Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

NASA: Megadrought Lasting Decades Is 99% Certain in American Southwest [link]

@chriscmooney pretty much (omission of track changes) nails it here on hurricanes & global warming [link]

Does #HurricaneMatthew’s Category 4+ rating really communicate its #hazard? [link]

“Exhaling Earth: Scientists closer to forecasting volcanic eruptions” [link] …

Why 2015 Was a Big Hurricane Year for the Eastern North Pacific [link]

Feds say agriculture the main culprit for methane spike [link]

This is fascinating by Roger Penrose: Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe [link]

From Andy Revkin:  A list of papers using the CESM (in response to Kip Hansen’s recent essay) [link]

Clouds: the huge wildcard of #climatechange forecasts. [link]

Policy sciences and decision making 

Confronting deep and persistent climate uncertainty [link]

New paper comparing adaptation pathways and robust decision making [link]

Geoengineering, moral hazard, and trust in climate science: evidence from a survey experiment in Britain [link]

Read this Classic on ‘The Science of Muddling Through’ or why real decisions rarely rely on theory [link]

James Hansen: Time to go CO2 Negative! [link] …

“What do people think when they think about solar geoengineering?” [link] …

A scientific assessment of Arctic freshwater by 41 scientists from 10 countries. [link]

Pew: Most Americans Don’t Believe in ‘Scientific Consensus’ on Climate Change [link]…

Climate change and the social sciences [link] …

Confused About Uncertainty, Probability and Decisions? New Paper on Management of Natural Hazards [link]

About science

Intellectual Heterogeneity as the Engine that Drives Academic Progress [link]

Overpowered metrics eat underspecified goals [link]

The Parallel Universes of a Woman in Science [link] …

This is a really interesting paper on the kind of smearing that we see from certain members of the climate science community [link]

A new front in the statistics wars? Peaceful negotiation in the face of so-called ‘methodological terrorism’ [link]

Ratio Bias and Policy Preferences  [link]  …

394 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Pingback: Week in review – science edition – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. Great article by @chrismooney. Thank you for the link. I would like to add that I looked at total annual ACE of hurricanes 1945-2014 and found no trends.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278730805_A_GENERAL_LINEAR_MODEL_FOR_TRENDS_IN_TROPICAL_CYCLONE_ACTIVITY

  3. I agree with Professor Michael Kelley on the inherent danger of lock-step “97% consensus science” promoted by FRS, NAS, etc.:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995239/Why-Royal-Society-wrong-climate-change-devastating-critique-world-s-leading-scientific-organisation-one-Fellows.html

    Now that the error in Weizsacker/Bethe’s definition of nuclear energy was publicly identified last month at the London Conference on GeoEthics (by the sloping baseline they used to calculate nuclear energy) national academies of sciences may feel obliged to correct or defend the error in public.

  4. With regard to “Feds say agriculture the main culprit for methane spike” I would like to point out that carbon emissions from agriculture, whether in the form of CO2 or hydrocarbons, are surface carbon and an integral part of the surface-atmosphere-biota carbon cycle and not extraneous carbon from under the ground that can cause a perturbation of the surface-atmosphere-biota and climate system. Changes in the molcular form of surface carbon are irrelevant to the theory of AGW which concerns only the possible impact of injecting new carbon into this system from fossil fuels that had been sequestered from the surface system for millions of years.

    • chaamjamal I am in Ag and a very simple layman in climate science. Could you provide a link(s) that further explain your statements — on the surface-atmosphere-biota and climate system and that changes in the molecular form of surface carbon are irrelevant to AGW theory.

    • My mental model says your statement is wrong. Draw some boxes on a piece of paper, label them properly, and remember it’s a dynamic system.

  5. Just mentioned Lindblom in the context of discussing decision making in the face of climate change the other day.

  6. @chriscmooney pretty much (omission of track changes) nails it here on hurricanes & global warming

    Years ago I believed the average Washington Post reader was well educated and intelligent. I glanced at the comments to Chris Moody’s piece and they reinforce a much lower opinion these days.

    For instance, there is this gem:

    ” A measurable 2.5″ (non-contested, evidently) rise in the ocean level around Florida between 1992 and today – a period of less than 20 years – that is SERIOUS business.”

    I thought smart phones had calculator apps to handle this kind of higher math.

  7. Danny Thomas

    Can anyone suggest a definition for what constitutes ‘geoengineering’? This is found: “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth’s climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of global warming.”

    Do we not, or have we not already conducted some experimentation? Monocultures, Dams, Reservoir creation, Wetland modfications, de/reforestation, island building, UHI creation (or should just say heat island), and so on.

    Can we separate out the cause and effects results of what we’ve done so far?

    • Steven Mosher

      Geoengineering …adding co2 to the atmosphere

      • Steven,
        Sure. And my associated questions apply there as well.

        Given the ‘great CESM’ discussion and 1 trillionth of a degree change in initial conditions butterflies abound. Monoculture to Colorado River to GHG’s.

      • Geoengineering implies intent Steven. You’re example is would fit better under unintended consequences.

      • jeez, I mangled that last comment embarrassingly. It’s been a bad day. You’re welcome to correct me with the is was sort of your skillz.

      • Charles the Moderator,

        Are the unintended consequences net beneficial or net damaging? Does anyone know? What is the empirical evidence basis for the damage functions? Have the uncertainties been quantified? Please provide a short succinct summary of the key evidence and uncertainties.

      • Danny.

        Thank you for your concerns

        “Can we separate out the cause and effects results of what we’ve done so far?”

        1. To some degree yes.
        2..There will always remain foolish people who demand more information
        than is possible.

      • Danny Thomas

        Steven,

        You’re welcome. And I thank you for ‘your’ concerns.

        1.) Great. What are they and are they negative or positive?
        2) Are there ‘non’ foolish people not demanding as much information as is possible?

      • “Geoengineering implies intent Steven. You’re example is would fit better under unintended consequences.”

        It may imply intent, as in we are making these changes for that known effect. But then again, there are times where we say we are engineering a disaster.. meaning we are taking actions which as you observe mya have unintended consequences..

        In other words… bad engineering. You could say when we engineered coal plants in the begining we were geo engineering with the intended
        benefit of transforming the world though more economical energy, but that engineering had unintended consquences.

        But thank you for your concerns about me taking licence with the literal meaning of terms. Someone should call the metaphor police.

      • I will answer for Charles, peter.

        Thank you for your concerns.
        Please see the appropriate literature for your answers
        and if you find them lacking
        I will suggest

        1. Do your own science
        2. Write your policy makers
        3. Stop thinking that random people on the Internet OWE YOU ANSWERS. they do not. They owe you nothing. go away

      • Thanks Steven, but my answer to Peter would be more like:

        “Peter, pick any scenario, or consequence you like. Whether it be positive, negative, catastrophic, delivers a utopia, or passes unnoticed, with infinite error ranges, they will all be as irrelevant to my point about intent.

        I understand you wish to hammer home a singular point, but not everything written here is pertinent to it.”

        If I were to write an answer that is. Still thinking about it.

      • Great answer Charles.

        I think peter must be living in a pithos in the marketplace.
        or carrying a lamp around during the day

      • Steven ==> With this: “3. Stop thinking that random people on the Internet OWE YOU ANSWERS. they do not. They owe you nothing.” you’ve said something I agree with entirely.

        It fascinates me when people (mostly troll-types) demand that one replies to them directly or loudly shouts that one has “refused to answer their ‘scientific’ questions” (extra quotes intentional, their questions are often nonsensical, off-topic, peripheral, etc).

      • Stephen Mosher,

        I will answer for Charles, peter.

        Thank you for your concerns.
        Please see the appropriate literature for your answers
        and if you find them lacking
        I will suggest

        1. Do your own science
        2. Write your policy makers
        3. Stop thinking that random people on the Internet OWE YOU ANSWERS. they do not. They owe you nothing. go away

        Response straight from the Deniers’ strategy textbook.

        You are dodging and weaving. You know that without a valid damage function there can be no valid justification for funding research or policy to support your beliefs. So you’ve retreated to using tactics of dodging, weaving and denial.

    • Geoengineering –
      The steps taken by the ruling political and technocrat class when they have determined that the construct of nature does not conform to their bourgeois expectations and ideals.

    • This is amusing, geoengineering used to mean making the Earth more habitable for humans. This usually meant keeping things warmer and more moist.

    • Peter Lang wrote:
      “You know that without a valid damage function there can be no valid justification for funding research or policy to support your beliefs.”

      Again with the damage functions.

      What is the damage function for Hurricane Matthew?

  8. Confronting Deep and Persistent Climate Uncertainty

    Earth’s sunlit side as a blackbody would have an average surface temperature of 331.3K (58.15°C), 394k *0.5^0.25 = 331.3K. With 0.3 albedo that would be reduced to 303K (29.85°C), 331.1K *0.7^0.25 = 303.05K. which is higher than observed. Oceanic thermal reservoirs will dampen heating rates on the sunlit side and carry that heat to the dark night side. And so will the water vapour atmospheric greenhouse effect, because of its absorption bands in the solar near infrared. CO2 will function in the opposite way, amplifying warming on the heated hemisphere, and amplifying cooling on the cooling hemisphere. CO2 has a heat capacity of about 2/3 of dry air so it is useless for transporting heat.
    The greenhouse effect cannot be perceived in terms of global averages. It doesn’t actually add up.

    • ulric,

      I believe the thrust of your argument is correct.

      Another little add in, perhaps. Without any external energy input, measured heat loss (rough I know) indicates a surface temperature of around 30 – 40 K.

      Not surprising, given the the Earth is more than 99% molten or semi molten rock, surrounded by a few kilometres of congealed rock of fairly low R value.

      Add energy from the sun, average over the total area, and my admittedly rubbery and flexible figure is around 285 -290 K from memory.

      Averages are pointless. Even without liquid rock (magma) being counted where it appears on the surface, surface temperatures range from around -90 C to maybe 90 C (surface, not air). Average? 0 C? Who cares?

      People even carry on about the absorptivity differences between water and ice in the polar regions. In the land of the midnight Sun, any place less than about 23 deg. of latitude away from the poles won’t receive any sort of direct sunlight for up to 6 months.

      Anybody ever wonder why there’s not a lot of ozone in places where there’s not a lot of UVC? Like the Antarctic?

      Global averages probably bear close correlations to global climatological stupidity. Maybe Ludicrous Lew could do a paper on it!

      Cheers.

      • Mike, you have often referred to the heat arising from the earth itself. It appears that geothermal effects are an important factor in ocean warming and circulation.

        http://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/overview-seafloor-eruptions-and-ocean-warming/

      • Steven Mosher,

        Are you now claiming to be an engineer, in the same manner as you claim to be a scientist?

        Telling someone that the definition of geoengineering is ” . . adding CO2 to the atmosphere . . .”, and then effectively abusing them for asking for some clarification, seems like the response of a petulant child.

        Your strident demands for answers to your questions, together with dismissive and patronising responses to anyone possibly seeking knowledge which you pretend to have, might be seen as aspects of a slightly delusional mental outlook.

        You cannot even state the basis of this fabulous GHE in any way remotely resembling a scientific falsifiable hypothesis.

        Your obvious confusion about relevant scientific matters might be clarified by absorbing some basic physics. I would recommend Feynman’s physics lectures for a start. They are now freely available on the Internet if you cannot afford to buy them.

        Feynman’s “QED – the strange interaction between light and matter” might correct some of your misconceptions about any supposed greenhouse effect.

        Or you could bury your head in the sand, and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, if anyone has the temerity to question the GHE meme.

        Good luck with either course.

        Cheers.

      • Ron Clutz,

        Thanks for the link.

        I’m fairly sure I’m right (most of the time, anyway). The geothermal gradient in the outer crust varies from 6 C /km to more than 25 C /km.

        Interestingly, the temperature at 10 km in water is around 4 C, but that of rock at the same depth may be in excess of 250 C.

        It’s fairly obvious that without the heat transmitted through the crust, that oceans at the poles, for example would be frozen right through. Likewise, ice of several kilometres depth would be firmly frozen to the crust.

        Even though the warming at the ocean floor is minuscule, it is steady and continuous. The water thus warmed becomes less dense, and it doesn’t matter if it’s only a tiny bit less dense, it rises – losing its heat to the colder denser water which replaces it. As Lorenz pointed out, convection currents are chaotic – and so it goes.

        It wasn’t very clear in the diagrams you showed, but as far as I know, the mid ocean ridges circle the globe, divide the crust into two “hemispheres”. Once again, a moment’s thought might propose that the solidified rock of the crust occupies less volume than the molten rock from whence it came.

        The crust would shrink, the stresses would be enormous, and the pressurised molten stuff would pop out like a squeezed pimple – or through a planet girdling mid ocean trench. Maybe continents might be forced to move, deep oceans might have currents, and the Earth might continue to cool.

        I better stop. The science of climatology might be settled, but other science seems to keep finding out new stuff to replace the old stuff we all believed without question. Magma plumes could well be responsible for the ever shifting pattern of crustal hotspots. A question might be “How would convection occur from the interior of the sphere outwards?” There is a reasonably logical answer, but I might have to wait for the geophysicists to produce some data, and see if it supports what I think.

        All very interesting. Once again, many thanks.

        Cheers.

      • Ron
        Thanks for a very important link. I hope this area will receive a higher priority for research funding in the decades to come.

    • Steven Mosher

      Heat capacity is not the issue. Ir transparency is.

      • That’s like saying that the atmospheric greenhouse effect stops the oceans cooling to 3K overnight.

      • “That’s like saying that the atmospheric greenhouse effect stops the oceans cooling to 3K overnight.”

        no its nothing like saying that.

        but thank you for your attempted analogy.

      • It was all that your attempted comment deserved. Heat capacity is not the issue with what exactly? You can’t tell me that heat capacity is not an issue with the mean global surface temperature, 70% of it is massive thermal reservoirs. The water vapour atmospheric water vapour greenhouse effect requires heat capacity to transport heat to the dark side of the globe, or to high latitudes.

      • “Heat capacity is not the issue. Ir transparency is.”

        IR transparency should have an immediate effect. When it doesn’t, heat capacity is the excuse – which makes no sense, because in order to heat cold oceans, you need a hot atmosphere. No evidence of this heat in the atmosphere, no evidence of it transiting the warmish surface of the ocean on it’s way to the abyssal cold.

        Like much of this ill-posited area of science, belief in theory trumps evidence – data is adjusted to more closely match models, uncertainties are ignored until they are required to “show” theory is not (yet) proven wrong, those who dare question the orthodoxy are tarred and feathered regardless of the merit of their argument and so on. The general public is waking up and seeing that reality doesn’t meet your expectations, and the result will inevitably be the pendulum swinging the other way, yet again going too far and causing us all damage. This is the legacy of the disasterfarians – the exact opposite of what they say they want: they are causing more damage to the environment with energy systems that do not and cannot perform as required and consume more resources than they provide; more damage to the economy with the unsustainable subsidies of crony capitalism enabling the first; more damage to people as their lifestyles are needlessly curtailed by the Gaia worshippers sucking up the capital in the second.

        Those of us who actually perform the useful work that keeps society running will not allow this to continue. The only questions are how long it takes before enough see the truth, and how much damage will be done to the name of science. My hope is “soon” and “not much”, but I fear societal inertia will cause it to be “later” and “more than it should”.

      • IR transparency affects the equilibrium temperature. Heat capacity only affects the time scale to reach it.

      • Jim D, any rotating directionally heated body will be warmer due to surface and/or subsurface heat capacity.

      • ulric, …warmer than what? I say that if you add GHGs it gets warmer. Heat capacity doesn’t matter.

      • kneel63 wrote:
        “The general public is waking up and seeing that reality doesn’t meet your expectations, and the result will inevitably be the pendulum swinging the other way, yet again going too far and causing us all damage.”

        I cannot see why, it should be thoroughly cathartic, the damage is only to the reputations of those who defend a falsehood.

      • Steven Mother,

        That’s just being foolish.

        Fill a room or other container with CO2. Its temperature doesn’t rise.

        Replace the CO2 with O2. The temperature doesn’t fall.

        Try some science for a change.

        Propose a falsifiable hypothesis relating to the wondrous GHE effect, if you can.

        Or you could just try to bluster your way through. I prefer facts, whilst you seem to prefer unsupported assertions and correlation presented as causation.

        Dear oh dear! This is science?

        Cheers.

      • Jim, your main GHG won’t work at night very well without heat its capacity.

      • MF, the falsifiable hypothesis is that when you add CO2 to the atmosphere the global temperature warms. So far, after over 100 ppm added the hypothesis is verified. You need it to cool back to 1850 levels for it is be falsified. Good luck with that.

      • ..its heat capacity^^

      • ulric, O2 and N2 have heat capacity like CO2. That is not the key ingredient for warming. It is IR opacity that distinguishes CO2 and H2O from O2 and N2.

      • Jim D,

        Your stab at a falsifiable hypothesis is laudable, if misguided. Even the IPCC is more thoughtful.

        The problem arises when proposing the reproducible scientific experiment which would would be capable of falsifying the hypothesis.

        Thought experiments, computer simulations, or strident assertions, do not count in real science, only climatology.

        For example, John Tyndall performed many reproducible experiments which show that CO2 warms nothing. If you are claiming that CO2 creates heat only around a planet, you may get quizzical looks, or even muffled laughter. How would your experiment be structured? How would you separate the heat supposedly generated by CO2 from the heat resulting from the generation of CO2?

        If the experiment has been carried out, who did it, and what were the results? In case you complain that I am being unreasonable, I’ll quote Richard Feynman –

        “And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?” – No, it’s not science – it’s climatology!

        Nice try, but as Steven Mother might say – Err, . . .no.

        Cheers.

      • Jim D, CO2 has around 2/3 of the heat capacity of dry air. Imagine trying to get through the night with a CO2 only greenhouse effect.

      • MF, it is not a thought experiment. It is a real ongoing experiment. Nothing says how long an experiment has to run to falsify something. The results in so far support rather than falsify the hypothesis, but maybe you want to wait longer in case things turn around.

      • ulric, a night under a pure O2 and N2 sky would be much colder than one under a sky with CO2 and H2O mixed in with very small percentages, and it is not their added heat capacity that makes the difference.

      • too funny.

        there isnt a single skeptic in the house who actually knows the theory.

        or how Feynman actually practiced science.

        jeez you guys are a laugh a minute..

        no wait Nobel prize winners… too funny

      • Jim D says “warmer than what?”

        Warmer than a black-body equivalent of course.

      • Steven Mosher, it is not too funny that calculating the average black-body temperature of Earth with 0.3 albedo as 255K is false and too warm by 103K. You cannot legitimately do a spherical transformation of solar irradiance for a body that is in reality only heated directionally on one hemisphere. And then many claim that Earth is 33°C warmer because of the greenhouse effect, as if heat capacity makes no difference.
        This is a very serious matter.

    • Using the correct hemispherical rather than the illegitimate spherical transformation of solar irradiance onto a body, the correct average temperature of the Moon can be arrived at very simply.
      The black-body temperature for the heated hemisphere is 331.3K, the average of the cold side is around 95K. (331.3+95)/2 = 213K. That implies the albedo is not having much effect, corroborated by the observed temperatures of up to 400K at the Lunar equator.
      It doesn’t make much sense looking for why the Moon is colder than you think it should be, while already knowing that it is warmer than it would otherwise be because of its heat capacity.

    • Where it gets particularly interesting, is in estimating the scale and sources of the thermal dampening. If the sunlit hemisphere mean surface temperature of Earth without thermal dampening and 0.3 albedo is 29.85°C, that would imply a dark side average surface temperature of around 0°C for a global surface mean of 15°C. So what is reducing that diurnal range most? is it the oceans? or is it the water vapour absorbing solar near infrared.

      • I realise that the dark side could not be at 0°C with no thermal dampening, it’s just a convenient way to express that Earth’s observed sunlit side average surface temperature is lower than its sunlit hemisphere black-body temperature with 0.3 albedo.

      • Estimates for atmospheric absorption of solar irradiance range from 16% to 23%, given a mean 20%, that would reduce the average 29.85°C on the sunlit side to 13.4°C. That now leaves a margin for the effects of the downwelling longwave IR.

  9. “NASA: Megadrought Lasting Decades Is 99% Certain in American Southwest”

    Why is NASA duplicating NOAA’s work? NASA launched communications satellites without becoming a telephone company. NASA launched spy satellites without setting up as another CIA.

    Do we need two NOAA’s?

    • Moreover, blaming the situation on climate change and bringing in climate models is misdirection. The problem is water and land usage by growing populations of residents in the region.

      https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/10/08/man-made-drought-in-us-southwest/

    • “Why is NASA duplicating NOAA’s work?”

      first of all thank you for your concerns about what government agencies decide to do with the authority granted them.

      second, you might want to check your assumptions of duplicating.

      third, you might want to check your implicit assumption that duplication is a bad thing. In science, repeating the work of others is often a core behavior.

      When you prove that the work is duplicated, when you prove they exceeded their authority, when you prove that all duplication or this duplication has no value, then you will have an intelligent question.

      until then you are just asking questions.

      a bot can do this

      • Perhaps Mosher, you have misread.

        Perhaps the question doesn’t paraphrase as “How dare they?”, but instead as “I don’t understand the need”.

        Somewhat amusing for an English Lit student to fail to parse it that way, eh? But I always did have a twisted sense of humour…

      • NASA running climate models is an example of mismanagement. I can see them using a climate model for reanalysis but running one to get into drought prediction isn’t sensible. But like I wrote above, it’s a question of managing resources properly. Given Obama’s freaky obsession with temperature I can see why bureaucrats like to feed his mania. However, Obama isn’t a very good resource manager, nor does he make well thought out decisions. Politicians do that all the time.

      • fernandoleanme commented:
        “NASA running climate models is an example of mismanagement. I can see them using a climate model for reanalysis but running one to get into drought prediction isn’t sensible.”

        Why?

        Do you think maybe there are lots of farmers and agricultural interests — not to mention food buyers — who are very interested in drought predictions?

      • Mosher,

        “When you prove that the work is duplicated”

        The duplication is analysis of climate (part of NOAA’s core mission), rather than NASA’s core mission of space utilization and exploration. How odd that you didn’t understand this. My analogy with comm sats made it clear.

        “when you prove they exceeded their authority”

        Another weird reply. I didn’t say that they did so. Policy guidelines for US agencies are set by an interaction of the Executive and Legislative branches. The question is why they have allowed NASA to drift from its core function, to overlap with NOAA.

        “when you prove that all duplication or this duplication has no value”

        It’s Management 101. Duplication involves loss of focus and increased costs. Which is why well-run organizations try to avoid it.

        “then you will have an intelligent question.”

        It was a better question than your odd answers.

        “until then you are just asking questions.”

        Congrats! You got one right. I was asking a question (singular, not plural).

  10. I noticed Gavin Schmidt on NPR claiming that the sea levels were rising faster along the US east coast than elsewhere.

    Is the sea off the US east coast composed of magic “climatological water” which raises itself above the MSL surrounding it?

    Or does he not accept that rather than the sea rising, the land on the US east coast is generally subsiding?

    There’s an old saying to the effect that “when your only tool’s a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.

    And so it appears with climatology. No other science is accepted. Everything revolves around the GHE, which doesn’t even have a falsifiable hypothesis, let alone any experimental evidence of its existence. Even sillier than treemometers, one might think.

    Cheers.

    • Well, it will be 3 things won’t it. Overall sea level rise. Gravitational effects which cause sea levels to fall near where ice is vanishing and rise more elsewhere. And, as you correctly identify, the land subsiding. These three combine badly for the east coast of the USA.

    • “Is the sea off the US east coast composed of magic “climatological water” which raises itself above the MSL surrounding it?

      To some degree yes. Suggest you read the literature.
      But thank you for the stupid question

      “Or does he not accept that rather than the sea rising, the land on the US east coast is generally subsiding?”

      weird. fallacy of bifurcation.. Is it THIS or That.
      Thank you for another demonstration of fallacious logic.
      please continue

      • “But thank you for the stupid question”

        I’d rather answer a dumb question than fix a stupid mistake.
        I’d rather answer a thousand dumb questions than find out that I hadn’t been asked the one question that changes everything I think I know.
        I’d rather question the necessity of spending money before I spent it than after the money was already wasted.

        But perhaps prudence and common sense is no longer fashionable where it doesn’t advance the agenda of the in crowd.

      • Steven Mother,

        Maybe you’re just pretending to be obtuse.

        For practical purposes, and in the context which the somewhat confused Gavin Schmidt used “sea level”, the level of the sea is gauged by its relationship to the land. Tide gauges are affixed to land, in some fashion of another. A floating tide gauge is quite pointless.

        Up until fairly recent times, scientists believed the continents did not bob up and down, slip under each other, and generally waltz around in a seemingly chaotic never ending dance.

        “USGS- The Chesapeake Bay Region Is Sinking While The Sea Rises” – reluctantly acknowledges that the US east coast is subsiding, some parts more rapidly than others.

        Who you gunna believe about geology? The US Geological Service (hint – the name contains a subtle clue), or Gavin Schmidt – mathematician and self proclaimed “settled science” climatologist.

        The land subsides – people see the sea level as rising, rather than the land disappearing beneath their feet!

        So yes, my logic continues to hold, I believe. Barring magic, either the land subsides, or the sea rises measured against that land. In my location the sea rises and falls over a distance of some 8 meters or so.

        In any case, the photic zone only extends to 100 m or so. The rest of the ocean remains beyond the influence of the Sun. Claiming that sunlight warms the depths is simply bizarre. Somebody with a defective knowledge of physics might believe so, but could not explain how this could happen without involving the use of magic at some step.

        Read the real literature. Let me know if you can’t understand real science. I’ll do my best to help.

        Cheers.

      • Ha, Mosher playing make believe trying to be a sea level expert.
        Too funny. Stick to trying to validate ancient temperature records compiled by drunks, dyslexics and amnesiacs.

      • >I’d rather answer a dumb question than fix a stupid mistake.

        The problem is that Flynn JAQs-off to PRATTs, kneel63. Pity is, he’s NOT stupid and often shows the ability to make cogent, lucid arguments.

        I estimate he’s easily forgotten more physics than I’ll ever know. For some reason unknown to me, he apparently chooses to act like an unteachable, illogical doofus.

        >Ha, Mosher playing make believe trying to be a sea level expert.

        No, he referred Mike to experts, cerescokid. Big difference.

        As well, one need not be a domain expert to recognize fallacious argumentation.

      • “No, he referred Mike to experts, cerescokid. Big difference.”

        Ya think maybe these skeptics could learn to read.

        oh wait.. they read comments EXACTLY like they read science.

        they look for typos and POUNCE….. that’s what Feynman told them to do..

        Yes sir re…. find the typo skeptic! ask kip he will help

        too funny

      • Ho hum

        ‘I’d rather answer a dumb question than fix a stupid mistake.”

        False choice

        I’d rather answer a thousand dumb questions than find out that I hadn’t been asked the one question that changes everything I think I know.

        False choice
        I’d rather question the necessity of spending money before I spent it than after the money was already wasted.
        You spend plenty of money polluting MY AIR without questioning the
        necessity

        Gosh.. hasnt a skeptic here got a single thing to say that cant be ripped apart in two seconds..

      • Too funny,

        Flynn still cant read the science.

        Come on Flynn you can do better than that.

        There are many theories.. you havent even begun to understand or explain them.

        too funny flynn flamming again

      • Steven Mosher,

        You mention there are many theories, and complain that I haven’t begun to understand or explain them.

        Which theories are they, exactly?

        What is the basis of your complaint? It’s a little difficult to understand or explain that which does not exist – a falsifiable hypothesis proposing a mechanism by which increasing the concentration of CO2 in an atmosphere can raise the temperature of that which it surrounds – or something like it. It’s always difficult to paraphrase something which is non-existent.

        I know the practitioners of Klimate Kung-Fu adopt the principle of practicing science by ignoring it – hoping nobody will notice they haven’t a clue.

        Oh well, you might as well keep repeating the sacred Manntras and performing the secret and intricate Klimate Kung-Fu hand waving movements. Strident bellowing is optional, of course. I might suggest that you attempt the Dragon katas. The Unicorn forms seem a little beyond your capability at the present. You may need to try harder.

        I wish you well.

        Cheers.

      • >oh wait.. they read comments EXACTLY like they read science.

        Assuming they can be dragged past the press release.

        >ask kip he will help

        He’s certainly put on a clinic exemplifying the meaning of the word “obdurate” these past few days. I mean seriously, if this can’t be considered standard faire, I don’t know what can. When one follows the linky to Chapter 7, Section 7.7, why the clueless IPCC even give a nod to the possibility of an intransitive climate system:

        A particular concern is the fact that some of these changes may even be irreversible due to the existence of multiple equilibrium states in the climate system.

        Oh darn, immediate disqualification for “irreversible” … the But Chaos argument loses its allure when it supports tipping points, dunnit.

        Look. Let’s not be alarming. Saint Lorenz was of the opinion that the ocean/atmosphere system is “unlikely to be intransitive”.

        Many Unicorns died to bring us this information.

        >too funny

        Tragic farce at its finest, Steven.

      • “False choice”

        Read harder, then THINK before you post.

        Here’s a tip: when someone says “I’d rather…”, they aren’t presenting you with a choice, they are expressing their own preference. Neither are they saying the options are mutually exclusive.

        FYI, I was simply noting that asking questions – even “dumb” ones – has value. If nothing else, reorganising the structure of your knowledge on a subject in order to explain it to someone else, is an invaluable technique for gaining insight you might otherwise overlook.

    • Mike Flynn commented:
      “It’s a little difficult to understand or explain that which does not exist – a falsifiable hypothesis proposing a mechanism by which increasing the concentration of CO2 in an atmosphere can raise the temperature of that which it surrounds”

      As Moser wrote, you need to read more. Falsifiable hypotheses:

      Hypothesis: Manmade CO2 increases the downward IR flux at the surface.
      Status: Observed. (Philipona, Feldman, and others).

      Hypothesis: Manmade AGW reduces stratospheric temperatures.
      Status: Observed.

  11. Re: “From Andy Revkin: A list of papers using the CESM”. I include in my essay links to the CESM site and the LENS site, as well as mention that “over 100 papers” having been written based on the CESM-Large Ensemble.

    I appreciate Andy Revkin’s interest — though, from my experience, I don’t believe he actually reads contrary viewpoints, he tends to be way over-extended professionally. He likes Twitter though. He even published one of my essays on Dot Earth, with the amusing title, “On Walking Dogs and Warming Trends”, which you can read here.

    It is the fact that so many papers are being pumped out using the CESM-LE that makes it all more important that those utilizing it really really understand what exactly it is, why it is the way it is, and the implications of the CESM-LE in light of Chaos Theory — which is not standard fare for Climate Scientists.

    • Curious George

      Does CESM still make the assumption that “the specific heats of condensate and vapour [in the atmosphere] is zero (which is a pretty good assumption given the small ratio of water to air, and one often made in atmospheric models)” ? As Gavin shows, this “pretty good assumption” leads necessarily to a 3% error in an energy transfer by evaporation from tropical seas.
      https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/30/activate-your-science/#comment-234131

    • Steven Mosher

      Funny. Kip is so certain about what is standard fair for Climate science.

      Sheesh. Hubris.

      • What’s worse, it’s linear hubris.

      • Hubris.

        Ironic.

        Ignoring aperiodic nondeterministic physics, also hubris.

      • Steven ==> I say “fare”, you say “fair” — Let’s call the whole thing off.

      • Curious George

        Steven, I am only 97% sure that CESM still makes the “pretty good assumption” (their website has been inaccessible for two days, so I am making a pretty good assumption myself). How much do you think it costs to produce the ensemble on a Yellowstone supercomputer powered by coal-burning power stations? How much sense does it make to vary initial conditions infinitesimally knowing that you have a 3% error in your physics?

      • ” How much do you think it costs to produce the ensemble on a Yellowstone supercomputer powered by coal-burning power stations? How much sense does it make to vary initial conditions infinitesimally knowing that you have a 3% error in your physics?

        Thank you for your questions.

        How much does it cost? More than I make in a day
        How much sense does it make? A lot, it’s a really cool experiment

        Thanks for your penentrating questions. They certainly settled the debate

      • “Steven ==> I say “fare”, you say “fair” — Let’s call the whole thing off.”

        thank you for your copy edits. perhaps you could do it for a living.

      • “Ignoring aperiodic nondeterministic physics, also hubris.”

        You think Kip does that too?

        Interesting, take it up with him.

      • Curious George

        Now I understand the standard fair for Climate “science” much better ;-)

  12. Pingback: Roundup Oct 8 | Catallaxy Files

  13. Curious George

    NASA: Megadrought Lasting Decades Is 99% Certain in American Southwest [link]. The link is actually to ecowatch.com, a 97% consensus site.

  14. “NASA: Megadrought Lasting Decades Is 99% Certain in American Southwest…”

    this century

    Why not… 99.9999% certain? Anyone we know ‘gonna be around to call’m on the accuracy of their prediction? Maybe it’s time we all move the back side of the comet Hale-Bopp before global warming destroys Earth.

  15. Wagner and Zeckhauser, 2016. “Confronting Deep and Persistent Climate Uncertaintyhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2818035

    The abstract says:

    The marginal damages due to temperature increase rise rapidly.

    That is a baseless assumption. Unsupported by empirical evidence.

    For one, going from economic activity to climate damages impacting people’s lives entails several links in a chain that goes from economic outputs to emissions, from emissions to concentrations, and from concentrations to temperatures for the most discussed climate related measure humans actually care about. Temperature changes, in turn, lead to climate impacts, which then generate damages. Thus, any jumps in damages get accounted for by the slope of the certainty equivalent curve.

    Another assertion, unsupported by empirical evidence.

    The risks become all the more significant once oft-unquantifiable ‘tipping points’ and other non-linearities are introduced to the damage function (Kopp et al., 2016; Revesz et al., 2014). In theory, these tipping points could be dealt with the same way any other type of uncertainty is included in decision models: using expected utility theory. A certaintyequivalent5 level of damages would be computed for each value of temperature increase.

    Based on what empirical evidence?

    The illustrated exponential damage function in Figure 2 is calibrated to produce damages equal to the quadratic at 4°C.

    What is the empirical evidence to calibrate this?

    Marginal damages from rising temperatures increase rapidly. Even in the typically conservative calibration used by the most prominent top-down, climate-economy models, damages increase quadratically (Wagner and Weitzman, 2015).

    Based on what evidence? Who says these calibrations are conservative? What is the basis for that assertion?

    Making the not unreasonable assumption that damages increase more steeply, especially at higher temperatures, would make the results worse. Weitzman (2009), for example, uses an exponential loss function,

    Why is the assumption “not unreasonable”? What is the evidence to cali8brate the function? What does he mean by high temperatures? Are they reasonable and realistic projections?

    Most importantly, uncertainty above the likely range is unambiguously bad. That is also where the marginal damages curve is steepest.

    Based on what empirical evidence?

    Who believes all this stuff and why?

    Why isn’t the (lack of) empirical evidence being discussed?

    • Peter Lang: Based on what empirical evidence?

      Who believes all this stuff and why?

      Why isn’t the (lack of) empirical evidence being discussed?

      I have asked the same questions, as have lots of other people. Furthermore, contrary evidence is simply ignored, such as the evidence that the combination of increased temperature, rainfall and CO2 have been beneficial on the whole over the past 100+ years.

      • Thank you Matthew. Appreciated. I read most of your comments and understand pretty well what you’ve been arguing for a long time. It is very frustrating that there are supposedly intelligent people like Steven Mosher who seem to follow an ideology and have seemingly become blind to rational, objective analysis. But it’s not just Mosher; the ideological beliefs of the regressive-Left are seriously slowing progress in the developed countries.

        Yesterday, I plotted global energy consumption since 1800. It was accelerating up to about 1970, then stalled. It stalled as the Malthusians gained support and influence. Recall the Club of Rome. Limits to Growth, and the anti-nuclear power protest movement.

      • Matthew wrote:
        “Furthermore, contrary evidence is simply ignored, such as the evidence that the combination of increased temperature, rainfall and CO2 have been beneficial on the whole over the past 100+ years.”

        What evidence is that?

        What is the scientific definition of “beneficial?”

      • Growing mangoes in Malaga is beneficial. Burning less natural gas because winter isn’t as cold as it used to be is very beneficial. Other than stronger cyclones and a teensy amount of sea level rise, I don’t see harm from warming to date. But the net effect seems to be positive thus far. Which makes sense in a seat of the pants sort of way.

      • fernandoleanme commented:
        “Other than stronger cyclones and a teensy amount of sea level rise, I don’t see harm from warming to date. But the net effect seems to be positive thus far. Which makes sense in a seat of the pants sort of way.”

        Do you have even a speck of science supporting that claim?

    • “Temperature changes, in turn, lead to climate impacts, which then generate damages. ”

      pretty simple.

      We are talking about RISK ( in the future)
      we are talking about temperature increase ( inthe future)
      We are talking about sea level rise ( in the future )

      The warming up to now, the sea level rise up to now, the changes in hydrology, up to now, are not the issue

      The issue is THE FUTURE.. and there is no empirical evidence of the future. There is only projected damages.

      But thanks for all your questions.

      none of them matter

      • catweazle666

        “none of them matter” A bit like the majority of your posts then, Mosher.

      • Mosher,

        You are an ignoramus, or a blind ideologue, if you think these questions don’t matter. They are the critical question. If you can’t demonstrate increasing GHG emissions will cause net-damage globally there is no valid justification for public expenditure on mitigation policies. It’s that simple. I failed to understand how you could not understand this simple fact.

        Clearly, you have not a clue about how policy analysis is done to justify public expenditures on a proposed policy. No matter what the advocates believe and say, eventually it is up to the treasury to justify expenditures on policies.

        Apparently, you do not understand basic risk analysis.

        Here is a lesson for someone who thinks he knows so much but demonstrates in his comments he hasn’t a clue about what is relevant for policy analysis and risk analysis:

        Put very simply: Risk is consequence of an event or condition occurring multiplied by the probability of it occurring.

        You need to define the event or condition, quantify the consequence of it if it occurs and the probability it will occur (in the FUTURE).

        You cannot do risk analysis without quantifying the consequences (with uncertainties of course).

        Therefore, please quantify the consequences (global net-damages or net-benefit) (in 2010 US$) of an increase in CO2-eq concentration (e.g. by 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 ppm, or by an appropriate function).

        If you can’ please have the integrity to admit you’ve lost.

      • “There is only projected damages.”
        From models that have failed out-of-sample tests for 20 years – make of that what you will

      • kneel: Which models — which don’t make predictions — have failed?

      • David Apell: the ones IPCC relies on.
        Each successive AR has projected less warming than the previous one, despite which things are regularly described as “worse than we thought”. AR5 doesn’t give a best estimate, and downgrades the projections based on “expert opinion” such that flat temps are in the likely range.
        Additionally, 17 years ago, warmist CliSci’s like Gavin@RC reckoned it would take 10 years of mis-matched temps to cause concern, while now this has been pushed out to beyond 17 years, and I do not notice much “concern” about the models being wrong, but much is published about the data being wrong, and how to “correct” it.
        None of this would matter very much, except that things like the Paris agreement, which could significantly impact many nations negatively, are based on this stuff – $ billions spent on changes that damage competitiveness, yet even if fully implemented would not do enough to make a measurable difference.

      • The history a victim of a hit and run.

      • Mosher says:

        The issue is THE FUTURE.. and there is no empirical evidence of the future. There is only projected damages.

        What is the basis for the projected damages, Mosher?

        Just ideological beliefs?

      • Peter

        ‘You are an ignoramus, or a blind ideologue, if you think these questions don’t matter. They are the critical question. ”

        Nothing you have said convinces me that they are the critical questions.
        Please given me empirical evidence that they are critical.

        I know you might think they are criticial, but it is hardly settled science
        that they are critical. Show your work, make your case, until there is no reason to think they are critical when so many people disagree.

        make your case.

        I have doubts and am skeptical

        this should be funny

      • Mosher,

        Your last comment is as silly as David Appell writes incessantly.

        Nothing you have said convinces me that they are the critical questions.

        What do you think are the critical issues for rational policy analysis – i.e. to inform policy makers whether investing public money in mitigation policies or climate science research is value for money?

        Is projected future CO2 concentrations of any relevance?

        Is climate sensitivity of any relevance?

        Is projected temperature change of any relevance?

        Is projected future sea level of any relevance?

        Why are any of these relevant since you think you don’t need a damage function to quantify the projected overall impacts in terms of net-benefits or net-costs?

      • Tell you what, Peter, let’s double the rate of our emissions. That way you’ll get your empirical evidence sooner. Best part is, no Modulz.

      • Tell you what, Peter, let’s double the rate of our emissions.
        Good luck with that.
        Looks like emissions peaked in 2013.

      • Peter, since we are at 400 ppm, and it’s pretty certain we will reach say 500 ppm, and it’s unlikely we will ever reach say 800 ppm, then the comparison should be 600 versus 500, 700 versus 500, 800 versus 500, or something like that.

        An old boss I used to have used to say I liked to get the company partially pregnant by advocating phased projects. He argued I was always coming back for more money after I had already spent a few million. And I used to respond we really couldn’t be building a structure without doing the engineering first, or taking soil borings, checking for shallow hazards, etc.

        We are already changing things. We have already changed them. In a sense, this is a phased project which is already changing the climate. Therefore all we can do is establish what are the benefits and costs on a point forward basis.

        I sort of doodle that on napkins and I include what I think is the limit on fossil fuel resources (I realize that’s not a popular idea around here, but it’s a real issue). When I do, this problem isn’t really a big deal, nor can we justify enforcing rules to move to zero emissions or other silly ideas like that.

      • >Looks like emissions peaked in 2013.

        Encouraging news for humanity, bad news for Peter, TE. He’ll just have to be that much more patient waiting for the empirical evidence to feed his mechanistic actuarial risk assessment algorithm.

        I reckon I’ll grow old and gray waiting for him to openly recognize that

        1) demanding actual damages before lifting a finger to remedy the threat defeats the purpose of doing risk assessment in the first place,
        2) we have plenty of empirical evidence that CO2 somewhere between 280 and 400 ppm is compatible with supporting in excess of seven billion human lives and
        3) there’s more at stake here than his bespoke definition of rational decision-making.

      • Peter Lang commented:
        “Is projected future CO2 concentrations of any relevance?
        Is climate sensitivity of any relevance?
        Is projected temperature change of any relevance?
        Is projected future sea level of any relevance?”

        Peter, I am utterly baffled as to how you believe these questions aren’t being addressed to the best of scientists’ ability.

        Want to explain that belief?

      • Fernando

        We are already changing things. We have already changed them.

        So what? That doesn’t address the question: are GHG emissions doing more harm than good? will they do net-harm or deliver net-benefits over the rest of this century? How do we know? What relevant empirical evidence is there to calibrate the damage functions?

        Saying that we are changing this is irrelevant. Change can make things better or worse.

        Look at the three figures here and the point I made about them: https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/12/are-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity-values-biased-low/#comment-796768

      • Peter Lang wrote:
        “That doesn’t address the question: are GHG emissions doing more harm than good? will they do net-harm or deliver net-benefits over the rest of this century? How do we know? What relevant empirical evidence is there to calibrate the damage functions?”

        You want everything handed to you in a tidy little equation.

        The situation is far too complex for that.

        You’ll have to read the literature, like everyone else, and make judgements, like everyone else.

      • Peter

        ‘Nothing you have said convinces me that they are the critical questions.

        What do you think are the critical issues for rational policy analysis – i.e. to inform policy makers whether investing public money in mitigation policies or climate science research is value for money?”

        ################

        Sorry, I asked you first

        you claimed that there were critical issues.

        Please provide solid emprical evidence that the issues you think are critical are in fact critical.

        To your question

        “What do you think are the critical issues for rational policy analysis – i.e. to inform policy makers whether investing public money in mitigation policies or climate science research is value for money?”

        I’ve given my answer on this many times. I refer you to prior comments.

        Now. What do YOU THINK the critical issues are and please supply proof that they are critical

      • Steven Mosher,

        I’ve given my answer on this many times. I refer you to prior comments.

        No you haven’t. You said, in effect, “we don’t need a damage function because the activist climate scientists have persuaded the politicians to agree 2C warming is dangerous, so all we have to do now is implement policy to prevent 2 C warming”.

        That’s the level of nonsensical argument you’ve fallen to, Mosher. You have simply become an advocate for an unsupportable belief.

        The arguments that GW is dangerous or will do more harm than good are based on assumed damage functions. But there is lack of evidence to calibrate the damage functions. You cannot show persuasive evidence that GHG emissions are harmful or will be. You cannot make projections the GHG emissions will be harmful in future. You’ve got nothing to support your beliefs.

        Saying you’ve already provided arguments in the past is BS. They were nonsense and I showed that. If you are confident you are correct you’d be prepared to state the case clearly and provide the short, succinct evidence to support your beliefs. You don’t and you can’t.

      • Peter Lang: “That’s the level of nonsensical argument you’ve fallen to, Mosher. You have simply become an advocate for an unsupportable belief.”

        “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

        Upton Sinclair

      • catweazle666,

        Thank you. Good quote. I thik it explains Mosher’s response very well. if he ever was an unbiased researcher with high intellectual integrity (which I doubt), this discussion shows that’s all gone now. He’s now just an advocate for the latest fad belief (like Appell)

  16. “NASA: Megadrought Lasting Decades Is 99% Certain in American Southwest ”
    Wait. What?
    “Paris floods made almost twice as likely by [Doomsday Global Warming], say scientists”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/10/paris-floods-made-almost-twice-as-likely-by-climate-change-say-scientists
    Q. If 97% Doomsday Global Warming simultaneously causes droughts and floods, how do you know when it’s “fixed”?

  17. David L. Hagen

    Solar geoengineering or energy? Fear or development?
    Why fear increased agricultural productivity from more “plant food”. Contrast the far greater danger of sinking into the next glaciation. During the last glaciation, Earth’s population sank to 3-8 million. Could we prevent mass starvation?
    Any discussion of solar geoengineering needs to equally examine how best to transition to sustainable energy. We also need to seriously examine the risk of COOLING leading to the next glaciation. We may need to consider how to INCREASE global warming to prevent glaciation and mass starvation.
    e.g., Gautney & Holliday (2015) estimate for African and Eurasia:

    If mean density for these carnivores is 0.0384 individuals per km2, and median density is 0.0275, we calculate a population range of approximately 2,120,000 – 2,950,000.

    Globally:

    we estimate total human census population size worldwide during the Last Glacial Maximum of ca. 2,117,000-2,955,000 based on medium-to large-bodied carnivore density estimates, and 3,046,000-8,307,000 individuals based on Binford’s (2001) hunter-gatherer densities for Africa and Eurasia combined . . .

    New estimations of habitable land area and human population size at the Last Glacial Maximum Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 103-112

  18. “Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 – they were wrong”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

    I apologize in advance if this causes a frenzy among people who don’t understand what a “spiral” is.

    • “Experts” is not consensus. In fact all these types of reports can be tracked to one person, Wadhams, with whom almost everyone else disagrees on a regular basis, primarily because he hasn’t been right before.

      • “In fact all these types of reports can be tracked to one person, Wadhams, with whom almost everyone else disagrees on a regular basis, primarily because he hasn’t been right before.”

        He seems to be one of those arguing that the arctic ice extent truly is in a “death spiral”. Nice to know even the alarmist kooks disagree with him.

      • He has a faster spiral than most, but the spiral is there, no denying.

    • And I won’t point to what manure looks like when thrown against a wall.

    • How does the “spiral’ effect a polar vortex?
      Cold NH winters during Doomsday Global Warming are apparently caused by polar vortexes, which are influenced by less arctic ice.
      Note:
      An ad-hoc hypothesis is a secondary hypothesis that is bolted on to the side of the main hypothesis in order to defend it, or protect it. A more recent example of this can be seen in the Global warming debate.
      https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2014/09/07/the-planet-vulcan/

  19. “NASA: Megadrought Lasting Decades Is 99% Certain in American Southwest ”

    Yeh, ok, same thing Lachniet said two years ago, and it has nothing to do with co2.

    Great, the co2 pushers have gotten smart enough to identify natural events and processes and hijack them in to becoming a mechanism of co2.

    Shouldn’t that be some sort of copyright infringement?

    • Do warmer temperatures increase evaporation rates?

      Do higher evaporation rates increase drought?

      • Curious George

        Do warmer temperatures increase water in the atmosphere?

      • George: Ever hear of the Clausius-Claperyon equation?

      • Curious George

        David, F in Physics. Demonstrated.

      • Do warmer temperatures increase evaporation rates?
        Not in the seasonal response.
        Go refer to your copy of The Physics of Climate.
        For the NH, evaporation is greater during winter than summer.
        The same for the SH.
        And, at the same time, precipitation is greater in the summer hemisphere.

        Now, to be sure, the dynamics change from winter to summer.
        But evaporation is not single factoral.

        Do higher evaporation rates increase drought?

        No. In fact, evaporation necessarily decreases as a drought progresses, approaching zero.

        Evaporation is greatest during “normal” times when there is moisture to evaporate.

        Look up any significant drought you want.

        You will find a description of lack of precipitation not surplus of evaporation.

      • From a common sense POV: Almost all the world’s surface water is in the oceans and lakes. I’d guess it’s over 90%, and perhaps over 99%. Warmer temperatures will dry out the land somewhat, due to more evaporation. But, warmer temperatures will increase the amount of water in the atmosphere by perhaps 10X or 100X as much. Higher atmospheric water vapor will probably lead to an increase in rainfall that far exceeds the drying impact of warming temperatures.

        BTW water vapor has a big impact on global warming. I don’t know how an increase in atmospheric water vapor will affect global warming going forward.

      • David Skurnick commented:
        “But, warmer temperatures will increase the amount of water in the atmosphere by perhaps 10X or 100X as much”

        No. This is actually possible to calculate, from the Clausius-Claperyon equation. Assuming constant relative humidity, the amount of water vapor in the air increases by 7% for every 1 deg C of warming (at temperatures where we are at).

      • David Appell (@davidappell): “Assuming constant relative humidity”

        Which assumption is entirely unjustified, of course.

        The Earth’s atmosphere behaves somewhat differently to a flask containing a carefully controlled mixture of gases in a laboratory.

      • catweazle666 commented:
        >> David Appell (@davidappell): “Assuming constant relative humidity” <<
        "Which assumption is entirely unjustified, of course."

        Why? It's a common assumption in climate science, going back to at least Manabe and Wetherald, for a reason.

      • “Why? It’s a common assumption in climate science…”

        Yes, so it is…

        My point exactly!

    • catweazle: But why is it a bad assumption?

      • “catweazle: But why is it a bad assumption?”

        I have already told you once.

        Let’s try again, shall we?

        The Earth’s atmosphere behaves somewhat differently to a flask containing a carefully controlled mixture of gases in a laboratory.

        Anyone who has ever tried to take even the simplest system designed according to laboratory theory and tested under controlled laboratory conditions and attempted to get it to work out into the real World could have told you that.

        Ask any engineer.

      • catweazle666 wrote:
        “The Earth’s atmosphere behaves somewhat differently to a flask containing a carefully controlled mixture of gases in a laboratory.”

        That’s not a reason, it’s just speculation.

        Do you have a scientific reason — such as data?

      • David,

        A scientific reason is not data, at least to real scientists.

        First the observations, then the hypothesis, then figuring out an experiment which could prove your hypothesis wrong.

        Climatologists have observations, but as yet no falsifiable hypothesis. They can’t even explain why the the components of the air coming out of your lungs are all at the same temperature.

        Or why air without CO2 or H2O can be heated to exactly the same temperature as CO2, H2O, or any other gas – using identical IR sources.

        Here is your opportunity to demand that I answer an irrelevant question. Maybe you could provide some facts instead. A falsifiable hypothesis explaining the mechanism whereby CO2 in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the planet. I’d suggest you might provide some experimental data to at least support your hypothesis, but you might just lurch off into a series of demands that I dance to your tune.

        Sorry. Not interested. The Earth also seems to be ignoring you, by progressively cooling since its creation, CO2 notwithstanding.

        Cheers.

      • David Appell,

        The reason I am still ignoring your question is because it’s completely pointless, irrelevant, misleading, and, dare I say, stupid.

        It’s quite possibly reflective of your intellectual prowess, which is demonstrably . . .

        But anyway, maybe you’d like to inform the lurking multitude precisely why my dancing to your tune is so important to you?

        You don’t seem to be able to contradict any facts I’ve put forward, nor even propose a falsifiable hypothesis related to your bizarre suggestion that CO2 can raise the temperature of the Earth, merely by its presence!

        And yet you keep demanding that I answer your silly bad faith questions? Demand away laddie! Join Steven Mosher, and donate your money to predatory publishers if you desire. Twice, if you’re really, really, gullible.

        No GHE. No CO2 warming. Humanity would benefit from more plant growth, rather than less. The observed greening of the deserts seems to better than continued desertification.

        GHE adherents seem to wish for the destruction of the human race, through their incessantdemands to rid the atmosphere of that gas upon which our continued existence as a species depends – CO2!

        Play your fiddle with all your might! I don’t find your tune particularly melodious or appealing, and I certainly have no desire to dance to it.

        Cheers.

    • Mike Flynn wrote:
      “The reason I am still ignoring your question is because it’s completely pointless, irrelevant, misleading, and, dare I say, stupid.”

      It was YOU who made a big point about N2’s ability to warm.

      I asked you where that trapping of IR shows up in the Earth’s outgoing EM spectrum.

      You don’t appear to have an answer, Mike Flynn.

  20. Pat Michaels has an essay linking the “Natural Selection of Bad Science” to the poor state of climate science:
    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/modern-science-polluted

    I disagree with a lot of this but his point is well taken. Climate science is a case of mission driven, funding induced, paradigm protection. It does not follow that the work itself is poor, just misdirected.

    • “…mission driven, funding induced, paradigm protection…”

      IOW the opposite of science.

      • David Wojick

        I do not know what you mean by “science.” The scientific work may be first class, but the wrong questions are being funded. For example, there is a lot of wasted money going to estimating the adverse impacts on some animal or plant species, given 4 degrees C of warming. This work may be well done, but the question is wrong.

    • David Wojick

      Unfortunately, Michaels and others interpret the “Natural Selection…” article as somehow showing that science has deteriorated. For example, Michaels says it shows that “….the way we now reward scientists is actually making science worse.” This is what I call the “science is broken” fallacy.

      What the study only claims, much less shows, is that some aspects of science have not changed for the last 50 years or so. Their only case is in the degree of statistical power used in certain fields. That this has not changed is claimed to be a bad thing, but this is an unsupported value judgement. In fact statistical power is expensive so the amount used may be just right.

      In fact the entire “Natural Selection…” study is just a protracted polemic:
      http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/9/160384#abstract-1

      “Publish or perish” is short for “be productive or lose your job.” This is a good rule, not a perverse incentive. On the other hand, mission driven government funding can be a perverse incentive.

      • David Wojick: In fact statistical power is expensive so the amount used may be just right.

        IMO, that is an astute comment. Most statisticians I have known to work in research groups have acknowledged that, but I have not seen it written anywhere as explicitly as you just wrote it. One of the costs of “increasing sample size” in research in humans and animals is that it will increase the duration of the study, which may increase the error variance and defeat the attempt to increase power by increasing sample size.

        It ought to be more wiely recognized (and I am not sure whether it is) that studies with limited power have limited power, and that has consequences just as studies with high alpha levels have consequences.

    • Wojick ==> It does not follow that the work is “poor”. That is correct — nor are most scientists just in it for the funding gravey-train.

      But there are a lot of biases — Judy Curry has had a long string of articles here on this — and they end up pushing fields of study in certain directions, reinforcing hypotheses for which real support is marginal. This occurs in almost all fields of study.

      There are a lot of climate scientists with vested interest in the AGW/IPCC hypothesis — and a lot of paradigm-protection — even here in comments where one can see people lashing out at others whose comments are even only slightly perceivable to possibly challenge their most treasured opinions or viewpoints.

      • nudge, nudge, wink, wink….say no more

      • Kip Hansen wrote:
        “There are a lot of climate scientists with vested interest in the AGW/IPCC hypothesis….”

        And some scientists with vested interests against the hypothesis, such as Judith, Spencer, Christy, etc.

        (I don’t consider Tim Ball a scientist.)

      • David Appell ==> To be sure…..people whose reputations are founded on a particular written-in-stone view of any topic become vested psychologically….

        In climate science — contrarian views are not generally highly rewarded — either with grants, nor tenure, or professional standing.

        Imagine being a grad student in some Climate Science program looking forward to doing post-grad work….which way to lean? IPCC consensus or contrarian? Do what you think is right? Satisfy your curiosity, do some risky studies, take some risky viewpoints and test them out? Or, go along with the prevailing crowd? Not really a choice is it?

        Note that this is true in almost all fields in almost all US universities.

        Lots of attention on creating a truly Heterodox Academy.

      • Kip Hansen wrote:
        “In climate science — contrarian views are not generally highly rewarded — either with grants, nor tenure, or professional standing.”

        Do you really, honestly wonder why???

        Because those views aren’t in accord with the science.

        We also don’t fund experimental physicists who propose yet another experiment to detect the ether.

      • Kip Hansen wrote:
        “Imagine being a grad student in some Climate Science program looking forward to doing post-grad work….which way to lean? IPCC consensus or contrarian?”

        You don’t really understand graduate students. But I’ve asked this question of several professors over the years, about their graduate students.

        Their students all lean toward the science, which in all but your universe means figuring out the consequences of AGW.

      • David Appell ==> Now you’re just running a little paradigm-protection racket of your own.

        The point is that “vested interest” in contrarian views doesn’t really pay off in Climate Science, so one might wonder why they don’t just jump onto the consensus boat — they wouldn’t be the first — they’d be received with open arms and professional kudos.

        The issue of the lack of a Heterodox Academy is important — and is not a climate wars issue, but a broad science (including the liberal sciences) issue.

      • Kip: I go to the AGU meeting every December in San Francisco. Five days of talks.

        None — NONE question AGW. They all take AGW as their starting point — as they should.

        The deniers are afraid to show up and present.

      • Kip Hansen wrote:
        “The point is that “vested interest” in contrarian views doesn’t really pay off in Climate Science, so one might wonder why they don’t just jump onto the consensus boat — they wouldn’t be the first — they’d be received with open arms and professional kudos.”

        Why do you think no one still studies the bootstrap model of particle interactions?

      • David Appell,

        Why do Warmist deniers keep demanding that people waste their time answering pointless question?

        Cat got your tongue? Refusing to answer? Petulant?

        ANSWER THE QUESTION DAVID!!!!!!

        Cheers.

      • MF: What question?

        You are very well aware of how CO2 heats the lower atmosphere — by reducing the rate of cooling, just as wearing a coat.

        Who do you think you are trying to fool???

      • “In climate science — contrarian views are not generally highly rewarded — either with grants, nor tenure, or professional standing”

        That is because there is NO contrarian view in Climate Science.

        1. People who express “contrarian views” are typically OUTSIDE of climate science and science in general BY CHOICE
        a) they dont want to read the literature
        b) they dont try to get an education
        c) they dont attend any of the conferences
        d) they dont write anything that resembles science
        e) they think science consists of asking questions on blogs
        f) they cant formulate a testable hypothesis
        g) they have NOTHING

        2. Within Climate science there is plenty of space for extreme views
        a) ECS is low see Nic Lewis and roy Spencer and Lindzen
        b) ECS is really high
        c) the ice will melt tommorrow

        But Note NONE of the extremist positions WITHIN the science
        question what contrarian question.

        In short, there is PLENTY of ROOM within the climate science to hold extreme views, both about the science and policy. However,
        there is no room for the luncacies of unicorns, for sun nuts, fo folks who dont get chaos, for radiative physics deniers, because you cant hold those views and actually Do science. you can do blogs and blog comments.. but that is about it

      • Steven ==> I am not a climate scientist. I am an essayist, a writer, a web journalist.

        You seem to want an exclusionary old-boys club — defining Climate Scientists as “those who hold the right views and ask the questions I like.” Yours above is the perfect example of what paradigm-protection is all about. Happens in the journals, the societies, and academia.

      • David Wojick

        Mosher, your claims listed above are ridiculous.

      • David Wojick

        Mosher, thanks to Web 2.0 science now consists in considerable measure of asking and answering questions on blogs. I think it was Planck who said that new scientific ideas will only be accepted when their originator’s students become journal editors. That paradigm protecting, gatekeeping bias has now been abolished by blogs. Alarmists cannot hide behind their carefully crafted literature.

        In fact your purported distinction, that some people are inside science while others are outside, is long gone and good riddance.

        I also seriously doubt that you could accurately describe any of the various strong contrarian positions. You have certainly given no evidence of that ability, quite the opposite.

      • Steve Mosher, exactly. Before I started blogging I had heard that America had some problems with mitigation sceptics. I had imaged that would be within the scientific range of possibilities and just being extremely optimistic. There are so many really difficult problems when it comes to changes in extremes and impact studies. Impacts have to do with humans, who are very unpredictable. Extremes are rare and thus hard to study.

        Nothing prepared me for the deluge of nonsense on WUWT. Or the denial that the CO2 increase is due to us on this blog.

        What I had not considered at the time was that the more nonsensical something is, the better it works as pledge of allegiance for the mitigation sceptical cause.

      • Steven Mosher

        “. People who express “contrarian views” are typically OUTSIDE of climate science and science in general BY CHOICE”

        I am surprised you said such a thing. This implies that anyone speaking on climate science has to be a climate scientist to “understand” the science and, especially, what is scientific.

        I beg to disagree. When scientists espouse BS, there are others, in the non-climates science arena that can tell BS when it sticks to one’s shoes. One may not expect it. One may not even think that this is happening. Its just the oder and the stained footprints that, when one looks back and says, this is really BS.

        Climate science has achieved sidewalk BS.

      • David Wojick commented:
        “I think it was Planck who said that new scientific ideas will only be accepted when their originator’s students become journal editors.”

        Planck said science advances one funeral at a time.

        PS: Very few scientists reads blogs, takes blogs seriously, or comment on blogs. They’re too busy doing science.

    • When was the last time Pat Michaels published an actual science paper?

  21. David L. Hagen

    360% uncertainty in water vapor trend data!
    Water vapor trend by NCEP data is 360% of ECMWF for the same 1979-2014 period! How can we expect to reduce the systemic 3:1 uncertainty in climate sensitivity variation when the uncertainty in the primary green house gas – water vapor – is at least 3.6:1?
    Chen, B., and Z. Liu (2016), Global water vapor variability and trend from the latest 36 year (1979 to 2014) data of ECMWF and NCEP reanalyses, radiosonde, GPS, and microwave satellite, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 121, doi:10.1002/2016JD024917.
    Abstract

    The variability and trend in global precipitable water vapor (PWV) from 1979 to 2014 are analyzed using the PWV data sets from the ERA-Interim reanalysis of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), reanalysis of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), radiosonde, Global Positioning System (GPS), and microwave satellite observations. PWV data from the ECMWF and NCEP have been evaluated by radiosonde, GPS, and microwave satellite observations, showing that ECMWF has higher accuracy than NCEP. Over the oceans, ECMWF has a much better agreement with the microwave satellite than NCEP. An upward trend in the global PWV is evident in all the five PWV data sets over three study periods: 1979–2014, 1992–2014, and 2000–2014. Positive global PWV trends, defined as percentage normalized by annual average, of 0.61 ± 0.33% decade−1, 0.57 ± 0.28% decade−1, and 0.17 ± 0.35% decade−1, have been derived from the NCEP, radiosonde, and ECMWF, respectively, for the period 1979–2014. It is found that ECMWF overestimates the PWV over the ocean prior to 1992. Thus, two more periods, 1992–2014 and 2000–2014, are studied. Increasing PWV trends are observed from all the five data sets in the two periods: 1992–2014 and 2000–2014. The linear relationship between PWV and surface temperature is positive over most oceans and the polar region. Steep positive/negative regression slopes are generally found in regions where large regional moisture flux divergence/convergence occurs.

  22. From the Penrose article:

    Whereas quantum mechanics has a perfect internal consistency when it describes a system that evolves without being measured, the way in which it represents measurements is not coherently embedded in that description.

    I’m sure I don’t understand this, but from the book Decoherence, there is no such thing as a system that evolves without being measured. Measured being defines as interaction with some other entity. For example, even in a vacuum there are neutrinos, photons, and other particles that interact with a part of the system in question. This causes wave-function collapse, in effect “materializing” the particle into the classical realm.

    https://www.amazon.com/Decoherence–Classical-Transition-Frontiers-Collection/dp/3540357734/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475944940&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=dechoherance

    • Jim2 wrote:
      “…there is no such thing as a system that evolves without being measured. Measured being defines as interaction with some other entity.”

      Of course there is — pretty much every system in the universe.

      Systems interact without being measured. Happens constantly, continuously, and describes the vast, vast, vast majority of all systems. (The universe is huge; man is small.)

      • So, you agree with my assessment, then.

      • No, I do not. I thought I made that clear.

        PS: Have you ever studied any quantum mechanics?

      • Appell – I said:
        “For example, even in a vacuum there are neutrinos, photons, and other particles that interact with a part of the system in question. This causes wave-function collapse, in effect “materializing” the particle into the classical realm.”

        So, you disagree? You believe there is such a thing as a system that doesn’t interact with neutrinos, photons, and other particles? That’s what I’m calling a “measurement” in order to link the idea to the original “scientist making a measurement or observation.”

        Have you ever studied English?

      • Jim: virtual particles do not cause wave function collapse.

        Obviously.

      • “ct with neutrinos, photons, and other particles? That’s what I’m calling a “measurement” in order to link the idea to the original “scientist making a measurement or observation.”

        An interaction is not a measurement.

        For God’s sake, study some science!

      • I’m creative with English, but there’s a 90% chance you simply don’t want to admit you’re wrong.

      • The interference pattern of coherent electrons is effected by coupling to the quantized electromagnetic field. The amplitudes of the interference maxima are changed by a factor which depends upon a double line integral of the photon two-point function around the closed path of the electrons. The interference pattern is sensitive to shifts in the vacuum fluctuations in regions from which the electrons are excluded. Thus this effect combines aspects of both the Casimir and the Aharonov-Bohm effects. The coupling to the quantized electromagnetic field tends to decrease the amplitude of
        the interference oscillations, and hence is a form of decoherence. The contributions due to photon emission and to vacuum fluctuations may be separately identified. It is to be expected that photon emission leads to decoherence, as it can reveal which path an electron takes. It is less obvious that vacuum fluctuations also can cause decoherence. What is directly observable is a shift in the fluctuations due, for example, to the presence of a conducting plate. In the case of electrons moving parallel to conducting boundaries, the dominant decohering influence is that of the vacuum
        fluctuations. The shift in the interference amplitudes can be of the order of a few percent, so experimental verification of this effect may be possible. The possibility of using this effect to probe the interior of matter, e.g., to determine the electrical conductivity of a rod by means of electrons encircling it is discussed. The effect of squeezed states of the photon field are considered, and it is shown that such states may either enhance or suppress the decohering effects of the vacuum fluctuations.

        https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9408172v1.pdf

      • jim2 wrote:
        “I’m creative with English, but there’s a 90% chance you simply don’t want to admit you’re wrong.”

        I nominate this for the lamest comment of the year.

        Competition’s tight, but this will be tough to beat.

      • jim2 wrote:
        “The interference pattern of coherent electrons is effected by coupling to the quantized electromagnetic field.”

        Clearly you didn’t understand a single word of that abstract, or its relevance to anything we have discussed.

        But you’re good at cutting and pasting.

    • jim2: This causes wave-function collapse,

      that is an example of something that is not “coherently embedded in that description”.

  23. From the article:

    Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.

    Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Moderey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

    Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.
    As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.

    Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

    • These scientists were wrong — just like many deniers have been.

      • Curious George

        The proof is everywhere, like .. I can’t remember right now .. google it yourself. Should you google something I disagree with, you are wrong.

    • Wadhams is a contrarian who somehow operates WITHIN the standard walls of science.

      Its a big tent.

      Any skeptic who wants to JOIN the science debate can actually go publish views that are at the other extreme from wadhams..

      BUT.. you actually have to do the science..

      Criticizing Wadhams is not science. CORRECTING HIM is science.

      • “Criticizing Wadhams is not science. CORRECTING HIM is science.”

        Nice.

      • Thank you david.

        I thought it captured the difference between science and fake scepticism nicely.

        TM… moshpit

      • While you and Appell get a motel room, if you actually read the rest of the article you will see another scientist is the one dissing Wadhams. More from the article:

        Dr Ed Hawkins, associate professor in the Department of Meterology, at the University of Reading, said: “There has been one prominent scientist who has regularly made more dramatic, and incorrect, in my view predictions suggesting that we would by now be in ice-free conditions.

      • Wadhams doesn’t need correcting. The facts are correcting him every single year. His method is bonkers.

      • Javier.. facts dont correct people.

        Here we go again with english and logic lessons for you.

        At some point you might be able to do science, but all I see from you is rubbish that cant be reproduced. You cant even be corrected because you make no verifiable claims.

      • yes jim2..

        And hawkins is smart enough not to pass off his criticism as “science”
        cause he actually does science and knows the difference.

        Criticizing is not science. never has been. correcting is science.

        thats kinda why we say

        “Science is self correcting”

        it dont need no stinking blogs

      • Word play isn’t science.

      • jim2 wrote:
        “While you and Appell get a motel room, if you actually read the rest of the article you will see another scientist is the one dissing Wadhams.”

        And so what?? Scientists do this _all the time_. I’ve been in their colloquiums; I’ve heard the words. The real skepticism is theirs.

        This is a STRENGTH of science — it’s what makes science so strong. People have strong opinions, for good reasons, and they fight it out in colloquiums and conferences and papers and hallways and emails. And one POV wins, and then the field sees that and moves on to the next frontier of questions. This is how sciences advances, and why its conclusions are so strong and so useful.

      • Appell and Mosher. I don’t know what I would do without you two to help me understand what science is, who scientists are, what they do and don’t do, who’s a skeptic and who’s not.

        You two are a miraculous fountains of science. How can I thank you enough?

      • Mosh: it’s really not a big tent when some start labelling our hostess, Nic Lewis, lindzen etc as deniers and contrarians. That language should play no part in any scientific debate and yet it’s rampant within the field of climate studies. Better more robust science should be all we all seek, but often the calls for that are just lost in the noise. It’s ironic that a very dedicated blogger is telling people off for blogging don’t ya’ think? Not sure what else to say to you mate. Still I hope you’re feeling/are much better now? As to those trying to bring quantum mechanics into the discussions. I’d just say leave well alone. If someone explained it all to you and you think that you understood… They really didn’t explain it to you very well :-)

      • Seems like Mosher and Appell are a pair.

        Too funny. :)

      • Peter: they do appear to be entangled. Maybe they’ll decohere :-)

        Not often that I get to do a qm joke….

      • Steven Mosher: “Criticizing Wadhams is not science. CORRECTING HIM is science.”

        You mean like when he claimed that Evil Oil Orcs had managed to assassinate a climate “scientist” by causing him to be struck by lightning?

  24. David L. Hagen

    GREET: Transport CO2 Emission Modeling
    GREET 2016 from ANL

    A fresh design for GREET life cycle analysis tool
    GREET 2016 provides the user with an easy to use and fully graphical toolbox to perform life cycle analysis simulations of alternative transportation fuels and vehicle technologies in a matter of a few clicks. This new tool includes the data of the GREET model, a fast algorithm for processing it and an interactive user interface. The interface allows faster development using graphical representation of each element in the model, and drag & drop editing approach to add and modify data.

  25. Reading the critique of the Roger Penrose book, it occurs to me that Climate Science is the most fair of all the sciences in the Land.
    Being that it’s settled.
    All those other poor sciences have so much work to do.

      • Curious George

        Sure it is, when Professor Pierrehumbert says so. Unlike physics.

      • Pierrehumbert (obviously) knows far, far more about climate science than you or anyone else here.

        You should respect him.

      • David Appell: “You should respect him.”

        One can respect someone without believing every word he says.

        That’s more akin to worship – as is to be expected when we’re discussing something as quasi-religious as anthropogenic global warming.

      • Curious George

        That makes him an ultimate settler.

      • @AK

        “Irrelevant.

        Wrong.

        Wrong.

        Yes.”

        Wrong.
        Wrong (it’s true/correct).
        Wrong (it’s true.correct).
        No: ample evidence from multiple sources, not to mention available production data. As the penetration of intermittent renewables increases their capacity factor goes down… not to mention the astronomical cost and physical impossibility of installing sufficient storage for large-scale implementation of RENs.

        Try again.

      • catweazle666 commented:
        “That’s more akin to worship – as is to be expected when we’re discussing something as quasi-religious as anthropogenic global warming.”

        So what are your criticisms of his science and what he has written?

      • PA wrote:
        “Correspondence is 500 words of someone’s opinion that may or may not be peer reviewed at the editors discretion.”

        Watson and Crick’s famous publication was only one page long, same as Johnson et al.

      • PA commented:
        David Appell (@davidappell) | October 13, 2016 at 8:59 pm |
        >> The significance of the Johnson et al work is that it significantly reduces previous uncertainties, like Llovel, from 540% to 60%.<<

        "That statement is dishonest or misinformed."

        Prove it. Do the calculations for yourself, and report the results here.

    • Given that climate science is settled there isn’t any reason to waste any more money on it.

      We know the climate is changing, because it is always changing, and it is going to get slightly warmer.

      Since no one can figure out how much warmer it will get and predictions have been consistently wrong, we can tell how much warmer it will get by careful measurements as it happens.

      • “Since no one can figure out how much warmer it will get and predictions have been consistently wrong, we can tell how much warmer it will get by careful measurements as it happens.”

        Err No.

        You can tell how much warmer IT HAS GOTTEN by measurement.
        But you can only tell how much warmer IT WILL GET… by prediction.

        We have a good prediction.. somewhere between 1.5C and 4.5C if we double c02.

        Thats a increase of 10 to 30% which is a great prediction window given

        A) the complex nature of the system
        B) the uncertainties involved.

        And herein lies the problem

        While a 10-30% window is FANTASTIC PRECISION for a system as complex as the climate.. there are different policy choices

        we have depending if we are at the low end in the middle or at the high end

        Consequently…. more science please and while we are waiting…. cut the c02 as much as you can.. go nuclear

      • Steven Mosher: “We have a good prediction.. somewhere between 1.5C and 4.5C if we double c02.

        Thats a increase of 10 to 30% which is a great prediction window given…”

        No, it is absolutely nothing of the kind!

        If you are going to do comparisons of that nature on temperatures, you MUST use the values in Kelvin, so the actual figures are 274.66K and 277.66K.

        I’m sure you can work out what that is as a percentage, but if you have trouble, I’ll show you how.

        PS Funny how these numbers are far less scary when you express them as absolute measurements, isn’t it?

      • mosher, “We have a good prediction.. somewhere between 1.5C and 4.5C if we double c02.”

        That is estimated warming per doubling not the estimated amount or warming we can expect. How much we have warmed depends on what is assumed to be a “normal” starting point and how much of that warming is due to CO2 depends on how accurate that assumption is.

        If you take today as a starting point and use RCP 4.5 as a reasonable approximation of BAU, you get ~1.2 C as how much warming we might expect by 2100. Note that excludes the poles because we don’t have reasonable data for the poles to to use prior to 1955.

        If you prefer RCP 6.0 you would have to extend out to ~2150 to get to a full 2 C of warming from today.

        I will leave it to you to sell RCP 8.5 and fabricate data for the polar regions prior to 1950, I know you can do it, but 1.5 to 4.5 C appears to be overly pessimism estimates championed by Hollywood celebrities (and their scientific groupies) to drive policy. Perhaps you should switch over to showing far off overly pessimistic estimates of the potential for nuclear accidents promoted by hollywood celebrities to drive nuclear policy is harming the efforts to save the world driven by a new generation of Hollywood celebrities? While you are doing that, perhaps assign a few people to the anti-fracking, anti-gmo and anti-corporation fanatics who also have stellar over estimations of potential impact.

      • But you can only tell how much warmer IT WILL GET… by prediction.

        The predictions have been consistently wrong. Wrong is not an accurate measure of the future.

        The “we need to predict the future far off” claim is simply wrong. The environment is absorbing about 7 GT/yr through increased plant growth and sea absorption – some of which also goes to plant growth and more oxygen for the fishies.

        400 PPM is perfectly safe, we know we tested it.

        It doesn’t look like 460 PPM will be dangerous either and we can back out of it, back to 400 PPM in about a decade if there is a problem.

        Given that it doesn’t appear we can even reach what some warmunists regard as a dangerous CO2 level and the predictions are hopelessly wrong we might a well just measure the future as it happens and see what the trend is. If the real world measurements don’t get adjusted too much they might actually be accurate.

        An index of current net benefit (benefit-harm) would be a useful guide. When the net benefit is less than a few hundred billion a year we might consider reining CO2 in. When some countries have harvested 80% of their forest land in the last 30 years or deforested 30% of their land in the last 30 years – it is pretty obvious we need more plant growth.

      • Danny Thomas

        “by prediction.”

        When did projections get replaced by predictions?

      • >When did projections get replaced by predictions?

        When PA did so in the comment to which Steven responded :

        Since no one can figure out how much warmer it will get and predictions have been consistently wrong, we can tell how much warmer it will get by careful measurements as it happens.

        PA does it again here:

        The predictions have been consistently wrong. Wrong is not an accurate measure of the future.

        Setting aside semantics, PA is of course formally correct to note that historical hindcasts and RCP projections have been consistently wrong — Teh Modulz R Stoopid, and always will be.

        I have no issue with Steven calling the published range for ECS of 1.5-4.5 C/2xCO2 a prediction.

        If you need any further reading assistance, please let me know, Danny. I wouldn’t want you to not understand something important.

      • Danny Thomas

        “Projection

        The term “projection” is used in two senses in the climate change literature. In general usage, a projection can be regarded as any description of the future and the pathway leading to it. However, a more specific interpretation has been attached to the term “climate projection” by the IPCC when referring to model-derived estimates of future climate.

        Forecast/Prediction

        When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.”

        http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/definitions.html

        Nice try Brandon. I was just being a bit of a smart arse. You chose to just be an arse.

        If it wasn’t ‘important’ why does IPCC provide the distinction? Maybe the PR dept made ’em doit.

        Way I read it. Any projection is therefore NOT ‘most likely’.

      • So PA

        Do you want to own the mistake you made about confusing measuring what has happened versus predicting what will happen?

        I mean there is a whole integrity thing I have to insist on.

        you got busted. lets start there.

        When you prove you can own your mistakes.. maybe I’ll do you the favor of pointing out your other errors.

        knowledge is power.. you want some?

      • >400 PPM is perfectly safe, we know we tested it.

        Mind the lags, PA. Several thousand years for ice sheets and the deep oceans to equilibrate are the prevailing estimates.

        >It doesn’t look like 460 PPM will be dangerous either and we can back out of it, back to 400 PPM in about a decade if there is a problem.

        I wish I had your crystal ball. One wonders how it will be a piece of cake to bring net emissions to negative within a decade when CO2 is at 460, but attempting the same trick today is destined to wreck the economy. Somebody else’s problems are always easier for them to solve, perhaps?

      • >[quoting the IPCC] “When a projection is branded ‘most likely’ it becomes a forecast or prediction.”
        >Way I read it. Any projection is therefore NOT ‘most likely’.

        I read it the same way.

        Upon which RCP scenario is the ECS estimate Steven called a ‘prediction’ based?

        >If it wasn’t ‘important’ why does IPCC provide the distinction?

        I didn’t say it wasn’t important. I said I wouldn’t want you to miss something important due to a reading disability.

        >Maybe the PR dept made ’em doit.

        I’m sure you’ll find an explanation which conforms to your suspicions, even if it requires mangling plain English.

        >I was just being a bit of a smart arse.

        I noticed.

        >You chose to just be an arse.

        You’re much too kind, thank you.

      • Danny Thomas

        You’re welcome!

      • I wish I had your crystal ball. One wonders how it will be a piece of cake to bring net emissions to negative within a decade when CO2 is at 460, but attempting the same trick today is destined to wreck the economy.

        Perhaps because he’s assuming ambient CO2 extraction will be a high-growth industry between now and then?

        That’s certainly what I’ve been advocating (here, mostly), and IMO there are ways policy could be tweaked to make that happen without ruinous costs, but AFAIK such tweaks haven’t happened, and aren’t being pushed in any policy forum I’m aware of. (CO2 taxes are the wrong approach. Ditto targeted subsidies.)

        Doing it now would certainly be ruinous. IMO.

      • >Perhaps because he’s assuming ambient CO2 extraction will be a high-growth industry between now and then?

        Perhaps, AK, perhaps. Mind-reading is difficult. Perhaps not so hard as predicting the future.

        >Doing it now would certainly be ruinous. IMO.

        I don’t think drawing down 60 ppm of CO2 inside a decade starting tomorrow would even be possible. That’s kind of my point.

        I’d be happy to shoot for near-zero net emissions by 2080 a la RCP4.5. Sooner we get started doing it, the less drastic or abrupt that transition needs to be … and the more time we have for unproven tech like CCS (if required) to mature and grow.

        It’s the “hurry up and wait” strategies which have the greater potential for economic ruin … but that’s Somebody Else’s Problem.

      • I’d be happy to shoot for near-zero net emissions by 2080 a la RCP4.5. Sooner we get started doing it, the less drastic or abrupt that transition needs to be … and the more time we have for unproven tech like CCS (if required) to mature and grow.

        It’s already in progress, and moving along at a good clip.

        There are several (half a dozen?) disparate technologies that are at least part-way through a successful proof-of-concept. But the transition to market-driven exponential growth requires an exponentially growing market.

        It needs to start as a small-volume, high-price market, and as volume grows price drops in accordance with learning curve/Wright’s “Law”. But the market needs to be for CO2 or carbon products specifically sourced from ambient CO2.

        So far there’s nothing in the economic system, or proposed for it, that distinguishes that market from CO2 or carbon products from fossil sources.

        IIRC you said of at least one of my suggestions that you “didn’t hate it”, is contributing to pushing such policy options also somebody else’s problem?

      • Note also that if you convert CO2 taken from ambient sources (air or ocean surface) to fuel with solar/electrolytic hydrogen, the result is fossil-neutral. A major growth industry in gas or oil from such sources could also be fed directly into an existing infrastructure, allowing investment in such infrastructure to retain its value in the long term.

        The same logic would apply to mining sea-floor methane by replacing it in its methane hydrate clathrate structure with an equal or greater amount of CO2 from ambient sources. That technology is also under high-pressure development, but again, the transition from lab bench/pilot to major industry could be substantially sped up by creating an appropriate market for it.

      • brandonrgates | October 9, 2016 at 5:40 pm |
        >400 PPM is perfectly safe, we know we tested it.

        I wish I had your crystal ball. One wonders how it will be a piece of cake to bring net emissions to negative within a decade when CO2 is at 460, but attempting the same trick today is destined to wreck the economy. Somebody else’s problems are always easier for them to solve, perhaps?…

        I appreciate your viewpoint – thanks for your prior comments by the way.

        We seem to disagree frequently but understand each other.

        The fuel producer estimates put the peak CO2 at 460 PPM. Much of the CO2 rise is due to deforestation which decreasing. Plotting the emissions vs absorption reveals that the absorption (currently 7GT/y) is increasing at 1.8X emissions (9.9 GT/Y).

        Further the marginal propensity of additional (more than the 1998 emissions level) CO2 to stay in the atmosphere is 28% vs 58% for pre-1998 CO2.

        I’m seeing opinions that we are close to peak fossil emissions or at peak emissions and a 3 year emissions increase hiatus would tend to confirm that. But the increasing CO2 level will continue to drive absorption.

        I’m watching the CO2 level which is 2.5 PPM over 2015 with some interest. The 1998 El Nino drove the annual increase to 2.93 PPM, this El Nino with 50% more emissions only drove it to 3.05 PPM in 2015. This year which is comparable to 1998 might not even match the 1998 level. The last time the emissions were static the annual rise in CO2 declined steadily.

        Further – the massive deforestation/land conversion demands more plant growth on the remaining land favoring at least some if not a major increase in CO2.

        The 2017 CO2 increase will be a bellweather. I expect it to be less than 2.0 PPM/Y, perhaps much less.

      • >It’s already in progress, and moving along at a good clip.

        As are, e.g., wind and solar. At some point storage for intermittent power sources becomes an issue, and storage is an additional expense. I’d rather be pessimistic about time and money while being firm on emissions targets. That way the hope is that big surprises aren’t rude ones.

        >IIRC you said of at least one of my suggestions that you “didn’t hate it”, is contributing to pushing such policy options also somebody else’s problem?

        The link you embedded is broken, so I’m not sure which suggestion you’re talking about.

        >Note also that if you convert CO2 taken from ambient sources (air or ocean surface) to fuel with solar/electrolytic hydrogen, the result is fossil-neutral.

        There are all sorts of possibilities, AK. But as you well know, I have this thing about being keen to use what works now — we could wait for the next best thing(s) forever. For example, I think it’s ridiculous to hold out for Gen III and Gen IV fission plants to mature when Gen II+ reactors have proven reliability and are relatively much less hazardous per unit power delivered than *any* power generation technology we’ve ever invented.

        And just so there are no further speculations about my willingness to think outside of the box, that doesn’t mean I’m *not* keen to see next-generation anything to get some R&D love.

      • PA,

        When I’m not feeling too belligerent I have been known to myself to go out of my way to seek out points of agreement. You’re always welcome to my point of view, I’ve obviously not got an issue sharing them. I appreciate your appreciation. :)

        That said, I’m going to have to strenuously disagree with this …

        >But the increasing CO2 level will continue to drive absorption.

        … not because it isn’t a correct statement as I understand it, but also because I understand that it isn’t particularly helpful. Of course CO2 uptake is going to be higher when atmospheric pCO2 increases relative to the pCO2 of the oceanic and terrestrial sinks. The problem is the mixing ratio in the atmosphere, and the radiative forcing which goes with it. Thus we come to …

        >The fuel producer estimates put the peak CO2 at 460 PPM.

        Citation please?

        >The 2017 CO2 increase will be a bellweather. I expect it to be less than 2.0 PPM/Y, perhaps much less.

        My argument is that it needs to be very near net zero before the end of the century. It’s a long way from peak emissions to zero, and I think banking on doing not only that, but going *negative* such that we could draw down 60 ppm out of the atmosphere inside of a decade is a hope presently too far fetched for me to be comfortable banking.

        I could be wrong. I’m just not willing to place that bet on behalf of future generations.

      • PA wrote:
        “400 PPM is perfectly safe, we know we tested it.”

        Not true at all. It takes millennia for current levels of CO2 to play out….and we’ve only been at CO2 > 400 ppmv for a year.

        Historically, sea level rises 10-20 meters for every 1 deg C of warming. This is a big reason why, I think, scientists’ warnings ramped up sharply in the 2000s — the science that shows climate change is in its very initial stages, and it will continue for essentially…forever.

        “The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate,” David Archer (University of Chicago), 2008.
        http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10727.html

      • @brandonrgates…

        At some point storage for intermittent power sources becomes an issue, and storage is an additional expense.

        Well, that’s where power→gas/liquid fuel comes in. There are already several working technologies.

        Projected round trip energy efficiencies (PV electrode to CCGT output bus) are around 30%. As PV costs come down exponentially, the reduced cost will eventually make the power→gas/liquid fuel cost effective. (IMO.) That feeds right into the ambient CO2 extraction.

        The link you embedded is broken, so I’m not sure which suggestion you’re talking about.

        Actually, that link was to the same Wiki page you linked to.

        I’ve made two general proposals:

        •       Require that an expanding fraction of fuel burned for power come from completely fossil-neutral sources. Start, perhaps, at 0.1% (1/1000) and increase it by 25% each year (double every 3 years). This was the one that, IIRC, you said you didn’t hate.

        •       Set up a carbon permit trading system based on similar fractions (i.e. start at 0.1%) of carbon “permits” being turned in for fossil carbon burned, and increase at a similar exponential rate.

        &nbsp       What’s essential to the latter plan is to prohibit any “funny money”. No government or other agency is allowed to issue any permits. The only way permits can be acquired is by either feeding completely fossil-free fuel into the system, or sequestering some sort of carbon completely from non-fossil sources.

        The emphasis on completely fossil-free carbon in these two proposals is intended to deal with the use of fossil fuels in agriculture or other “fossil-neutral” carbon. If people/companies want to use bio-fuels, the tractors and other equipment have to themselves be powered by bio-fuels, or solar/hydrogen fuel cells, or other power with no fossil involvement.

        But as you well know, I have this thing about being keen to use what works now — we could wait for the next best thing(s) forever.

        My point is we have stuff that works now. It’s just too expensive. The quickest way to bring down the cost is to create a market for its product. That allows Wright’s “Law” to bring down the cost, to the point that it can eventually replace fossil-based fuels without a large impact.

        And just so there are no further speculations about my willingness to think outside of the box, that doesn’t mean I’m *not* keen to see next-generation anything to get some R&D love.

        The R&D is there. And so are some technologies. What’s needed at this point is the market to let them grow at an immediate profit. That’s beyond the scope of R&D.

      • AK commented:
        “It’s already in progress, and moving along at a good clip.”

        I don’t know of any CCS technology that costs less than $50/t CO2. Do you?

        And that doesn’t address where we’re supposed to put all the extracted. CO2.

      • David Appell | October 9, 2016 at 7:37 pm |
        PA wrote:
        “400 PPM is perfectly safe, we know we tested it.”

        Not true at all. It takes millennia for current levels of CO2 to play out….and we’ve only been at CO2 > 400 ppmv for a year.

        Historically, sea level rises 10-20 meters for every 1 deg C of warming.

        If you do the math… steric sea level rise from a 1°C increase is about 0.9 meters if the whole ocean increased 1°C.

        In the past there were massive northern ice sheets to melt (not there anymore). Further the Antarctic core is cooling – attributed to CO2 + temperature inversion. Using the ice age to interglacial conversion period as a rule of thumb is unreasoned and unjustified.

        The lower half of the ocean is actually cooling, that drops us to 0.45 meters. There is a gradient and it looks like it will be mostly surface warming. So perhaps 0.225 to 0.25 meters.

        This is perhaps why there is all the unjustified screaming about ice melting. There is about 0.8 meters of sea level rise if the topologically available ice sheets melted without increased inland snowfall and that is about it. Warming will inevitably increase inland snowfall, the only question is “how much?”

        The real worst case is about a 1 meter on a longer than century timescale. Typical case is probably a rerun of the 20th century or about 7 inches for the 21st century.

      • PA wrote:
        “But the increasing CO2 level will continue to drive absorption.”

        Not AT ALL clear.

        The carbon absorption of the huge Amazon forest, for example, is showing signs of being at or near saturation:

        “Biogeochemistry: Signs of saturation in the tropical carbon sink,” Lars O. Hedin, Nature (2015).
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/abs/519295a.html

        paper at:
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14283.html

      • PA wrote:
        “If you do the math… steric sea level rise from a 1°C increase is about 0.9 meters if the whole ocean increased 1°C.”

        a) You are ignoring the melting of the ice sheets.
        b) You are ignoring committed warming.

      • AK,

        >Well, that’s where power→gas/liquid fuel comes in. There are already several working technologies.

        At what scale? There are already several working technologies for biofuels, some more efficient than others, all of them costly and not market competitive without subsidy (which isn’t really market competitive, is it). I’m NOT talking about moonshine for cars, which is brain-dead. Corn is the wrong crop for that application.

        I don’t deny that working technologies exist. I don’t mind you pointing to them either, I like to be informed. My issue is that I don’t share your *apparent* optimism about their cost competitiveness with respect to, e.g. shale gas w/o CCS.

        My pessimism is consciously deliberate — I *assume* we have little margin for error.

        >• Require that an expanding fraction of fuel burned for power come from completely fossil-neutral sources. Start, perhaps, at 0.1% (1/1000) and increase it by 25% each year (double every 3 years). This was the one that, IIRC, you said you didn’t hate.

        That’s the one I recall as well, I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. I don’t hate it, my one pushback was that the exponential rate means that about half of the reduction comes in the final several years of the schedule.

        >• Set up a carbon permit trading system based on similar fractions (i.e. start at 0.1%) of carbon “permits” being turned in for fossil carbon burned, and increase at a similar exponential rate.

        Way I remember it, I suggested that industries would probably require a trading scheme before signing off on it. I don’t recall your response, good to know we see it the same way.

        I’m leery of cap and trade, which this essentially is albeit without the cap. I’m happy that you see a need for some sort of public mandate as I do, would that more Denizens felt the same. I’m content to let it rest at that.

      • @brandonrgates…

        At what scale? […] My issue is that I don’t share your *apparent* optimism about their cost competitiveness with respect to, e.g. shale gas w/o CCS.

        That’s the whole beauty (IMO) of the scheme I’m pushing: The market, being a tiny percentage of the total, will be very small, and capable of paying a high price, without impacting the overall cost of energy significantly.

        I don’t hate it, my one pushback was that the exponential rate means that about half of the reduction comes in the final several years of the schedule.

        That’s typical of exponential growth. Do you have any idea what fraction of the world’s deployed solar PV went live in the last 3 years?

        I’m leery of cap and trade, which this essentially is albeit without the cap.

        I guess the best way to put this is that I think you’ve got the wrong perspective on “essentially”. Rather than a cap, it’s got a dependency on growing technology, so that supply and demand can provide pressure for growth.

        I’m happy that you see a need for some sort of public mandate as I do, would that more Denizens felt the same.

        I think part of the problem is that so many of the proposed “public mandate” won’t work, are hideously expensive, or both.

        My approach is that we’ve got to do something, but it’s got to not impact higher priorities, which include massive growth of cheap reliable power for the part of the world that doesn’t have it yet.

        I’m content to let it rest at that.

        As you can see, I’ve made one more try at communicating the essence of my ideas, since I don’t think I’d actually gotten everything across.

        I’m not trying to make you agree with me, but I’d like you to actually see where I’m coming from, which IMO means understanding the connections I consider important and their implications (to me).

      • PA commented:
        “The lower half of the ocean is actually cooling”

        False.

        Do you just make these things up out of the blue, or what?

        From Greg Johnson et al, Nature Climate Change (2016):
        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html

        Ocean heat gain from 2005 to 2015 of the deeper ocean (> 1800 m in depth):
        0.07 ± 0.04 W/m2

      • AK,

        >That’s typical of exponential growth.

        Logistic growth is more typical of real systems.

        >Do you have any idea what fraction of the world’s deployed solar PV went live in the last 3 years?

        Yes.

        >As you can see, I’ve made one more try at communicating the essence of my ideas, since I don’t think I’d actually gotten everything across.

        I know the feeling. Because I disagree with you on things doesn’t mean I’m not trying to understand them. And because I’m trying to understand them doesn’t mean I always do.

      • @brandonrgates…

        Logistic growth is more typical of real systems.

        Well, IIRC logistic growth is similar to exponential growth in its early stages.

        IMO the key is the interaction between learning curve/Wright’s “Law” and supply/demand and marginal utility.

        If cost decreases with increasing deployment (as in Wright’s “Law”) while reduced price leads to higher purchase volumes (i.e. increasing deployment), you’ll get a positive feedback creating a roughly exponential curve for both cost (decreasing) and deployment.

        As other factors influence the marginal utility, such as newer replacement technology, purchase/deployment will slow its growth relative to cost, which will in turn slow cost reductions.

        So far, this slowdown hasn’t happened with IT, and I (personally) don’t expect it to for at least another decade, although the curve may start getting bumpier as more radical tech changes are required.

        I doubt it will happen soon with solar PV either, given the amount of good stuff on the lab bench and in proof-of-concept. As for marginal utility, I’m pretty sure that PV can grow until it matches CCGT (hopefully oil/gas flex-fuel) in deployed capacity.

        This would correspond to perhaps 10-20% penetration (given that PV is intermittent) and that growth would pay for itself in reduced fuel and variable O&M. Given that CCGT capitalization and fixed O&M are a small fraction of the total, I’d guess that solar will have crossed the line into fully cost-effective as an add-on to CCGT by that time (2025?).

        If costs continue their current rate of decline (~85%/year = ~1/2 every 5 years for installed utility PV) they might be at 1/4 their current value of ~$1.20/Watt. At this point power→gas might become cost-competitive.

        An important contributor would be an early market for gas/fuel from solar power, which is what the ratio/trading scheme I’ve described is intended to foster.

        The proposed artificial market for CO2 extraction would (hopefully) drive an exponential growth curve until the marginal utility of new factories for CO2 extraction equipment starts to decline.

        My guess is that could be put off till the last decade of the growth curve, at least. In fact, I doubt there’s any reason to stop building more factories for the CO2 extraction technology, just build them flexible enough to switch to making other stuff when the need to new CO2 extraction equipment slumps.

        Of course, if humanity needs to “go negative”, a continued build-out of CO2 extraction equipment past when there’s enough to balance current energy needs could easily both buffer the switch to manufacturing other stuff,and draw down the CO2 pre-industrial levels.

        I’d guess a time-frame around 2050 to pass into “negative emissions” mode, if science still suggests it’s necessary.

        Moreover, by the time the “extraction overshoot” issue becomes a critical decision, I suspect most people will regard the buffering effect on the economy as a positive, and assign net societal losses to an immediate stop of building CO2 extraction equipment at the point zero-net-emissions is reached.

        And because I’m trying to understand them doesn’t mean I always do.

        It’s frustrating. I need a picture. I’m pretty good with Photoshop, but I can’t make a picture till I figure out what it needs to look like.

      • brandonrgates wrote

        >But the increasing CO2 level will continue to drive absorption.
        … not because it isn’t a correct statement as I understand it,

        >The fuel producer estimates put the peak CO2 at 460 PPM.
        Citation please?

        >The 2017 CO2 increase will be a bellweather. I expect it to be less than 2.0 PPM/Y, perhaps much less.
        My argument is that it needs to be very near net zero before the end of the century.

        http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/Global_Carbon_Project/Global_Carbon_Budget_2015_v1.0.xlsx
        1. Increased plant growth means increased absorption. In 1959 environmental absorption was 1.9 GT/Y. Today it is 7.01 GT/Y. Given the desperate need for food and fuel (Tanzania deforested 30% of their timberland for firewood in the last 30 years) more growth is needed to avoid a catastrophe.

        https://www.wired.com/2008/12/world-coal-rese
        With Rutledge’s new numbers, the world could burn all the coal (and other fossil fuels) it can get to, and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would only end up around 460 parts per million, which is predicted to cause a 2-degree-Celsius rise in global temperatures

        http://richardheinberg.com/196-coal-and-climate
        More specifically, “The Producer-Limited Profile gives a peak of 460 ppm in 2070″—which is only marginally above the widely accepted target of 450 ppm. The implication is clear: sufficient greenhouse gas reductions will be accomplished by fossil fuel depletion alone, without any need for carbon emissions regulatory policy.

        2. 460 PPM is the producer number from other sources and seems pretty popular. As a footnote the 1.5°C IPCC number for ECS would only increase the temperature 0.3°C above current temperatures with a 60 PPM CO2 increase.

        http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/Global_Carbon_Project/Global_Carbon_Budget_2015_v1.0.xlsx
        3. CO2 Emissions seem to have reached a no growth stage, mostly the result of pesky warmunists. According to the CDIAC numbers an 85 PPM increase more than tripled the 1959 environmental absorption. Using warmunist math, 60 more PPM will quintuple or hextuple the 1959 absorption and at 460 PPM the CO2 level will be declining 1 PPM per year.

      • PA wrote:
        “In 1959 environmental absorption was 1.9 GT/Y. Today it is 7.01 GT/Y.”

        Source?

      • PA wrote:
        “Given the desperate need for food and fuel (Tanzania deforested 30% of their timberland for firewood in the last 30 years) more growth is needed to avoid a catastrophe.”

        Plant nutrition depends on the uptake of nitrogen, not carbon. So how does more CO2 help?

        “Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
        – University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
        http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/10/crop-nutrition/2014

      • Plant nutrition depends on the uptake of nitrogen, not carbon. So how does more CO2 help?

        Simplistic nonsense, technically incorrect.

        From the original peer-reviewed paper referenced in the linked tendentious propaganda:

        In the low-N treatment at Maricopa, elevated CO2 increased grain yields by 9% (ref. 32), but decreased grain protein concentrations by 11% (ref. 16), and so grain protein yields decreased by about 2%. In the high-N treatment, elevated CO2 increased grain yields about 16% (ref. 32), but had an insignificant effect on grain protein concentrations[16], and so grain protein yields increased about 16%.

      • @AK

        “That’s typical of exponential growth. Do you have any idea what fraction of the world’s deployed solar PV went live in the last 3 years?”

        Unfortunately the vertical scale should read “MWp”… the small p for “peak” cuts down by a factor of (average, at least) 6 the real power installed… (10 in case of Germany or UK, or any other low-insolation country)… so even a real exponential rise (this is not exponential, looks like one but is is a logistic curve, like for all technologies) would make a small difference… intermittent renewables will never be able to replace dispatchable thermal units, be them fossil-fueled or nuclear, due to their intermittence.
        More details here (one of many examples):

        “Can renewable energy power the future?”

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151630088X

      • @david appel

        “Plant nutrition depends on the uptake of nitrogen, not carbon. So how does more CO2 help?”

        Only for C3 plants. C4 and higher do not suffer this problem.
        Worldwide, the production of food from fields has been steadily increasing since the ’80s. So long the terrible killer CAGW theory.

      • @robertok06…

        Unfortunately the vertical scale should read “MWp”… the small p for “peak” cuts down by a factor of (average, at least) 6 the real power installed…

        Irrelevant.

        […] so even a real exponential rise (this is not exponential, looks like one but is is a logistic curve, like for all technologies) would make a small difference…

        Wrong.

        […] intermittent renewables will never be able to replace dispatchable thermal units, be them fossil-fueled or nuclear, due to their intermittence.

        Wrong.

        “Can renewable energy power the future?”

        Yes.

      • AK,

        >Well, IIRC logistic growth is similar to exponential growth in its early stages.

        Your recollection is correct.

        >IMO the key is the interaction between learning curve/Wright’s “Law” and supply/demand and marginal utility.

        Again (I think) I understand your argument conceptually, but I question your (seemingly) optimistic outlook and I *choose* to be pessimistic. IOW, I *assume* the best-case scenario isn’t going to happen. I wish I could “prove” that I’m not doing this to be deliberately obtuse, or to disagree for the sake of argument.

        A big part of the problem here is that I don’t know what the “best-case” OR “worst-case” scenarios even look like (which you touch on below). What I’m more confident of is that economic models are sensitive to formulation and assumptions. I’m very confident that my grasp of economics isn’t good enough to easily judge which of two (or in this case many) economic models is superior. So my default position is to be skeptical (nay, dubious) of all of them.

        Denizens should readily appreciate my position on this point.

        >This would correspond to perhaps 10-20% penetration (given that PV is intermittent) and that growth would pay for itself in reduced fuel and variable O&M.

        Right. One of my worries is that the upper limits of penetration for intermittent sources will be “found” failure, i.e., freak accident leading to outages. One *assumption* I *always* make about markets (or more correctly, market participants) is that they’re neither efficient nor rational. When shocks happen, herd mentality goes from bull to bear and Bad Things cascade.

        Another way to put it: We The People have short memories. Decades of success can be “erased” by a few days of temporary *but* catastrophic failure. Here’s a recent topic example from Australia.

        An older example from the opposite side of the political spectrum: China Syndrome is a smash hit in theaters, twelve days later Three Mile Island reactor #2 experiences a partial meltdown. The already strident anti-fission power lobby had a field day which has lasted decades. What did the no-nukes get for their “successes”? More coal plants. Brilliant.

        My point is this. Any scheme which *mandates* market behavior is going to be unpopular, and thus politically vulnerable. Think Obamacare. It only passed because because Lieberman forced Obama’s hand on the public option. Once that was gone, the healthcare industry had what it was seeking: a mandated expansion of its services with only (relatively) impotent cost control mechanisms.

        My sense is that a viable emissions-reduction scheme will need similar features to become *politically* viable. Here I probably preach more to my “side” of the debate than to your particular argument, but *conceptually* it applies to you as well. That reminds me, I glossed over one of your arguments from a previous post:

        >I think part of the problem is that so many of the proposed “public mandate” won’t work, are hideously expensive, or both.

        Two things:

        1) I don’t know what will work and what won’t. I do have some idea of what *isn’t* working.
        2) Whatever ends up working (a big implied if) will be expensive.

        Since “hideous” is in the eye of the beholder, the question comes down to what “the market” will tolerate. As I allude with my healthcare analogy, “the market” isn’t equally represented by all players. So any scheme which doesn’t at least satisfy, if not benefit, the most politically influential market players will either be DOA when it comes to a vote, or subject to the mercies of an ascending opposition party.

        >It’s frustrating. I need a picture.

        No worries, I’m in the same boat … and perhaps like you, not for want of basic Photoshop skillz. Hopefully my above meandering doodles bear some resemblance to a readable broad sketch.

      • >1. Increased plant growth means increased absorption.

        You don’t get increased plant growth as a function of CO2 mixing ratio without an *elevated* CO2 mixing ratio, PA. That’s my point.

        >https://www.wired.com/2008/12/world-coal-rese
        >With Rutledge’s new numbers, the world could burn all the coal (and other fossil fuels) it can get to, and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would only end up around 460 parts per million, which is predicted to cause a 2-degree-Celsius rise in global temperatures

        Thank you for the citation. I’ll note that Dave Rutledge isn’t a “fuel producer” as you implied, and that his argument is in fact that industry grossly overestimates their reserves:

        The new model, created by Dave Rutledge, chair of Caltech’s engineering and applied sciences division, suggests that humans will only pull up a total — including all past mining — of 662 billion tons of coal out of the Earth. The best previous estimate, from the World Energy Council, says that the world has almost 850 billion tons of coal still left to be mined.

        “Every estimate of the ultimate coal resource has been larger,” said ecologist Ken Caldeira of Stanford University, who was not involved with the new study. “But if there’s much less coal than we think, that’s good news for climate.”

        Yes, IF there’s much less coal than we think, since we presently *seem* determined to burn it all. Herein lies another problem, the article makes my own argument for me:

        On the other hand, if the world were really to encounter a swift and steep decline in accessible coal resources, it’s unclear how humans could retain our current levels of transportation, industry and general energy-usage.

        So, even if coal were to run out and the most dangerous climate change averted, the imperative to develop non–fossil-fuel energy sources would remain.

        I wish I had a nickel for all the times I’ve been called a Malthusian catastrophist for making similar arguments. Peak Oil/Gas/Coal is considered a MYTH amongst Luddite-minded Cornucopians, donchaknow.

        >http://richardheinberg.com/196-coal-and-climate
        >More specifically, “The Producer-Limited Profile gives a peak of 460 ppm in 2070″—which is only marginally above the widely accepted target of 450 ppm. The implication is clear: sufficient greenhouse gas reductions will be accomplished by fossil fuel depletion alone, without any need for carbon emissions regulatory policy.

        Read further down, starting around hereish:

        In short, the implication of the latest research might appear to be that Peak Oil, Peak Gas, and Peak Coal will together solve the problem of global Climate Change, without need for intervention by policy makers.

        However, this could be a dangerously premature conclusion.

        >3. CO2 Emissions seem to have reached a no growth stage, mostly the result of pesky warmunists.

        You sure about that “mostly” qualifier?

        Year	CO2	GDP
        ----	-----	-----
        1961	0.43%	4.30%
        1962	4.11%	5.53%
        1963	5.47%	5.18%
        1964	5.72%	6.65%
        1965	4.51%	5.56%
        1966	5.05%	5.77%
        1967	3.19%	4.39%
        1968	5.10%	6.16%
        1969	6.00%	6.10%
        1970	7.22%	4.29%
        1971	3.82%	4.25%
        1972	3.99%	5.68%
        1973	5.44%	6.47%
        1974	0.20%	1.99%
        1975	-0.58%	0.90%
        1976	5.83%	5.27%
        1977	3.33%	4.01%
        1978	1.21%	4.10%
        1979	5.54%	4.11%
        1980	-1.04%	1.96%
        1981	-3.05%	1.94%
        1982	-0.78%	0.51%
        1983	-0.35%	2.53%
        1984	3.63%	4.56%
        1985	3.03%	3.90%
        1986	3.09%	3.25%
        1987	2.57%	3.62%
        1988	3.70%	4.62%
        1989	2.20%	3.76%
        1990	0.44%	2.94%
        1991	1.26%	1.36%
        1992	-1.00%	1.79%
        1993	-0.05%	1.66%
        1994	1.76%	3.03%
        1995	2.13%	2.96%
        1996	2.35%	3.34%
        1997	1.53%	3.76%
        1998	-0.21%	2.45%
        1999	-0.20%	3.30%
        2000	2.52%	4.33%
        2001	2.45%	1.97%
        2002	0.91%	2.18%
        2003	5.91%	2.90%
        2004	5.12%	4.46%
        2005	3.75%	3.82%
        2006	3.55%	4.38%
        2007	2.02%	4.31%
        2008	2.44%	1.84%
        2009	-0.46%	-1.68%
        2010	5.06%	4.35%
        2011	3.38%	3.13%
        2012	1.33%	2.48%
        2013	1.67%	2.40%
        2014	0.62%	2.63%

        Those are annual percentage growth rates, CO2 emissions from the CDIAC spreadsheet you referenced, GDP from the World Bank.

      • @AK

        “Irrelevant.

        Wrong.

        Wrong.

        Yes.”

        Wrong.
        Wrong (it’s true/correct).
        Wrong (it’s true.correct).
        No: ample evidence from multiple sources, not to mention available production data. As the penetration of intermittent renewables increases their capacity factor goes down… not to mention the astronomical cost and physical impossibility of installing sufficient storage for large-scale implementation of RENs.

        Try again.

      • Mosher says:

        But you can only tell how much warmer IT WILL GET… by prediction.

        We have a good prediction.. somewhere between 1.5C and 4.5C if we double c02.

        Mosher argues, inconsistently, he can do good predictions of FUTURE temperature but, we don’t need to be able to do predictions of the FUTURE impacts of temperature change. He argues we can simply assume they will be dangerous because the Alarmists have convinced the politicians to agree that 2C warming would be dangerous (or whatever it is that Mosher is actually trying to say). Whatever it is, it is clearly inconsistent. He can’t face the fact that his long held belief in CAGW has no better justification than the beliewf in a flat Earth. The wheels are falling off trhe CAGW belief. More and more people are starting to recognise there is nothing to fear from GHG emissions

      • @robertok06…

        Read harder.

      • David Appell | October 9, 2016 at 8:31 pm |
        PA commented:
        “The lower half of the ocean is actually cooling”

        False.

        Do you just make these things up out of the blue, or what?

        From Greg Johnson et al, Nature Climate Change (2016):
        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html

        Huh? Really?? Correspondence???

        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/authors/gta/content-type/index.html

        Correspondence is 500 words of someone’s opinion that may or may not be peer reviewed at the editors discretion.

        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2387.html

        Accounting for additional possible systematic uncertainties, the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise and −0.08 ± 0.43 W m−2 to Earth’s energy balance.

      • brandonrgates

        Those are annual percentage growth rates, CO2 emissions from the CDIAC spreadsheet you referenced, GDP from the World Bank.

        So you are in the > 3.0 GDP growth means more emissions camp?

        It’s interesting. Have seen the argument before and on the surface it seems to have some traction.

        https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html
        The IEA claims that decoupling is occurring.

      • robertok06 commented:
        “Only for C3 plants. C4 and higher do not suffer this problem.”

        C3 plants are 85% of all plants, including beans, rice, wheat, potatoes. (Corn is C4.)

        “Worldwide, the production of food from fields has been steadily increasing since the ’80s. So long the terrible killer CAGW theory.”

        Harvests can increase for several reasons:

        * more acreage planted
        * better fertilizers
        * genetic modification
        * better farming technology and techniques
        * more CO2
        * changes in government farming subsidies
        * higher demand
        * better weather
        * more desirable temperatures
        * more desirable precipitation
        etc.

        So just saying that yield has increased says nothing about why. Nor does it say anything about the influence of each factor.

        In particular, yields can increase even while some of these factors are contributing to a decreasing sub-trend.

        And that’s what scientists say is happening regarding climate change:

        “For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
        — “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002

        “We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
        — “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
        http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/06/1415181112

        “Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any supposed positives.” Smith et al. PNAS (2009), http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf

      • catweazle666 commented:
        “:If you are going to do comparisons of that nature on temperatures, you MUST use the values in Kelvin, so the actual figures are 274.66K and 277.66K…. I’m sure you can work out what that is as a percentage, but if you have trouble, I’ll show you how.”

        So then the warming from the last glacial period to the Holocene was less than 3%.

        Are you going to argue that *that* was a trivial change?

      • PA wrote:
        “Correspondence is 500 words of someone’s opinion that may or may not be peer reviewed at the editors discretion.”

        In this case, correspondence is an update to previous work. The significance of the Johnson et al work is that it significantly reduces previous uncertainties, like Llovel, from 540% to 60%.

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | October 13, 2016 at 8:59 pm |

        In this case, correspondence is an update to previous work. The significance of the Johnson et al work is that it significantly reduces previous uncertainties, like Llovel, from 540% to 60%.

        This post sequence started with this comment:
        Do you just make these things up out of the blue, or what?

        That statement is dishonest or misinformed.

        There are a couple of deep ocean threads and one specifically on deep ocean cooling.

        https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/22/are-the-deep-oceans-cooling/

        I’m not going to refight previous battles. If you want continue fighting the battle go over to Steel’s blog (linked on the deep ocean cooling thread).

        If Johnson is basing his work on reanalysis according to Steel that doesn’t conserve energy and is invalid. Narrowing uncertainty on an invalid approach is an interesting but futile exercise.

  26. Systemic changes in clouds, no doubt, are a major wildcard in climate change. But until these effects are studied in situ from the standpoint of rigorous system analysis, rather in computers via miscast notions of “feedback,” only the amount of academic verbiage will increase. Truly useful, reliable scientific knowledge will become even more difficult to attain..

    • john321s wrote:
      “Systemic changes in clouds, no doubt, are a major wildcard in climate change.”

      Most papers I’ve seen now say the cloud feedback is very likely positive.

      Nevertheless, uncertainty is not a reason to delay action.

      • David Appell,

        Is this assertion a paraphrase of “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”, or maybe “A fool and his money are soon parted.”

        Act away! Feel free to act twice as hard, while I continue to assume that tomorrow will be much the same as today, unless it isn’t, for some unforeseen reason.

        Christine Lagarde (IMF) claimed we were all in danger of being baked, boiled, fried or toasted – or words to that effect. Judging by her economic predictions, maybe she should take up carpentry. Predictions of any type don’t seem to be her strong point. I’m not feeling particularly baked, boiled, fried or toasted just yet. Maybe later during the wet season.

        If you have any spare money, maybe you could invest in carbon trading. Predicting outcomes should be a snap for a clever climatologically inclined chap like yourself. Good luck.

        Cheers.

      • Mike: A lot more gibberish.

        It’s very clear you understand how CO2 causes lower atmospheric warming.

        Why you prefer to play dumb about it, I don’t know.

        PS: Trading carbon credits is a game for insiders. Anyone else would be a fool to buy into that market.

      • Curious George

        Old Aztecs had to sacrifice a human a day to the god of Sun, to make the Sun rise again. (That was their undoing, since they always sacrificed members of defeated tribes, which then joined Spaniards in a war against Aztecs). They were certain it had to be done.

        Nevertheless, uncertainty is not a reason to delay action.

      • Appell says: “Most papers I’ve seen now say the cloud feedback is very likely positive.

        Nevertheless, uncertainty is not a reason to delay action.”

        Spoken like a true religious fanatic.

        Act NOW!

      • crypto666 commented:
        in response to David Appell:
        >>Nevertheless, uncertainty is not a reason to delay action.<<
        "Spoken like a true religious fanatic."

        Have you ever considered attaching an argument to your claims?

  27. Come on, give me a break – don´t people have any interest in logical fallacies anymore:

    “For a nationally representative sample of respondents in Britain, I found that receiving a brief introduction to SRM had no impact on most people’s willingness to pay taxes, nor on their trust in climate science. Hearing about this form of geoengineering therefore appears unlikely to erode support for emissions reductions.”

    – Rakesh Dubbubu in the abstract of: “Geoengineering, moral hazard, and trust in climate science: evidence from a survey experiment in Britain”

    I´ll rewrite it for him:
    Knowledge about Solar Radiation Management has no impact on willingness to pay taxes. Therefore, knowledge about Solar Radiation Management will not reduce the support for emission reduction.

    The conclusion seems to be completely disconnected from the premise. I couldn’t even find the name for that logical fallacy. My kid at 9 would never say something irrational like that (but he is kind of smart – I think he got it from his mother). And this article is even peer reviewed. Why on earth would anyone pay to read that article???

  28. Jim D,

    You claim a repeatable experiment relating to the supposed property of CO2 to elevate temperatures somewhere or other is being carried out.

    Where may I find the documentation describing this experiment?

    Or does the experiment exist in your own mind? No start date, no personnel, no description, no documentation, no predicted outcomes against which results may be compared . . .

    This is science? Nope, just climatology. The science is settled. Climatologists don’t need no steenkin’ experiments!

    Keep praying. Miracles may yet occur – who knows?

    Cheers.

  29. “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

  30. Managing Soils for Soil Carbon Sequestration. Dr David Johnson on Engineering Microbiology:

      • Yeh, well I wrote a review of Yale’s framework for managers trying to get them to use science instead of speculation, but it turns out using science made their claims less urgent. So they stuck with the misleads and deception in an attempt to generate fear. I guess they think land managers are uneducated and stupid.

        Thanks for the useless tools by the way. There is nothing better than seeing computers generate results that show 2 standard deviations of change in plant communities in the future, while they ignore the type conversion of 5 years ago.

      • crypto666 commented:
        “Yeh, well I wrote a review of Yale’s framework for managers trying to get them to use science instead of speculation.”

        Truly batsh*t hilarious.

        All you did was see the word “Yale” and assume that meant something, no matter how disassociated, from something you hear before.

        I researched this little piece. I have no f*cking idea what Yale’s management thinks of anything, let alone about David Johnson’s views on cover crops.

        What I wrote agrees with the video of him speaking.

        Start thinking for a change, instead of merely reacting.

    • crypto666 — Could you link us to some of the Ag papers you’ve written?

  31. Example of the “Wicked Problem” also in Ag from the prestigious SEI — As plants absorb larger amounts of carbon dioxide through the plant pores on the leaf surface (stomata), they also absorb pollutants such as ozone at higher rates.
    https://www.sei-international.org/-news-archive/3400

    • Curious George

      “Studies have shown that came tops have reduced yields.” But we have record harvests. Prestigious SEI?

      • Curious George

        … crops, not came tops, damned automation.

      • George wrote:
        “But we have record harvests.”

        Harvests can increase for several reasons:

        * more acreage planted
        * better fertilizers
        * genetic modification
        * better farming technology and techniques
        * more CO2
        * changes in government farming subsidies
        * higher demand
        * better weather
        * more desirable temperatures
        * more desirable precipitation
        etc.

        So just saying that yield has increased says nothing about why. Nor does it say anything about the influence of each factor.

        In particular, yields can increase even while some of these factors are contributing to a decreasing sub-trend.

        And that’s what scientists say is happening regarding climate change:

        “For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
        — “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002

        “We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
        — “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
        http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/06/1415181112

        “Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any supposed positives.” Smith et al. PNAS (2009), http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf

    • Curious George

      Stephen, let’s see:
      1. A concentration of CO2 in the air is rising.
      2. Therefore plants need to breathe less air to get a needed CO2.
      3. Therefore they get less, not more, pollutants from the air.
      4. Or maybe not – if a pollutant concentration rises faster than CO2 concentration. But that is likely nor a CO2’s fault.
      5. The most frequent word in the prestigious article is “COULD”. (Just joking, but it feels that way.)

  32. David Appell appears confused. Maybe he is.

    I see no proof to the contrary.

    If I mention that nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of anything by surrounding it with CO2, David Appell flies into a perfect frenzy apparently because he doesn’t want to accept the truth.

    I understand why Warmists love irrelevant and pointless analogies. They divert attention away from discussion of the facts – in this case, that wrapping an object with CO2 will not cause its temperature to rise.

    Even the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, CO2 in the atmosphere notwithstanding. Wrap your overcoat around that if you wish, David Appell. No GHE. No CO2 heating.

    Cheers.

    • Splendid parody as usual, Flynn :)

      • Where has anybody said that if you wrap an object in CO2, the temperature will rise? Flynn is a complete gimmick… he’s got worse than nuthun’.

    • “I see no proof to the contrary.

      If I mention that nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of anything by surrounding it with CO2, David Appell flies into a perfect frenzy apparently because he doesn’t want to accept the truth.”

      1. There is no proof in science there is only evidence for or against an explaination.

      2. by adding c02 to the atmosphere, but in the past ( from geological processes) and in the modern era, the temperature of the earth is warmer
      than it would have been otherwise. C02 does not WARM anything according to the theory. it REDUCES the rate of radiation lost to space.
      This was predicted. It occurred. And in Science that is EVIDENCE for the usefulness of the theory.

      There is a reason why you will never see a science publication ( peer reviewed or not) from Flynn.

      he doesnt get science.

      he gets rhetoric and even there is too funny to read.

      He got his ass handed to him by Roy Spencer so now he is back here.

      jeez

      • Steven Mother,

        I see no proof that David Appeal isn’t confused. Have you any evidence to the contrary?

        Moving along, the concept of the falsifiable hypothesis.

        I know you reject the words of dead scientists if you don’t like them, but maybe you will accept the words of the dead person Albert Einstein –

        “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

        Or maybe even the dead physicist, Richard Feynman, with whom you talk on a regular basis, in order to tell me how his writings don’t actually reflect what he thought –

        “And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?” There are more.

        You say that CO2 (acting as an insulator), reduces the rate at which the planet cools. It also reduces the rate at which it heats up – Tyndall estimated 40% of insolation fails to reach the surface. NASA claims around 30% from memory. Hence both higher and lower temperatures on the Moon – distinct absence of insulating atmosphere!

        But slower heating or cooling, when exposed to an external energy source like the Sun, does not result in heating. Gavin Schmidt’s breathless announcements are of “the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH!”

        Not “the year which was warmer than it otherwise would have been EVAH!” People would have rightly laughed in his face!

        As to Dr Roy Spencer, he apparently decided that his scientific results weren’t showing the heating predicted by the GHE enthusiasts. He looked for another reason, and decided that the rotation of the Earth explained the discrepancy between the theoretical surface temperature of an Earth which heated from absolute zero due to energy received from the Sun, and his remote sensing satellite based measurements.

        He created a trivial spreadsheet model which showed him that the rotation of the Earth resulted in warming. He did not specify how much, but of course this would detract from any amount supposedly due to the CO2 GHE.

        Unfortunately, Dr Spencer made an unfortunate assumption or two. Here’s one –

        “Imagine a body with a realistic heat capacity that uniformly absorbs a solar intensity of 1,000 Watts per sq. meter”

        Uniformly? Maybe a thought too far!

        Of course, one might ask “Why not imagine a spherical body of given properties illuminated on one hemisphere by an energy source of certain specified properties.” The fairly obvious answer is that you might find that your spreadsheet model is leading you up the garden path. So, Dr Spencer seems to be supplanting the CO2 GHE with the rotational GHE.

        I agree with neither.

        As to science, publications, etc., I only looked at the first two Google pages. Nothing, apart from this little piece of serendipity from “Mike Flynn’s blog” (not me, I hasten to add).

        “The suggestion has been made that predictions made by scientific studies be checked against Actual Results in what TOF joshingly refers to as “The Real World™”

        If there’s no falsifiable GHE hypothesis, you must be referring to climatology, not science. Good luck. In the real world, slower cooling does not raise the temperature. The temperature falls. That’s why the process is referred to as “cooling” rather than “heating”.

        Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn commented:
        “But slower heating or cooling, when exposed to an external energy source like the Sun, does not result in heating.”

        On a cold morning you wear a coat. Why? To reduce heat loss from your body and thereby stay warmer.

        By noon, sunshine has increased and you no longer need to wear a coat. Why?

    • “I understand why Warmists love irrelevant and pointless analogies. They divert attention away from discussion of the facts – in this case, that wrapping an object with CO2 will not cause its temperature to rise.”

      It will however cause the object to lose radiation to space less rapidly than without c02. Measured and confirmed. Sorry flynn flamming

    • Mike Flynn wrote:
      “If I mention that nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of anything by surrounding it with CO2,”

      Feldman et al shows more energy impacting the surface, at CO2’s emissions frequencies.

      What are the implications of that additional energy?

      • David Appell,

        Nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of anything by surrounding it with CO2.

        CO2 and H2O are essential plant food.

        Burning hydrocarbons produces, at a minimum, heat, CO2, and H2O.

        The heat is used to provide warmth, electricity, and so on.

        There are places in Antarctic which are below the freezing point of both CO2 and H2O, so you might choose to live there if you are opposed to CO2, H2O, and heat.

        Maybe you could surround yourself with copies of all the scientific publications which demonstrate the heating effects of back radiation and positive feedback. Or maybe you could use an overcoat to boil some water to make a nice cup of tea, using dehydrated water, as you seem to fear the real stuff.

        No falsifiable hypothesis, no GHE, reducing CO2 levels results in less food, probably eading to genocide, starvation, civil unrest, war, and other needless outcomes.

        Arrhenius favoured eugenics – it might be that he has a fervent follower in yourself.

        Quick! Save the world! Eat less – produce less CO2!

        I’ll leave you to save the world. Let me know when you’re done.

        Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn wrote:
        “Nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of anything by surrounding it with CO2.”

        It’s like you can’t read….. Did you read anything Steven Mosher recently wrote to you?

      • Mike Flynn wrote:
        “CO2 and H2O are essential plant food.”

        Then why aren’t there any plants on Venus or Mars, where atmospheric CO2 concentrations are about 96%?

    • Mike Flynn wrote:
      “Albert Einstein –
      “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.””

      You cited this……and then didn’t point to any actual experiments.

  33. “He got his ass handed to him by Roy Spencer so now he is back here.”

    Really?
    I do hope so.
    Spencer’s kicked a few dragons out lately …. Geran (nasty with it), and Stephen Wilde. mpainter remains (AFAIK), for the moment.
    I’d like to think I “encouraged” him to do it, via private email.
    In the end it’s beneficial for the “sceptic” cause. Though I am not one.

  34. Are CO2 emissions harmful? What’s the evidence?
    Re: The Damage Function

    The damage function is an essential input for estimating the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Without a valid damage function, SCC estimates are meaningless.

    IPCC AR5 WG3 Chapter 3 mentions ‘Damage Function’ 18 times http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter3.pdf . Some examples:

    “Damage functions in existing Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are of low reliability (high confidence).” [3.9, 3.12]”

    “Our general conclusion is that the reliability of damage functions in current IAMs is low.” [p247]

    “As discussed in Section 3.9, the aggregate damage functions used in many IAMs are generated from a remarkable paucity of data and are thus of low reliability.”

    • “Our general conclusion is that the reliability of damage functions in current IAMs is low.”

      Computing virtual damage that doesn’t exist in the real world is pretty unreliable.

      If warmunists were forced by law to compute benefit and publish the net benefit/loss this exercise in deception would be over.

    • Peter Lang wrote:
      “Damage functions in existing Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are of low reliability (high confidence).” [3.9, 3.12]”

      What is the damage function for terrorism in the US?

  35. “Climate change has doubled western US forest fires”

    http://phys.org/news/2016-10-climate-western-forest.html

  36. Mike Flynn, cc Mosher, Appell

    You requested “a falsifiable hypothesis proposing a mechanism by which increasing the concentration of CO2 in an atmosphere can raise the temperature of that which it surrounds”. The hypothesis is that CO2 absorbs radiation at particular wavelengths to an extent different from other gasses.

    Start with a spectrophotometric cell filled with an inert gas. (http://john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm) Irradiate it at the CO2 wavelength, 15 microns. Watch the temperature of the cell as you raise the beam power
    into the milliwatt range. Now do the same thing with some of the inert gas replaced with CO2. You will find that the cell warms with CO2 inside. If you want to see something surrounded, place a thermistor in the cell. Spectrophotometry exists because of differential absorption of nonequilibrium energy flow.

    From this experiment, Mosher misspeaks when he says “C02 does not WARM anything according to the theory”. CO2 does in fact heat its local environment by converting its molecular kinetic energy to its neighboring atoms. But yes, “IR transparency is the issue”.

    The concept missing from the discussion is that of thermal equilibrium. Flynn’s arguments seem to involve being at equilibrium, whereas the issues with CO2 arise from having net energy flow from ground to space. If there were no net energy flow, there would be no “greenhouse” effect. But the atmosphere is never at equilibrium, notwithstanding the frequent but erroneous use of black body radiation theory.

    From Flynn’s discussion it may be that he understands the difference between the equilibrium and the nonequilibrium situations and is playing with us.

    One can believe that CO2 absorbs photons at 14 microns and still be a skeptic.

    • playing… a total gimmick.

      • AK wrote:
        “Both happen, but for practical purposes there’s no relationship at the individual molecular level between the absorption of a photon and the emission of a photon.”

        Quantum states have finite lifetimes. It’s the reciprocal of the Einstein A coefficient. For CO2 at its most prominent line intensity, 667.661421/cm, A=1.539/s, so that quantum state’s lifetime is 0.65 s.

        See the HITRAN database for the data:
        http://hitran.org/results/576ebbbd.par

      • Quantum states have finite lifetimes.

        Wrong. WRONG!

      • OOPs!

        Sorry. I somehow read that as infinite.

        The point is that the lifetimes are long compared to the mean time between collisions.

        Which means that the quantum state of a single molecule will be shuffling around substantially due to collisions, and any change due to absorbing an IR photon will probably have been superseded by changes from many collisions before the next time it emits an IR photon.

      • AK commented:
        “Which means that the quantum state of a single molecule will be shuffling around substantially due to collisions”

        Why?

        The essence of quantum theory is that a particular energy is required to change quantum states, not any old energy.

      • Why?

        Because while the energy levels of vibration and rotation are quantized, the kinetic energy of colliding molecules is not. (Well, in principle it is, but at levels too small close together to matter.)

        Thus, the relative probability of various outcome molecular energy levels from a collision will encompass all those available molecular energy level transitions within “range” of the energy involved in the collision, while that transferred to/from kinetic energy will be variable enough to make up the difference, no matter what it is.

        This can be visualized in classical terms, with rotating/vibrating molecules bouncing off one another. The “point of contact”, which is effectively random (for classical visualizations), will determine how much energy is transferred between kinetic and vibrational/rotational energy. Of course, the quantum reality is somewhat different, but the classical visualization suffices for understanding the transfer of energy.

        This is also why the spread of molecular energy levels that are partly filled will be of the same order of magnitude as the kinetic energy of the molecules.

        Energy levels much higher will almost always drop in the collision, transferring the excess energy to molecular kinetic energy. It will very seldom go the other way.

        Energy levels much lower, if unfilled, will almost always be filled in a collision. It will very seldom go the other way.

        Thus, the range of partly filled energy levels (statistically among molecules) will be similar to the kinetic energy involved in collisions, where the probability of losing and gaining energy is similar.

    • I think it is perhaps even more simple that what you propose.

      I believe that Mike objects to the grammar of “warming” – when an insulator slows down the rate of cooling.

      Slowing down the rate of cooling is not warming – it is slowing down the rate of cooling.

      Just a personal theory.

    • Mike, C02 can burn you. I had some warts from playing with frogs, and the doctor burned those warts off with frozen CO2. Yes, frozen green house gas can cause burns. Hold it on your skin long enough and it will cause a blister.
      Don’t try it. Take my word.

      • Max,

        You’re right, of course.

        I’ve had a few lesions burnt off – although my current doctor must be a denier. He uses liquid N2 – the stuff that GHE enthusiasts claim can’t radiate IR. Maybe it’s liquified using magic, rather than by allowing it to shed energy by radiation, cooling in the process.

        Years ago, another medico used solid CO2 – wrapped in chamois leather, I think. Dry ice was more freely available in my location.

        English is an interesting language – dry ice, burning by freezing, greenhouse effect . . .

        Cheers.

      • Curses, you didn’t fall for it. Unlike Trump, you aren’t impulsive, which is a good thing.

      • Mike Flynn commented:
        “He uses liquid N2 – the stuff that GHE enthusiasts claim can’t radiate IR.”

        Let’s see your data on N2’s aborption spectrum in the IR.

    • 4kx3 wrote:
      “From this experiment, Mosher misspeaks when he says “C02 does not WARM anything according to the theory”. CO2 does in fact heat its local environment by converting its molecular kinetic energy to its neighboring atoms.”

      No it doesn’t. CO2’s absorption of IR changes its quantum state, not its kinetic energy. It then radiates that energy in all directions, some of it downward, and that IR is global warming.

      • CO2’s absorption of IR changes its quantum state, not its kinetic energy. It then radiates that energy in all directions, some of it downward, and that IR is global warming.

        Almost never in the Troposphere. It almost always converts the absorbed energy to kinetic via collision.

      • AK commented:
        “Almost never in the Troposphere. It almost always converts the absorbed energy to kinetic via collision.”

        CO2 doesn’t absorb energy unless it is at the right wavelength to cause a quantum jump.

        Work out the momenta (Check me on this): The average speed of an air molecule is about 500 m/s. A CO2 molecule has a mass of 7e-26 kg. So its momemtum is 4e-23 kg m/s.

        A photon at CO2’s major absorption frequency, about 700/cm, has a wavelength of about 1e-5 m. So an energy of 1e-20 J, or a momentum of 5e-29 kg m/s, or 8e-5 times lower than the CO2 molecule.

        There simply isn’t much energy transferred via a classical collision.

      • AK, your example has CO2 warming indefinitely, which it doesn’t. In thermal equilibrium collisions neither increase nor decrease kinetic energy and absorption and emission occur at similar rates because the quantum state population is also an equilibrium for a given temperature.

      • @David Appell&Jim D…

        You ought to learn some quantum dynamics before you pontificate your nonsense on the web.

        The rate of collision is so high relative to the frequency of absorption that almost always the extra energy bleeds out into the general pool of energy. The size of that pool (temperature), in turn, determines the relative distribution of energy states of the molecules, which in turn determines the frequency of emission.

        For tropospheric temperatures and densities, absorption and emission are essentially independent. Both happen, but for practical purposes there’s no relationship at the individual molecular level between the absorption of a photon and the emission of a photon.

      • AK, there is an equilibrium population of states. This alone tells you that absorption and emission rates balance for the photons of those energies. This would happen whether they are colliding or not. Collisions mostly affect rotational states of which there are many, not the vibration state, which would require a particularly well angled collision to go from the first state to the ground state or vice versa. Those must be rare, and would cancel anyway.

      • AK, there is an equilibrium population of states.

        Based on the current temperature. No necessary equilibrium between IR absorption and emission.

        This alone tells you that absorption and emission rates balance for the photons of those energies.

        Nope.

        Emission is proportional to temperature and partial pressure. Absorption is only proportional to partial pressure (to a first approximation, Yeah there’s a small amount of temperature broadening).

        If nothing else is going on, temperature will reach equilibrium pretty quickly. But if something else is going on, such as evaporation, condensation, or adiabatic heating or cooling, then it can be only close to equilibrium for long times. All very common in theTroposhpere.

        This would happen whether they are colliding or not.

        Physics of gases at very low densities are different from those of densities typical of the Troposphere and lower (and AFAIK upper) Stratosphere.

        Collisions mostly affect rotational states of which there are many, not the vibration state, which would require a particularly well angled collision to go from the first state to the ground state or vice versa.

        AFAIK there’s a large cross-section for both, but I’ll look at any references you have for your claim.

        Those must be rare, and would cancel anyway.

        Sounds like you’re just guessing, and they wouldn’t cancel.

      • If the energy difference for the 15 micron band is too large for most collisions to bridge, its population is governed by absorption and emission only. In radiative transfer, even in dense gases, absorption and emission are governed by the gas’s temperature, and to a much weaker extent by the pressure.

      • If the energy difference for the 15 micron band is too large for most collisions to bridge, […]

        But it’s not. As a rule of thumb, the energy of photons at the peak for black-body radiation is of the same order of magnitude as the kinetic energy of a single molecule. (IIRC, but I’m sure enough that I won’t waste time checking.)

    • 4kx3

      It’s a mistake to do anything but make fun of the flynn Flammer.

      There is a real science debate. People like Curry, Watts, Spenser, Lindzen,
      Nic Lewis, and Mcintyre are IN that debate. They get to debate the science
      that is uncertain because they accept the fundamentals. C02 is a GHG.
      GHGs keep the planet warmer than it would be otherwise.

      To the extent that “skeptics” as a crowd, allow Flynn Flammers, to speak in their name, they lose credibility in the debate. That’s just a social observation. to the extent that they waste their time on Flynn Flammers, they miss the present opprtunity to influence the debate.

      Flynn is a gift to warmists. It means we dont have to take your other arguments seriously.. Look at politics today.. when Wikileaks should have the headlines… well instead you have locker room talk talking up all the time and space. Flynn is our best Ally. The more Flynn’s there are the easier the debate becomes. Look at how long Spencer worked to debunk Flynn and when he did, Flynn just ran away.. Roy could have spent that time doing real science, on the real debate.. But he was slaying Dragons.

      Flynn is a gift to us. keep engaging him. keep wasting your time. or you could just respond that he is a flynn flammer and get back to the real debate.

      • “There is a real science debate.”

        So there is.

        And you were once part of it.

        But not any more.

        Now you only stand on the sidelines and shout abuse.

        Sad really…

      • @Stephen Mosher. I may eventually take your advice, but it is often not clear to me what the misconceptions are. Flynn helps keep us grounded so we don’t start a conversation with the wrong assumptions.

        @AK — covered the dynamics quite well.

        @Mike Flynn
        In a world where all molecules absorb at all frequencies, there would probably be no such thing as a GHE.

        In our world all molecules, even the liquid and solid phases, are constrained to interact with the electromagnetic field at finite intervals in internal energy. Several of your assertions, including “All gases interact with all frequencies of EMR” are in violation of “The Physical Principles of The Quantum Theory” a book by Heisenberg written at a time when the prevailing belief was as you have expressed. Amazon has it available. While you are waiting for it to arrive, ask yourself “Why does heat capacity goes to zero at finite temperatures?”

        As regards the spectrophotometer cell absorbing 14.7 micron radiation, you said “– almost simultaneously emit one of the precisely the same frequency”. No. The time is on the order of the quantum energy/hbar. At most atmospheric pressures this is enough time to equilibrate energy with collisions, i. e, heating of the local environment. CO2 would show flourescence only at very low pressures.
        @AK handles it nicely.

        Thanks for playing so hard. The misconception about “all gasses/all EMR frequencies” is apparently widely believed by those who have not studied quantum theory. The next worst is the failure to distinguish between heat radiation and electromagnetic radiation. This is essentially the distinction between equilibrium and non equilibrium. Planck’s “Theory of Heat Radiation” was written at a time when these distinctions were less clear and is still relevant. I don’t have a handy reference to the entropy of radiation fields but some thermodynamics texts might cover it.

  37. Europe faces coldest winter in 100 years?

    http://tiny.cc/7vmsfy

  38. RickA: “I expect the answer is no.”

    Maybe.

    In your example you start with a dark room. If the room is thermally and radiatively insulated and completely at equilibrium there will be no temperature change upon replacement with CO2. But if unknown to you there is a heat source, perhaps a hot instrument or a steam pipe in the wall, the infrared radiation field is appropriate to a temperature above the apparent temperature of the room, and adding CO2 will cause warming. A clue would be that different types of thermometers will read different temperatures before you start the experiment.

    The coupling of a radiation field with the kinetic energy of molecular motion is a variable not given entirely by the apparent temperature, and depends on the molecules. CO2 participates in this coupling.

    What is seldom discussed is that CO2 can also cause net radiation and therefore cooling.

    • Right.

      I guess my point is that some people can object to the use of the word “warming” when CO2 is slowing the rate of cooling.

      I actually think Mike understands this stuff very well but objects based on grammer.

      The Earth has cooled over 4-5 billion years and extra CO2 isn’t warming the atmosphere, but slowing its rate of cooling.

      That is my take on the issue.

    • 4kx3,

      Your hypothesis ” that CO2 absorbs radiation at particular wavelengths to an extent different from other gasses.” has precisely no relevance whatsoever to the GHE.

      CO2 can be heated by compression, or friction, for example. It doesn’t matter the method of CO2 heating, it still has nothing to do with raising the surface temperature of the planet.

      As a matter of fact, temperatures on the Moon are more extreme than on the Earth, due to lack of sensible atmosphere. No amount of waffling about averages, or assigning magical one way insulating properties to CO2, will make the fact that the atmosphere prevents some 30% of radiation from reaching the surface, less true.

      GHE enthusiasts insist that reducing the energy input raises surface temperature. Nonsense.

      CO2 has no magic planet heating (“hottest year EVAH!) properties.

      You can’t even find a relevant falsifiable hypothesis, suggesting a possible explanation for such a claim, that doesn’t involve magic at some point.

      Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn said: “Your hypothesis — has precisely no relevance whatsoever to the GHE.”

        From the reference (http://john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm) it is clear that CO2 interacts with radiation at frequencies which typically radiate heat to space from the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.

        Would you please explain what the consequences of this change in energy flow might be? You might find Grant Petty’s book “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation.” with particular reference to figure 10.8 useful.

        If the energy flow change is not a GHE, then could you please explain what would be?

        Please note that I am here defining the effect, not demonstrating it.

      • 4kx3,

        You wrote –

        ” . . .it is clear that CO2 interacts with radiation at frequencies which typically radiate heat to space from the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. . .”

        True, but it is irrelevant. It still doesn’t cause the Earth’s temperature to increase. All gases interact with all frequencies of EMR, believe it or not.

        A sufficient deep cloud of gas will absorb 100% of the energy impinging upon it. It will be as opaque as a sheet of lead or iron, for example.

        John Tyndall showed that CO2 absorbs about 1750 times as much IR of a particular wavelength as CO2. In 10,000 air molecules, about 4 are CO2. The 4 CO2 molecules absorb 4 x 1750 rays, or 7000. The 9996 other air molecules absorb 9996 x 1 – 9996. Yes, the atmosphere prevents about 30% or more of the incoming radiation from even reaching the surface! In direct sunlight, even!

        I generally don’t play number games, but . . .

        But what happens after the CO2 interacts with light, (EMR if you wish)? It depends. If the photon is at precisely the correct frequency, an electron will absorb it, and almost simultaneously emit one of the precisely the same frequency, which means exactly the same energy.

        Contrary to the maunderings of some who should know better, if an atom emits precisely the same amount of energy as is absorbed, the atom remains unchanged. There is no energy “left behind” or “trapped”.

        In any other case, all or some of the photon’s momentum (it has no rest mass, of course), may be transferred to the atom. This may result in the speed and direction of the atom (or molecule) changing. May.

        If the average speed of the gas atoms or molecules increases, this will be perceived as “temperature rise”. As Tyndall pointed out, any gas which is heated, will also cool if allowed to do so.

        The CO2 which comes out of your lungs has a temperature close to 37 C. If the surrounding atmosphere is colder than this, the expired CO2 cools very rapidly.

        In the case of the Earth, a point on the surface generally heats up in sunlight, and cools in its absence. You should have noticed that the surface and atmosphere generally cool at night.

        People talking about “energy balance” or “energy flow” in relation to a purported GHE are shouting through their hats, stridently shrieking nonsense from their Fortress of Ignorance.

        The atmosphere has a mild insulating effect. The maximum temperature variations resulting from the unconcentrated rays of the Sun range from -90 C or so, to around 90C. Say 180 K range. The Moon has a far greater range. It has no atmosphere.

        Sorry, but you still haven’t provided a falsifiable hypothesis proposing a mechanism whereby CO2 in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the planet (as in “Hottest year EVAH!”).

        The Earth has cooled, in any case. Notwithstanding CO2 in the atmosphere at far higher levels than are current.

        Facts are superior to fantasy where I am concerned. If you believe I have erred, please quote my words, and provide facts to back up your assertion.

        Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn wrote:
        “Contrary to the maunderings of some who should know better, if an atom emits precisely the same amount of energy as is absorbed, the atom remains unchanged. There is no energy “left behind” or “trapped”.”

        Yes, there is, since the photons being absorbed are coming come from below, and the re-radiated photons are emitted in random directions, some of them downward. That creates a net change in energy flux.

      • If MF only understood that point from DA, he would change his mind about the effects of GHGs. But he doesn’t, and he won’t ever. It is pointless, because now he will ignore it completely and change subjects. This is a predictable pattern.

  39. RickA: You might then be interested in the cooling part. Note that CO2 radiation is mostly non LTE, whereas the GCM’s seem to be, as far as I can tell, all LTE.

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/warming-culprit-co2-has-cool-side-%E2%80%94-and-it%E2%80%99s-antarctica?mode=magazine&context=2322

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/abstract

  40. September JIASO PDO index in at .45, a slight decline from August’s .52.

    Ya just can’t count on natural variability.

  41. David Appell,

    I point out that N2 can be liquified by allowing it to radiate IR.

    You demand –

    “Let’s see your data on N2’s aborption spectrum in the IR.”

    N2 will absorb all wavelengths of EMR. Some more than others, obviously. An infinite thickness of any gas will absorb all EMR.

    According to Tyndall, at 30 inches of pressure, and the IR wavelength corresponding to a temperature of about 270 C, N2 has about 1/90 of the absorption of CO2. What specific wavelengths, pressures, and optical density are you enquiring about? What efforts have you made to find out for youself?

    If you fancy doing a bit of research, you might need to specify wavelength, pressure and optical thickness – blathering on about overcoats might be easier. The radiate transfer equations will allow you to calculate the absorption if you wish, although I don’t believe you are actually seeing knowledge.

    You might consider how oxygen and nitrogen can be heated or cooled anyway. Just for fun, no extra marks, briefly explain how compressing air, suddenly, raises the temperature of all its constituents to exactly the same level. Follow this up with a brief explanation of how the compressed air falls in temperature, even though the pressure may remain the same.

    Cheers.

    • Mike Flynn commented:
      “N2 will absorb all wavelengths of EMR. Some more than others, obviously.”

      Again: let’s see your data on N2’s absorption spectrum.

    • Mike Flynn commented:
      “You might consider how oxygen and nitrogen can be heated or cooled anyway.”

      You are confusing classical heating with quantum absorption and emission. There would be no greenhouse effect without the latter.

      How much energy does it take to heat 1 mole of N2 by 1 deg C at STP?

    • Mike Flynn wrote:
      “N2 will absorb all wavelengths of EMR. Some more than others, obviously. An infinite thickness of any gas will absorb all EMR.”

      Here is Earth’s outgoing EM spectrum. Where in this graph is N2’s atmospheric absorption?

      • David Appell,

        I assume you are pretending to be lacking in comprehension.

        With which part of my statement are you disagreeing? Why do you persist in changing the subject and denying basic physics?

        Cheers.

    • David Appell,

      You persist in asking pointless questions, presumably in bad faith.

      What are you on about? Are you incapable of doing trivial calculations? Can you not find a relevant table on the internet?

      I help the needy, not the greedy. If you demonstrate that you are really as ignorant as you claim, and provide some evidence that you have actually made an effort to seek answers to your questions through your own efforts, I might assist you.

      Cheers.

    • Mike Flynn wrote:
      “You persist in asking pointless questions, presumably in bad faith.”

      I’ve asked you lots of questions. You’ve avoided answering all of them. Much like Trump, you prefer to get personal instead.

  42. Here’s how it is David Appell. N2 will absorb all wavelengths of EMR. Some more than others, obviously. An infinite thickness of any gas will absorb all EMR.

    If you have any information to the contrary, please present it. You appear to deny the basis of the radiative transfer equations, and physics in general, let alone the ability of gases both to be heated, and subsequently cool.

    In the meantime, maybe you should stick to the practise of Climatological Cargo Cult Science. This involves the persistent seeking answers to questions, asked in bad faith, from your intellectual superiors. Overcoat fixation is optional.

    Cheers.

  43. David Appell,

    What in blue blazes does the absorption spectrum of nitrogen, oxygen, neon, argon, CO2 or any other gas have to do with the non existent falsifiable hypothesis attempting to provide an explanation for the supposed planet heating properties of CO2?

    Are you truly mentally deficient, or playing some sort of strange journalistic game?

    A rational person might first propose a falsifiable hypothesis, then devise a reproducible experiment capable of disproving your hypothesis. Not “proving” it, but showing it to be false.

    If you can’t, you are just making non-disprovable assertions. A matter of faith, rather than science. Climatological Cargo Cult Scientism, no more, no less.

    Or you can just prance and pirouette, diverting, denying, and obfuscating furiously. Or just maintain your fixation on overcoats – or pot lids, if overcoats lose their fascination.

    Cheers.

    • Mike Flynn wrote:
      “Are you truly mentally deficient, or playing some sort of strange journalistic game?”

      More insults in lieu of science. Because insults are all you have left.

    • Mike Flynn: Your reply to this question?

      https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/07/week-in-review-science-edition-58/#comment-817197

      PS: There’s a reason why all greenhouse gases have molecules consisting of three or more atoms. Know what it is?

      • David Appell,

        If you know the answer, why bother asking me? Are you trying to imply I accept the GHE nonsense? You can’t even coherently define what a greenhouse gas is.

        Certainly nothing to do with greenhouses, and nothing to do with heating, either!

        Maybe the the GHE is a figment of your imagination – can you prove otherwise? I thought not.

        Why don’t you ask a self styled scientist like Steven Mosher? You can agree with each other, I suppose. That might transform fantasy into fact, but I doubt it.

        Cheers.

    • “CO2 or any other gas have to do with the non existent falsifiable hypothesis attempting to provide an explanation for the supposed planet heating properties of CO2?”

      C02 reduces cooling Flat earth Flynn Flammer

    • Mike Flynn commented:
      “If you know the answer, why bother asking me?”

      More diversions :-)

      Do you admit then that N2 has no significant impact on the Earth’s greenhouse effect?

      That it isn’t a significant absorber of IR emitted from the Earth?

      • David Appell,

        What are you on about?

        The Earth doesn’t have a greenhouse effect. No gas could have a significant impact on something that doesn’t exist, surely.

        The atmosphere (including O2, N2, and a smidgen of other gases) prevents about 30% of the Sun’s radiation from reaching the Earth’s surface. Do you really believe that lowering the amount of energy reaching an object increases its temperature?

        Say, by placing the object further away from a heat source so it receives 30% less energy? Maybe you could call the energy reduction “IR” – and assign magic heating properties to it!

        If you ever figure out a way to heat something with CO2, let me know. No, don’t let me know. Make the enormous fortune yourself! You deserve everything you get!

        Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn:

        Why do you keep avoiding the question?

        You went on about how N2 adsorbs EM radiation.

        I asked you where that absorption shows up in the outgoing TOA spectrum of the Earth.

        Why won’t you answer that simple question?

  44. Whether or not he nailed it on Hurricane Matthew, Chris Mooney, being the hack that he is, just used it to shill for Hillary:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/11/al-gore-and-hillary-clinton-just-strongly-linked-hurricane-matthew-to-climate-change/

  45. From the article:

    Ontario’s Society of Professional Engineers has issued more than half a dozen critical reports on the Liberals’ tendency to let green talk and politics override sound policy. Instead of following the expert advice of engineers and people who understand the intricacies of electricity production and distribution, the government took to issuing directives right out the Premier’s office.

    “Because they know how to turn a light bulb on and off, they’ll issue policy statements on the most complex engineering system on the planet,” said Paul Acchione, a former head of the engineers’ society.

    Toronto consultant Jon Kieran, who has helped develop Ontario’s solar industry, recently wrote that the renewables program based on paying financial and project developers to build large wind and solar plans has morphed into “green corporate welfare.”

    The initial idea of replacing coal with renewables “was a good idea 10 years ago,” he said, but the implementation has been a “fiasco” based on a fundamental misreading of the electricity sector.

    Through subsidies and feed-in tariffs, the government promoted a massive expansion of Ontario’s electricity capacity. At the same time, demand for electricity went into decline as economic growth slowed and consumers cut back on electricity needs. Soaring supply, falling demand and mandatory pricing is a recipe for economic chaos.

    Consumers watched their electricity commodity costs doubled to 11 cents a kWh this year from 5.5 cents in 2006 — plus rising transmission and distribution costs — with more to come in future years. The average unit cost of electricity service rose at an annual nominal rate of 6.4 per cent, equal to 3.7 per cent a year after inflation.

    http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/boondoggle-how-ontarios-pursuit-of-renewable-energy-broke-the-provinces-electricity-system?__lsa=441c-114c