every issue. I am interested in the key variables that are relevant for assessing the risk that GHG emission are a threat to life on Earth, or more realistically to human well-being and/or to the global economy. The key inputs are: damage function, ECS, TCR, future GHG emissions pathways, discount rates, and global participation rates in command and control policies like carbon pricing. The consequences of projected sea level change over the time scales involved are trivial and can effectively be dismissed. The same applies to virtually all the other claimed threats. This is how I approach CAGW. The threat is virtually nonexistent. Now all we are left with is the flat Earthers and deniers trying to find ways to support their ideological beliefs. We’ve reached this thanks to the help of the IPCC, EPA, Barack Obama, and clowns like David Appell.
rud
As you know, vertical land movement varies enormously from country to country from negative to positive. Averaging everything out is probably not helpful especially if you need to decide whether or not to build a sea wall in a particular place.
as far as satellites go it is amazing how warmists proclaim sea ice and slr ones as being so accurate but then refuse to give credence to ones that measure temperature
tonyb
As you well know, tony,
context’s the thing whereby
we may unearth the problem
situation of the king, (and troops.)
Situation (data) analysis may be able to
transcend the myopia
of point of view and the
opacity of time and space.
“as far as satellites go it is amazing how warmists proclaim sea ice and slr ones as being so accurate but then refuse to give credence to ones that measure temperature”
Good straw man!!!
1. Folks who work with Sea Ice measurements FULLY RECOGNIZE
the problems with the data. Look tony, do you know why they measure Extent and Area? Do you know the difference?
Educate yourself http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02135_seaice_index/#monthly_data_files
Now after you read that you can See clearly how they do what they do.
In fact you can go get the raw files and CHECK
Here is the clue: Sea Ice Measurement is a DIRECT measure with one
uncertainty: You measure the AREA of a patch and then you have to
estimate ( based on the characteristics of the signal) whether it is Ice
or Not. there is no unit transformation.
2 “temperature” from satillites: First, you are not measuring temperature. You are measuring Brightness. For example
Your Sensor will register DIGITAL COUNTS. Now you have to
do a unit transform. How do you go from digital counts to temperature?
1. Since the energy you “count” comes from both the ground surface
and the atmosphere, you have to subtract the ground contribution.
2. In some high places ( like Tibet and Andes ) you just have to throw
the data away because of the ground return.
3. To subtract the ground return you need to know the emissivity
of the ground ( is it grass, snow, water, concrete).. But Both UHA
and RSS just use one value for emissivity and Hope that it doesnt
matter. ( UAH even has a footnote on this being and issue
4. You need to factor out the cloud returns again an emissivity problem
5. Once you have a “clean” signal, you have to INVERT IT. That is
yo have to figure out the temperature from the brightness. To do this you have to apply a physics model of microwave radiative transfer.
Yup.. Radiative transfer Physics.. You know the physics that tells
us GW is real.
6. Then you need to adjust the answer.
a) because the instruments changed
b) because the time of observation changes
c) because the position of observation changes.
Its not a matter of Trusting One rather than the other. So BURN YOUR STRAWMAN.
Its a matter of weighing all the evidence, understanding the data chain,
and understanding the method chain
Mosher, until you figure out a way to measure the kinetic energy of every atom and molecule in a given volume, you can’t measure temperature directly. Talk about your straw men!! NO method to measure temperature measures it directly. Write that down.
Sat techniques are every bit as valid as measuring voltage from a thermocouple or volume expansion of a liquid in glass. Get over it already.
Mosh
Of course I know how they measure sea ice. If you remember I cited the method used in one of my articles as I contacted Florence Fetterer who explained how the satellite couldn’t see melt water and the problems with cloud cover.
all the satellite measurements, for whatever end use, are all ball park only as can be seen by the link to the latest work on SLR
Anyway glad to see you use the words ‘measurement’ rather than ‘estimate. Jim Cripwell would be pleased with you.
tonyb
“all the satellite measurements, for whatever end use, are all ball park only as can be seen by the link to the latest work on SLR
Anyway glad to see you use the words ‘measurement’ rather than ‘estimate. Jim Cripwell would be pleased with you.”
Ball PARK?? Are you kidding me.
Sorry its been fun, but your not interested in intelligent conversation in how these three differ
A) estimating AREA
B) estimating HEIGHT
C) Estimating TEMPERATURE
if you can see the diffference for your self, you are too dense to be taught
Im done speaking to you
“as far as satellites go it is amazing how warmists proclaim sea ice and slr ones as being so accurate but then refuse to give credence to ones that measure temperature” …
If I were a bird or an airliner, I would avidly follow UAH.
Mosh
Seriously, how accurate do you believe each of the three different types of satellite measurement actually are? Did you read the latest link to tide gauge SLR?
tonyb
JCH
If I were a dolphin I might avidly follow the SLR. It is inaccurate where land meets sea, where people live and averages are pointless if account is not taken of land movement which varies from place to place. If a sea wall is planned note would be taken of local tide gauges not the Satellite.
tonyb
Nobody is planning sea walls based upon a global sea level rise rate of ~4.5mm py. Research in the vein of Mitrovica’s…
JCH
Of course people are planning sea walls based on a lower slr than the inflated one you gave.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/index.php?idp=223
In the UK the EA is tasked with looking at protecting coastal communities and-as for our village-they install tide gauges, or use existing ones. They do not use satellite data
tonyb
First, of course they use satellite data.
4.5mm py is the rate since ~2008, and it is not inflated. It’s the data. And the TGs do not call it into question. Because of scientists like Mitrovica, the SLR councils in seaside towns in Greenland are looking at building staircases down to the new shorelines of the coming decades. They used satellite data. Why? Because they’re not ijits.
“But Mann, Dessler, Francis and others say there have been quality and trustworthy issues with some satellite measurements and they only show what’s happening far above the ground. They said ground measurements are also more important because it is where we live.
Some non-scientists who deny man-made global warming have pointed to satellite temperature records – which only go back to 1979 …”
[http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/01/16/scientist-say-2014-hottest-year-on-record-but-not-in-pittsburgh/]
Who is non-scientist now?
Incarbona et al., 2016
“Mediterranean circulation destabilisation occurs during positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and negative Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) phases, reduced solar activity..”
Reduced solar activity increases negative NAO.
Zhu et al., 2016
“[S]even cold periods and three warm periods were identified during the past 368 years (Fig. 4d). All the cold periods were during the Maunder (1708–1711) or Dalton (1818– 1821, 1824–1828, 1832–1836, and 1839–1842) solar minima periods”
Too late for Maunder and for Dalton, and all warm to very warm on CET apart from 1839-1842.
Another one of Lewandowsky’s pet projects just imploded:
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-pace-trial/
Sea level science has come back to the search for truth. Seems to be a long awaited analysis. I hope somebody can present it.
“Given the distribution of potential sampling biases, we find < 1% probability that observed trends from the longest and highest-quality TG records are consistent with global mean rates less than 1.4 mm/yr."
Look like the conclusions are that long tide gauge stations show a sea level rise of 1,7 mm pr year with some correction, and the estimate for the whole globe is under 1,4 mm pr year for the 20th century.
Hi Doc. Stuff my reviewers say [link]. I can’t even imagine what you have been through. A classical reference: Hamlet Act III Scene 1. Now a very different source “To see the truth you’ve spoken, twisted by knaves, to make a trap for fools”. Mixed references, my bad, I’m sure Beth could say it better.
If sea level rise was of the doomsday proportional claims, the 97% would be pointing & screaming at the oldest mean sea level markers, with a production that could be seen & heard from the International Space Station.
As every year passes, and the silence gets louder, is all you need to know.
The Lempriere -Ross mark:
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/467007.stm]
*In 1839, distinguished naval officer and polar explorer James Clark Ross (1800–1862) set off on an expedition to the Southern Ocean with two ships, HMS Erebus and HMS Terror. In April 1842, he stopped at Port Louis – he took the opportunity to make careful measurements of sea level relative to two benchmarks cut into the cliffs and marked with brass plaques.
These marks remain in good condition to this day.”
[http://noc.ac.uk/news/measuring-sea-level-rise-falklands]
Evidence of 9,000-year-old stone houses found on Australian island:
“The sea level on Australia’s north-west coast rose 130 metres after the end of the ice age, at a rate of about a metre every five to 10 years. “In people’s lifetimes they would have seen loss of territory and would have had to renegotiate …”
[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/05/evidence-of-9000-year-old-stone-houses-found-on-australian-island]
Anywhere on the planet where sea level is rising “at a rate of about a metre every five to 10 years”?
That is most certainly wrong. The fastest rate was about 30 meters in 1000 years between 15 and 14 kyr ago at the Bølling period after the Oldest Dryas. That works out as 0.3 metres every 10 years.
The sustained rate was 105 metres between 15 and 7.5 kyr BP which works out as 0.14 metres every 10 years.
Typical exaggeration since the truth is not scary enough.
“Stuff my reviewers say”
I really laughed at the top 10 list of things the reviewers said. I can imagine the perplexity.
Only one side given. I have seen my share of mean or incompetent reviewers. In one case one reviewer delayed the paper from the competition for months to be able to publish his own research on the issue. There is all kind of people everywhere. Even between reviewers.
Who would have thought?
“Primary production off central Peru was enhanced during peak glaciations and it decreased during peak interglacials, but low and high production periods also occurred in both glacials and interglacials. The close resemblance of the primary production curve off Peru to the atmospheric CO2 Vostok record suggests a relationship between the Peruvian neritic biological pump and atmospheric pCO2.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002532279290074R
During peak glaciations. Peak? Like about to retreat from a peak?
Latest LewCook on Slashdot. For a bit, I thought the paper was about Billary. From the article:
…
A new research paper suggest climate change opponents are “simulating coherence by conspiracism”. Slashdot reader Layzej says the paper “examines this behavior at the aggregate level, but gives many examples where contradictory ideas are held by the same individual, and sometimes are presented within a single publication.” From the paper:
…
https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/09/25/1930212/scientists-study-how-non-scientists-deny-climate-change
They show a deep lack of understanding of skepticism. CAGW requires a complex chain of reasoning, each step of which is questionable. But to question a given step you have to accept for purposes of argument all the prior steps. So of course you get inconsistent arguments.
Moreover there are multiple arguments at each step. And multiple arguments within each of these arguments, etc. The resulting issue tree is far from being a coherent single position, but the structure itself is very coherent.
Skepticism is a complex body of reasoning, not a single position.
Not really,
1. the CAGW chain of reasoning is very short, like 3 or 4 steps
2. Skepticism is not complex
> CAGW requires a complex chain of reasoning, each step of which is questionable.
It only takes “lots of theories” and “no best practices” to get to “do not panic”:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
The CAGW meme contrarians peddle is all but complex.
Oh yes, Mosher, there is a four step version:
1. It is warming.
2. Humans are causing the warming.
3. The warming is dangerous.
4. We must stop causing warming.
But as soon as you begin to unpack these claims the reasoning explodes into thousands of separate arguments. I could list a thousand off the top of my head.
Consider this about issue trees. If there are just three responses to each response, which is certainly the case in the climate debate, then by the tenth level there are about 100,000 statements in the issue tree.
> I could list a thousand off the top of my head.
Try seventeen.
Oh yes, Mosher, there is a four step version:
1. It is warming.
2. Humans are causing the warming.
3. The warming is dangerous.
4. We must stop causing warming.
But as soon as you begin to unpack these claims the reasoning explodes into thousands of separate arguments. I could list a thousand off the top of my head.
##############
That merely highlights the short comings of issue trees and why it has never developed into a rigorous teachable discipline.
You CAN of course expand ANY claim
“The Sky is blue”
“here is ahand”
into large, set of issues.. The fact that you can expand it, almost un endingly is the reason why issue trees and foundationalism is BROKEN.
I would hope to cure you of the disease of foundationalism, but i think you are beyond hope.
Here’s a random start:
1. Whether the LIA was global.
2. The accuracy of ice core bubbles as CO2 measurements.
3. The effect of heat contamination on the thermometer readings.
4. The validity of adjustments to thermometer data (there are more than seventeen distinct issues with the thermometer data alone).
5. The evidence for the Svensmark model of indirect solar causation (easily 17 re solar).
6. The economic impact of a carbon tax (easily 17 re carbon tax).
7. The viability of pumped storage re intermittency (easily 17 re intermittency).
8. The sign of water vapor feedback.
9. The proper discount rate to use in SCC calculations (easily 17 re SCC).
10. How climate models handle clouds. (Lots re models.)
11. The error potential in the surface temperature statistical models (lots here).
12. The error potential in the satellite temperature measurements.
Given the 800,000+ comments here at CE, one could easily find 1,000 distinct issues, many of which are relatively telling as far as the four basic steps are concerned. But the overall structure is an issue tree so there are arguments within arguments, which are within arguments, etc. See my crude little textbook on this fundamental structure: http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf
But Mosh, in the climate debate the expansion lies before us, in the actual arguments that people are making. The issue tree is the structure that is already there.
“But Mosh, in the climate debate the expansion lies before us, in the actual arguments that people are making. The issue tree is the structure that is already there.”
Ah no. The fact that someone asks a question, or raises an issue, does not, make the tree real. you can IMPOSE a tree structure if you choose to, you can take questions as serious, when they are not.
1. Whether the LIA was global.
A) Has ZERO relevance to The AGW argument or the CAGW
Neither answer to this question changes the fundamentals.
It is warming because of mans c02 emissions.
This warming could be catostrophic, under some definitions
of catastrophe.
2. The accuracy of ice core bubbles as CO2 measurements.
Zero Relevance. We knew c02 was an issue before we ever
measured a bubble
3. The effect of heat contamination on the thermometer readings.
Zero issue: Rural only gives you the same answer.And
70% of the data is ocean. Erase ALL thermomemter history
and the issue of CAGW still satnds
4. The validity of adjustments to thermometer data (there are more than seventeen distinct issues with the thermometer data alone).
Zero Issue. Raw data Gives Higher sensitivity. And temperature
data is beside the point
5. The evidence for the Svensmark model of indirect solar causation (easily 17 re solar).
Zero Evidence. And beside the point
6. The economic impact of a carbon tax (easily 17 re carbon tax).
Off Topic. the issue is CAGW, NOT what we should do about it.
BAD BAD BAD david
7. The viability of pumped storage re intermittency (easily 17 re intermittency).
See ablove, Off topic, different tree
8. The sign of water vapor feedback.
Again, not relevant to the argument.
9. The proper discount rate to use in SCC calculations (easily 17 re SCC).
Off topic. this is about Possible ACTIONS, not about the THREAT
of CAGW
10. How climate models handle clouds. (Lots re models.)
Not an issue. We Know enough WITHOUT GCMS to know
that CAGW is a threat.
11. The error potential in the surface temperature statistical models (lots here).
Again, not an issue. The models have been tested and validated.
And the temperature record is beside the point
12. The error potential in the satellite temperature measurements.
Not an issue. We Knew well in advance of sat data that there was an issue. it changes nothing
Mosher, your personal rejection of these arguments is irrelevant to their reality. Many people take them seriously, including me. The nature of the debate is not for you to say. It is what it is. Your responses are merely additional statements in the issue tree.
David
Mosh got annoyed at me when I separately mentioned number 12 re the Accuracy of satellites but the point I want to make is that there should perhaps be a 13) which is ‘will a complex equation calculating the effect/ sensitivity of co2 give the same answer as the physical interaction of co2 in the real world bearing in mind the various factors that make up the complex weather and climate system?’
Whilst you partially cover this point in your own various points it is an overarching question where the certainty is nowhere near as clear cut as seems to be believed. I believe in the physics but a laboratory model and the real world are two different things and airily waving away past higher temperatures as having no bearing on anything is unfortunate
Tonyb
The too funny thing is, Mosher, that if I had a grant to diagram the existing issue tree of the climate debate, and I decided to exclude the outlier argumants, I would not include a lot of your stuff. For example that the temperature record does not matter.
Tony, there is plenty of room for your #13, as my 12 are just a small random sample of the 1000 that I originally alluded to.
“1. the CAGW chain of reasoning is very short, like 3 or 4 steps”
1. Note there is CO2 in the air, swear it’s THE control knob.
2. predict 6 degrees global warming, Miami underwater, more hurricanes and arctic death spiral, demand higher taxes to prevent it, call people deniers if they believe the impact will be much less than hyped.
3. When no hurricanes, death spiral, sea rise or warming actually happen, deny you made those predictions. Also deny that they didn’t happen.
4. While denying you made those predictions (and that they didn’t happen) assert you always said the impact would be less than hyped but the news media didn’t listen to you. Assert that “deniers” were wrong even though they were right. Be angry when news reporters scratch heads and wander off to write about other things.
(Optional #5) Drop grant request to study “impact of 100 meter sea rise on next year’s Indy 500” and file new grant request to study why public ranks global warming behind “civility” in order of things that they worry about.
> Here’s a random start: […]
You can’t even find seventeen, DavidW, and I doubt your selection is that random.
> Whilst you partially cover this point in your own various points it is an overarching question […]
Believe it or not, TonyB, mentioning overarching questions should be enough to show that DavidW’s just shadowboxing.
Do you think Moshpit knows about this article?
And to answer your rhetorical question: physical systems don’t give “answers.” We may even say that most functions don’t.
Dave W,
that list is just feeble. It always amazes me how gullible sceptics are.
And how easily you lapse (geddit?) into outright denial:
david, your personal acceptance of these arguments is irrelevant to their reality. Many crazy people like you take them seriously. The nature of the debate is not for you to say. It is what it is. ”
Hmm my other response got eaten.
Basically david, Just because you believe there is an Issue with Building 7 collapse, like many people, that does not mean there is an isssue or argument.
The debate is what it is. Over.
Now some people still debate whether we went to the moon or not
I will boil this down to one simple thing
1. you appeal to our ability to judge and reason.
2. We have a choice.
The science is right, and your issues are no issues.
Your arcane, and non reproducable issue trees are helpful, and the
science may be in question.
The SAME reasoning ability that allows us to follow a “tree” Allows us to decide, rationally, that the findings of science will trump your trees.
We can, therefore, reject the trees OUTRIGHT, without giving any reasons WHATSOEVER, other than your trees lead to a conclusion that is at odds with science.
In other words. before even looking at your trees, and the method I know it is wrong.
This is analogous to the here is hand argument..
A brief sketch.
Suppose you give me an argument that suggests that the hand I am looking at does not exist.. or that other minds might not exist.
Question: do I have provide evidence for my belief that my hand is real and that you have a mind, OR can I rationally reject your argument out of hand, because it leads to a conclusion that I know too be false.
However foolproof you think your argument is, the simple fact remains that you rely on my abiity to judge each step. That SAME ability, the ability to recognize the truth, allows me to reject your argument before I even read it.
To put it simply, your issue treees are broken from the start because you yourself cannot state rules, necessary and sufficient, to create a tree.
Given the same topic, any number of isssues can be connected to it
and so of course it will grow without bound.
Just like the audit is neverending — and Functionally defective without
clear operational pragmatic guidelines, So too the issue tree is
functionaly defective.
Plus you have it upside down.. Your issue tree is really about the roots.
You think by digging deeper you get to the truth. you have it upside Down
it is by GROWING UP from what is basically Known (humans cause warming) that we get understanding.
“Do you think Moshpit knows about this article?”
Of course!!!
everyone wants to look like the nations little sister
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eitk6p37H64
Beyond the Western culture, sincerity is notably developed as a virtue in Confucian societies (China, Korea, and Japan). The concept of chéng (誠、诚) as expounded in two of the Confucian classics, the Da Xue and the Zhong Yong is generally translated as sincerity. As in the West, the term implies a congruence of avowal and inner feeling, but inner feeling is in turn ideally responsive to ritual propriety and social hierarchy. Specifically, Confucian’s Analects contains the following statement in Chapter I: (主忠信。毋友不如己者。過，則勿憚改。) “Hold faithfulness and sincerity as first principles. Then no friends would not be like yourself (all friends would be as loyal as yourself). If you make a mistake, do not be afraid to correct it.”
Thus, even today, a powerful leader will praise leaders of other realms as “sincere” to the extent that they know their place in the sense of fulfilling a role in the drama of life. In Japanese the character for cheng may be pronounced makoto, and carries still more strongly the sense of loyal avowal and belief
> The sign of water vapor feedback.
That’s not an issue.
That’s a whole infinity of issue right there. Perhaps two infinities.
I can see at least seventeen related issues:
(1) Is it a feedback or a forcing?
(2) Isn’t it a GHG?
(3) Why is it not included in teh stoopid modulz?
(4) Is it not the dominant GHG?
(5) Are we sure it’s not the dominant GHG?
(6) Wouldn’t saying otherwise prove you’re a Club of Rome operative?
(7) What about the IPCC’s bar charts?
(8) How did Dick came up with 98%?
(9) How do we know that the magnitude of water feedback is correctly simulated?
(10) Perhaps, but what about Mr. T?
(11) OK, but shouldn’t we prefer some Goldilocks middle ground?
(12) Aren’t you lying by ommitting Pinatubo?
(13) If there are so much lingering uncertainties after all these years, does that mean we know nothing?
(14) Shouldn’t we act accordingly, i.e. do nothing?
(15) But I’m now getting a bit confused over the order of magnitude of the numbers involved, what could you do for me?
(16) Has this extra forcing by antropogenic water vapour in winter ever been considered?
(17) What’s the fuss about AGW, since water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption?
And that’s just by skimming one article from more than ten years ago.
Imagine the Internet.
Billions upon billion of issues.
Billions upon billion of issue trees.
How could we ever repeat ourselves over and over again?
It’s obvious the issues are endless.
Only GRRRROWTH is bigger than the number of issues surrounding the sign of water feedback.
Hence audits never end.
Thank you.
Yes willard.
In my comment that got eaten I gave tribute to you on the never ending audit.
Simply, without a pragamatic ( non epistemic) stopping rule, Audits and trees are never ending and hence DISFUNCTIONAL. they cannot achieve their stated purpose.
Davids trees have un specificable generation rules and stopping rules.
################################
Except perhaps that though shalt not engage in a recursive step.
In practice, people cant avoid recursion.
Or more funnily
Looking at the debate, everyone will draw different trees, which tells you that trees are subjective and arbitrary.
And below this is the problem of being germane.
Im always on and off the topic, related, glacing, marginal, central, peripheral.. later..
Instead of ISSUE trees which are unbounded because of the problem of germaneness, Try instead, david Evidence trees.
And evidence tree works like this.
You believe X ( CAGW will never happen)
Start the evidence tree by listing the evidence that would change your belief.
The list must be complete, exhaustive, and you will be duty bound to it.
In other words, there is a stopping rule, but one you supply.
Then after you defend your evidence tree ( is it correct, is similar or at parity with other evidence trees you hold) then a dialog can begin.
Actually, David’s point number 2 is a good one that’s not oft made. CO2 diffuses in ice up until it becomes a calthrate, add in a little melting here-and-there and this really does put a question mark over much of the Paleo ice core/C02 evidence. Stomata are better proxy for CO2 concentrations – IMHO. Sadly for the cause that particular proxy doesn’t marry well with future predictions of C02 related doom and gloom
The paper:
A new diagram of Earth’s global energy budget
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40328-015-0138-0
and the supporting website:
http://globalenergybudget.com/
are now ready for discussion.
Dear Judith,
Could we have a “Week in review – Impacts function edition“?
Peter, what do you mean by “impacts function”? If you mean articles speculating about possible impacts from climate change, that might be fun indeed.
Its his hobby horse. But he refuses to read what is already published and thinks he get to order people around.
It really is too funny. I think Peter once upon a time , thought he had influence and power.
Richard Told recently called the ‘Damage Function’ the Impacts Function, so I thought I’d try using that term and see what response I get.
What I am really seeking is:
1. The empirical data to calibrate the impacts function at the global and regional scale – i.e the net cost or benefit attributable to GHG emissions (or per degree of global average temperature change) through this century to 2100;
2. The uncertainties on the damage function
3. I sensitivity of estimates of SCC, optimal carbon price, net-benefit of GHG emissions, etc. to the Damage Function / Impacts Function
This is where I think climate science and climate economists should be focusing their attention and should have been for the past 30+ years.
Mosher keeps repeating the same misrepresentation. He apparently doesn’t bother to read the response I’ve given him each time he’s said this so he keeps repeating it. I did follow the link with his alternative to having to know the damage function. The alternative suggested , and Mosher apparently thinks is rational, is to say “let’s assume 2 C is dangerous and then decide what to do to prevent it” (that’s it in brief.) It shows how ignorant Mosher is of the real world and what is required for rational policy analysis.
It also explains why he’s bitter about being continually confronted by this show stopper for his beliefs. So, he tries to dodge it and snark, as he did from the very first time I responded to a comment he made, in which he stated: “only the impacts of climate change are relevant” (or words to that effect). I innocently asked him: “what are the impacts?” He went berserk over me daring to ask the Great Mosher a question. I had no right to ask him a question.
Mosher, what an arrogant, pompous twit.
Without convincing evidence that GHG emissions are a significant threat of causing significant damage, there is no valid justification fo spending money on policies to try to stop or reduce GHG emissions. It’s that simple!
And Mosher’s models are not evidence. He’s focused on relations between GHG emissions and global temperatures. Temperature change is not a measure of damages. Global warming is not evidence of net global damages or a threat to humanity.
“Without convincing evidence that GHG emissions are a significant threat of causing significant damage, there is no valid justification fo spending money on policies to try to stop or reduce GHG emissions.”
I’ll bite on this, I think you’re wrong and while the reason why seems like a minor distinction, it isn’t to the lay person. I’d amend your statement to read “there is no valid justification for radical action.” Fracking for natural gas is an emissions reduction policy, research on next gen nuclear is an emissions reduction policy, permitting nuclear is an emissions reduction policy. All of these, in the US, have bi-partisan support with a handful of vocal fringe elements on the left opposing them. All of them have bi-partisan support because they’re worth doing no matter what the ultimate warming rate is or what’s driving it.
There are only two reasons people still argue for the “C” in CAGW (and move the goalposts on the definition of catastrophic): 1. they called good people fools for questioning the severity and don’t want to admit they were wrong and/or 2. they are partisans who need the C in the weird belief that it justifies policy preferences that most of the world rejected as economically irrational long ago.
There was a discussion about CAGW on the Naked Capitalism (NC) blog yesterday in regards to this article:
The discussion begins here:
A brave soul with the moniker of “Don” ventured into the NC lion’s den — about as welcome as a black man at a KKK convention — and challenged the fundamentalist CAGW religion of the owner of the blog, Yves Smith.
Smith responded with an automatic thought response which is typical of those consumed with such a single-minded fanatacism, and pulled one of these:
http://s13.postimg.org/lncv6hu3r/638_angry_man_at_work_blowing_his_top.png
Then today she followed it up with this:
And this:
Smith is typically skeiptical when it comes to what the government and the MSM proselytize. But when it comes to CAGW and another one of her pet theories — Modern Monetary Theory — all skepticism goes out the window.
“A fifth scientist, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, called the study provocative and interesting but said he remains skeptical until more research confirms it. He found the future temperature calculations “so much higher than prevailing estimates that one has to consider it somewhat of an outlier.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/study-earths-roughly-warmest-in-about-100000-years/2016/09/26/2672bb28-8412-11e6-b57d-dd49277af02f_story.html
And the same day: “They estimate that we emitted between 6.323 and 7.403 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in that year. That’s right: The high end and low end estimate diverge by over a billion tons.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/26/the-u-s-is-on-course-to-miss-its-emissions-goals-and-one-reason-is-methane/?utm_term=.cabd99211c46
Too bad no ‘uncertainty’ can be injected in to the conversation.
He you go…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/714924/Black-Moon-END-OF-THE-WORLD-JESUS-apocalypse
remember that it’s not always science in astronomy, more like astrology with a twist.
Gavin and the study’s author have clarified a bit: http://gizmodo.com/dont-worry-the-earth-is-not-locked-into-ten-degrees-of-1787058579
Everybody into the pool now…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/three-parent-baby-world-first-born-mexico-a7333191.html
science is only what you do when they don’t now what it is we are doing, don’t worry they promise us too, know problem.
Tryfecta
Then one sunny day in May, 144,000 Modifiers, caught The Cold but everybody else died fast. We need to wait and see because the invisible gas CO2 in going to make us all hot and bothered by 2100, say scientists.
JISAO PDO
2016
01 1.53
02 1.75
03 2.40
04 2.62
05 2.35
06 2.03
07 1.25
08 0.52
Lowest reading in 2 years but still positive. NOAA’s was negative for August.
Finally. They’re – the the two indexes – about the same.
Does this belong under science? http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/09/south-australia-power-outage/501992/
Sure belongs under problems.
From the article:
…
Burnaby, BC – September 27, 2016 – D-Wave Systems Inc., the world’s first quantum computing company, today announced details of its most advanced quantum computing system, featuring a new 2000-qubit processor. The announcement is being made at the company’s inaugural users group conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The new processor doubles the number of qubits over the previous generation D-Wave 2X™ system, enabling larger problems to be solved and extending D-Wave’s significant lead over all quantum computing competitors. The new system also introduces control features that allow users to tune the quantum computational process to solve problems faster and find more diverse solutions when they exist. In early tests these new features have yielded performance improvements of up to 1000 times over the D-Wave 2X system.
…
http://www.dwavesys.com/press-releases/d-wave-systems-previews-2000-qubit-quantum-system
I’d be interested in comments from Ozonians on this:
…
The entire state of South Australia suffered a complete power black out on Wednesday September 28 plugging it’s nearly 1.7 million residents, communities and businesses into darkness.
Loss of available power from transmissions lines feeding the region from other states coupled with South Australia’s ill-considered climate change energy policy of forced shutdown of the states operating coal plants to promote heavy use of renewable energy created this latest power debacle.
…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/28/entire-state-of-south-australia-has-power-black-out-because-of-flawed-climate-change-energy-policy/
Response in moderation. I’ll try again with my bit modified]
*Analysis: Rushing to renewables risks sector’s reputation*
The last time an entire state blacked out was on the night the Beatles arrived in Sydney in 1964.
So what happened in South Australia yesterday was rare and the repercussions could be vast.
The key question is whether that state’s heavy reliance on wind turbines might have increased the risk of a state-wide blackout. More broadly, the event will supercharge concerns over how renewable energy is being integrated into a national grid that was not designed to cope with it.
Wind presents two problems. First, it is intermittent, so all of it has to be backed up by baseload power for those days when the wind does not blow.
The second is a diabolically tricky engineering problem. For an electricity network to function, demand and supply have to be kept in the perfect harmony of 50 hertz every second of every day. If the frequency gets out of tune, the system identifies a fault that could destroy it and that trips the shutdown switch.
This electrical harmony is called synchronous supply, and thermal power is very good at delivering it to the grid.
[teaser SA outage]
Wind power is asynchronous — its frequency fluctuates with the breeze and it has to be stabilised by the give and take of other sources of demand and supply.
South Australia has a unique energy mix, with 40 per cent of its electricity generated by wind and a high uptake of rooftop solar panels. The reduction in demand, driven by rooftop cells and coupled with the low price that subsidised wind farms can bid into the electricity market, has shut down all the state’s coal-fired power plants. It now relies on three sources for power: wind, gas and coal-fired power imported from Victoria through two interconnectors that are its lifeline to the national electricity market.
The fragility of South Australia’s electricity supply with the rise of renewables is an open secret.
The ‘non-credible event’
In February, the Australian Energy Market Operator and Electranet — the owner of South Australia’s transmission services — released a report into the integration of that state’s renewable energy into the grid. It said the system could operate securely and reliably with a high percentage of wind and rooftop photovoltaic generation, as long as one of the following two key factors apply:
The Heywood alternating current (AC) interconnector linking SA and Victoria is operational
Sufficient synchronous generation is connected and operating in the SA power system
[teaser: price spike sparks blackout]
“Overall, the studies highlight the increasing importance of the Heywood Interconnector in the secure and reliable operation of the SA power system,” the report said.
It goes on to say, “In the event of a non-credible separation of SA from the remainder of the National Electricity Market, there is an increasing risk that the current Automatic Under Frequency Load Shedding scheme in SA will be unable to maintain SA frequency within the Frequency Operating Standards”.
At 3:58pm yesterday there was what the report quaintly describes as a “non-credible event”.
“A non-credible contingency event that trips both circuits of the Heywood Interconnector at times when there is high export from SA to Victoria is very unlikely, but would result in a rise in frequency within the SA power system and potentially lead to uncoordinated loss of generation,” the report said.
“At present, there is no specific emergency control scheme in place to maintain frequency within the Frequency Operating Standards following such an event.”
It could also be a problem if wind was supplying the bulk of South Australia’s power and the rest was being imported from Victoria — meaning there was little or no synchronous generation inside South Australia.
Before the power outage yesterday, the wind was blowing a gale and the turbines were supplying 70 per cent of the state’s power.
Renewable transformation needs to be managed sensibly
Premier Jay Weatherill said the primary cause of the state-wide outage was the storm’s destruction of transmission towers and that the National Electricity Market “did what it was supposed to do” — tripped the off switch to protect itself.
But what that switch was doing was protecting the east coast from the fluctuations of power in the west, it was not protecting South Australia.
[solar cells image]
Once the door to the east was shut, South Australia fell back on its own power supply, which, this report suggests, might by then have had a wildly fluctuating power supply and insufficient synchronous generation to keep it in check. That could explain why, region-by-region, the entire network shut itself down until the state went to black.
It might not be what happened but the report suggests this could have been the cause.
It is important to note that the Australian Energy Market Operator says the damage to the system was so catastrophic that it would have shut down no matter what the energy mix was in South Australia yesterday.
“Initial investigations have identified the root cause of the event is likely to be the multiple loss of 275 kilovolt (kV) power lines during severe storm activity in the state,” it said in a statement.
“These transmission lines form part of the backbone of South Australia’s power system and support supply and generation north of Adelaide,”.
But the statement adds: “The reason why a cascading failure of the remainder of the South Australia network occurred is still to be identified and is subject to further investigation.”
And that is the crucial question.
What is not in doubt is the next problem, rebooting the system. And that cannot be done with asynchronous power. To get the system online again, the energy market operator ordered the gas-fired power generator at Pelican Point to fire up, and then set about restarting the system bit by bit.
The blackout of an entire state is a major crisis. Politicians should know that you should never waste one.
Renewables are the future*** but, today, they present serious engineering problems. To deny that is to deny the science.
Those problems can be sorted in time, but rushing to a target to parade green credentials exposes the electricity network to a serious security risk and, in the long run, risks permanent reputational damage to the renewable energy cause.
The grid is being transformed, and that transformation needs to be managed sensibly, or the entire nation might go to black.
*** PL: I disagree with this bit.
Peter, I have read that modern windmills use a “direct drive” configuration. Therefore a direct production of a 50 Hz power seems unlikely. I suspect that they use a power electronics to achieve a synchronization with the grid. Maybe wind is not really an asynchronous source.
The cause of the state wide power blackout in South Australia, in a few words: too much asynchronous generation (wind and solar) and too little synchronous generation (coal, gas, oil, hydro, nuclear).
Nuclear could provide reliable power and supply 75% of our electricity, much cheaper and much more safely than renewables.
Thanks for the comments everyone. I hope it has a political impact, hopefully pushing the voters there towards sanity and away from “green” politicians.
Jim, Jo Nova, ref comments 79 and 79.by tony from Oz.
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/entire-state-of-south-australia-without-electricity-as-storm-hits/#comment-1841599
Beth
My sister lives in Adelaide and just commented to me
‘Knew that there was a chance that it would happen as we have already had 4 other blackouts recently. We had cooked our meal so just needed to heat it up.
Emergency kit: matches, candles, gas ring on BBQ; battery radio; hot water bottles, filly charged mobile phones, kindles etc.’
Green energy is all very well but it needs to be cheap, reliable and robust. It is an additional power source not the base load.
tonyb
The other mad thing about this of course is that oz is awash with coal. It is allowed to export it in vast quantities to China but power stations at home are being shut down (which likely contributed to the blackout)
tonyb
Tony,
Appears to be two new facilities slated in your arena: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37502547
Lower emissions, but at twice the cost?
“The key document is the Contract for Difference, or CfD, which gives a guaranteed price for the electricity Hinkley will generate for 35 years.
In return EDF, along with CGN, will finance the project and shoulder the risk of any delays.
Critics say the guaranteed “strike price” – which is more than twice the current wholesale cost of electricity – will provide a windfall for EDF for decades to come.”
Seems this deal was sold backwards at first glace. Seeding the renewables expansion, removing baseline (coal), needing replacement base (this facility) but at twice the price.
Looking forward to your take.
Tony,
Glad your sister was prepared for the inevitable power
failures of intermittent, inefficient renewable energy,
brought about by the popular delusions of a Green elite…
(though some of them are less deluded, more machiavellian,
‘climate change’ being a tricky word change from ‘global
warming’ to cover all exigencies for political metamorphosis
to that socialist utopia beloved of central guvuhmints and
platonists. )
Breathless serf.
Danny
There are two problems with Hinckley, both of which have been known about for years, but never acknowledged by the uk govt who are determined to demonstrate their green credentials by choosing any power source but coal, with the preferred power source being solar ( at uk latitudes!) and wind. They belatedly reAlised they aso needed base power such as nuclear but should have started building them a decade ago.
Consequently they were tempted by the prospect of Chinese money financing a French built nuclear power station! wth an enormous uk subsidy to make the resultant energy competitive.
The trouble is that letting the Chinese into nuclear power stations is not necessarily a good idea because of security implications( part of the deal is they will be allowed to build another using their own design) the problem with EDF is that the reactors have no track record and are possibly flawed and certainly very expensive.
Theresa may ordered a review of the project when she came to power last July. The problem is that the project is completely mad, but against that is the overriding need for base power and pragmatically it needs to be built to show Britain’ is still open for business and new investment following Brexit. Turning it down would politically send the wrong message but at least some messages were sent out that future projects would be better scrutinised.
Tonyb
Tony,
Thanks.
“The trouble is that letting the Chinese into nuclear power stations is not necessarily a good idea because of security implications( part of the deal is they will be allowed to build another using their own design) the problem with EDF is that the reactors have no track record and are possibly flawed and certainly very expensive.”
Been watching with interest the involvement of the Chinese. Just negotiate a ‘great deal’ and all will be well or so we hear. The article indicates that time overruns would be absorbed by the financiers. Wasn’t detailed sufficiently to indicate exposures.
Are you aware of the ‘strike point’ in pricing per kwh and how it compares with the typical?
Danny
This article explains it all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36925580
The agreed wholesale price For this reactor was always at least twice the price of our usual Electric production but it is now probably around 2.5 times as the cost of gas supplies fell a year or two ago. The cost does not include some substantial infrastructure costs.
As I say, it is very expensive but in political terms probably necessary bearing in mind the need to ensure investor confidence post Brexit. It would help if your current president wasn’t so Intent in denying their strongest ally a quick trade deal. As well as helping to lose the Brexit vote by his intervention he tells us we must go to th back of the queue for trade deals.
Tonyb
Test
First shot at trying to understand what went on, leading to the SA blackout of Wednesday 28th September http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2016/09/first-shot-at-trying-to-understand-what-went-on-leading-to-the-sa-blackout-of-wednesday-28th-september/
Watch the video of the system.
In short: too much wind and not enough baseload power.
Yup, Peter,
Too much wind ain’t a good thing.
bts
Who still wants essential services to be designed by politicians and populists instead of engineers?
“In an unprecedented development, the state of South Australia was cut-off from the national electricity network. Wednesday’s event will trigger renewed debate over the state’s heavy reliance on renewable energy which has forced the closure of uncompetitive power stations, putting the electricity network in South Australia under stress. Earlier this week, the Grattan Institute warned that South Australia’s high reliance on renewable energy sources left it exposed to disruptions. It pointed to the fact that while the renewable energy target had encouraged the development of wind and solar generation, it had the potential to undermine supply security at a reasonable price, because it forced the closure of inefficient power stations without encouraging the construction of the necessary new generation supply sources.” –Brian Robins, The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 September 2016 http://thegwpf.us4.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=6cf3acbe7a&e=d3ab024ae2
[Prime Minister] “Malcolm Turnbull has blasted state Labor governments for setting aggressive and unrealistic renewable energy targets. A statewide blackout in South Australia, triggered by ferocious storms on Wednesday that damaged one of its power stations and 20 transmission towers, has set off a debate about renewable energy. The prime minister said energy security must be a key priority for governments. “If you are stuck in an elevator, if the lights won’t go on, if your fridge is thawing out, everything in the kitchen is thawing out because the power is gone, you are not going to be concerned about the particular source of that power,” Mr Turnbull told reporters in Launceston. “You want to know that the energy is secure.” ” –Australian Associated Press, 30 September 2016 http://thegwpf.us4.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=3465eef896&e=d3ab024ae2