Return of “The Plug”
I want to discuss the recent Kaufman study which purports to reconcile flat temperatures over the last 10-12 years with high-sensitivity warming forecasts. First, let me set the table for this post, and to save time (things are really busy this week in my real job) I will quote from a previous post on this topic
Nearly a decade ago, when I first started looking into climate science, I began to suspect the modelers were using what I call a “plug” variable. I have decades of experience in market and economic modeling, and so I am all too familiar with the temptation to use one variable to “tune” a model, to make it match history more precisely by plugging in whatever number is necessary to make the model arrive at the expected answer.
When I looked at historic temperature and CO2 levels, it was impossible for me to see how they could be in any way consistent with the high climate sensitivities that were coming out of the IPCC models. Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10 (I show this analysis in more depth in this video).
My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).
The answer to this paradox came in a 2007 study by climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl. To understand his findings, we need to understand a bit of background on aerosols. Aerosols are man-made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth’s climate.
What Kiehl demonstrated was that these aerosols are likely the answer to my old question about how models with high sensitivities are able to accurately model historic temperatures. When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.
Specifically, when he looked at the climate models used by the IPCC, Kiehl found they all used very different assumptions for aerosol cooling and, most significantly, he found that each of these varying assumptions were exactly what was required to combine with that model’s unique sensitivity assumptions to reproduce historical temperatures. In my terminology, aerosol cooling was the plug variable.
So now we can turn to Kaufman, summarized in this article and with full text here. In the context of the Kiehl study discussed above, Kaufman is absolutely nothing new.
Kaufmann et al declare that aerosol cooling is “consistent with” warming from manmade greenhouse gases.
In other words, there is some value that can be assigned to aerosol cooling that offsets high temperature sensitives to rising CO2 concentrations enough to mathematically spit out temperatures sortof kindof similar to those over the last decade. But so what? All Kaufman did is, like every other climate modeler, find some value for aerosols that plugged temperatures to the right values.
Let’s consider an analogy. A big Juan Uribe fan (plays 3B for the SF Giants baseball team) might argue that the 2010 Giants World Series run could largely be explained by Uribe’s performance. They could build a model, and find out that the Giants 2010 win totals were entirely consistent with Uribe batting .650 for the season.
What’s the problem with this logic? After all, if Uribe hit .650, he really would likely have been the main driver of the team’s success. The problem is that we know what Uribe hit, and he batted under .250 last year. When real facts exist, you can’t just plug in whatever numbers you want to make your argument work.
But in climate, we are not sure what exactly the cooling effect of aerosols are. For related coal particulate emissions, scientists are so unsure of their effects they don’t even know the sign (ie are they net warming or cooling). And even if they had a good handle on the effects of aerosol concentrations, no one agrees on the actual numbers for aerosol concentrations or production.
And for all the light and noise around Kaufman, the researchers did just about nothing to advance the ball on any of these topics. All they did was find a number that worked, that made the models spit out the answer they wanted, and then argue in retrospect that the number was reasonable, though without any evidence.
Beyond this, their conclusions make almost no sense. First, unlike CO2, aerosols are very short lived in the atmosphere – a matter of days rather than decades. Because of this, they are poorly mixed, and so aerosol concentrations are spotty and generally can be found to the east (downwind) of large industrial complexes (see sample map here).
Which leads to a couple of questions. First, if significant aerosol concentrations only cover, say, 10% of the globe, doesn’t that mean that to get a 0.5 degree cooling effect for the whole Earth, there must be a 5 degree cooling effect in the affected area. Second, if this is so (and it seems unreasonably large), why have we never observed this cooling effect in the regions with high concentrations of manmade aerosols. I understand the effect can be complicated by changes in cloud formation and such, but that is just further reasons we should be studying the natural phenomenon and not generating computer models to spit out arbitrary results with no basis in observational data.
Judith Currey does not find the study very convincing, and points to this study by Remer et al in 2008 that showed no change in atmospheric aerosol depths through the heart of the period of supposed increases in aerosol cooling.
So the whole basis for the study is flawed – its based on the affect of increasing aerosol concentrations that actually are not increasing. Just because China is producing more does not apparently mean there is more in the atmosphere – it may be reductions in other areas like the US and Europe are offsetting Chinese emissions or that nature has mechanisms for absorbing and eliminating the increased emissions.
By the way, here was Curry’s response, in part:
This paper points out that global coal consumption (primarily from China) has increased significantly, although the dataset referred to shows an increase only since 2004-2007 (the period 1985-2003 was pretty stable). The authors argue that the sulfates associated with this coal consumption have been sufficient to counter the greenhouse gas warming during the period 1998-2008, which is similar to the mechanism that has been invoked to explain the cooling during the period 1940-1970.
I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference). Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance.
Curry offers the alternative explanation of natural variability offsetting Co2 warming, which I think is partly true. Though Occam’s Razor has to force folks at some point to finally question whether high (3+) temperature sensitivities to CO2 make any sense. Seriously, isn’t all this work on aerosols roughly equivalent to trying to plug in yet more epicycles to make the Ptolemaic model of the universe continue to work?
Postscript: I will agree that there is one very important affect of the ramp-up of Chinese coal-burning that began around 2004 — the melting of Arctic Ice. I strongly believe that the increased summer melts of Arctic ice are in part a result of black carbon from Asia coal burning landing on the ice and reducing its albedo (and greatly accelerating melt rates). Look here when Arctic sea ice extent really dropped off, it was after 2003. Northern Polar temperatures have been fairly stable in the 2000′s (the real run-up happened in the 1990′s). The delays could be just inertia in the ocean heating system, but Arctic ice melting sure seems to correlate better with black carbon from China than it does with temperature.
I don’t think there is anything we could do with a bigger bang for the buck than to reduce particulate emissions from Asian coal. This is FAR easier than CO2 emissions reductions — its something we have done in the US for nearly 40 years.
Climate Nonconformist:
The aerosol theory is just a pretty lame excuse for the lack of warming. It doesn’t stand up sto scrutiny and appears more to be a sort of hit and hope.
The IPCC claimed that it could not explain the late 20th century warming without CO2. Now they can’t explain the lack of warming with it.
July 7, 2011, 6:51 pmRenewable Guy:
Climate Nonconformist:
The aerosol theory is just a pretty lame excuse for the lack of warming. It doesn’t stand up sto scrutiny and appears more to be a sort of hit and hope.
The IPCC claimed that it could not explain the late 20th century warming without CO2. Now they can’t explain the lack of warming with it.
###################################
If you read the link provided by Warren Meyer, the whole paper is explaining the reflection of the aerosols.
July 7, 2011, 7:43 pmRenewable Guy:
So the whole basis for the study is flawed – its based on the affect of increasing aerosol concentrations that actually are not increasing.
((((((Just because China is producing more does not apparently mean there is more in the atmosphere))))))) –
it may be reductions in other areas like the US and Europe are offsetting Chinese emissions or that nature has mechanisms for absorbing and eliminating the increased emissions.
#######################################
That statement is pretty weak in itself. It would be a rare situation that if you burned more sulpher laden coal and get the same or less aerosols.
July 7, 2011, 7:47 pmRenewable Guy:
The delays could be just inertia in the ocean heating system, but Arctic ice melting sure seems to correlate better with black carbon from China than it does with temperature.
############################################
Black carbon absorbs energy rather than reflect it back out off of the snow.
Trying to avoid calling co2 a pollutant?
A lot of the balck carbon comes from people cooking with dung. Trying to put this on the poor rather than the industrialists?
July 7, 2011, 7:57 pmRenewable Guy:
I understand the effect can be complicated by changes in cloud formation and such, but that is just further reasons we should be studying the natural phenomenon and not generating computer models to
((((((spit out arbitrary results with no basis in observational data.))))))
#######################################################
Interesting statement. We have talked about models before. I would venture to say that the models give us a lot of good information about the trends of climate starting with Hansen’s 1988 model. And the models have improved since then.
July 7, 2011, 8:04 pmRenewable Guy:
And for all the light and noise around Kaufman, the esearchers did just about nothing to advance the ball on any of these topics. All they did was find a number that worked, that made the models spit out the answer they wanted, and then argue in retrospect that the number was reasonable, though without any evidence.
##########################################
I’ve yet to see Warren prove this true. I suppose if you repeat it often enough maybe, just maybe you can even override the science of climate.
July 7, 2011, 8:06 pmRenewable Guy:
Nearly a decade ago, when I first started looking into climate science, I began to suspect the modelers were using what I call a “plug” variable.
#####################################
I guess when you are a blogger, you don’t have to be accountable to reality. I’ve yet to see one example of this fudging to make the computer get the right answer.
July 7, 2011, 8:10 pmChanBkr:
This is a timely post for me, for which I think you. I knew that aerosols were their explanation for the level temperatures since 1998, but I have been wondering how aerosols could possibly have appeared in just precisely the amounts necessary to counteract warming, which, when you stop to think about it, is quite a coincidence. Now I know — they just assume it. Very satisfactory.
July 7, 2011, 9:14 pmAndy:
Wow renewable you comment allot ..Since solar and wind is both being developed what is the problem ? not quick enough ?
July 8, 2011, 2:44 amI think one of your lines should read …
I suppose if you repeat it often enough maybe, just maybe the science of climate can even override reality.
Since there are contributing factors the scientists admit are not fully understood I view their worst case scenarios are not established fact and you can quote anything under the sun and it will not change the difference between a real truth and a convenient truth to keep the funding floodgates open.
If you think the science is settled why not halve the funding on climate and put it towards renewable energy ?
netdr:
The point that interests me is that since aerosols are short lived in order to achieve the incredible amount of cooling globally that they are assigned the effect would have to be 5 ° C cooling effect locally downwind of China and other major polluters.
This has never been observed. [Enough said?]
The climate scientists want to ignore the obvious documented effect of El Nino’s and La Nina’s.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
July 8, 2011, 7:24 amPauld:
Renewable says: “I guess when you are a blogger, you don’t have to be accountable to reality. I’ve yet to see one example of this fudging to make the computer get the right answer.”
See: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007)
Stephen E. Schwartz, Robert J. Charlson and Henning Rodhe, Quantifying Climate Change – Too Rosy a Picture?, 2 Nature Reports: Climate Change 23 (2007)
.
Reto Knutti, Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well?, 35 Geo. Res. Lett. L18704 (2008).
All these articles can be found in full on the internet through Google.
July 8, 2011, 8:10 amTed Rado:
The “fudge factor” strikes again! In my pre-retiring computer modelling days, if I had used fudge factors rather than rigorous models, I would have been fired, and rightly so! For God’s sake, you can fit any data, real or fudged, with a computer model. So what? If the model doesn’t work next year, dream up a new fudge factor. Chinese aerosols this year, camel dung next year, little green men from Mars the year after. A model that is not based on well understood first principles is not only worthless, it is dangerous. These fudge-filled models are being used to argue for the end of our industrial civilization.
July 8, 2011, 8:36 amnetdr:
Renewable says: “I guess when you are a blogger, you don’t have to be accountable to reality. I’ve yet to see one example of this fudging to make the computer get the right answer.”
July 8, 2011, 1:21 pm***********
Do you really think that a climate modeller would go to the window and shout “I am about to tweak my aerosol values to make my climate model match historical values more closely “?
.
The fact that different models with different sensitivities back cast the same is proof enough that they have done so. [They also may have tweaked more than one variable .]
.
How else can you explain it ?
.
Only one [at most] can be correct, so the others are obviously incorrect. Since all models have failed miserably when attempting to predict the future possibly all values so far proposed are incorrect.
netdr:
“Which leads to a couple of questions. First, if significant aerosol concentrations only cover, say, 10% of the globe, doesn’t that mean that to get a 0.5 degree cooling effect for the whole Earth, there must be a 5 degree cooling effect in the affected area”
Wow! Yes! Those numbers that you just pulled out of your arse can be combined to give a third number! But in your woeful state of truly disgusting ignorance, you are completely unaware that the numbers that come out of your arse mean absolutely nothing at all.
July 8, 2011, 1:22 pmTed Rado:
Yes, netdr, you are quite right. He obviously hasn’t even heard of Mount Pinatubo, and the effect of the volcanic aerosols on the climate. These effects were accurately predicted by climate models.
July 8, 2011, 1:25 pmRenewable Guy:
PaulD:
See: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007)
#####################
This one does not talk about fudging the computer to get the right answer. Do you see a form of cheating here?
July 8, 2011, 3:48 pmRenewable Guy:
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/knutti2008.pdf
The
figure shows that the combined natural and anthropogenic
radiative forcings are a consistent explanation for the
observed changes in these models, whereas natural forcings
alone cannot explain the observations. The natural forcings
fail to explain the observed spatio-temporal patterns even if
their response is inflated. Projections over the next few
decades and their uncertainties are not sensitive to the
magnitude of the aerosol forcing (see Figures 1l and 1o)
as long as the sulphate to greenhouse forcing ratio remains
similar [Allen et al., 2000].
#########################################
Its an interesting discussion of how the same results can be obtained with different parameters within the model. This ought to be so easy to understand, all you do is constrain the model to observations that are measureable.
Interesting comment on aerosols. They don’t matter that much in the long run over decades.
July 8, 2011, 4:33 pmRenewable Guy:
NetDr:
Only one [at most] can be correct, so the others are obviously incorrect. Since all models have failed miserably when attempting to predict the future possibly all values so far proposed are incorrect.
##########################
Like I said Hansen got it right enough. One of his predictions was that the artic ice would significantly melt. Anthony Watts denied that one for a long time.
July 8, 2011, 4:49 pmRenewable Guy:
Ted Rado:
I think it would easy to know the sulpher content of Chinese coal, how much they burned, how much sulpher per ton, and the time the aerosols stay in the atmosphere. Plus Indian coal and the rest of Asia.
Hmmmm the more coal burned, the more aerosols. What’s so hard about that?
July 8, 2011, 4:54 pmRenewable Guy:
Andy:
Since there are contributing factors the scientists admit are not fully understood I view their worst case scenarios are not established fact and you can quote anything under the sun and it will not change the difference between a real truth and a convenient truth to keep the funding floodgates open.
If you think the science is settled why not halve the funding on climate and put it towards renewable energy ?
############################
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/knutti2008.pdf
[2] Detection and attribution studies show that most of
the observed surface warming over the last fifty years is
‘very likely’ (>90% probability) caused by anthropogenic
forcing, and ‘very unlikely’ due to internal variability or
known natural forcings [Hegerl et al., 2007].
###############################
co2 is going to keep us warm at night.
July 8, 2011, 5:05 pmnetdr:
The last post using my name was submitted by the troll named Waldo. [AKA Humpty Dumpty]
I don’t need to resort to insults and made up climate models because pointing out the inconsistencies of climate alarmism is easy.
BTW: Did you ever find a reasonably correct climate model ?
I predict that you will not respond.
July 8, 2011, 6:17 pmnetdr:
Renewable Guy:
NetDr:
Only one [at most] can be correct, so the others are obviously incorrect. Since all models have failed miserably when attempting to predict the future possibly all values so far proposed are incorrect.
##########################
Like I said Hansen got it right enough. One of his predictions was that the artic [sic] ice would significantly melt. Anthony Watts denied that one for a long time.
**********
No his model was so wrong that actual temperatures were below the level of scenario “C” which was with stringent CO2 controls which didn’t happen. [It was a CONTROL not a prediction !] The 2007 defense made it look pretty good but as of 2011 it stinks. Since the rate of warming has gone flat and the predicted temperature goes up each year the prediction looks worse.
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-hansen-model-another-very-simple-disproof-of-anthropogenic-global-warming
I see that even the alarmists have finally acknowledged the lack of warming since 1998. [Trenberth 2011] They use the tried and true unknown aerosols as an excuse for the missing warming. The missing heat obviously isn’t hiding in the oceans is it? They postulate it is being radiated back into space too fast.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
When confronted with the missing warming [if sensitivity is as high as they say it is] the alarmists blame it on the missing heat. Seems like a double problem for them.
THE MORE YOU KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE THE MORE IMMUNE YOU ARE TO CLIMATE ALARMISM.
July 8, 2011, 6:52 pmWillie Soon:
I took millions of dollars worth of energy money just so people like netdr and Ted Rado can feel like they KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE.
July 8, 2011, 7:08 pmRenewable Guy:
NetDr:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
Interesting point to be made Net. This fits right into Warren’s point about sulphates. That would help to flatten out temperature rise along with the solar minimum. Hansen wouldn’t be able to predict China using enormous amounts of coal.
Instead of a opinionated blog, try a real scientist.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
In most branches of science, when experimental results falsify the original hypothesis, scientists discard or modify the original hypothesis. In Hansen’s case, he just pitches the story with zealotry rarely seen outside of lunatic asylums…
###########
This language fits your thinking about climate change. This kind of extreme language isn’t used by scientists.
July 8, 2011, 10:12 pmRenewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
A 1981 Science publication by Hansen and a team of scientists at Goddard concluded that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to warming sooner than previously predicted. They used a one-dimensional radiative-convective model that calculates temperature as a function of height. They reported that the results from the 1D model are similar to the more complex 3D models, and can simulate basic mechanisms and feedbacks.[36] Hansen predicted that temperatures would rise out of the climate noise by the 1990s, much earlier than predicted by other researches. He also predicted that it would be difficult to convince politicians and the public to react.[37]
#########################
Hansen got it right about the politicians and the public.
He got it right about rising out of the climate noise also.
July 8, 2011, 10:18 pmRenewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
The first climate prediction computed from a general circulation model that was published by Hansen was in 1988, the same year as his well-known Senate testimony. It used the second generation of the GISS model to estimate the change in mean surface temperature based on a variety of scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions. Hansen concluded that global warming would be evident within the next few decades, and that it would result in temperatures at least as high as during the Eemian.
(((((((He argued that, if the temperature rises 0.4 °C above the 1950-1980 mean for a few years, it is the “smoking gun” pointing to human-caused global warming.[39]))))))
#######################
Hansen got it right.
The eemian had much higher sea level of 5 to 7 meters higher than today with only 300 ppm co2. And we are 392 ppm and climbing. The earth is quite sensitive to changes in co2
July 8, 2011, 10:24 pmRenewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
Following the launch of spacecraft capable of determining temperatures, Roy Spencer and John Christy published the first version of their satellite temperature measurements in 1990. Contrary to climate models and surface measurements, their results showed a cooling in the troposphere.[41] In 1998, Wentz and Schabel determined that orbital decay had an effect on the derived temperatures.[42] Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it.[43]
#############################
Those were the good old days when global warming was so deniable. And now its not as bad as the scientists say it is. There’s only one problem with that scenario. The scientists are conservative about their findings.
July 8, 2011, 10:29 pmRenewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
Hansen has continued the development and diagnostics of climate models. For instance, he has helped look at the decadal trends in tropopause height, which could be a useful tool for determining the human “fingerprint” on climate.[44] As of 12 February 2009 (2009 -02-12)[update], the current version of the GISS model is Model E. This version has seen improvements in many areas, including upper-level winds, cloud height, and precipitation. This model still has problems with regions of marine stratocumulus clouds.[45] A later paper showed that the model’s main problems are having too weak of an ENSO-like variability, and poor sea ice modeling, resulting in too little ice in the Southern Hemisphere and too much in the Northern Hemisphere.[46]
#############################
And the scientists know what the weaknesses of their models are.
July 8, 2011, 10:31 pmRenewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
Hansen stresses the uncertainties around these predictions. “It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem … An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway.”[48] He concludes that “present knowledge does not permit accurate specification of the dangerous level of human-made [greehouse gases]. However, it is much lower than has commonly been assumed. If we have not already passed the dangerous level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures that we will pass it within several decades.”[48]
#############################
I’m ready to change but you guys aren’t. If Hansen is right and the political delay is successful, we all deal with it together.
July 8, 2011, 10:37 pmpauld:
Renewable: I would suggest that instead of spewing out so many posts, that you write fewer and concentrate hard on improving their quality and relevance.
July 9, 2011, 4:20 amnetdr:
Renewable
The scientists can claim that their models are better now and will predict the future. That is what anyone would claim. The question is will they ? Only results count. Since it takes 20 years to validate a model by the time they figure out the truth it will be 2100.
The last published predictions I have been able to find did poorly. Do you or Humpty have any model outputs which didn’t “jump the shark” ?
Why are all model predictions too high? I have written computer models and know that a workman like job would have some too high and some too low bracketing the truth. I think they never publish the low ones, they are bad for the sale of mousemilk.
July 9, 2011, 6:23 amnetdr:
The purpose of a climate model isn’t to correctly predict future temperature warmer or cooler. It is to generate fear.
.
Since the models which don’t generate fear will never be published all published models will be wrong.
.
This is one of NetDr’s laws.
.
“All published climate models will seriously overestimate warming.”
.
There haven’t been any which violate that law yet.
I don’t think a model which predicts 2 or 3 times as much warming as happens is any good but some people are more charitable than I am.
July 9, 2011, 6:52 amRedoubtable Guy:
Does anyone know where I can download a filter to bypass the comments by Renewable Guy? From the thought content displayed in his comments, it looks as if he is paid by the number of comments, rather than by plausible argument.
July 9, 2011, 9:28 amRenewable Guy:
netdr:
The purpose of a climate model isn’t to correctly predict future temperature warmer or cooler. It is to generate fear.
.
Since the models which don’t generate fear will never be published all published models will be wrong.
.
This is one of NetDr’s laws.
################################
Anther law that you have is that you don’t listen to facts. You just replace them with your opinions.
July 9, 2011, 11:09 amRenewable Guy:
pauld:
Renewable: I would suggest that instead of spewing out so many posts, that you write fewer and concentrate hard on improving their quality and relevance.
###########################
I was splitting up the same article into smaller peices.
July 9, 2011, 11:11 amRenewable Guy:
http://www.ecogeek.org/solar-power/3551-solar-plant-in-spain-generates-energy-for-24-strai?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EcoGeek+%28EcoGeek%29
24 hour generation with solar
July 9, 2011, 11:12 amAlex:
I am normally quiet, but… Renewable Guy, you write at least as many posts as all others taken together, have been doing that for months. Yet somehow almost nothing you write is worth replying to. Think about it.
July 9, 2011, 11:26 amWaldo:
Yes Renewable, because Alex’s replies are so worth your time and effort.
So Alex, what do you think about the allegations against Willie Soon. Any opinions?
July 9, 2011, 12:48 pmRenewable Guy:
Alex:
I am normally quiet, but… Renewable Guy, you write at least as many posts as all others taken together, have been doing that for months. Yet somehow almost nothing you write is worth replying to. Think about it.
######################################
It’s back to the argument of models and Hansen.
It may not be relevant to you because it doesn’t support your point.
My point is the models are relevant and Hansen is good at it.
It is a common reaction amongst deniers to shut out the science. Science meaning observations of the reality of climate. Somehow a social movement to counter it by reducing co2 emissions is just against your point of view. That is the basis of our differences.
July 9, 2011, 1:47 pmRenewable Guy:
Alex:
July 9, 2011, 3:19 pmI am normally quiet
######################
I’m not quiet about global warming.
TheChuckr:
Level temperatures or slightly falling global temperatures as measured by satellite (not Hansen’s fudged GISS numbers), since 1998. while CO2 continues to rise, no “hotspot” near the equator (see http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/new-paper-illustrates-another-failure-of-the-ipcc-mullti-decadal-global-model-predictions-on-the-warming-in-the-tropical-upper-troposphere-models-versus-observations-by-fu-et-al-2011/), and sea level rise of 1-2 mm per year, and new studies demonstrating that GCM’s have no skill in forecasting future climate change (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/new-paper-built-for-stability-by-paul-valdes-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-the-ipcc-models-as-skillful-multi-decadal-climate-forecasting-tools/). Tell us again about how accurate the computer models are.
July 9, 2011, 5:46 pmRenewable Guy:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/new-paper-built-for-stability-by-paul-valdes-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-the-ipcc-models-as-skillful-multi-decadal-climate-forecasting-tools/
State-of-the-art climate models are largely untested against actual occurrences of abrupt change. It is a huge leap of faith to assume that simulations of the coming century with these models will provide reliable warning of sudden, catastrophic events.”
####################
The models are not good at this, that is true. There is a difference between the sudden events and the slow moving ones. In the paleoclimatic records, the scientists are aware of the sudden oscillating events in the past. The climate will have some nasty surprises for us if we continue on with co2 emissions. Some of them the scientists aren’t able to predict because there isn’t enough information on.
July 9, 2011, 6:29 pmRenewable Guy:
TheChuckr:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/new-paper-built-for-stability-by-paul-valdes-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-the-ipcc-models-as-skillful-multi-decadal-climate-forecasting-tools/
In two cases, the models did not adequately capture the basic climate configuration before abrupt change ensued, and in the remaining two examples, to initiate abrupt change the models needed external nudging that is up to ten times stronger than reconstructed. The models seem to be too stable.”
“In the meantime, we need to be cautious. If anything, the models are underestimating change, compared with the geological record. According to the evidence from the past, the Earth’s climate is sensitive to small changes, whereas the climate models seem to require a much bigger disturbance to produce abrupt change. Simulations of the coming century with the current generation of complex models may be giving us a false sense of security.”
############################
If you choose to read the article, the scientists are quite aware of the shortcomings of the model. Fully understanding the model isn’t sensitive enough to the past paleoclimatic history. Another words the model is to conservative to reproduce the history.
I don’t know if I’ve talked to you before. If you are skeptic or denier I encourage you to read and understand the science also. This article you presented to me really wasn’t any devastating blow to models. If you read on James Hansen wikipedia page, they go over the weaknesses of the latest model he has been working on.
Models are inherantly wrong on some things. The good modeler knows the strengths and weaknesses of their models.
July 9, 2011, 6:39 pmRenewable Guy:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/09/264294/government-investment-in-innovation-is-needed-to-overcome-the-%e2%80%9cvalley-of-death%e2%80%9d/#more-264294
Some people on here are libertarians believing. that gov should stay completely out of business. I would argue that it would always put us behind every gov supported business in the world. The public private partnership started back with Abraham Lincoln if not earlier. The gov builds all the support that our businesses can be the best in the world. WIthout that we will become importers over exporting.
July 9, 2011, 6:47 pmTheChuckr:
Renewable, I am a skeptic and have no respect whatsoever for Jim Hansen who uses his position to promote political activism on my (taxpayer) dime and fudges temperature records to further his and this administration’s agenda. As usual you bob and weave and fail to address the points made by me and other posters. So let’s try again, where is the hotspot, why are temperatures level or slightly decreasing since 1998 while C02 increases, why is the sea level rise only 1-2 MM per year, and where is Trenbarth’s missing heat in the ocean?
July 9, 2011, 7:13 pmRenewable Guy:
TheChuckr:
why are temperatures level or slightly decreasing since 1998 while C02 increases,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_yearshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
Here is the temperature record, 2010 tied 2005. 10 of the top 11 warmest years are the 2000′s. Hansen who has not spent a single dime of yours protesting AGW increase has predicted a high probability of 2012 setting a new warmest year on record.
#################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-intermediate.htm
The tropospheric hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate (Bengtsson 2009, Trenberth 2006, Ramaswamy 2006). As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it’s more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. For example, it cools at around 4°C per kilometre at the equator but a much larger 8 to 9°C per kilometre at the subtropics.
#########################################
This is just a start of the explanation of hotspots. The lapse rate is the rate at which the water vapor cools as it rises above the earth. The latent heat is when the water vapor condenses. The hot spot would be the location of the condensation in the sky.
#######################################################
When the surface warms, there’s more evaporation and more moisture in the air. This decreases the lapse rate – there’s less cooling aloft. This means warming aloft is greater than warming at the surface. This amplified trend is the hot spot. It’s all to do with changes in the lapse rate, regardless of what’s causing the warming.
((((((If the warming was caused by a brightening sun or reduced sulphate pollution, you’d still see a hot spot.)))))))
####################################################
Whether there is a hotspot or no hotspot, its just a part of meteorology whether its global warming or not. As the oceans warm, there will be an increase of latent heat into the atmosphere. That is a potent source of energy in our future storms.
July 9, 2011, 8:21 pmRenewable Guy:
why is the sea level rise only 1-2 MM per year
#######################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm
Figure 2: Observed rate of sea-level rise (red) compared with reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature (dark blue with light blue uncertainty range). Grey line is reconstructed sea level from an earlier, simpler relationship between sea level and temperature (Vermeer 2009).
################################
It appears from this graph that we are above 3 and approaching 4 mm/year.
################################
I believe that we don’t have instrumentation to truly get to the bottom of the ocean. The ocean is absorbing over 90% of the heat from the sun. Once the ocean warms up from co2, we are stuck with a warmer earth whether its good or not. We will just have to adapt.
########################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
Skeptics use Trenberth’s email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth’s opinions didn’t need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature – and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.
July 9, 2011, 8:45 pmAlex:
All right.
Waldo:
“Yes Renewable, because Alex’s replies are so worth your time and effort.” – Yes.
“So Alex, what do you think about the allegations against Willie Soon. Any opinions?” – No opinion.
Renewable Guy:
“It’s back to the argument of models and Hansen.” – OK, let’s see what your argument is.
“It may not be relevant to you because it doesn’t support your point.” – Smear. Classy.
“My point is the models are relevant and Hansen is good at it.” – Define “relevant” and “good at it”.
“It is a common reaction amongst deniers to shut out the science. Science meaning observations of the reality of climate. Somehow a social movement to counter it by reducing co2 emissions is just against your point of view. That is the basis of our differences.” – Smears and accusations.
Bla bla bla and no substance.
July 9, 2011, 10:07 pmRenewable Guy:
Alex:
July 9, 2011, 10:38 pmWould you care to discuss anything? Make a commitment. YOu won’t die if you express an opinion.
Alex:
Fine. Since the only thing related to science in your reply to me is the mention of Hansen, I state that Hansen’s 1988 predictions miss the mark, and consequently that the particular model used by Hansen to make those predictions can not be trusted to predict the future. I also state that I am currently aware of no model that can be trusted to predict the future based on similar verification tests. Do you agree with this? No talk of backcasting, please, successful backcasts do not prove the predictive power of a model.
July 9, 2011, 11:21 pmnetdr:
Alex
I have repeatedly asked renewable and Waldo [Humpty Dumpty] for reasonably accurate climate models which have been published.
There haven’t been any and won’t be any since the purpose of the models is to cause panic and accurate models wouldn’t do that.
All poor managers use the hockey stick trick. [See below]
What they should and will do is predict slow cooling for 30 years and then magically remove aerosols some time in the future [like 30 years] and the temperature will soar. They can be right for 30 years and retire being correct and still keep their alarmist credentials untarnished. When the warming fails to occur they will be safely retired or dead.
The next 30 years should show more La Nina’s than El Nino’s [Negative PDO] and it should cool regardless of what CO2 is released. The declining sunspots should exaggerate this effect.
I am not impressed by statements that “We took X, Y,and Z into account in our models. [Did they do it right and did they weight it right ?] “Trust Us” is their motto. Only accurate predictions evaluate the accuracy of the models and so far there haven’t been any accurate [published] models. [at least none that I or Humpty or renewable can find] The 1998 to present lack of warming caught them all flat footed.
BTW: the sea level is rising at a rate of 3 MM per year or 1 cigarette length in 30 years and the rate has been FALLING in the last few years.
Since it hasn’t warmed since 1998 it is to be expected that the rate would go down and shouldn’t surprise anyone.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
The alarmists have even had to add sea level adjustments of .1 MM per year because reality didn’t suit them. They even admitted it.
This artificially added sea level won’t get my beach towel wet will it?
July 10, 2011, 7:21 amTed Rado:
netdr: which of the following model predictions have you evaluated? Please describe your evaluations, for three of your choice.
Boer, G.J., et al. (1992). “Some Results from an Intercomparison of the Climates Simulated by 14 Atmospheric General Circulation Models.” J. Geophysical Research 97: 12771-86.
Boville, Byron A., and Peter R. Gent (1998). “The NCAR Climate System Model, Version One.” Journal of Climate 11: 1115-30.
Bryan, Kirk, et al. (1975). “A Global Ocean-Atmosphere Climate Model. Part II. The Oceanic Circulation.” J. Physical Oceanography 5: 30-46.
Bryan, Kirk, et al. (1988). “Interhemispheric Asymmetry in the Transient Response of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model to a CO2 Forcing.” J. Physical Oceanography 18: 851-67 [doi: 10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018<0851].
Bryson, Reid A., and Gerald J. Dittberner (1976). "A Non-Equilibrium Model of Hemispheric Mean Surface Temperature." J. Atmospheric Sciences 33: 2094-2106.
Charlock, Thomas P., and William D. Sellers (1980). "Aerosol Effects on Climate: Calculations with Time-Dependent and Steady-State Radiative-Convective Models." J. Atmospheric Sciences 37: 1327-41.
Coakley, James A., Jr., et al. (1983). "The Effect of Tropospheric Aerosols on the Earth's Radiation Budget: A Parameterization for Climate Models." J. Atmospheric Sciences 40: 116-38.
COHMAP, COHMAP project members (1988). "Climatic Changes of the Last 18,000 Years: Observations and Model Simulations." Science 241: 1043-52.
Cox, Peter M., et al. (2000). "Acceleration of Global Warming Due to Carbon-Cycle Feedbacks in a Coupled Climate Model." Nature 408: 184-87.
Cubasch, Ulrich, et al. (1992). "Time-Dependent Greenhouse Warming Computations with a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model." Climate Dynamics 8: 55-69 [doi:10.1007/BF00209163].
Dickinson, Robert E. (1989). "Use of Numerical Models to Project Greenhouse Gas-Induced Warming in Polar Regions." In Ozone Depletion, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change. Proceedings of a Joint Symposium, edited by Commission on Physical Sciences National Research Council, Mathematics and Resources, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Committee on Global Change, pp. 98-102. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Faegre, A. (1972). "An Intransitive Model of the Earth-Atmosphere-Ocean System." J. Applied Meteorology 11: 4-6.
Gates, W. Lawrence (1976). "The Numerical Simulation of Ice-Age Climate with a Global General Circulation Model." J. Atmospheric Sciences 33: 1844-73.
Govindasamy, Bara, et al. (2005). "Increase of Carbon Cycle Feedback with Climate Sensitivity: Results from a Coupled Climate and Carbon Cycle Model." Tellus B 57: 153-63 [doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0889.2005.00135.x].
Hansen, James E., et al. (1983). "Efficient Three-Dimensional Global Models for Climate Studies: Models I and II." Monthly Weather Review 111: 609-62.
Imbrie, John, and John Z. Imbrie (1980). "Modelling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations." Science 207: 943-53.
Jones, A., et al. (1994). "A Climate Model Study of Indirect Radiative Forcing by Anthropogenic Sulphate Aerosols." Nature 370: 450-53 [doi: 10.1038/370450a0].
Knutti, Reto, et al. (2002). "Constraints on Radiative Forcing and Future Climate Change from Observations and Climate Model Ensembles." Nature 416: 719-22.
Manabe, Syukuro, and Richard T. Wetherald (1975). "The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the Climate of a General Circulation Model." J. Atmospheric Sciences 32: 3-15.
Manabe, Syukuro, and A.J. Broccoli (1985). "A Comparison of Climate Model Sensitivity with the Data from the Last Glacial Maximum." J. Atmospheric Sciences 42: 2643-51.
Myhre, Gunnar (2009). "Consistency between Satellite-Derived and Modeled Estimates of the Direct Aerosol Effect." Science 325: 187-90 [doi:10.1126/science.1174461].
Pisias, Nicklas G., and Nicholas J. Shackleton (1984). "Modelling the Global Climate Response to Orbital Forcing and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Changes." Nature 310: 757-59.
Ramanathan, V., and James A. Coakley, Jr. (1978). "Climate Modeling through Radiative Convective Models." Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 16: 465-89.
Schlesinger, Michael E. (1984). "Climate Model Simulations of CO2-Induced Climatic Change." Advances in Geophysics 26: 141-235.
Sellers, William D. (1969). "A Global Climatic Model Based on the Energy Balance of the Earth-Atmosphere System." J. Applied Meteorology 8: 392-400. Online here.
Wilson, C.A., and J.F.B. Mitchell (1987). "A Doubled CO2 Climate Senstivity Experiment with a Global Climate Model Including a Simple Ocean." J. Geophysical Research 92: 13315-13343.
July 10, 2011, 12:44 pmRenewable Guy:
Alex:
Fine. Since the only thing related to science in your reply to me is the mention of Hansen, I state that Hansen’s 1988 predictions miss the mark, and consequently that the particular model used by Hansen to make those predictions can not be trusted to predict the future. I also state that I am currently aware of no model that can be trusted to predict the future based on similar verification tests. Do you agree with this? No talk of backcasting, please, successful backcasts do not prove the predictive power of a model.
##########################################
Every model has a weakness. Backcasting will also find the weaknesses. Hansen had a high sensitivity in his model and guessed at that the co2 would be higher. He would not be able to tell that china would burn high sulpher coal to put in more reflection in the atmosphere.
Part of modeling is taking an educated guess at the future which we are living in now from his point of view.
A really good way to test his model from 1988 is to take that same model today and put in the correct values of past co2, so4, the really deep solar min we have come out of, etc. Would it hindcast back to 1988 correctly.
Plugging and chugging a model is part guessing what the future will be. If you look at the models from two articles ago, I argued trends in there. Hansen got the trends correct.
July 10, 2011, 2:46 pmRenewable Guy:
« Just 20 YearsReturn of “The Plug”
July 7, 2011, 4:01 pm I want to discuss the recent Kaufman study which purports to reconcile flat temperatures over the last 10-12 years with high-sensitivity warming forecasts. First, let me set the table for this post, and to save time (things are really busy this week in my real job) I will quote from a previous post on this topic
Nearly a decade ago, when I first started looking into climate science, I began to suspect the modelers were using what I call a “plug” variable. I have decades of experience in market and economic modeling, and so I am all too familiar with the temptation to use one variable to “tune” a model, to make it match history more precisely by plugging in whatever number is necessary to make the model arrive at the expected answer.
When I looked at historic temperature and CO2 levels, it was impossible for me to see how they could be in any way consistent with the high climate sensitivities that were coming out of the IPCC models. Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10 (I show this analysis in more depth in this video).
My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).
The answer to this paradox came in a 2007 study by climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl. To understand his findings, we need to understand a bit of background on aerosols. Aerosols are man-made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth’s climate.
What Kiehl demonstrated was that these aerosols are likely the answer to my old question about how models with high sensitivities are able to accurately model historic temperatures. When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.
Specifically, when he looked at the climate models used by the IPCC, Kiehl found they all used very different assumptions for aerosol cooling and, most significantly, he found that each of these varying assumptions were exactly what was required to combine with that model’s unique sensitivity assumptions to reproduce historical temperatures. In my terminology, aerosol cooling was the plug variable.
So now we can turn to Kaufman, summarized in this article and with full text here. In the context of the Kiehl study discussed above, Kaufman is absolutely nothing new.
Kaufmann et al declare that aerosol cooling is “consistent with” warming from manmade greenhouse gases.
In other words, there is some value that can be assigned to aerosol cooling that offsets high temperature sensitives to rising CO2 concentrations enough to mathematically spit out temperatures sortof kindof similar to those over the last decade. But so what? All Kaufman did is, like every other climate modeler, find some value for aerosols that plugged temperatures to the right values.
Let’s consider an analogy. A big Juan Uribe fan (plays 3B for the SF Giants baseball team) might argue that the 2010 Giants World Series run could largely be explained by Uribe’s performance. They could build a model, and find out that the Giants 2010 win totals were entirely consistent with Uribe batting .650 for the season.
What’s the problem with this logic? After all, if Uribe hit .650, he really would likely have been the main driver of the team’s success. The problem is that we know what Uribe hit, and he batted under .250 last year. When real facts exist, you can’t just plug in whatever numbers you want to make your argument work.
But in climate, we are not sure what exactly the cooling effect of aerosols are. For related coal particulate emissions, scientists are so unsure of their effects they don’t even know the sign (ie are they net warming or cooling). And even if they had a good handle on the effects of aerosol concentrations, no one agrees on the actual numbers for aerosol concentrations or production.
And for all the light and noise around Kaufman, the researchers did just about nothing to advance the ball on any of these topics. All they did was find a number that worked, that made the models spit out the answer they wanted, and then argue in retrospect that the number was reasonable, though without any evidence.
Beyond this, their conclusions make almost no sense. First, unlike CO2, aerosols are very short lived in the atmosphere – a matter of days rather than decades. Because of this, they are poorly mixed, and so aerosol concentrations are spotty and generally can be found to the east (downwind) of large industrial complexes (see sample map here).
Which leads to a couple of questions. First, if significant aerosol concentrations only cover, say, 10% of the globe, doesn’t that mean that to get a 0.5 degree cooling effect for the whole Earth, there must be a 5 degree cooling effect in the affected area. Second, if this is so (and it seems unreasonably large), why have we never observed this cooling effect in the regions with high concentrations of manmade aerosols. I understand the effect can be complicated by changes in cloud formation and such, but that is just further reasons we should be studying the natural phenomenon and not generating computer models to spit out arbitrary results with no basis in observational data.
Judith Currey does not find the study very convincing, and points to this study by Remer et al in 2008 that showed no change in atmospheric aerosol depths through the heart of the period of supposed increases in aerosol cooling.
So the whole basis for the study is flawed – its based on the affect of increasing aerosol concentrations that actually are not increasing. Just because China is producing more does not apparently mean there is more in the atmosphere – it may be reductions in other areas like the US and Europe are offsetting Chinese emissions or that nature has mechanisms for absorbing and eliminating the increased emissions.
By the way, here was Curry’s response, in part:
This paper points out that global coal consumption (primarily from China) has increased significantly, although the dataset referred to shows an increase only since 2004-2007 (the period 1985-2003 was pretty stable). The authors argue that the sulfates associated with this coal consumption have been sufficient to counter the greenhouse gas warming during the period 1998-2008, which is similar to the mechanism that has been invoked to explain the cooling during the period 1940-1970.
I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference). Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance.
Curry offers the alternative explanation of natural variability offsetting Co2 warming, which I think is partly true. Though Occam’s Razor has to force folks at some point to finally question whether high (3+) temperature sensitivities to CO2 make any sense. Seriously, isn’t all this work on aerosols roughly equivalent to trying to plug in yet more epicycles to make the Ptolemaic model of the universe continue to work?
Postscript: I will agree that there is one very important affect of the ramp-up of Chinese coal-burning that began around 2004 — the melting of Arctic Ice. I strongly believe that the increased summer melts of Arctic ice are in part a result of black carbon from Asia coal burning landing on the ice and reducing its albedo (and greatly accelerating melt rates). Look here when Arctic sea ice extent really dropped off, it was after 2003. Northern Polar temperatures have been fairly stable in the 2000′s (the real run-up happened in the 1990′s). The delays could be just inertia in the ocean heating system, but Arctic ice melting sure seems to correlate better with black carbon from China than it does with temperature.
I don’t think there is anything we could do with a bigger bang for the buck than to reduce particulate emissions from Asian coal. This is FAR easier than CO2 emissions reductions — its something we have done in the US for nearly 40 years.
Category: Temperature History, Warming Forecasts | Comment (RSS)
53 Comments
Climate Nonconformist:
The aerosol theory is just a pretty lame excuse for the lack of warming. It doesn’t stand up sto scrutiny and appears more to be a sort of hit and hope.
The IPCC claimed that it could not explain the late 20th century warming without CO2. Now they can’t explain the lack of warming with it.
July 7, 2011, 6:51 pm Renewable Guy:
Climate Nonconformist:
The aerosol theory is just a pretty lame excuse for the lack of warming. It doesn’t stand up sto scrutiny and appears more to be a sort of hit and hope.
The IPCC claimed that it could not explain the late 20th century warming without CO2. Now they can’t explain the lack of warming with it.
###################################
If you read the link provided by Warren Meyer, the whole paper is explaining the reflection of the aerosols.
July 7, 2011, 7:43 pm Renewable Guy:
So the whole basis for the study is flawed – its based on the affect of increasing aerosol concentrations that actually are not increasing.
((((((Just because China is producing more does not apparently mean there is more in the atmosphere))))))) –
it may be reductions in other areas like the US and Europe are offsetting Chinese emissions or that nature has mechanisms for absorbing and eliminating the increased emissions.
#######################################
That statement is pretty weak in itself. It would be a rare situation that if you burned more sulpher laden coal and get the same or less aerosols.
July 7, 2011, 7:47 pm Renewable Guy:
The delays could be just inertia in the ocean heating system, but Arctic ice melting sure seems to correlate better with black carbon from China than it does with temperature.
############################################
Black carbon absorbs energy rather than reflect it back out off of the snow.
Trying to avoid calling co2 a pollutant?
A lot of the balck carbon comes from people cooking with dung. Trying to put this on the poor rather than the industrialists?
July 7, 2011, 7:57 pm Renewable Guy:
I understand the effect can be complicated by changes in cloud formation and such, but that is just further reasons we should be studying the natural phenomenon and not generating computer models to
((((((spit out arbitrary results with no basis in observational data.))))))
#######################################################
Interesting statement. We have talked about models before. I would venture to say that the models give us a lot of good information about the trends of climate starting with Hansen’s 1988 model. And the models have improved since then.
July 7, 2011, 8:04 pm Renewable Guy:
And for all the light and noise around Kaufman, the esearchers did just about nothing to advance the ball on any of these topics. All they did was find a number that worked, that made the models spit out the answer they wanted, and then argue in retrospect that the number was reasonable, though without any evidence.
##########################################
I’ve yet to see Warren prove this true. I suppose if you repeat it often enough maybe, just maybe you can even override the science of climate.
July 7, 2011, 8:06 pm Renewable Guy:
Nearly a decade ago, when I first started looking into climate science, I began to suspect the modelers were using what I call a “plug” variable.
#####################################
I guess when you are a blogger, you don’t have to be accountable to reality. I’ve yet to see one example of this fudging to make the computer get the right answer.
July 7, 2011, 8:10 pm ChanBkr:
This is a timely post for me, for which I think you. I knew that aerosols were their explanation for the level temperatures since 1998, but I have been wondering how aerosols could possibly have appeared in just precisely the amounts necessary to counteract warming, which, when you stop to think about it, is quite a coincidence. Now I know — they just assume it. Very satisfactory.
July 7, 2011, 9:14 pm Andy:
Wow renewable you comment allot ..Since solar and wind is both being developed what is the problem ? not quick enough ?
I think one of your lines should read …
I suppose if you repeat it often enough maybe, just maybe the science of climate can even override reality.
Since there are contributing factors the scientists admit are not fully understood I view their worst case scenarios are not established fact and you can quote anything under the sun and it will not change the difference between a real truth and a convenient truth to keep the funding floodgates open.
If you think the science is settled why not halve the funding on climate and put it towards renewable energy ?
July 8, 2011, 2:44 am netdr:
The point that interests me is that since aerosols are short lived in order to achieve the incredible amount of cooling globally that they are assigned the effect would have to be 5 ° C cooling effect locally downwind of China and other major polluters.
This has never been observed. [Enough said?]
The climate scientists want to ignore the obvious documented effect of El Nino’s and La Nina’s.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
July 8, 2011, 7:24 am Pauld:
Renewable says: “I guess when you are a blogger, you don’t have to be accountable to reality. I’ve yet to see one example of this fudging to make the computer get the right answer.”
See: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007)
Stephen E. Schwartz, Robert J. Charlson and Henning Rodhe, Quantifying Climate Change – Too Rosy a Picture?, 2 Nature Reports: Climate Change 23 (2007)
.
Reto Knutti, Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well?, 35 Geo. Res. Lett. L18704 (2008).
All these articles can be found in full on the internet through Google.
July 8, 2011, 8:10 am Ted Rado:
The “fudge factor” strikes again! In my pre-retiring computer modelling days, if I had used fudge factors rather than rigorous models, I would have been fired, and rightly so! For God’s sake, you can fit any data, real or fudged, with a computer model. So what? If the model doesn’t work next year, dream up a new fudge factor. Chinese aerosols this year, camel dung next year, little green men from Mars the year after. A model that is not based on well understood first principles is not only worthless, it is dangerous. These fudge-filled models are being used to argue for the end of our industrial civilization.
July 8, 2011, 8:36 am netdr:
Renewable says: “I guess when you are a blogger, you don’t have to be accountable to reality. I’ve yet to see one example of this fudging to make the computer get the right answer.”
***********
Do you really think that a climate modeller would go to the window and shout “I am about to tweak my aerosol values to make my climate model match historical values more closely “?
.
The fact that different models with different sensitivities back cast the same is proof enough that they have done so. [They also may have tweaked more than one variable .]
.
How else can you explain it ?
.
Only one [at most] can be correct, so the others are obviously incorrect. Since all models have failed miserably when attempting to predict the future possibly all values so far proposed are incorrect.
July 8, 2011, 1:21 pm netdr:
“Which leads to a couple of questions. First, if significant aerosol concentrations only cover, say, 10% of the globe, doesn’t that mean that to get a 0.5 degree cooling effect for the whole Earth, there must be a 5 degree cooling effect in the affected area”
Wow! Yes! Those numbers that you just pulled out of your arse can be combined to give a third number! But in your woeful state of truly disgusting ignorance, you are completely unaware that the numbers that come out of your arse mean absolutely nothing at all.
July 8, 2011, 1:22 pm Ted Rado:
Yes, netdr, you are quite right. He obviously hasn’t even heard of Mount Pinatubo, and the effect of the volcanic aerosols on the climate. These effects were accurately predicted by climate models.
July 8, 2011, 1:25 pm Renewable Guy:
PaulD:
See: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007)
#####################
This one does not talk about fudging the computer to get the right answer. Do you see a form of cheating here?
July 8, 2011, 3:48 pm Renewable Guy:
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/knutti2008.pdf
The
figure shows that the combined natural and anthropogenic
radiative forcings are a consistent explanation for the
observed changes in these models, whereas natural forcings
alone cannot explain the observations. The natural forcings
fail to explain the observed spatio-temporal patterns even if
their response is inflated. Projections over the next few
decades and their uncertainties are not sensitive to the
magnitude of the aerosol forcing (see Figures 1l and 1o)
as long as the sulphate to greenhouse forcing ratio remains
similar [Allen et al., 2000].
#########################################
Its an interesting discussion of how the same results can be obtained with different parameters within the model. This ought to be so easy to understand, all you do is constrain the model to observations that are measureable.
Interesting comment on aerosols. They don’t matter that much in the long run over decades.
July 8, 2011, 4:33 pm Renewable Guy:
NetDr:
Only one [at most] can be correct, so the others are obviously incorrect. Since all models have failed miserably when attempting to predict the future possibly all values so far proposed are incorrect.
##########################
Like I said Hansen got it right enough. One of his predictions was that the artic ice would significantly melt. Anthony Watts denied that one for a long time.
July 8, 2011, 4:49 pm Renewable Guy:
Ted Rado:
I think it would easy to know the sulpher content of Chinese coal, how much they burned, how much sulpher per ton, and the time the aerosols stay in the atmosphere. Plus Indian coal and the rest of Asia.
Hmmmm the more coal burned, the more aerosols. What’s so hard about that?
July 8, 2011, 4:54 pm Renewable Guy:
Andy:
Since there are contributing factors the scientists admit are not fully understood I view their worst case scenarios are not established fact and you can quote anything under the sun and it will not change the difference between a real truth and a convenient truth to keep the funding floodgates open.
If you think the science is settled why not halve the funding on climate and put it towards renewable energy ?
############################
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/knutti2008.pdf
[2] Detection and attribution studies show that most of
the observed surface warming over the last fifty years is
‘very likely’ (>90% probability) caused by anthropogenic
forcing, and ‘very unlikely’ due to internal variability or
known natural forcings [Hegerl et al., 2007].
###############################
co2 is going to keep us warm at night.
July 8, 2011, 5:05 pm netdr:
The last post using my name was submitted by the troll named Waldo. [AKA Humpty Dumpty]
I don’t need to resort to insults and made up climate models because pointing out the inconsistencies of climate alarmism is easy.
BTW: Did you ever find a reasonably correct climate model ?
I predict that you will not respond.
July 8, 2011, 6:17 pm netdr:
Renewable Guy:
NetDr:
Only one [at most] can be correct, so the others are obviously incorrect. Since all models have failed miserably when attempting to predict the future possibly all values so far proposed are incorrect.
##########################
Like I said Hansen got it right enough. One of his predictions was that the artic [sic] ice would significantly melt. Anthony Watts denied that one for a long time.
**********
No his model was so wrong that actual temperatures were below the level of scenario “C” which was with stringent CO2 controls which didn’t happen. [It was a CONTROL not a prediction !] The 2007 defense made it look pretty good but as of 2011 it stinks. Since the rate of warming has gone flat and the predicted temperature goes up each year the prediction looks worse.
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-hansen-model-another-very-simple-disproof-of-anthropogenic-global-warming
I see that even the alarmists have finally acknowledged the lack of warming since 1998. [Trenberth 2011] They use the tried and true unknown aerosols as an excuse for the missing warming. The missing heat obviously isn’t hiding in the oceans is it? They postulate it is being radiated back into space too fast.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
When confronted with the missing warming [if sensitivity is as high as they say it is] the alarmists blame it on the missing heat. Seems like a double problem for them.
THE MORE YOU KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE THE MORE IMMUNE YOU ARE TO CLIMATE ALARMISM.
July 8, 2011, 6:52 pm Willie Soon:
I took millions of dollars worth of energy money just so people like netdr and Ted Rado can feel like they KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE.
July 8, 2011, 7:08 pm Renewable Guy:
NetDr:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
Interesting point to be made Net. This fits right into Warren’s point about sulphates. That would help to flatten out temperature rise along with the solar minimum. Hansen wouldn’t be able to predict China using enormous amounts of coal.
Instead of a opinionated blog, try a real scientist.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
In most branches of science, when experimental results falsify the original hypothesis, scientists discard or modify the original hypothesis. In Hansen’s case, he just pitches the story with zealotry rarely seen outside of lunatic asylums…
###########
This language fits your thinking about climate change. This kind of extreme language isn’t used by scientists.
July 8, 2011, 10:12 pm Renewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
A 1981 Science publication by Hansen and a team of scientists at Goddard concluded that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to warming sooner than previously predicted. They used a one-dimensional radiative-convective model that calculates temperature as a function of height. They reported that the results from the 1D model are similar to the more complex 3D models, and can simulate basic mechanisms and feedbacks.[36] Hansen predicted that temperatures would rise out of the climate noise by the 1990s, much earlier than predicted by other researches. He also predicted that it would be difficult to convince politicians and the public to react.[37]
#########################
Hansen got it right about the politicians and the public.
He got it right about rising out of the climate noise also.
July 8, 2011, 10:18 pm Renewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
The first climate prediction computed from a general circulation model that was published by Hansen was in 1988, the same year as his well-known Senate testimony. It used the second generation of the GISS model to estimate the change in mean surface temperature based on a variety of scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions. Hansen concluded that global warming would be evident within the next few decades, and that it would result in temperatures at least as high as during the Eemian.
(((((((He argued that, if the temperature rises 0.4 °C above the 1950-1980 mean for a few years, it is the “smoking gun” pointing to human-caused global warming.[39]))))))
#######################
Hansen got it right.
The eemian had much higher sea level of 5 to 7 meters higher than today with only 300 ppm co2. And we are 392 ppm and climbing. The earth is quite sensitive to changes in co2
July 8, 2011, 10:24 pm Renewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
Following the launch of spacecraft capable of determining temperatures, Roy Spencer and John Christy published the first version of their satellite temperature measurements in 1990. Contrary to climate models and surface measurements, their results showed a cooling in the troposphere.[41] In 1998, Wentz and Schabel determined that orbital decay had an effect on the derived temperatures.[42] Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it.[43]
#############################
Those were the good old days when global warming was so deniable. And now its not as bad as the scientists say it is. There’s only one problem with that scenario. The scientists are conservative about their findings.
July 8, 2011, 10:29 pm Renewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
Hansen has continued the development and diagnostics of climate models. For instance, he has helped look at the decadal trends in tropopause height, which could be a useful tool for determining the human “fingerprint” on climate.[44] As of 12 February 2009 (2009 -02-12)[update], the current version of the GISS model is Model E. This version has seen improvements in many areas, including upper-level winds, cloud height, and precipitation. This model still has problems with regions of marine stratocumulus clouds.[45] A later paper showed that the model’s main problems are having too weak of an ENSO-like variability, and poor sea ice modeling, resulting in too little ice in the Southern Hemisphere and too much in the Northern Hemisphere.[46]
#############################
And the scientists know what the weaknesses of their models are.
July 8, 2011, 10:31 pm Renewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
Hansen stresses the uncertainties around these predictions. “It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem … An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway.”[48] He concludes that “present knowledge does not permit accurate specification of the dangerous level of human-made [greehouse gases]. However, it is much lower than has commonly been assumed. If we have not already passed the dangerous level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures that we will pass it within several decades.”[48]
#############################
I’m ready to change but you guys aren’t. If Hansen is right and the political delay is successful, we all deal with it together.
July 8, 2011, 10:37 pm pauld:
Renewable: I would suggest that instead of spewing out so many posts, that you write fewer and concentrate hard on improving their quality and relevance.
July 9, 2011, 4:20 am netdr:
Renewable
The scientists can claim that their models are better now and will predict the future. That is what anyone would claim. The question is will they ? Only results count. Since it takes 20 years to validate a model by the time they figure out the truth it will be 2100.
The last published predictions I have been able to find did poorly. Do you or Humpty have any model outputs which didn’t “jump the shark” ?
Why are all model predictions too high? I have written computer models and know that a workman like job would have some too high and some too low bracketing the truth. I think they never publish the low ones, they are bad for the sale of mousemilk.
July 9, 2011, 6:23 am netdr:
The purpose of a climate model isn’t to correctly predict future temperature warmer or cooler. It is to generate fear.
.
Since the models which don’t generate fear will never be published all published models will be wrong.
.
This is one of NetDr’s laws.
.
“All published climate models will seriously overestimate warming.”
.
There haven’t been any which violate that law yet.
I don’t think a model which predicts 2 or 3 times as much warming as happens is any good but some people are more charitable than I am.
July 9, 2011, 6:52 am Redoubtable Guy:
Does anyone know where I can download a filter to bypass the comments by Renewable Guy? From the thought content displayed in his comments, it looks as if he is paid by the number of comments, rather than by plausible argument.
July 9, 2011, 9:28 am Renewable Guy:
netdr:
The purpose of a climate model isn’t to correctly predict future temperature warmer or cooler. It is to generate fear.
.
Since the models which don’t generate fear will never be published all published models will be wrong.
.
This is one of NetDr’s laws.
################################
Anther law that you have is that you don’t listen to facts. You just replace them with your opinions.
July 9, 2011, 11:09 am Renewable Guy:
pauld:
Renewable: I would suggest that instead of spewing out so many posts, that you write fewer and concentrate hard on improving their quality and relevance.
###########################
I was splitting up the same article into smaller peices.
July 9, 2011, 11:11 am Renewable Guy:
http://www.ecogeek.org/solar-power/3551-solar-plant-in-spain-generates-energy-for-24-strai?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EcoGeek+%28EcoGeek%29
24 hour generation with solar
July 9, 2011, 11:12 am Alex:
I am normally quiet, but… Renewable Guy, you write at least as many posts as all others taken together, have been doing that for months. Yet somehow almost nothing you write is worth replying to. Think about it.
July 9, 2011, 11:26 am Waldo:
Yes Renewable, because Alex’s replies are so worth your time and effort.
So Alex, what do you think about the allegations against Willie Soon. Any opinions?
July 9, 2011, 12:48 pm Renewable Guy:
Alex:
I am normally quiet, but… Renewable Guy, you write at least as many posts as all others taken together, have been doing that for months. Yet somehow almost nothing you write is worth replying to. Think about it.
######################################
It’s back to the argument of models and Hansen.
It may not be relevant to you because it doesn’t support your point.
My point is the models are relevant and Hansen is good at it.
It is a common reaction amongst deniers to shut out the science. Science meaning observations of the reality of climate. Somehow a social movement to counter it by reducing co2 emissions is just against your point of view. That is the basis of our differences.
July 9, 2011, 1:47 pm Renewable Guy:
Alex:
I am normally quiet
######################
I’m not quiet about global warming.
July 9, 2011, 3:19 pm TheChuckr:
Level temperatures or slightly falling global temperatures as measured by satellite (not Hansen’s fudged GISS numbers), since 1998. while CO2 continues to rise, no “hotspot” near the equator (see http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/new-paper-illustrates-another-failure-of-the-ipcc-mullti-decadal-global-model-predictions-on-the-warming-in-the-tropical-upper-troposphere-models-versus-observations-by-fu-et-al-2011/), and sea level rise of 1-2 mm per year, and new studies demonstrating that GCM’s have no skill in forecasting future climate change (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/new-paper-built-for-stability-by-paul-valdes-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-the-ipcc-models-as-skillful-multi-decadal-climate-forecasting-tools/). Tell us again about how accurate the computer models are.
July 9, 2011, 5:46 pm Renewable Guy:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/new-paper-built-for-stability-by-paul-valdes-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-the-ipcc-models-as-skillful-multi-decadal-climate-forecasting-tools/
State-of-the-art climate models are largely untested against actual occurrences of abrupt change. It is a huge leap of faith to assume that simulations of the coming century with these models will provide reliable warning of sudden, catastrophic events.”
####################
The models are not good at this, that is true. There is a difference between the sudden events and the slow moving ones. In the paleoclimatic records, the scientists are aware of the sudden oscillating events in the past. The climate will have some nasty surprises for us if we continue on with co2 emissions. Some of them the scientists aren’t able to predict because there isn’t enough information on.
July 9, 2011, 6:29 pm Renewable Guy:
TheChuckr:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/new-paper-built-for-stability-by-paul-valdes-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-the-ipcc-models-as-skillful-multi-decadal-climate-forecasting-tools/
In two cases, the models did not adequately capture the basic climate configuration before abrupt change ensued, and in the remaining two examples, to initiate abrupt change the models needed external nudging that is up to ten times stronger than reconstructed. The models seem to be too stable.”
“In the meantime, we need to be cautious. If anything, the models are underestimating change, compared with the geological record. According to the evidence from the past, the Earth’s climate is sensitive to small changes, whereas the climate models seem to require a much bigger disturbance to produce abrupt change. Simulations of the coming century with the current generation of complex models may be giving us a false sense of security.”
############################
If you choose to read the article, the scientists are quite aware of the shortcomings of the model. Fully understanding the model isn’t sensitive enough to the past paleoclimatic history. Another words the model is to conservative to reproduce the history.
I don’t know if I’ve talked to you before. If you are skeptic or denier I encourage you to read and understand the science also. This article you presented to me really wasn’t any devastating blow to models. If you read on James Hansen wikipedia page, they go over the weaknesses of the latest model he has been working on.
Models are inherantly wrong on some things. The good modeler knows the strengths and weaknesses of their models.
July 9, 2011, 6:39 pm Renewable Guy:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/09/264294/government-investment-in-innovation-is-needed-to-overcome-the-%e2%80%9cvalley-of-death%e2%80%9d/#more-264294
Some people on here are libertarians believing. that gov should stay completely out of business. I would argue that it would always put us behind every gov supported business in the world. The public private partnership started back with Abraham Lincoln if not earlier. The gov builds all the support that our businesses can be the best in the world. WIthout that we will become importers over exporting.
July 9, 2011, 6:47 pm TheChuckr:
Renewable, I am a skeptic and have no respect whatsoever for Jim Hansen who uses his position to promote political activism on my (taxpayer) dime and fudges temperature records to further his and this administration’s agenda. As usual you bob and weave and fail to address the points made by me and other posters. So let’s try again, where is the hotspot, why are temperatures level or slightly decreasing since 1998 while C02 increases, why is the sea level rise only 1-2 MM per year, and where is Trenbarth’s missing heat in the ocean?
July 9, 2011, 7:13 pm Renewable Guy:
TheChuckr:
why are temperatures level or slightly decreasing since 1998 while C02 increases,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_yearshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
Here is the temperature record, 2010 tied 2005. 10 of the top 11 warmest years are the 2000′s. Hansen who has not spent a single dime of yours protesting AGW increase has predicted a high probability of 2012 setting a new warmest year on record.
#################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-intermediate.htm
The tropospheric hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate (Bengtsson 2009, Trenberth 2006, Ramaswamy 2006). As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it’s more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. For example, it cools at around 4°C per kilometre at the equator but a much larger 8 to 9°C per kilometre at the subtropics.
#########################################
This is just a start of the explanation of hotspots. The lapse rate is the rate at which the water vapor cools as it rises above the earth. The latent heat is when the water vapor condenses. The hot spot would be the location of the condensation in the sky.
#######################################################
When the surface warms, there’s more evaporation and more moisture in the air. This decreases the lapse rate – there’s less cooling aloft. This means warming aloft is greater than warming at the surface. This amplified trend is the hot spot. It’s all to do with changes in the lapse rate, regardless of what’s causing the warming.
((((((If the warming was caused by a brightening sun or reduced sulphate pollution, you’d still see a hot spot.)))))))
####################################################
Whether there is a hotspot or no hotspot, its just a part of meteorology whether its global warming or not. As the oceans warm, there will be an increase of latent heat into the atmosphere. That is a potent source of energy in our future storms.
July 9, 2011, 8:21 pm Renewable Guy:
why is the sea level rise only 1-2 MM per year
#######################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm
Figure 2: Observed rate of sea-level rise (red) compared with reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature (dark blue with light blue uncertainty range). Grey line is reconstructed sea level from an earlier, simpler relationship between sea level and temperature (Vermeer 2009).
################################
It appears from this graph that we are above 3 and approaching 4 mm/year.
################################
I believe that we don’t have instrumentation to truly get to the bottom of the ocean. The ocean is absorbing over 90% of the heat from the sun. Once the ocean warms up from co2, we are stuck with a warmer earth whether its good or not. We will just have to adapt.
########################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
Skeptics use Trenberth’s email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth’s opinions didn’t need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature – and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.
July 9, 2011, 8:45 pm Alex:
All right.
Waldo:
“Yes Renewable, because Alex’s replies are so worth your time and effort.” – Yes.
“So Alex, what do you think about the allegations against Willie Soon. Any opinions?” – No opinion.
Renewable Guy:
“It’s back to the argument of models and Hansen.” – OK, let’s see what your argument is.
“It may not be relevant to you because it doesn’t support your point.” – Smear. Classy.
“My point is the models are relevant and Hansen is good at it.” – Define “relevant” and “good at it”.
“It is a common reaction amongst deniers to shut out the science. Science meaning observations of the reality of climate. Somehow a social movement to counter it by reducing co2 emissions is just against your point of view. That is the basis of our differences.” – Smears and accusations.
Bla bla bla and no substance.
July 9, 2011, 10:07 pm Renewable Guy:
Alex:
Would you care to discuss anything? Make a commitment. YOu won’t die if you express an opinion.
July 9, 2011, 10:38 pm Alex:
Fine. Since the only thing related to science in your reply to me is the mention of Hansen, I state that Hansen’s 1988 predictions miss the mark, and consequently that the particular model used by Hansen to make those predictions can not be trusted to predict the future. I also state that I am currently aware of no model that can be trusted to predict the future based on similar verification tests. Do you agree with this? No talk of backcasting, please, successful backcasts do not prove the predictive power of a model.
July 9, 2011, 11:21 pm netdr:
Alex
I have repeatedly asked renewable and Waldo [Humpty Dumpty] for reasonably accurate climate models which have been published.
There haven’t been any and won’t be any since the purpose of the models is to cause panic and accurate models wouldn’t do that.
All poor managers use the hockey stick trick. [See below]
##############################
Boy are you bull headed. Hansen also projected with his model a solution to global warming and what it would do to the climate. Did that panick you?
Look at scenario c. Sorry you are so scared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_2006_temperature_comparison.jpg
July 10, 2011, 2:52 pmRenewable Guy:
sorry about that long paste. I didn’t realize all that was in there when I hit submit.
July 10, 2011, 2:54 pmRenewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
In 2011, JPL-(US) projected sea level rise of 32cm (12.6 inches) by the year 2050, with contribution from the following sources: Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets – 15 centimeters (5.9 inches); Glacial ice caps – 8 centimeters (3.1 inches); Ocean thermal expansion – 9 centimeters (3.5 inches); TOTAL sea level rise by 2050 – 32 centimeters (12.6 inches).[9][10]
#####################################
Let’s hope this is not a conservative projection. Most of science is conservative in their work.
July 10, 2011, 3:01 pmRenewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#Glaciers_and_ice_caps
High-precision gravimetry from satellites in low-noise flight has since determined Greenland is losing more than 200 billion tons of ice per year, in accordance with loss estimates from ground measurement.[15] The rate of ice loss is accelerating, having grown from 137 gigatons in 2002–2003.[16]
##############################
We have observations of increasing ice mass loss. I expect this loss to get bigger in the future.
July 10, 2011, 3:07 pmRenewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model
1 Box models
2 Zero-dimensional models
3 Radiative-convective models
4 Higher-dimension models
5 EMICs (Earth-system models of intermediate complexity)
6 GCMs (global climate models or general circulation models)
Most recent simulations show “plausible” agreement with the measured temperature anomalies over the past 150 years when forced by natural forcings alone, but better agreement is achieved when observed changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols are also included.[12][13]
For #6 its able to hindcast 150 years. This seems to be capable of the IPCC demonstrations of natural forcings, anthropogenic and combined. It appears to be a quite powerful model.
July 10, 2011, 3:26 pmRenewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming
The model mean exhibits good agreement with observations.
The individual models often exhibit worse agreement with observations.
Many of the non-flux adjusted models suffered from unrealistic climate drift up to about 1°C/century in global mean surface temperature.
The errors in model-mean surface air temperature rarely exceed 1 °C over the oceans and 5 °C over the continents; precipitation and sea level pressure errors are relatively greater but the magnitudes and patterns of these quantities are recognisably similar to observations.
Surface air temperature is particularly well simulated, with nearly all models closely matching the observed magnitude of variance and exhibiting a correlation > 0.95 with the observations.
Simulated variance of sea level pressure and precipitation is within ±25% of observed.
All models have shortcomings in their simulations of the present day climate of the stratosphere, which might limit the accuracy of predictions of future climate change.
There is a tendency for the models to show a global mean cold bias at all levels.
There is a large scatter in the tropical temperatures.
The polar night jets in most models are inclined poleward with height, in noticeable contrast to an equatorward inclination of the observed jet.
There is a differing degree of separation in the models between the winter sub-tropical jet and the polar night jet.
For nearly all models the r.m.s. error in zonal- and annual-mean surface air temperature is small compared with its natural variability.
There are problems in simulating natural seasonal variability.( 2000)
In flux-adjusted models, seasonal variations are simulated to within 2 K of observed values over the oceans. The corresponding average over non-flux-adjusted models shows errors up to about 6 K in extensive ocean areas.
Near-surface land temperature errors are substantial in the average over flux-adjusted models, which systematically underestimates (by about 5 K) temperature in areas of elevated terrain. The corresponding average over non-flux-adjusted models forms a similar error pattern (with somewhat increased amplitude) over land.
In Southern Ocean mid-latitudes, the non-flux-adjusted models overestimate the magnitude of January-minus-July temperature differences by ~5 K due to an overestimate of summer (January) near-surface temperature. This error is common to five of the eight non-flux-adjusted models.
Over Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude land areas, zonal mean differences between July and January temperatures simulated by the non-flux-adjusted models show a greater spread (positive and negative) about observed values than results from the flux-adjusted models.
The ability of coupled GCMs to simulate a reasonable seasonal cycle is a necessary condition for confidence in their prediction of long-term climatic changes (such as global warming), but it is not a sufficient condition unless the seasonal cycle and long-term changes involve similar climatic processes.
Coupled climate models do not simulate with reasonable accuracy clouds and some related hydrological processes (in particular those involving upper tropospheric humidity). Problems in the simulation of clouds and upper tropospheric humidity, remain worrisome because the associated processes account for most of the uncertainty in climate model simulations of anthropogenic change.
July 10, 2011, 3:39 pmnetdr:
Ted Rado
It looks like Humpty Dumpty has stolen your name.
July 10, 2011, 4:41 pmnetdr:
Attempting to debate with Humpty Dumpty [Waldo] is like attempting to teach a pig calculus, it is a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
July 10, 2011, 5:52 pmAlex:
Renewable Guy:
“Every model has a weakness. Backcasting will also find the weaknesses.” – nobody disputes this, no reason to bring this up.
“Hansen had a high sensitivity in his model and guessed at that the co2 would be higher.” – clouds and mirrors, misinformation. He had several scenarios, the actual emissions are roughly what he used for scenario B, but the actual temperatures are lower than what he predicted for scenario C.
“He would not be able to tell that china would burn high sulpher coal to put in more reflection in the atmosphere.” – wishful thinking. Can you show that the discrepancy between Hansen’s predictions and actual temperatures has to deal with, as you put it, “China’a sulpher coal”? No. Until you can do this – and, quite possibly, noone never will be able to – this is not an argument, just noise.
“Part of modeling is taking an educated guess at the future which we are living in now from his point of view. A really good way to test his model from 1988 is to take that same model today and put in the correct values of past co2, so4, the really deep solar min we have come out of, etc. Would it hindcast back to 1988 correctly.” – I said please, just stop talking about backcasting, you have a wrong idea of what it can and can’t do. The test you propose would be a good way to separate completely clueless models from models that have some hope, no more. In no way passing this test would indicate that a model can predict the future.
“Plugging and chugging a model is part guessing what the future will be. If you look at the models from two articles ago, I argued trends in there. Hansen got the trends correct.” – no. Hansen did not get the trends correct.
You see? You are wrong *everywhere*.
July 10, 2011, 9:07 pmAlex:
Also, Renewable Guy, could you please concentrate on discussing one topic at a time? I am not impressed by your links on sea levels and ice mass in the least, but I am not going to debate these questions until we are done with Hansen.
July 10, 2011, 9:17 pmRenewable Guy:
“He would not be able to tell that china would burn high sulpher coal to put in more reflection in the atmosphere.” – wishful thinking. Can you show that the discrepancy between Hansen’s predictions and actual temperatures has to deal with, as you put it, “China’a sulpher coal”? No. Until you can do this – and, quite possibly, noone never will be able to – this is not an argument, just noise.
##########################
That is a real article Alex. Being dismissive of everything is not a discussion. I’m not here to find where you are giong to be satisfied. Science looks for the reality and isn’t waiting for your approval. I have posted off of wikipedia showing weaknesses and strengths. Pick something out and discuss it. For all I know you know nothing and just doing a good job of saying no. If you don’t understand some things how about taking time to learn.
July 10, 2011, 9:32 pmRenewable Guy:
Alex:
Also, Renewable Guy, could you please concentrate on discussing one topic at a time? I am not impressed by your links on sea levels and ice mass in the least, but I am not going to debate these questions until we are done with Hansen.
###########################
I was talking to NetDr.
######################################
“Hansen had a high sensitivity in his model and guessed at that the co2 would be higher.” – clouds and mirrors, misinformation.
This is pretty dismissive. That is human input called a guess. That is a valid point. We don’t know what future emissions are going to be of both co2 and sulpher. High sensitivity exagerates the temperature output.
OK your turn. Analyze Hansen’s model. If you can be open, this is a time to look at what you don’t know and learn what they are doing.
July 10, 2011, 9:41 pmRenewable Guy:
Alex:
no. Hansen did not get the trends correct.
You see? You are wrong *everywhere*.
########################################
Fess up. Tell me what you don’t know. The science field doesn’t agree with you.
July 10, 2011, 9:44 pmAlex:
Renewable Guy:
You: “He would not be able to tell that china would burn high sulpher coal to put in more reflection in the atmosphere.” – Me: “Can you show that the discrepancy between Hansen’s predictions and actual temperatures has to deal with, as you put it, “China’a sulpher coal”? No. Until you can do this – and, quite possibly, noone never will be able to – this is not an argument, just noise.” – You: “That is a real article Alex. Being dismissive of everything is not a discussion.”
You are not answering my question. Can you show that the discrepancy has to deal with “China’s sulpher coal”? Can you or can you not? Yes, I know that “that is a real article”. This does not answer my question.
“I’m not here to find where you are giong to be satisfied. Science looks for the reality and isn’t waiting for your approval. I have posted off of wikipedia showing weaknesses and strengths. Pick something out and discuss it. For all I know you know nothing and just doing a good job of saying no. If you don’t understand some things how about taking time to learn.”
I have picked something and am discussing it with you right now. Stop pontificating.
You: “Hansen had a high sensitivity in his model and guessed at that the co2 would be higher.” – Me: “clouds and mirrors, misinformation.” – You: “This is pretty dismissive. That is human input called a guess. That is a valid point. We don’t know what future emissions are going to be of both co2 and sulpher. High sensitivity exagerates the temperature output. OK your turn. Analyze Hansen’s model. If you can be open, this is a time to look at what you don’t know and learn what they are doing.”
I repeat, Hansen had several scenarios, the actual emissions are roughly what he used for scenario B, but the actual temperatures are lower than what he predicted for scenario C. Stop creative quoting and address what I said.
“Fess up. Tell me what you don’t know. The science field doesn’t agree with you.”
Yeah, right, that’s all you can say after losing every factual point.
July 10, 2011, 10:14 pmBooker:
Alex, you are wasting your time. This guy is trolling. The strategy is simple, there are several rules like don’t admit you have been proven wrong, don’t address questions asked to you directly, switch topics, flood your opponent with largely irrelevant quotes and links, etc. You just follow these rules and voila, you create the appearance of a debate while in reality that’s just you laughing your ass off on those who try to argue seriously. That’s all there is to it, really.
July 10, 2011, 10:27 pmWaldo88:
******“So Alex, what do you think about the allegations against Willie Soon. Any opinions?” – No opinion.
Why not? It would seem that one of the loudest denialists was just caught with his hand deep in the cookie jar. Don’t you worry about the people providing you with information?—you seem worried about the government scientists and academics who form the consensus of opinion on the subject.
*******“It may not be relevant to you because it doesn’t support your point.” – Smear. Classy.
You may call this a smear, Alex. But it almost certainly is the truth. If you dial back a posting to netdr’s response on the last thread—
“I also am most interested in the poor arguments of the climate alarmists. Charts and graphs tell the story.
“The truth or falsity of the charges against Soon doesn’t interest me.
“The hundreds of Billions of dollars poured into the study of climate has created group of people with a vested interest in climate alarmism. If there is no CAGW then reduced budgets and for many no job. Groupthink is inevitable in that environment.”
—says it all. While netdr uses lame analogies to accuse me of reading only what I want to read, he willfully ignores any information that counters his preconceived notions about climate science. His “graphs and charts” come from other denialists, even in the face of evidence that these people can’t necessarily be trusted. He then makes unsupported accusations about “groupthink” while trumpeting the denialist party line.
Willie Soon should be of interest to you. Shame on you that his exposure is not.
And Booker, if this is trolling–
“The strategy is simple, there are several rules like don’t admit you have been proven wrong, don’t address questions asked to you directly, switch topics, flood your opponent with largely irrelevant quotes and links, etc.”
–you have just described the online behavior of most of the denialists here–netdr in particular (look at the end of the previous thread).
And, by the way, Hansen’s ’88 “Scenario B” is fairly accurate. So I guess that’s one place to start.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
July 10, 2011, 11:34 pmAlex:
Waldo88:
“Why not?” – because I am interested in discussing science, not money. I understand why you like the idea of steering the debate to who got what from where and other soft topics – you just feel more comfortable talking about them, plus you’d like to avoid discussing science so that you don’t get nailed on actual numbers.
“It may not be relevant to you because it doesn’t support your point.” – “Smear. Classy.” – “You may call this a smear, Alex. But it almost certainly is the truth.” – oh, joy. We are discussing Hansen, Renewable Guy says they are good but has problems showing it, yet you are saying I disagree Hansen’s predictions are good just because this doesn’t support my “point”. And you pretend that saying this is “almost certainly” the case vs “certainly” justifies that?
Laughable. Go back to where you were hiding, Waldo.
July 11, 2011, 12:07 amAlex:
“We are discussing Hansen” -> “We are discussing Hansen’s models”
July 11, 2011, 12:09 amKreo:
This Renewable Guy is hilarious.
One of his posts is nothing but quotable material. Literally. Quoting without skips:
* “That is a real article Alex. Being dismissive of everything is not a discussion.”
No shit. Same to you, Renewable.
* “I’m not here to find where you are giong to be satisfied.”
No shit. Same to you again.
* “Science looks for the reality and isn’t waiting for your approval.”
Thanks for the insight! Nobody knew.
* “I have posted off of wikipedia showing weaknesses and strengths. Pick something out and discuss it.”
That’s from one of the biggest topic jumpers. OK, I am laughing already, how about you do this yourself?
* “For all I know you know nothing and just doing a good job of saying no.”
Now I am really laughing! That’s literally all you are doing here, asserting some things and rejecting others point blank, quoting some nonsense as if that were proof.
* “If you don’t understand some things how about taking time to learn.”
July 11, 2011, 12:37 amHa-ha-ha-ha… Sorry, I couldn’t hold that any longer. My suggestion to you: if you don’t understand some things how about taking time to learn. Bwa-ha-ha-ha…
Ted Rado:
netdr: fail!
July 11, 2011, 3:44 amnetdr:
Waldo[Humpty Dupty]:fail
July 11, 2011, 4:51 amChippas:
Alex says he/she is just interested in the science/numbers and doesn’t care to comment on the Soon situation. Well that is great. It’s not often you find a “skeptic” who hasn’t emphasised the stolen emails, supposed conspiring paper reviewers, or the latest smear on a given researcher.
Let us just give the scientists room to work, the IPCC room to assess, and if your ideas are correct then they will come through. But At this rate, civ. is going to be completely carbon neutral before the skeptical position has a hold (if any). If that happens, don’t blame us for going with the (then) current science; the skeptics just weren’t producing.
July 11, 2011, 5:14 amnetdr:
Renewable
China didn’t just switch coal sources, it was always a part of the mix. The PDO and sunspot cycle were also part of the mix too. Whichever caused his model to jump the shark makes no difference.
.
When you pretend to understand climate well enough to predict what will happen 100 years in the future no excuses are allowed.
.
The amount and effect of aerosols is one of the areas of science with poor measurements and low understanding of the effects so any blunders can be attributed to it. I would cling to that excuse too if I were an alarmist.
.
No sale! It just proves my point that claiming our present models can predict 100 years in the future is horse hockey.
.
One reason the model jumped the shark is that the PDO sine wave is a it’s peak and starting down which is well documented and predictable. If Hansen failed to factor it in that is his fault.
.
Another might be that the sun seems to be in a low sunspot cycle. This was not easily factored in in 1988 but proves my point. What else isn’t factored in ?
.
No matter what the excuse is mankind simply doesn’t know enough about climate to predict what it will be 100 years from now and wasting tens of trillions of dollars on a guess is foolish. [to use the technical term]
July 11, 2011, 5:34 am.
Climate science is still a baby science [not even a toddler yet], and like all babies it falls down a lot! Almost all climate studies have been done since 1988 and Hanson’s model scared the congress.
.
Medicine on the other hand has been practiced for thousands of years and it is still advancing by leaps and bounds. It is a mature science and “double blind” experiments are possible so objectivity is far easier to maintain.
Alex:
Chippas:
“Let us just give the scientists room to work, the IPCC room to assess, and if your ideas are correct then they will come through.”
Fine by me. My only wish is for IPCC to stop offering unfounded scary figures to policymakers and actually start doing science. Right now, they are not doing too well, as evidenced by the fiasco with this press release:
http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/press/content/potential-of-renewable-energy-outlined-report-by-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change
July 11, 2011, 6:10 amChippas:
Alex:
I don’t think we agree. I think the ideas, if valid, will come through via the IPCC. You seem to think the IPCC is alarmist. A pity. I thought you weren’t interested in throwing around non-scientific opinions?
The IPCC has been open to scrutiny for ages, if you guys haven’t succeeded in making the flaws visible to the scientific community and others, so they can fix it, then shame on you.
As I said before, the skeptics just aren’t producing.
July 11, 2011, 7:03 amRenewable Guy:
Kreo:
July 11, 2011, 7:22 amGreat discussion. Anything you want to offer?
netdr:
Actually the skeptics found the errors in the Mann tree ring study which the alarmists totally failed to find. The dummies even used some of their data upside down for crap sake.
July 11, 2011, 7:22 am.
The peer review process has been seriously weakened and the only real peer review now comes from skeptics.
.
I would say they are doing a great job which the alarmists have abdicated.
Renewable Guy:
The six renewable energy technologies reviewed are:
Bioenergy, including energy crops; forest, agricultural and livestock residues and so called second generation biofuels
Direct solar energy, including photovoltaics and concentrating solar power
Geothermal energy, based on heat extraction from the Earth‘s interior
Hydropower, including run-of-river, in-stream or dam projects with reservoirs
Ocean energy, ranging from barrages to ocean currents and ones which harness temperature differences in the marine realm
Wind energy, including on- and offshore systems
##########################################
Chippas has a good point. Skeptics aren’t delievering the goods. They are only saying no to try to delay the solution. IF the skeptics are successful, the United States will end up being an importer instead of an exporter of the green revolution.
July 11, 2011, 7:31 amAlex:
Chippas:
No, no, no. Let’s stick to the science, that’s my only wish. My point is that the IPCC doesn’t stick to the science, and I am only making this point because you mentioned IPCC and I wanted to emphasize that you and me seem to be rooting for the same things except that one difference on the role of IPCC.
I am prepared to keep this discussion as much in the boundaries of science as I can as well. The IPCC’s report that I linked says:
“Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.”
I am interested to know how exactly does the report “show” that, in terms of science. So, how? This is a scientific question. Could you or anyone else help me get a scientific answer?
July 11, 2011, 7:36 amAlex:
“Skeptics aren’t delievering the goods.”
Dismantling inept theories and pointing out flaws in logic and computations is delivering the goods.
July 11, 2011, 7:38 amRenewable Guy:
netdr:
Renewable
China didn’t just switch coal sources, it was always a part of the mix. The PDO and sunspot cycle were also part of the mix too. Whichever caused his model to jump the shark makes no difference.
.
When you pretend to understand climate well enough to predict what will happen 100 years in the future no excuses are allowed.
###################################
PDO is the natural variation. If the ocean is releasing heat to the atmosphere, then it must be cooling. The ocean is not a source of heat but a conduit of the sun. On top of that the oceans are warming overall in the long run. And will continue to do so for the next several centuries with our present level of co2.
The sun is lifting out of its extended grand solar minimum and still 2010 was a tie with 2005. 2012 year will see El Nino again, with Hansen predicting it will be a record setting year in spite of the chinese aerosols.
July 11, 2011, 7:44 amNeo:
Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.
Isn’t this, in fact, a “Clear Air Act” induced problem then ?
July 11, 2011, 7:52 amRenewable Guy:
Alex:
“Skeptics aren’t delievering the goods.”
Dismantling inept theories and pointing out flaws in logic and computations is delivering the goods
##################
Saying nope I don’t believe it isn’t dismantling anything. Observations win the game. What is the reality of the situation?
July 11, 2011, 7:54 amRenewable Guy:
Neo:
Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.
Isn’t this, in fact, a “Clear Air Act” induced problem then ?
###############################
Aerosols are acid rain and that is what Bush 1 is about with his cap and trade based solution. When the aerosols are removed, more sunlight comes through the atmosphere and now co2 reflects more infrared back to the earths surface.
July 11, 2011, 7:57 amRenewable Guy:
netdr:
Actually the skeptics found the errors in the Mann tree ring study which the alarmists totally failed to find. The dummies even used some of their data upside down for crap sake.
.
The peer review process has been seriously weakened and the only real peer review now comes from skeptics.
.
I would say they are doing a great job which the alarmists have abdicated.
###############################
The few proxies that were crticized do not cause Mann’s work to fall apart. The remaining data also reached the same conclusion. Plus there was no secret going on. Some of the problems were openly discussed in papers along with the solution to it which was a work around.
July 11, 2011, 8:01 amAlex:
Renewable Guy:
“Saying nope I don’t believe it isn’t dismantling anything. Observations win the game.”
Absolutely. So, going back to Hansen 1988, do you agree that that model failed to predict today’s temperatures and can not be trusted to predict future temperatures?
“What is the reality of the situation?”
The reality is that it has warmed somewhat, but the current temperatures are not scary, and that while there are models that predict scary temperatures, none of these models can be trusted to predict future temperatures correctly with reasonable levels of certainty.
More generally, the reality is that we do understand some factors of the climate, but we don’t understand nearly enough to predict it.
July 11, 2011, 8:05 amAlex:
Renewable Guy:
“The few proxies that were crticized do not cause Mann’s work to fall apart.”
Oh, really? So, Mann’s statement that: “A skillful EIV reconstruction without tree-ring data is possible even further back, over at least the past 1,300 years” still stands? Care to demonstrate it? Which figures in the Mann’s paper should I look at?
“Some of the problems were openly discussed in papers along with the solution to it which was a work around.”
There was a follow up, but it contained no solution. If you think the follow up contained the solution, please quote that solution.
July 11, 2011, 8:10 amnetdr:
Renewable
PDO is the natural variation. If the ocean is releasing heat to the atmosphere, then it must be cooling. The ocean is not a source of heat but a conduit of the sun. On top of that the oceans are warming overall in the long run. And will continue to do so for the next several centuries with our present level of co2.
*************
The warming of 1978 to 1998 all took place during a positive cycle of the PDO. The PDO turned negative since then and sure enough the warming stopped. Hansen should have predicted this if his model was good enough to predict 100 years into the future.
.
Obviously it isn’t.
.
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_NINO_34_latest.png
.
Since about 2005 it looks like the oceans have stopped warming.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
.
During that same period the ocean level rise has slowed [They actually had to ADD SEA LEVEL RISE because the truth was not scary enough]
.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
.
and the atmospheric temperature has stopped rising.
.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2005/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2005/to:2012/trend
.
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00750986 per year
.
There seems to be a pattern of less heat overall here.
.
Hansen’s predictions for 2011 are as bad as the rest of his ranting. [when will he ever learn?]
Jan – May
.45 .41 .57 .55 .42 = .48 AVG compared to an El Nino driven 2010 of .63
La Nina’s should predominate for the next 30 years.
As a Swami Hansen is a fakir !
Did the Chinese stoke up extra coal plants this spring ? Possibly we should pay them to burn lots of coal to save us from global warming.
July 11, 2011, 8:24 amnetdr:
The alarmists have been telling us that the lack of warming since 1998 [and failure to match the projected warming if sensitivity estimates are correct] is because the heat is being magically stored somewhere. {they say it is in the oceans but measurements contradict this. [See last post]
When the warming resumes [they hope] the temperature rise will accelerate to make up for lost time.
Now they fervently believe that the heat is being reflected back into space by aerosols and isn’t on earth at all. How is this acceleration supposed to work ?
If the public understood the holes in the alarmist argument there would be no support at all of CAGW.
July 11, 2011, 8:57 amRenewable Guy:
Alex:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm
The “decline” refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
The “decline” has nothing to do with “Mike’s trick”.
Phil Jones talks about “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to “Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:
##########################
There are three different levels of discussion from skeptical science. If you like we can compare skeptical science view to the views that you support.
July 11, 2011, 9:20 amRenewable Guy:
Alex:
“What is the reality of the situation?”
###############
That is the work of science to observe and report back.
####################
The reality is that it has warmed somewhat
##################
agreed
########################
but the current temperatures are not scary, and that while there are models that predict scary temperatures, none of these models can be trusted to predict future temperatures correctly with reasonable levels of certainty.
###########################
If we peak at these kinds of temperatures and then they decline, I’m all for it. But,
July 11, 2011, 9:28 amRenewable Guy:
poop I screwed up. continued from above.
But if the trend is upwards with continuing co2 additions, the science shows with greater than 90% certainty we’ve got problems coming down the pipe.
I’ve picked Hansens model because there is the most discussion about it. It’s easy for me to read what the scientists have to say about it. And that is a 1988 discussion.
July 11, 2011, 9:34 amRenewable Guy:
NetDr:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42649
‘Consistent’ with global warming
July 11, 2011, 9:43 amread on down from here.
Renewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).
A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009)
Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008)
Lake warming (Schneider & Hook 2010)
##########################
July 11, 2011, 9:56 amOne of the difficulties of discussing climate, is that it is so large and diverse. Science observations are painting a bigger picture of what is happening to our earth consistent with global warming theory.
Renewable Guy:
Back to the tree rings issue, this is a discussion openly of the problem of the decline in which tree rings were changing in response to climate and were no longer a valid indicator since 1960.
July 11, 2011, 10:08 amRenewable Guy:
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8350.full.pdf
forgot the link
July 11, 2011, 10:08 amAlex:
Renewable Guy:
I don’t know whether I should laugh or not.
You quoted a wrong post from your lovely site.
I repeat my question:
So, Mann’s statement that: “A skillful EIV reconstruction without tree-ring data is possible even further back, over at least the past 1,300 years” still stands? Care to demonstrate it? Which figures in the Mann’s paper should I look at?
Please go find the right post and quote that, at least. Alternatively, admit that you don’t actually know anything about AGW and can only quote excerpts from sites supporting what you consider to be “your” side of the debate.
July 11, 2011, 10:46 amAlex:
Also, please refrain from spouting BS like:
“the science shows with greater than 90% certainty we’ve got problems coming down the pipe.”
…until you can explain what certainty you are talking about with your own words.
July 11, 2011, 10:51 amMalcolm:
My son would say: pwned.
Bravo, Alex.
July 11, 2011, 11:35 amnetdr:
Renewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
**********
since 2005 this hasn’t been true has it ?
Where is this heat build up being stored ?
If it is at the bottom of the sea it won’t cause much warming will it ?
When will it return to the surface 1,000 years from now ?
[See the Missing heat arguments}
July 11, 2011, 11:43 amnetdr:
Renewable
from your own link.
“the study does not explain why the records suggest that ocean warming has stalled since 2004. ”
Did you read the story ?
July 11, 2011, 11:45 amnetdr:
If there is an energy imbalance the amount of heat on planet earth must increase every second. There can be measurement errors but 7 years of erroneous measurements of oceans and atmosphere by thousands of sensors is unbelievable!
The “many lines of argument” is spurious since almost everyone believes that CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas. Even biased estimates only predict 1 ° C for a doubling of all CO2. The crisis comes from positive feedback which is ASSUMED in climate models and climate models alone. There is no other confirming evidence.
July 11, 2011, 11:55 amTed Rado:
Someone is having fun using my name. It is flattering, but can’t you use your own name if you are so proud of your comments?
July 11, 2011, 12:28 pmTed Rado:
netdr: clearly you haven’t got the remotest understanding of any of those papers. So don’t embarrass yourself by talking about climate models, ever again.
July 11, 2011, 12:52 pmnetdr:
Ted Rado: you suck dick.
July 11, 2011, 12:52 pmWarren Meyer:
Yep.
July 11, 2011, 12:52 pmRenewable Guy:
netdr:
Renewable
from your own link.
“the study does not explain why the records suggest that ocean warming has stalled since 2004. ”
Did you read the story ?
############################
sounds like you didn’t read the whole story Net.
July 11, 2011, 1:50 pmRenewable Guy:
For Net
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42649
However, the re-analysis sheds little light on why ocean temperatures appear to have remained steady since about 2004. This is at odds with satellite measurements, which suggest the Earth has continued to heat up over the past six years, leading to questions over where the “missing heat” has gone.
####################
Two sets of instruments giving two different results.
July 11, 2011, 1:52 pmRenewable Guy:
Alex:
Also, please refrain from spouting BS like:
“the science shows with greater than 90% certainty we’ve got problems coming down the pipe.”
…until you can explain what certainty you are talking about with your own words.
############################
Why is that a good rule? The scientists have repeated this many times.
July 11, 2011, 2:06 pmRenewable Guy:
Net:
The “many lines of argument” is spurious since almost everyone believes that CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas. Even biased estimates only predict 1 ° C for a doubling of all CO2. The crisis comes from positive feedback which is ASSUMED in climate models and climate models alone. There is no other confirming evidence.
####################
Where did you get this?
July 11, 2011, 2:12 pmRenewable Guy:
Alex:
Renewable Guy:
“The few proxies that were crticized do not cause Mann’s work to fall apart.”
Oh, really? So, Mann’s statement that: “A skillful EIV reconstruction without tree-ring data is possible even further back, over at least the past 1,300 years” still stands? Care to demonstrate it? Which figures in the Mann’s paper should I look at?
“Some of the problems were openly discussed in papers along with the solution to it which was a work around.”
There was a follow up, but it contained no solution. If you think the follow up contained the solution, please quote that solution.
##############################
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/09/02/0805721105.DCSupplemental/0805721105SI.pdf
THe work around was to put in the temperature record from 1960 on.
July 11, 2011, 2:25 pmRenewable Guy:
Alex:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.htmlhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html
there are a variety of independent methods to determine past temperature changes: tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, boreholes, stalagmites, etc.
#############################
You have proven that you have something going for yourself. I’m not going to answer your question directly. This does show how proxies are independent of one another.
Should you to choose to read this, this will suppport my origonal point.
July 11, 2011, 2:47 pmnetdr:
Renewable Guy:
Net:
The “many lines of argument” is spurious since almost everyone believes that CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas. Even biased estimates only predict 1 ° C for a doubling of all CO2. The crisis comes from positive feedback which is ASSUMED in climate models and climate models alone. There is no other confirming evidence.
####################
Where did you get this?
*************
The British Royal society for one. Dr Hansen for another. In fact it seems to be commonly agreed upon by both alarmist and skeptical scientists. The lay alarmists even the “deacons” don’t seem to know it.
I am surprised how many seemingly knowledgeable alarmists don’t know this fact.
BTW: The missing heat is “missing” and can’t cause any warming even if it is hiding at the bottom of the sea. If it returns in 1,000 years it may be a problem.
Para 29)
“Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate sensitivity would be around 1° C, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing of 1.6 Wm-2″
It couldn’t be clearer than that.
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
Notice that I am courteous enough to provide a link unlike Humpty.
July 11, 2011, 3:03 pmnetdr:
Humpty Dumpty is using my login name and Ted Rado’s again.
As I said:
“Attempting to argue with Humpty [Waldo] is like trying to teach calculus to a pig, it is a waste of time and it annoys the pig”
I don’t need to use vulgar language I am a bigger person than that.
July 11, 2011, 3:08 pmWarren Meyer:
“I don’t need to use vulgar language I am a bigger person than that.”
Yeah, but you do need to use scientific language. You’re not big enough for that though. Not by a very, very long way.
July 11, 2011, 3:57 pmChippas:
Alex says: ‘you mentioned IPCC and I wanted to emphasize that you and me seem to be rooting for the same things except that one difference on the role of IPCC.’
The role of the IPCC is pretty darn important. I don’t know how you perceive it, but if you guys know of any bad flaws you should really let them know. But at this late stage, after the IPCC, and the science, has been open to scrutiny for ages, I have to wonder what the skeptics are doing.
Alex says: ‘I am interested to know how exactly does the report “show” that, in terms of science. So, how? This is a scientific question. Could you or anyone else help me get a scientific answer?’
Well what did the contacts say when you told them to show it in terms of science? Did you check out the links or find the actual report?
July 11, 2011, 4:47 pmRenewable Guy:
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of
processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate
sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing
of 1.6 Wm-2 (see previous paragraph) would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globallyaveraged
surface warming of about 0.4oC. However, as will be discussed in paragraph 36, it is expected that the actual change, after accounting for the additional processes,
will be greater than this.
Climate models indicate that the overall climate
sensitivity (for a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the
range 2oC to 4.5oC; this range is mainly due to the difficulties in simulating the overall
effect of the response of clouds to climate change mentioned earlier.
#################################
Good ole water vapor
July 11, 2011, 6:21 pmmarkm:
Warren seems to be misunderstanding the role of plug variables in science. They’re often an essential part of formulating a partial understanding of something, so work can proceed from there. For instance, Kepler’s laws are:
1. The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two focus.
2. A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
Law #2 included a different plug variable or “constant” for each planet (the area per time unit). When Kepler announced #3 ten years later (it took a long time to do all those calculations by hand!), he could calculate all the previous constants from one new one and the period of each planet. However, Earth’s moon required a different constant, and a third one was needed when the orbits of Jupiter’s moons were established.
Newton then showed that there was one constant, G, accounting for all of Kepler’s constants in any system of bodies orbiting a much larger body, although all you can calculate from astronomical data is GM, where M is the mass of the central body, so you still had to figure a plug variable to fit the data for each orbital system. A century later, Cavendish managed to estimate G in a lab experiment, and then the planetary masses could be divided out of the GM estimates.
So, Kepler’s 1609 model (laws 1 and 2) involved a lot of plug variables. It was messy, but not nearly as messy as epicycles, and without figuring those constants so his model fit the data, neither he nor Newton could have proceeded. His 1619 model (with law 3) required just one for the sun to describe all planetary orbits, but different ones for each system of one or more moons orbiting a planet. Newton theorized that these third law constants were the product of one universal constant “G” and the mass of a body “M”, and astronomers still fit “GM” to the data (using the 3rd law or orbital pertubations), and divide by G to get the mass.
That’s the proper use of plug variables. They carry you through until the science is settled and you can explain them in terms of proven theories and a few universal constants. You will never have the whole truth, but you can keep getting closer, and at each round your plug variables should become fewer and closer to universal.
So the issue isn’t that climate modelers are using plug variables – it’s that they not only haven’t got them down to universal constants, but they can’t even agree on the plug-in values to use in analyzing a single data set, so claiming that “the science is settled” is ludicrously premature.
July 11, 2011, 7:16 pmRenewable Guy:
markm:
That was informative.
When you say the science isn’t settled, are you saying they aren’t sure its anthropogenic?
July 11, 2011, 7:43 pmWaldoRock:
*****you just feel more comfortable talking about them, plus you’d like to avoid discussing science so that you don’t get nailed on actual numbers.
I know you are trying to be stinging, Alex, but (unless you have become remarkably smarter since I was here last) your understanding is really not much better than mine. You are no scientist, don’t pretend you are. You are arguing about things you really don’t know about. Like it or not, Renewable’s answers are substantive and he uses sources.
And I’m most interested in the hypocrisy of the denialists–no one here knows the numbers well enough to make this a valid scientific discussion. You focus on models (which have been at least accurate to a substantial degree) and ignore the worst weather damage year on record, new heat records, and continually mounting scientific evidence. You focus on models (which I doubt you really understand), which scientists admit are limited, and because they are predictions, will always have an error margin. Hansen’s “B” scenario was fairly accurate. Sorry.
You are hypocritical because Willie Soon just blew his cover. If you are really a climate critic you’d be just as outraged as the thinking people are. Be a thinker, Alex.
*****Go back to where you were hiding, Waldo.
Nope. I am needed here.
And netdr, that was your lamest response yet. Ted Rado handed you your hat. Put your money where your mouth is.
July 11, 2011, 9:20 pmmarkm:
“When you say the science isn’t settled, are you saying they aren’t sure its anthropogenic?”
There’s an anthropogenic component to warming, but the magnitude of the effect is not settled. Basic physics of the sort that can be done in the lab with repeatable experiments gives a direct effect of about 1.6 degrees C per doubling of CO2, which certainly isn’t catastrophic. It’s building strong positive feedback into the models that gives them predictions of several degrees C rise in this century from less than one doubling of CO2. There’s so much guesswork (plug variables, etc.) in these models that I’m sure that if it was politically correct to predict an imminent ice age temporarily held back by anthropogenic warming, they’d be predicting that. (Again.)
Since the climate has been stable within a few degrees for the last 8,000 years, in spite of solar variations, human population growth, and large changes in how much forest was removed for agriculture, I’d think that a more stable model would be much more plausible than either of those extremes.
July 12, 2011, 2:41 amnetdr:
Renewable Guy:
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of
processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate
sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing of 1.6 Wm-2 (see previous paragraph) would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globally averaged surface warming of about 0.4oC. [That is even lower than the figure I quoted.--- NetDr]
However, as will be discussed in paragraph 36, it is expected that the actual change, after accounting for the additional processes,
will be greater than this. [Enter POSITIVE FEEDBACKS to the rescue.--NetDr]
Climate models indicate that the overall climate
sensitivity (for a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the
range 2oC to 4.5oC; this range is mainly due to the difficulties in simulating the overall
effect of the response of clouds to climate change mentioned earlier.
#################################
Good ole water vapor
[Notice that the statement said they had great difficulty in simulating the effect of good old water vapor. The effect may even be negative. --NetDr]
****************
Obviously the feedbacks aren’t happening and CAGW is a farce without them.
.
The GCM’s predict 3 ° C or more warming for a doubling of CO2. The alarmists like Hansen even predicted 6 and 8 ° and more depending on how badly he wanted to scare the public.
[In recent years the predictions have gotten lower and lower. Pretty soon they will be so low they may get it right.]
.
Since we have had 1/3 of a doubling we should have had 1/3 of 6 or 2 ° C warming so far. [since the effect is logarithmic the effect should be greater than that.]
When skeptics point this out the alarmists pull out an even lower estimate for a doubling of CO2 and they are still too high.
.
Since we are a the top of the PDO sine wave even the puny warming we have seen so far overstates the long term warming.
.
When skeptics point out the lack of warming the alarmists mutter something about the missing heat hiding in the bottom of the oceans where it won’t cause any warming for 1,000 years. I am so frightened !
.
Peer reviewed studies have shown the feedback from water vapor and everything
else to be negative, so even 1 ° C overstates the actual warming. [ the British think the direct effect of CO2 is only .4 ° C [see above].To be fair there are other studies which find the feedback to be positive.
.
I am constantly amazed by the number of alarmists that think CO2 is a strong GHG which can cause Catastrophic AGW [CAGW]when it is obviously nothing of the sort.
July 12, 2011, 5:34 am.
The theoretical feedbacks obviously aren’t happening are they ?
netdr:
To be clear the climate system is obviously a negative feedback system. If it weren’t the first warm summer day would cause Earth to get almost as hot as Venus since warming would cause more warming which would cause more warming etc.
.
Warming does not cause more warming [which is the definition of positive feedback] or the process would be wildly unstable. Warming instead causes increased radiation which counteracts the warming so it is a true negative feedback system.
.
July 12, 2011, 5:55 amWhat the climate scientists call positive feedback is simply less negative feedback. All other branches of Physics would call the climate a negative feedback system.
ADiff:
The only thing more ludicrous than the idea that some horrible catastrophe is looming is the even more ridiculous idea that we (the United States, and the ‘West’) have the ability to actually impact climate change….
We can inflict damage on society and progeny with our self-indulgent hubris, but that’s about all.
One might do well to note that while U.S. carbon emissions have actually been declining for a decade, without any government B.S. involved, we are now not the major source, and are daily becoming less significant overall. All we can do with Cervantes like attempts to regulate or tax the ‘problem’ away is destroy jobs, impoverish the middle class, and kill the very poor. I have no doubt at all the prospect actually PLEASES most environmental advocates, who have universally supped at the trough of misanthropic self-destructive ‘nature’ worship. The entire movement is morally and ethically bankrupt at this point, and very well on the way to total discredit, well deserved.
July 12, 2011, 10:44 amWalDiffnet:
Gosh, netdr, I think you’re onto something. I’d say peer review your theories on feedback.
And this, ADiff — “destroy jobs, impoverish the middle class, and kill the very poor” — is a really balanced, level headed overview of the situation, particularly the killing part–the very poor don’t pay many taxes, anyway, and what government wouldn’t want to destroy the middle class?
Glad the peeps here are really interested in “graphs and charts” and things like that.
July 12, 2011, 10:16 pmnetdr:
If anyone knows of a GCM which has been reasonably accurate for the last 13 years please post a link to it. Humpty obviously doesn’t or he would have posted it long ago. He doesn’t even know what one is.
They might exist but are never published where a politician might see them and conclude massive spending was unnecessary.
Even if [for the sake of debate] the Chinese coal excuse is valid it just goes to show that our baby climate science can’t predict the future temperatures even reasonably well for 20 years. Believing it can predict atmospheric temperature for 100 years is beyond ridiculous.
The missing heat isn’t even on planet earth if the theory is correct so sudden warming to make up for the 13 year pause is a bad joke.
As far as the list of supposed “climate models” which weren’t climate models at all posting a list of papers you haven’t red and can’t understand is so simple even Waldo could do it.
July 13, 2011, 5:39 amkelly liddle:
hey i am looking forward to this global warming thing. I am in Brisbane in australia and just waiting for the possibility to extend the great barrier reef down to here. Also been looking at a few possible farming spots in siberia and northern canada. Right next to the planned oil fields there. For all those in the currently cold areas you will not have to buy so much fuel now thats great for you.
July 13, 2011, 10:48 amkelly liddle:
There was a prediction made that the temperature would rise by 1 celcius. This was said would start to cause major disruptions. Where people would have to move because of different rainfall distribution. And we live in an age of terrorism. Do some of these things sound familiar. It is from The Late William Kellog, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in 1978. To be fair though he was not so alarmist as they are now saying there would be winners as well as losers. Unlike the current crop who say that everybody will be worse off. But the prediction then was that the poles would be most affected which makes scientific sense no special CO2. So as a theory it is more credible. The problem is that Antarctica is still a very cold barren piece of ice. So that theory is wrong. In the australian sense the next theory said that we would never have significant rain again because the El Nino was here to stay which means many areas of australia recieve less rain. Your equivalent which is also quoted here is that there are more hurricanes in the north atlantic. Yes there has been because of El Nino. But that theory ended when a strong La Nina system developed and there was a lot of flooding and i expect there will be less hurricanes there this year unless goes to strong El Nino system again. So theory number 3 is causing more droughts and floods. In other words back to normal. We did have a significant cyclone (hurricane) and because it was the strongest on record (actually not but could be said to be the strongest recorded by satelite). So theory Number 3 is going to work because it predicts nothing.
July 13, 2011, 11:17 amFunkyPhD:
Juan Uribe no longer plays for the Giants. He now plays for the Dodgers.
July 13, 2011, 12:31 pmFunkyPhD:
Juan Uribe no longer plays for the Giants. He’s now a Dodger.
July 13, 2011, 12:34 pmRenewable Guy:
NetDr:
YOu really don’t have a background in models, don’t understand climate directly, how can you really criticize climate models?
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
This professor who teaches climate science at UIC in Illinois understands understands models, and understands climate science very well. If you decide to listen to his lectures, tell me what of it is wrong.
July 13, 2011, 5:53 pmRenewable Guy:
Adiff:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/13/267390/cleantech-jobs-2-7-million-clean-economy-high-wage-brookings/
One might do well to note that while U.S. carbon emissions have actually been declining for a decade, without any government B.S. involved, we are now not the major source, and are daily becoming less significant overall. All we can do with Cervantes like attempts to regulate or tax the ‘problem’ away is destroy jobs, impoverish the middle class, and kill the very poor.
#####################
I don’t think so. Oil and coal will drive our economy into the ground because they will be expensive to start and also because of the co2 they emit. 2% of gdp if we start today or 20% of gdp if we wait too long.
July 13, 2011, 6:20 pmWaldonet:
Now come on, netdr, your bluff has been called several times on this thread already. Since Hansen has been a topic of discussion: “Scenario B.” Look it up. Your question about the last 13 years is a good one, however, so…
since you know so much about GCMs, look it up yourself; you can download the data here:
http://www.ipcc-data.org/sres/hadcm3_download.html
(Just make sure you don’t mistake a short-term weather-trend with climate…which I’m sure you’ve thought about)
I’ve asked the good folks over at Real Climate–we’ll see if they get back to me.
I have learned that the CS tribe often demands information (such as papers and links to GCMs), only to ignore it once it is presented on these boards. Like those papers the pseudo-Ted Rado presented you with (by the way, I am not the same posted as either Ted Rado).
Good luck.
July 13, 2011, 10:54 pmnetdr:
Renewable
I have watched some of the video you linked to. The problem is that each segment is 30 to 50 minutes long and it wold take 8 hour days to watch them all.
If you have any particularly interesting parts please reference video and approximate time into it. Pointing to 1,000,000 word documents [or better yet just saying find it yourself like Humpty] is a cop out.
I watched the “feeedback” video [35 Mins] and am watching the “Clouds” one[48 mins}. Since I am a college professor and an ex design engineer [electronic] I use positive and negative feedbacks extensively and am quite aware of them.
I have read many alarmist books, but my bible is “a Rough Guide to Climate Change” By Henson [Not Hanson]. Watching the whole set of video’s would entail going over ground I am already very familiar with, but if you have any particular points please reference them by topic and approximate time I will take the time to watch it.
The professor makes some good points and I won’t judge them until I have watched the end of “clouds”.
As we saw before the warming of a doubling of CO2 according to the British Royal society is .4 ° and is obviously not a problem. The problem is all in the models and the feedbacks which is why I chose that video to watch. Claiming that many other disciplines prove there is a problem too is bovine scatology all “catastrophe” predictions come from models and positive feedback [which may be negative feedback.]
If Humpty will be reasonable and not abusive I would love to discuss models with him. I have built computer models for years professionally for the defense department and am not impressed by back-casting at all. [It is a good FIRST step.] The technically illiterate are far too impressed by it. The proof of understanding is if the model matches reality. Excuses just show that you have omitted a variable or have weighted it wrong. This just proves that you do not understand the problem well enough to predict 100 years in the future.
It is easy to say that everything has been included and weighted properly but the proof is in the pudding. Did he include “India’s coal burning ? What if they switch to another source of coal which has more sulfur ? I don’t think the climate can be modeled accurately by our baby climate science at this time.
That said, I will look at the site Humpty provides. {That is a big improvement over a citation to documents behind a pay wall. Evaluating a document from an abstract is not possible.]
Unless I find a different better graph on the site [And I will look] I will continue to believe that these represent the AR4 model “projections” [Not even predictions anymore?]
http://imageshack.us/m/831/1395/ipccar4a1bmonthlypredic.png
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html
If I find a good data set and plot it in Excel Humpty won’t believe me anyway.
I will get back to Renewable when I finish the “clouds” video. So far there were no surprises in the feedback one but since I teach feedbacks at a college it would be surprising if there were.
I am sincere about having an open mind about reading [watching] and understanding both sides of the discussion. I started out as a true believer after watching “An Inconvenient Truth” and slowly became aware of the holes in the arguments.
I am familiar with the experiments of Arrhenius and many of the major studies done to date. He was wrong in that he thought CO2 was far more potent than modern climatologists think it is [.4 ° C per doubling] and he didn’t include feedbacks. Do 2 wrongs make a right? [No but 3 lefts do.]
July 14, 2011, 9:29 amnetdr:
Renewable
First comments:
I like the professor and find his candor about uncertainties refreshing. The Joe Romm’s of the world exaggerate the certainties greatly.
I have a life to live so I will get back to you tomorrow.
As far as Humpty is concerned being abused by a fool isn’t my idea of fun. [It is kind of "self abuse" in a way, but less fun.] The purpose of the abuse after all is to squelch debate not to engage in it.
I will scan the site he posted for correct global model predictions. If he finds one please point it out.
July 14, 2011, 10:51 amTed Rado:
An experimentally determined constant (such as the gravitational constant) is something completely different than a fudge factor. The first is based on lots of observed data. The second is put in to make the calcs work. A new set of data frequently results in the need for a new fudge factor. Any data can be made to fit with fudge factors. As the climate data shows, yesterday’s fudge factors don’t work today. Why do we assume todays will work 100 years in the future?
July 14, 2011, 11:40 amTed Rado:
netdr:
I also built computer models for many years (for chemical plants and processes). Only RIGOROUS models, based on first principles are really useful. Empirical models, in my experience, not only don’t predict future results, but are dangerous. They cause bad decisions. With rigorous models, one can predict performance under new conditions with confidence.
The climate models are not only full of fudge factors, but are probably missing all sorts of variables we aren’t even aware of.
July 14, 2011, 11:48 amTed Rado:
netdr:
Your point that any increase in temp would set off a chain reaction is well taken. The rise in temp should be autocatalytic. A rise in temp increases water vapor pressure. This causes further temp increase, etc. Thee temp should then run away. Thsi phenomenon occurs frequently in chemical ractions.
The fact that temp does not run away suggests that there is some feedback mechanism that stops it from happening. Some have postulated that the cloud formation does this. In any case, experience suggests that for this reason a “run away” global warming is unlikely. It should have happened long ago. Can I prove this? No, but the AGW pushers can’t disprove it either.
July 14, 2011, 12:01 pmnetdr:
Ted
The fact that temp does not run away suggests that there is some feedback mechanism that stops it from happening.
*************
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
Watch Renewable’s video I think it is the one about Clouds at the end. [ about min 38 or so]. The professor’s point is that rainfall acts like a thermostat and if the relative humidity gets too high it rains which dissipated energy and it cools. This has been cited by skeptics many times. [The earth tends to drive temperatures toward the set point so it is overall a negative feedback system.]
.
Negative feedback at it’s finest.
.
I like the professor in the video because he understands what is and isn’t known and isn’t trying to con anyone.
.
He admits that at this time we cannot possibly simulate clouds of indeed the environment from first principals.
.
I think Humpty stole your log in but you now seem more like your earlier posts.
July 14, 2011, 1:43 pmrenewable guy:
NetDr:
Kudos to you Net for looking into it.:) I’ve presented this to lots of other people at different sites and you’re the first I know of to even look into it. While I was with my son during a sleep study, I downloaded and listened to several that day.
July 14, 2011, 4:00 pmWaldo Dubious:
Hmmmmm….the tone and diction of “netdr” has changed somewhat…reminds me of someone who also used to come to grand climate conclusions after plugging things into excel spreadsheets…and who claimed academic connections, had a similar sensitivity to “abuse,” similarly called for decorum and conversation (but who frequently reverted to pop-culture resources), and had a similar level of articulation, diction, and verbosity which netdr usually does not…is there more moniker jumping going on?…methinks I recognize this new-articulate-netdr…
And it is equally unlike the old netdr to actually look at anything…but not unlike the poster I used to know…
But okay, I’ll buy.
What do you suppose you’ll prove by looking at GCMs and weather since 1998? From the get-go modelers have admitted and continue to admit the limitations of their models. Are you in danger of confusing a short term weather trend with climate?
And since you are an academic, new-articulate-netdr, what is your response to the charges that Willie Soon took big money from energy companies? Most academics perceive an ethical purpose to academia and are righteously offended by fellow academics who behave unethically–particularly in the sciences. Upstairs netdr posted about ‘groupthink,’ an entirely subjective and unproven allegation, but Soon’s very questionable payola seems to get a pass. Is there hypocrisy or a double standard in the critic camp?
And I’m sorry you think a link to the IPCC is a “cop out,” but I assumed (rightly, it seems) that no one had actually done a reckoning of the data.
July 14, 2011, 5:34 pmace10:
So, lets see: if aerosols cool the earth, then why not pump them into the air to save the planet from the catastrophic warming? Yes, they are pollutants, and will probably increase asthma and other pollution related illnesses, but surely that is better than the whole doom-and-gloom-end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it associated with global warming, n’est pas?
July 14, 2011, 9:03 pmnetdr:
Renewable
First let me say that I believe in AGW but not CAGW. Some effects of mankind living on the planet watering their lawns, building dams etc must affect temperature.
.
Second I liked the professor, he told both sides of the story and didn’t pretend that the case for CAGW was solid.
.
Ice melt is clearly a positive feedback although a small one. About 1 % of the globe at a oblique angle for a month or so. I found it interesting that except for the peninsula he said that the south pole showed no warming. [He didn't say so but the peninsula is known for underwater volcanoes which cause warm water and localized warming.] The interesting thing is that a supposed global thing like CO2 effects only one pole. Why ? He also stated that the interior of Antarctica was cooling which alarmists have been denying recently. Polar amplification may be caused by soot ? [just a guess]
.
The big overall negative feedback is radiation, as it warms more radiation occurs which causes cooling this varies according to Boltzmann as the cube of temperature [I believe I have read elsewhere] . This is so much greater than any other feedback that the system is overall a negative feedback one which is a good thing.
.
The [North] polar ice just makes the overall negative feedback very slightly less negative.
.
Clouds cause warming and cooling and there is no data especially since 1860 to document what changes there have been. The effect positive or negative is hundreds of times greater than ice albedo effects. I have read that 5 % change would easily explain the slight warming since 1860.
.
He explains that high clouds cause warming and low clouds cause cooling[ which I already knew] but he admitted we don’t have the science required to compute how they change with global temperature from first principals. Instead we parametrize. [His honesty was refreshing, unlike the Romm snake oil salesmen.]
.
Size of droplets makes the difference in the effect of water vapor. Since water vapor has been going down since 1950 it is hard to see how this could cause warming. Even since 1998 there has been no warming so no feedback is possible.
.
Since the temperature hasn’t changed for 13 years feedback doesn’t matter much recently.
July 15, 2011, 6:32 am.
Aerosols effect is also dependent upon particle size big causes cooling and small causes warming according to him. We have no actual data of this even recently and particularly since 1860 so our baby climate science just has to guess it’s amount and effect.
.
That is how the Chinese coal excuse came to be. I respond that when you claim to be a know it all you had better know it all, no excuses allowed. What other effects are unknown at this time which will be important later ? Indian coal ?
.
If the aerosols cause the light to go back to space there is no “warming in the pipeline” is there ? The missing heat isn’t on earth but back in space.
.
No big surprises but his candor was refreshing.
.
I have read more books and papers than any alarmist layman that I have run across yet. If they knew the big picture they wouldn’t be alarmists.
netdr:
Since the entire alarmist house of cards stands or falls on the basis of feedbacks I didn’t watch the other video’s but would be interested if you would recommend a particularly interesting portion.
July 15, 2011, 6:50 am.
Claiming that CAGW rests on dozens of other lines of inquiry is bovine scatology. The case for “C” is all in models and assumed feedback.
.
The belief that we live on a 1 variable planet and that 380/1,000,000 [.000038] PARTS of CO2 dominates everything else is ridiculous.
netdr:
ace10:
So, lets see: if aerosols cool the earth, then why not pump them into the air to save the planet from the catastrophic warming? Yes, they are pollutants, and will probably increase asthma and other pollution related illnesses, but surely that is better than the whole doom-and-gloom-end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it associated with global warming, n’est pas?
************
Actually that Idea has been seriously explored. A very small amount of sulfur pumped high into the stratosphere would cause long term cooling and since volcanoes do it every few years it is hard to believe it would be harmful.
It is amazingly cheap.
Or we could pay the Chinese to keep burning high sulfur coal until we convert to renewables naturally.
July 15, 2011, 6:55 amTed Rado:
I can imagine all sorts of aerosols. Black, reflective, different particle sizes that interact with different wavelengths, different chemical composition, etc. The possible variations are endless. Has all this been dealt with, or are we just saying an aerosol is an aerosol? Also, who knows what new varieties of aerosols will appear in the future from some new volcano eruption or whatever? Further, different aerosols may very well behave differently in cloud seeding and other climate related processes.
July 15, 2011, 9:32 amnetdr:
I liked the professor [from renewable's post] but as a tool to convince skeptics he is a dud. He was far too honest.
.
He was obviously trying to present the case for feedback warts and all to a group of students who one day might try to reduce the uncertainties. He even admitted that we aren’t even sure about the sign of the 900 lb gorilla of feedbacks water vapor. Some effects are positive and some are negative and the baby science of climatology doesn’t know which predominate.
.
He even missed the “blanket effect” which I have personally experienced.
.
I spent a summer and part of a winter in the Amargosa desert in Nevada. I noticed that some days I would be subjected to temperatures of 100+ and when there were no clouds the nights would be so cold I needed a warm jacket. When it was heavily overcast I could barely sleep at night because it was so hot.
.
Possibly hot days “burn off” the clouds and make for clear and colder nights so there is a negative effect. The jury is out as to which predominates.
.
If you watch a single smallish cloud for 30 minutes or more I have observed that the peripheries disappear over a short period of time and finally the whole cloud disappears as vapor. Kind of like a morning fog is “burned off” by the sun at ground level.
.
The analyses I have seen only deal with the daytime radiation.
.
Peer reviewed Studies like Lindzen and Choi 2010 seem to indicate that the overall feedback is negative so the overall warming for a doubling of CO2 would be less than .4 ° C. To be fair, other peer reviewed studies find the feedback to be positive. [The science is unclear on this terribly important point.]
The lack of warming since 1998 despite tons of CO2 released argues for a negative feedback especially from water vapor. The smallness of the warming over 120 years and the fact that it is confined to times when ocean cycles would naturally cause warming without CO2 argues for slight or no effect from CO2.
July 15, 2011, 6:39 pmnetdr:
Judith Curry’s blog had an interesting point.
No scientist would ever say “Proposition “X” should be believed because 97 % of scientists believe it.” He would be laughed at.
The phony 97 % number came from a self selected group of scientists who have a lot to lose if global warming were to be proven to be natural.
Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.
July 17, 2011, 10:19 amChippas:
Netdr says; ‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.’
how do you know that?
Netdr: ‘The phony 97 % number came from a self selected group of scientists who have a lot to lose if global warming were to be proven to be natural.’
And every other non ‘selected’ scientist has a lot to gain if they prove that global warming is natural– or just contrary to the current hypothesis, or corrupted, or derived from group think, etc…
It is ages since climate science and the IPCC were very vulnerable to any kind of criticism, be it media, politics, blog, or scientific, but you guys really didn’t run with that ball did you.
Considering how sure you guys think you are about the situation, one really wonders what the hold up is.
July 17, 2011, 4:32 pmNew Articulate Waldo:
This is the thing, Chippas, if, say, a climatologist professor presents “uncertainties” in the climate process, new-articulate-netdr is fine with it. In fact, he is in love with it. He’s experienced warm overcast nights and watched clouds from the ground so feels he is qualified to have an opinion about radiative feedbacks. (These are the points when I really don’t believe he is any kind of professional scientist or engineer.)
But if the same professor feels certain about any aspect of climate change, new-articulate-netdr begins slinging the hyperbole. This is my favorite:”I have read more books and papers than any alarmist layman that I have run across yet.” Yet one suspects that many of these are suspect—written by people like Mr. Meyers, Anthony Watts, and the like, or written by the minority of climate scientists (Curry, Lindzen, Choi, Willie Soon)who disagree with the consensus, and very few if any come from places like NOAA or the IPCC which employ the full time climate professionals.
If asked, the CS tribe parrots the same lines over and over and then challenges anybody who disagrees with them to “think for themselves.” It’s comic.
July 17, 2011, 10:05 pmrenewable guy:
The instrumental temperature record shows the average global surface temperature increase during the 20th century to have been 0.74°C (1.33°F).[6] Climate model projections summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[6] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Net and Ted. You seem to be bluffing your way around like you know more than the scientists do. From the way I’ve watched your conversations, you need to show that the scientists are wrong. If 97% of peer reviewed climatolotgy scientists are saying climate change is this real reasonably understood phenomena, and yet you just know there’s something wrong with these scientists. The way to prove them wrong, you have to get in on their turf, and prove through the scientific system that here is where they are going wrong.
The co2 is plantfood argument isn’t going to get you any respect.
July 17, 2011, 10:46 pmnetdr:
Sock Puppet and renewable
People who let others think for them because they think they aren’t capable of it ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !
They know their limitations.
I don’t claim to be a climate scientist but I make up my own mind from a huge number of conflicting possibilities.
Letting someone else do my thinking for me on an important matter like global warming is stupid.
The honest scientists like the good professor admit to a great deal of uncertainty while the snake oil salesmen are certain that if we don’t waste tens of trillions of dollars catastrophe will happen.
The Climate Industrial Complex is glad to tell them what to think.
Most lay Alarmists are ignorant of the science and rely upon a fake “consensus” for their opinions. Here are facts that almost no lay alarmists seem to know:
1) Few know that a doubling of CO2 would cause .4 ° C warming without feedback.
2) Feedback is one of the least understood parts of the climate system, and probably is in fact negative.
3) The cooling from 1940 to 1978 is easily explained by the negative PDO, but the tortured logic of “aerosols” needs to be magically turned on and off periodically.
[Sounds fishy to me.]
4) CO@’s effect is
July 18, 2011, 7:43 amnetdr:
Sock Puppet AND Renewable
4) CO2′s effect is logarithmic so that each molecule does less warming [even theoretically] than the one before.
5) All of the “C” in CAGW was created by models and non existent feedback. No other branch of science confirms it.
6) Even if water vapor were a positive feedback element the fact that it has gone down since 1950 argues that the fundamental theory of positive feedback is flawed since it depends on increasing water vapor.
How someone could know these facts and believe in CAGW I will never know.
July 18, 2011, 8:04 amTed Rado:
I do not know more than the scientists, nor do I pretend to. I merely question whether we are certain enough of the CAGW stuff to destroy our industrial economy. Since the models on which the CAGW stuff is based is full of fudge factors, and many unknown variables are probably not even accounted for in the models, I am not convinced. If climate science was well understood (as is Newtonian physics, for example) there would be no argument about CAGW.
There still remains the problem of what to do re alternative energy. None of the schemes being studied (or implemented in the case of solar and wind) are viable on a large scale, when dedicated standby must be built. Nor are the Chinese and Indians willing to destroy their economies just because we say they should.
All this puts a huge burden on the climate scientists to prove beyond a doubt that CAGW is real. Pillorying those who raise this point contributes nothing to resolving the issue. Merely repeating over and over that the majority of climate scientists believe it is nonsense. As an engineer, I could state that I can make water spontaneously run uphill. If you are not a more highly qualified engineer than I am, you have no right to question my word. Is that idiotic or what?
July 18, 2011, 11:40 amWaldo Rado:
****”The way to prove them wrong, you have to get in on their turf, and prove through the scientific system that here is where they are going wrong.”
I have been challenging the CS tribe to peer-review their stuff for a year or so. They absolutely will not—they know full well what would happen.
And didn’t I tell you that someone would trot out the “think for yourself” line?
****People who let others think for them because they think they aren’t capable of it ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !
****They know their limitations.
****I don’t claim to be a climate scientist but I make up my own mind from a huge number of conflicting possibilities.
****Letting someone else do my thinking for me on an important matter like global warming is stupid.
Yeah, my friend new-articulate-netdr, but perhaps you don’t know your limitations. Maybe you are “thinking for yourself” but you don’t know what the hell you are talking about—did it ever occur to you that while you are making up your own mind you might not have the knowledge, experience, and resources to make an accurate evaluation? Really—watching clouds?!
****”As an engineer, I could state that I can make water spontaneously run uphill. If you are not a more highly qualified engineer than I am, you have no right to question my word. Is that idiotic or what?”
Yes, that is idiotic. Because water obviously runs downhill. But there is little that is obvious about GW except that the planet is getting warmer. This is where you need an expert—don’t play stupid. Or perhaps, Ted and articulate-net, you should also decide to argue that cigarettes are NOT cancerous? Go ahead, think for yourself! Or perhaps McDonald’s french fries are good for your heart? Think! Don’t be daunted by your lack of expertise or experience! Decide for yourself! Maybe herpies can be cured by mouthwash! IF you think you don’t know, then you don’t! So just decide! That’s the nice thing about science—everybody’s opinion is as good as everyone else!!!
July 18, 2011, 11:58 amWaldo Rado:
By the way
****The honest scientists like the good professor admit to a great deal of uncertainty****
Read the Real Climate blog. They constantly point out where there are uncertainties. If you admit this, however, you would have to abandon most of your righteous indignation against the unnamed “snake oil salesmen” of the world.
July 18, 2011, 12:02 pmnetdr:
Sock puppet and renewable.
I will always make up my own mind about important issues because life has taught me that it works.
I had an issue with IRS which was worth $11,000 to me so I went to a professional. I didn’t like his answer so I went to another professional and I didn’t like his answer either. To make a long story short I went to 5 professionals before getting to someone working for IRS which said I didn’t owe the taxes.
He provided the proper forms and I was $11,000 richer which was a new car in those days.
Example 2 [Which is more germane]
My wife had serious back problems and could only crawl to the bathroom and back from her bed. This continued for 6 months and we went to 2 surgeons who both recommended back surgery.
We almost did it but an old doctor who’s wife had had similar problems convinced us to wait another 6 months and only then to do it when all other options were closed. [Like Global Warming taxes.]
We waited 6 months and she was better and 6 more and she was well.
To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. [To a man with CO2 everything seems to be caused by it. ]
Or how about the car repair professional who said my $1,200 auto computer had to be replaced but when I got another opinion found out that by replacing a cheap [relatively] sensor the problem went away.
Or how about my sister who literally saved her daughter’s life because a prescribed drug was causing liver failure and the nurse said bleeding in her urine was “normal”! The PDR said differently and she can read quite well. She went ballistic !
I have found that questioning the “experts” almost pays big dividends.
If you can’t understand the issues find an expert and leave the thinking to him, but if you are capable use your own brain.
You know your limitations.
The rest of us will use our own brains.
July 18, 2011, 1:21 pmWaldamused:
Netdr, you have inadvertently provided the funniest, most nonsensical answer yet on CS.
You somehow managed to worm out of $11K owed the government by being obdurate and manipulating the bureaucracy—oh great.
I do congratulate you on second guessing the auto-mechanic who was trying to rip you off…but it doesn’t take an expert to know that mechanics can sometimes be unscrupulous.
Your sister went to the nurse instead of the doctor—-just like listening to an engineer rather than a climate scientist.
But the painfully funniest—-in a very non-funny and actually painful way—-is that you let your wife convalesce in pain for a year and a half rather than get her needed medical help. I don’t think you (or she) won that one, my brother.
What makes this whole thing ultimately comedic, however, is the idea that you think any of this qualifies you to expostulate on climate science!
I can only pray, netdr, that if your radiologist says there is a dark mass in your lung or your brain that you don’t try to make up your own mind but seek the help of qualified medical experts!!!!!! Get thee to a doctor, young man!
July 18, 2011, 2:27 pmnetdr:
The examples I gave worked. What you propose probably wouldn’t, but we will never know.
The point is that letting others do your thinking for you is stupid.
July 18, 2011, 2:54 pmWaldamused:
U R 2 Funny, netdr.
July 18, 2011, 3:04 pmnetdr:
Sock Puppet
Someone like you would never even think to question an “authority figure” even a nurse. After the fact you can claim that you would have, but you wouldn’t. You can’t or won’t think for yourself.
BTW: The government representative said I didn’t owe the money, and since I was not audited on that year he must have been right. Is paying money you don’t owe smart ? I don’t think so. [ Come to think of it alarmists love paying taxes, even unnecessary ones. ]
In a medical situation I would get the best medical advice I could afford but I have the final say especially when equally qualified specialists disagree like global warming. I have to live with the result.
As far as getting “help” for my wife If you had heard of the negative outcomes of various back surgeries a year of discomfort was a small price to pay to avoid the risk which is not negligible.
She and I shared in the decision and it was the correct one.
What has this to do with global warming ?
Very little, I just wanted you to know what it feels like to think for yourself since you will never experience it yourself.
July 18, 2011, 3:12 pmWaldamused:
Funnier every time.
July 18, 2011, 3:21 pmTed Rado:
I like the idea that we should blindly follow the experts, at th same time “think for ourselves”. It saves lots of mental energy. Take the US government as an example. They pushed the idea that everyone is entitled to own a house that they cannot afford. Many unfortunates (remember, follow the experts blindly) did that and are now out in the street and bankrupt.
The last I heard, this is a free country and we can question any proposal we want. If there is a convincing explanation, and the results are worth the cost, we will accept it. To be told we must blindly accept it because the “experts” are smarter is absurd. Some of those who criticize this view attack engineering views of engineers, when they themselves are clearly devoid of any understanding of engineering principles. What double talk.
Some are trying to have an interesting and informative discussion of AGW, modelling, alternative energy, etc. Others seem to feel that lashing out at anyone with a different take on the subject somehow is a positive contribution. Wow!
July 18, 2011, 4:55 pmChippas:
Netdr,
‘The plural of anecdote is not data.’
How do you know you aren’t victim to the dunning-kruger effect?
Besides that, I’m sure you are aware that one of the fundamental requirements for good science is communication. This is not just so that others can learn your findings but also so others can cross-check your findings, so you can reciprocally clarify your findings. Hence we have peer-review.
You, like so many other ‘skeptics’ are, for years now, being incredibly useless in this regard. So many of you ‘know’ that truth of the issue but do not communicate it the right way. If AGW is not what is being portrayed by the IPCC, then I god damn want that corrected. I have no vested interest in CAGW. A huge % of climate scientists have no vested interest in CAGW, so they would love to be able to release a groundbreaking paper to cast doubt on the current science–a major career highlight. But. it. still. hasn’t. happened!
Please, put up or shut up.
Also would you show me how you know that: ‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.’??
(I am interpreting ‘CAGW’ as the general IPCC hypothesis, because no one uses that term in the science)
July 18, 2011, 5:10 pmWaldo WTF?:
Now come on Ted—
****The last I heard, this is a free country and we can question any proposal we want.
Okay. On this we can agree. And I question your proposals.
**** To be told we must blindly accept it because the “experts” are smarter is absurd.
As far as I know, no one has ever posted anything remotely like this. You are the only one representing “blind acceptance” of anything. But you must concede a couple of things here, Ted:
1) This site, like all denialist sites, is full of “authorities.” You simply accept them…as long as they are denialist. The “think for yourself” mantra is absurd after reading these boards for any length of time.
2) Experts may not necessarily have higher I.Q.s than anyone here—but they are more studied and informed, hence the “expert” designation. Therefore we should probably listen to them. That’s the difference, and it is not absurd at all—actually, it is simple common sense.
****Some of those who criticize this view attack engineering views of engineers, when they themselves are clearly devoid of any understanding of engineering principles.
And how does this strike you? Is this a particularly smart thing to do?
****Some are trying to have an interesting and informative discussion of AGW, modelling, alternative energy, etc.
Bovine excrement. This site, and ones like it, are dedicated to the denigration of climate scientists and the dissemination of political ideology masked by highly biased science.
****Others seem to feel that lashing out at anyone with a different take on the subject somehow is a positive contribution. Wow!
Okay. Walk your talk then. Respect the opinions of those who differ with you and call out those who treat climate scientists with disrespect. Treat both sides with equality. What about Willie Soon—shouldn’t you be as concerned with his apparent avarice as you appear to be with those you as a group label “alarmist”?
“Wow” is right.
July 18, 2011, 9:33 pmnetdr:
Sock Puppet
Following perceived authority is a genetic trait that thank heaven I wasn’t cursed with.
In the climate field I listened to “An Inconvenient Truth” then I went online to read the rebuttal and the rebuttal to the rebuttal.
July 19, 2011, 7:23 am.
The alarmists clearly lost that debate and I was skeptical from then on.
.
The verbal tap dance the alarmists did to explain how CO2 could lag temperature and still cause the temperature rise would have made Fred Astair proud.
.
Despite absolutely no measurements they blindly stated CO2 was there so it must have caused warming. So using the warming that must have been caused by CO2 as a proof that CO2 is causing warming now is circular reasoning at it’s finest.
.
I have read all or parts of 20 + papers and all seem to say essentially the same thing. “CO2 was there so it must have caused warming” With no measurements involved.
.
If we could tell how much warming CO2 caused in those [ancient] times we could use the same method to tell how much it has caused since 1860 by getting modern ice cores. But then as now there were many overlapping sources of warming and cooling and sorting out how much was due to CO2 is beyond the baby science of climatology.
.
The alarmists have never answered the question satisfactorily even 5 years later.
Verbal tap dancing won’t do.
netdr:
Sock Puppet
I saw the above exchange and thought “Isn’t that nice they are letting the mentally challenged get degrees in climatology these days.”
People who think for a living should be better at it.
July 19, 2011, 7:56 amTed Rado:
Waldo:
If you believe what you just posted, you would lighten up and discuss the subject without all the vitriol. Take a cold shower and calm down. You will live longer.
July 19, 2011, 9:16 amDr Waldo Rado:
See, this is when I call bovine X on your claims of being a “college professor,” netdr.
You’ve read a grand total of “20 +” papers. And now you feel informed?!
By the way, explanations from the experts on sea rise and Co2 lag time are pretty easy to find on Real Climate and elsewhere, as are explanations of past and present Co2 measurements, how they are measured, and what actual scientists think they mean on any number of sites, including skeptic sites—these include ice core measurements and why there is a misunderstanding about “lag time” which does not exist (along with admissions about the uncertainties of the process). There are also numerous discussions of cloud dimming and albedo out there–lots since 1860.
It would seem you are not “questioning authority,” you are simply misunderstanding the basic science and refusing to become informed about it.
Ted, the minute the vitriol leaves CS is when I pack up and go home. And that was a lame repartee—you’re as hypocritical as the rest of them.
Cheers.
July 19, 2011, 11:30 amTed Rado:
Waldo:
It sounds like you need two cold showers and a tranquilizer.
July 19, 2011, 12:52 pmChippas:
Netdr,
Would you show me how you know that: ‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.’??
(I am interpreting ‘CAGW’ as the general IPCC hypothesis, because no one uses that term in the science)
communicate.
July 19, 2011, 3:22 pmWaldo Showed & Shaved:
Avoidance tactic, Ted, and not a very clever or creative one. What’s your opinion about the charges against Willie Soon? Do you have an opinion?
July 19, 2011, 3:23 pmWillie Soon:
Denial for Hire: Willie Soon’s Career Fueled by Big Oil, Coal and Koch Money
Huffington Post
Willie Soon, the notorious climate denier who has made a career out of attacking the IPCC and climate scientists, has received over $1 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade, according to a new report from Greenpeace.
The Greenpeace report, “Dr. Willie Soon: A Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal,” reveals that $1.033 million of Dr. Soon’s funding since 2001 has come from oil and coal interests. Since 2002, every grant Dr. Soon received originated with fossil fuel interests, according to documents received from the Smithsonian Institution in response to Greenpeace FOIA requests.
The documents show that Willie Soon has received at least $175,000 from Koch family foundations (Soon is a key player in the Koch brothers’ climate denial machine, as Greenpeace documented previously), $230,000 from Southern Company, $274,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, and $335,000 from ExxonMobil, among other polluters.
Dr. Soon is perhaps most well-known for his work with fellow astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas attempting to challenge the “hockey stick” graph of temperature records, first published by Dr. Michael Mann.
But the documents reveal that he also fancied himself a ringleader of a coordinated effort to sully the IPCC’s fourth assessment, plotting with Exxon staffers years in advance about how to attack the 2007 report.
A letter that Dr. Soon wrote in 2003, uncovered by Greenpeace, states:
Clearly they [the AR4 chapters] may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all… But, as A-team, we may for once give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters, especially WG1 — judging from our true expertise in the basic climate sciences…
Even if we can tackle ONE single chapter down the road but forcefully and effectively… we will really accomplish A LOT!
In all cases, I hope we can start discussing among ourselves to see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report or to re-direct attention back to science…
Soon has served on the roster of many oil- and coal-funded front groups over the past 15 years, from his role as “Scientific Adviser” at the coal-funded Greening Earth Society in the late 1990s, to his affiliations with a variety of Koch-Exxon-Scaife funded groups like the George C. Marshall Institute, the Science and Public Policy Institute, the Center for Science and Public Policy and the Heartland Institute.
Dr. Soon is among the speakers at the annual Denialapalooza climate denier meeting hosted by the Heartland Institute in Washington DC later this week. Since the theme of that Heartland junk science junket is “Restoring the Scientific Method,” perhaps the attendees will query Dr. Soon about the ethics of accepting a million dollars from polluter interests while claiming that climate change is nothing to worry about.
July 19, 2011, 10:24 pmJennings:
So?
July 20, 2011, 3:13 amnetdr:
sock puppet
Re: CO2 warming after last ice age.
Please explain how they were able to remove the natural warming and identify the CO2 warming. I don’t have time to read every paper on the subject. Twenty seemed like a good number to me.
Since they can’t do it in 2011 with satellites whizzing overhead it seems probable that they can’t do it for 20,000 years ago from ice cores.
Just hand waving and pretending “they” must have done it somehow and it is explained somewhere doesn’t cut it.
If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people. If true they would have trumpeted it on every available media. Realclimate is a snake-oil selling site and they won’t allow anyone to post valid points in rebuttal.
It might shake the faith of the other posters.
I seem to have been barred from posting for refusing to accept their phony logic.
As long as the college keeps paying me I don’t care what you think.
BTW: Of the other professors only one admits to believing in CAGW. [ Nice guy but more gullible than I would have guessed.]
I am in Galveston this week seeing if rising sea levels have caused me to move my beach towel more or less than 2 cigarette lengths at high tide . [in 30 years]
The climate change industry spends far more advancing their agenda than “Big Oil”. A belief in CAGW can get you an all expense paid trip to Copenhagen while skepticism gets you a plane ticket to Omaha.
Al Gore admits to spending $300 million of tainted money provide by those who gain financially from CAGW hysteria.
He is ramping up to do it again in Sept. Pots calling the kettle black ?
July 20, 2011, 6:42 amWaldings:
Jennings,
Shouldn’t you be concerned that a leading skeptic has taken over $1M from energy companies? Wouldn’t this indicate that you should be skeptical of skeptic information? Doesn’t this implicate the other skeptic scientists in Soon’s circle? etc. etc.
I doubt that you are so obtuse that the implications of someone like Soon being well financed by energy concerns are completely lost on you.
And doesn’t it bother you that climate scientists are continually accused of vague and unproven charges (such as netdr’s “Groupthink” and, my favorite, ADiff’s “kill the poor”) but you are now faced with fairly damning evidence against a prominent skeptic and your response is “So?”
July 20, 2011, 9:29 amWaldings:
Netdr,
****”I don’t have time to read every paper on the subject.”
This, this, THIS is why you rely on expert opinion! You just made my argument for me. You don’t have the time become an expert yourself—neither do I, nor do most of the people here. You just admitted you don’t have the experience or expertise, what I have been charging all along. You just validated everything I’ve said. Yet you have diehard opinions on the subject. Can’t you see the problem?
****”Twenty seemed like a good number to me.”
Lousy number, netdr. They’ve been studying the phenomenon for 20+ years. IF you actually do work for a college (adjunct?) then this is very bad academic thinking and worse academic work.
****”Since they can’t do it in 2011 with satellites whizzing overhead it seems probable that they can’t do it for 20,000 years ago from ice cores.”
“Probable”? I don’t know, netdr. Maybe you should find out (I’m not sure what “it” is anyway—beware the pronoun, tends to be very vague). Once again, you don’t know. Yet you are sure of yourself. As I posted earlier—think for yourself? Fine. But do you know what the hell you are talking about? No, you don’t.
****”Just hand waving and pretending “they” must have done it somehow and it is explained somewhere doesn’t cut it.”
Okay,so do the work to understand what does “cut it” or not. I don’t know if CAGW is real. But unless you have done the actual research, admit your limitations, suspend your opinion. Fine, be skeptical, but don’t pretend you know. I doubt that anyone “waves their hand” at anything—one can almost always find an answer to these sorts of questions in the time it takes to do a Google search (see above). And if you are an academic, do an EBSCOhost search. It’s not that hard.
And I wish to hell Gore would shut the hell up! I think he’s done more damage to the entire dialogue than an army of Warren Meyers. And if Gore is getting wealthy over the debate, then be as mad as you should be over Soon.
July 20, 2011, 9:43 amWaldings:
By the way:
“If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=CO2_doesn%27t_lead%2C_it_lags
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
And I’ve seen plenty of rebuttals, although these are often rebutted.
Now, if you disagree–great. But prove it. Peer-review. Blow them away.
July 20, 2011, 9:53 amTed Rado:
The notion that unless you read EVERY AGW paper and are yourself a climate expert, you MUST blindly believe the expert CAGW pushers, is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. Many who are pushing this notion have clearly demonstrated that they have NO understanding of engineering (they wouldn’t recognize it if they fell into a bucket of it), but don’t hesitate to criticize engineers who have a lifetime’s experience. Have they read EVERY engineering paper dealing with alt energy and other offshoots of the AGW thing? I don’t know what their problem is. (I can guess, but I am not a psychiatrist, so I am not allowed to express an opinion).
July 20, 2011, 12:08 pmWaldo Rado:
“blindly believe”
“blindly believe”
Only you use these terms, Ted. You are exaggerating, and thus throwing a strawman on the fire.
But one must have an understanding of a problem before one can critique and challenge, no? You must at least be cognizant of the facts, techniques, data, ect. Are you? Do you honestly know enough about CAGW to make any kind of determination?
The key term, I guess, is “blindly.” No, do not accept “blindly.” Accept or reject because you have looked carefully at all the evidence. Which is problematic for most of us because we don’t have the time to do so.
So what is the alternative you suggest, Ted? That one can read 20 papers on a subject that has two decades of science behind it and still come to a reasonable, informed, factually correct conclusion? That is beyond absurd. That’s actual stupidity.
Netdr’s statement—“If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people.”—is demonstrably incorrect. He was not in possession of the facts. That is the issue.
I personally would listen to an engineer with alternative energy expertise. When you say “I can guess,” you hit the nail on the head. You can only “guess.” You want to run your scientific and engineering community on ill-informed guess-work, Ted? Go right ahead. But leave the rest of the world alone.
July 20, 2011, 3:13 pmTed Rado:
Apparently some feel they can criticize everyone else’s opinion, but theirs is sacrosanct. Everyone else must read every paper, and be an expert in every field, before they are allowed to express their views. (Themselves excepted, of course).
EVERYONE, including the climate experts, agrees that there is much in the field that is not understood. Therefore, questions and debate are in order. This is a perfect example of scientific investigation in action. I guess there are those who believe that the most expert person at the table be fawningly listened to. If he says water runs up hill, we blindly accept that. To do that, I am sure everyone would agree, would be idiotic. I have many times been asked by people with no knowledge of science or technology to explain something to them. I have never (and hopfully never shall) expect anyone to shut up and sit down because I am an expert in the field and they are not allowed to question my statements. If they challenge my statements, I will gladly explain. I can’t imagine jumpimg all over them.
It appears that jumping all over those who raise questions about their views is a vocation to some people. What a pity. They could be doing something constructive.
July 20, 2011, 4:16 pmWaldo Rado:
Okay Ted, now we are running in circles. And you are hyperbolizing again. There are three things which I suspect you know but are in denial about:
1) Netdr writes — “If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people.”
And here is the link provided by Real Climate that answers this very challenge:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
There are actually at least three other links but Mr. Meyer’s spam-bot seems to want to delete the post if there is more than one link in the box. Google it yourself.
Netdr is not cognizant of these links, or if he is, he is ignoring them. That is what I am talking about. He wants to challenge these findings? Fine. But first he should be in possession of the data and theories. Then he should do the actual science to make sure he understands the problem. Then he should have someone with the requisite knowledge double check his findings.
Instead netdr posts “The verbal tap dance the alarmists did to explain how CO2 could lag temperature and still cause the temperature rise would have made Fred Astair proud.” Is this science to you? Is this politely challenging a scientific theory?
You’re not a dumb fella, Ted, but you are playing obtuse and simply rehashing the ‘everyone has an opinion’ tactic over and over.
This is science, not a literary discussion board or a town council meeting. Everyone’s opinion is not equal. Sorry.
2) This site and one’s like it are all about “jumping” on other people’s opinions. You just don’t like it when it doubles over to you.
3) Yeah. You should probably sit politely at the table and listen to the climate scientist. Who knows more—the guy who teaches EE 101 and has read 20 papers, or the professional climate scientist with 20 years of science behind him or her?
July 20, 2011, 4:56 pmTed Rado:
I am sure the climate scientist knows far more than I do. The question is, is he sufficiently certain of CAGW to justify the consequences of shutting down our industrial economy? Many of think not, which considering all the uncertainties and fudge factors in the models, is a reasonable view. If you believe otherwise, I have no problem with that. It’s a free country. I just believe a more gentlemanly discourse would be welcome.
July 20, 2011, 7:03 pmWaldo Rado:
I am as gentlemanly as those that comment to me, my friend.
But I also try to simply say it straight. For instance, this is a gross exaggeration: “shutting down our industrial economy.”
Absolutely no one is suggesting this. If one cannot debate without gross exaggeration, is there really anything to debate? Is it possible to disagree with the science without resorting to hyperbole?
There is also the issue of how the science is discussed here and on boards like this one. Look up at the comments above. There is very little respect for the scientists or their science. There is simply very little balanced commentary; almost all is predicated upon the idea that there is an agenda involved with virtually no proof of such a thing. And, again, there is a tremendous double standard. What is your take on the accusations against Willie Soon?
July 20, 2011, 9:43 pmChippas:
Netdr,
For a third time:
Would you show me how you know that: ‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.’??
(I am interpreting ‘CAGW’ as the general IPCC hypothesis, because no one uses that term in the science)
communicate.
Otherwise I’ll take your silence as an admittance that you have no evidence for this claim.
I am also still curious of how you are confident that you are not victim to the dunning-kruger effect?
Science is nothing without communication big guy.
Also, as an aside, I am wondering why engineers seem to have a higher number of skeptics than usual. Whether it’s related or not, I have been friends with engineer students for a while now but I can’t recall them taking many classes in research methodology in science. Do ENG students do research methodology classes??
July 21, 2011, 12:11 amTed Rado:
The AGW people state that an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions is necessary (their words, not mine). Governments are pushing for this by 2050. How do you reduce CO2 emissions by 80% without shutting down virtually all heavy industry? Per capita energy use (I have read) would have to go back to what it was in the 1870′s.
Thus, it is not a “gross exageration” to say we will shut down industry. There are a whole host of industries that cannot exist without carbonaceous fuel. You can’t fly airplanes on electricity (unless you have a VERY long extention cord). How do you plow the fields? Etc, etc.
If someone had a well thought out plan re how do do all this without fossil fuels, they should include it in their CO2 reduction plan. I have seen no such thing. All the “alternative energy” schemes are unworkable on a large scale. Most of them produce electricity, not carbonaceous fuels.
And yes, everyone IS suggesting this. How can you reduce CO2 by 80% and say “Noone is suggesting this”?
July 21, 2011, 8:03 amOn one of the CAGW blogs, it was stated that they realize there is now no alternative to carbonaceous fuels, but if forced to do so, people would find a way. Wouldn’t it be better to “find a way” first, and think about shutting down industry afterward?
netdr:
Sock puppet
From the link you provided.
“Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the “carbon pump” (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.”
I saw no argument that said CO2 led temperature at all in the ancient past.
Like all other papers I have read it admitted that CO2 lagged temperature. Quote EXACTLY where it says differently.
The amplification argument is foolish.
If I throw a teaspoon full of salt into the Pacific ocean it becomes more salty. All scientists surely agree. If one LB of CO2 is released the temperature goes up but was it significant then? Is it significant now ? No one even claims to know.
The listener is lead to believe both are true but in fact neither may be significant.
I now know why you refused to provide links to papers. They don’t say what you claim they do.
Study Finds Higher Educated Less Concerned About Warming
Warmists very frequently claim that skeptics are dummies and that if only they understood “the science”, they would become Warmists. These results shoot that down. The authors waffle on in an attempt to explain the finding in ways that preserve Warmism but the parsimonious explanation is simply that Warmism is wrong. In science, the most parsimonious (simplest) explanation is normally the one chosen
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2011/07/study-finds-higher-educated-less.html
The all important issue of feedback without which the house of cards of alarmism crumbles is far from agreed upon in the peer reviewed literature even the SIGN of the feedback is unknown. Claiming consensus on this critical matter is a simply untrue.
July 21, 2011, 8:22 amnetdr:
Engineers are used to phonies. Sorting them from the competent is relatively easy. If their designs don’t work they are terminated.
I have had co-workers who claimed to have degrees whose designs repeatedly failed to work [just like the climate models].
Degrees or not they were shown the door and instructed how to use it.
A climate modeller can be [and has been] wrong for 30 years and remain employed as long as his model predicts warming. If it predicted cooling he would be unemployed rapidly no matter what the temperature did.
Engineers are trained to listen to complex arguments and separate the “flyspecks from the pepper”. That is why they are quick to see phony logic wherever they find it.
Those that accept arguments from authority without verifying the truth for themselves are in the unemployment office quickly.
July 21, 2011, 8:31 amTed Rado:
Netdr:
Another point re engineers. They are taught to quantify things. Many schemes sound wonderful until you hang numbers on them. Examples are water and air storage of energy, making gasoline out of CO2, etc. A few simple calcs iluminate the flaws in these schemes, even though the idea, without numbers, sounds great. I have shot down a whole bunch of ideas of my own by simply quantifying them.
The greatest enemy of rational thought is zealotry. Long ago, there was a saying “the most dangerous person in the company is an enthusiastic R&D director”. Objectively analyzing an idea is the hallmark of an effective engineer. New ideas are always welcome, but they must be wrung out thoroughly. Only a very small fraction of ideas work out. The rest must be rooted out before huge amounts of money are spent on them.
July 21, 2011, 12:09 pmChippas:
Netdr,
You admit that you lied.
Going by your description of an engineer, you must surely see how phoney YOU are.
It also seems that engineer students do not do research methodology classes?? Interesting.
Partly makes sense now.
July 21, 2011, 4:32 pmWaldo Does Netdr's Homework:
Netdr, what are you looking for? The first half of the paragraph you quoted explains why there is a lag in CO2.
****“What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth’s wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat…”
This explanation is apparently rather old (in science terms). The author is saying that the Earth tilts, the ice melts and reflects less sun, and the higher temperatures increase the amount of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which also heats the planet and is then trapped in the Arctic ice. All along the scientists have admitted that there are other things that cause warming than CO2—actually, no one is disputing that. But all of them say that once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it amplifies the warming caused by other forcings yet can lag behind them. In fact, CO2 can overtaking the primary driver (Google this—I won’t do any more of your homework) and become the primary driver itself. (Which, by the way, is the issue scientists say we are dealing with today.)
Now, you posted “If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people.” And yet here is an explanation of this very 800 year lag posted for free and for all to see, including links, additional postings, and commentary at the end. Right?
No one is tap dancing around the explanation—they are providing you with an explanation, which you claimed they did not. (You tried to switch up what you posted there, but I’m paying attention…)
So, the scientists did, in fact, “explain away the 800 lag time”—they just gave you an explanation for why there is a lag of CO2 behind temperature (tilt; ice melt; rising CO2 which amplifies and gets trapped). In fact, they gave it to you some time ago. You are wrong: the scientists have explained something which you claimed they did not.
I’m going to post that again:
You are wrong, net “doctor,” it’s right there: the scientists have explained a phenomenon (800 yr lag) which you claimed they did not.
Now, if you don’t want to take the word of the “authorities,” then I suggest you prove them wrong. That’s fine by me—I have nothing invested in the CO2 arctic lag. And there are people who are skeptical of this (seems to be mostly engineers). But I challenge you to prove that “The amplification argument is foolish.” I double dog dare you. I bet anything you cannot prove that “amplification is foolish.” Do it. But don’t be a weenie and post crap about throwing salt into the ocean on a blog (which is not proof); get it peer-reviewed, that way you can see if 20+ papers cuts it
Are you reading selectively, netdr?
And this— “I now know why you refused to provide links to papers. They don’t say what you claim they do”—confuses me. I don’t know what you are talking about and have said so several times. You’ve got me confused with someone else posting here.
However, if you look closely on the link I provided, you will see a number of links to papers helpfully provided by Real Climate, including a number of links to discussions about this very subject. Or just do your own damn homework—Google the issue yourself!
Now, if you really are a teacher (adjunct?) you certainly have students who do not do their homework and yet still want credit for the assignment. Or, certainly you have had students who want to take short cuts, don’t do all the readings, and resent it when someone knows more than they do. I will not do your homework for you. You are presumably a big boy who claims to be in charge of classrooms yet seems unwilling or unable to actually do your own homework. There are links on every page. The whole point is that you have not done your homework and just flunked your first take home exam.
This kind of thinking is why I am on the thread, Ted.
July 21, 2011, 8:41 pmWaldo in 2050:
Now Ted, please—you are still exaggerating. I find absolutely no evidence that anyone wants to destroy heavy industry and no one even suggested that. What I found was that, after another 40 years of technological development, scientists and ecologists have challenged industry to reduce emissions to “pre 2000″ levels. Google it.
40 years of developing emissions reducing technology.
You don’t strike me as a paranoid person, Ted, but you did just make a huge leap on these boards from “reducing emissions” to “destroying heavy industry.” I’m trying to be very civil here, but I do have to say that you exaggerated simply to create an arguing point that doesn’t really exist—it wasn’t even that you thought it couldn’t be done and would waste money or something to that effect, you posted that ecology was going to “destroy heavy industry.” After 40 years.
Why is there is obsessive need to take problems to the extreme? Why must you demonize scientists and ecologists? Can’t you just disagree with them and then back up what you say reasonably and with facts on hand? ADiff actually posted that CAGW was an excuse to “kill the poor.” And after all those posts about AGW “fear mongering,” posters here are still making these kind of propagandist claims.
If you cannot debate without gross exaggeration, do you really have a point to make?
And, I’m sorry to keep harping on this, Ted, but you have continuously ignored the question: What about Willie Soon?
July 21, 2011, 8:59 pmMalcolm:
What about Willie Soon, Waldo?
He took money from energy companies. Many proponents of CAGW did, too. So?
July 21, 2011, 9:35 pmMalcolm:
Chippas, I don’t have numbers on how many of all scientifically literate people do or do not support CAGW, but I do know that the number of qualified people who do not support it is very, very large. Here is something you might want to look at:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
July 21, 2011, 11:00 pmWaldolm:
Malcolm, have you checked on these “qualified people”? You might want to look at your petition yourself. I started to Google a few names and found a good start to verifying who was actually signing:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/one-more-petition-still-a-consensus/
Notice a lack of anything here? Say, climate scientists? I also notice a few names who are unverified as actual people. I too have a PhD, actually, but it is not in climate science. Should I sign the petition too? I mean, I’m well educated—guess that makes me qualified to judge the science, huh.
1) Earl M.J. Aagaard – Professor of Biology
Research Interests:
Intelligent design (we’re off to a great start), Relation of Man to his environment
No publications relevant to climate
2) Charles W. Aami
Can’t find him anywhere on google, with a few different terms.
Charles W. Aami
“Charles W. Aami”
“Charles Aami”
Apparently no publications, nor anything relevant to climate
3) Roger L. Aamodt
Looks like someone from the National Cancer Institute
Here and Here
No publications relevant to climate
4) Wilbur A. Aanes
Veterinary /Large Animal Surgery
No publications relevant to climate change
5) Robert Aaron (now deceased)
Electrical Engineer/Telecommunications
Here and Here
No publications relevant to climate
6) Ralph F. Abate
in the area of bridge design, and also runs student bridge contests (which I’m sure allows him to make judgments on the errors in the scientific community on climate change)
Here and Here
No publications relevant to climate
7) Hamed K. Abbas
Research Plant Pathologist, food safety
No publications relevant to climate
8, Paul Abbett
Can’t find much on google, with a couple of search terms
“Paul Abbett”
Paul Abbett AND climate
No publications relevant to climate
9) Wyatt E. Abbitt III
Same thing,
and zero publications
10) Ursula K. Abbott
In Avian Wildlife/Avian Genetics
No publications relevant to climate
Remember, everyone from here on out has (or should have) phD’s.
B
1) Dirk Den Baars
Looks like the guy is now deceased for several years, but specialized in exploration and mining of copper, precious metals, and industrial minerals, from here and here. Looks like he has some interesting World War 2 stories though.
No publications relevant to climate
2) Ronald R. Bach
Medical (health) Field / Oncology
No publications relevant to climate
C
3) Fernando Cadena- Civil Engineering
No publications relevant to climate
4) Fernando Cadena, C (different guy I suppose)
Inventor , and looks like he is looking to remove arsenic from water
No relevant publications to climate
D
5) Hugo C. da Silva
There is a Hugo C Da Silva Jr who recently graduated in nuclear engineering. But there is no “Jr.” in the petition, so it could be Hugo C. da Silva the sales associate/real estate guy. Doesn’t look like a phD though, but no matter which guy you want, no publications on climate
6) John W. Dabbs
Another strange search…I’ll let you take your pick.
You can have John W. Dabbs the guy who died in 1919, the family genealogy guy , or the medical guy. The last guy might be the more impressive choice (Though that is an M.D., not a phD) but regardless, none of them have any publications on climate
E
7) Joseph Jackson Eachus-
Couldn’t find much , but I think some poor guy is trying to get some information on him on one of them ancestry sites. In any case, no publications relevant to climate
8, Robert John Eagan
Not a lot of luck either, a search search with just his name gave no results- Played around with the name a bit (Robert J. Eagan) and I found a guy in nuclear power, a guy for Southwestern Electrical cooperative and one lawyer. I found no phD’s, but I also found no publications in climate
F
9) Michael William Fabian
Can’t find him, but he might be involved in OSU’s biological department. No publications relevant to climate
10) Thomas John Fabish
Looks like a bandconductor. The band guy seems to be the more famous one, but if you don’t like him, there is the guy from the Paint and Coating Resource Center. No publications in climate.
G
11) Steven Alexander Gaal- Involved in the mathematics geneaology project. Looks like a guy from back in the 1940′s, and no publications relevant to climate
12) P. S. Gaal
Looks like the guy is involved in the advancement of the transport properties of materials. Deals with thermal conductivity in materials, thermal diffusivity, etc. No publications relevant to climate
H
13) Gottfried Haacke
Looks like an inventor. Has patents on narrow band radiation films. Perhaps worked on windows that absorbed solar heat (on greenhouses for instance). No publications relevant to climate
14) Ronald L. Haaland
In agronomy and deals with plants/soil. Or he could be a real estate agent. No publications relevant to climate
I
15) Michael John Iatropoulos
Department of Pathology, expertise in toxicology. No publications relevant to climate
16) Icko Iben, Jr
Professor at Universtiy of Illinois (Dept. of Astronomy) with expertise in the structure and evolution of stars . A good publication record, but nothing on climate
J
17) Robert B. Jacko
Professor of civil engineering. Research interests are air pollution management and control, transportation noise problems, environmental occupational safety and health. Looks like he has some background in environmental problems ( I spot one publication on ozone modeling), but nothing on climate/climate change
18, Harold Jackson
founder and president of The JacksonHeath Group Inc., (I quote). “an international communications and management consulting agency established in 1990 that has provided strategic counsel to corporate CEOs, government officials, college presidents and dignitaries across the country and abroad.” No publications relevant to climate
K
19) Robert Kabel
Kabel does consulting work, and represents clients before Congress, Executive Branch departments and agencies, independent agencies and the White House. There is also a Robert L. Kabel who is in chemical engineering, though no publications anytime recent. All around, no climate expertise.
20) T. Theodore Kadota
Some different guys here. Possibly one in Spatial Statistics and Digital Image Analysis, another guy in Mathematical and Algorithmic Sciences Research Center from 1966-1994. Maybe the same guy, who knows.
No one with publications pertaining to climate
L
21) Peter La Celle
Department of Dermatology, member of Cancer Center at University of Rochester. From his publications linked inside, nothing to do with climate.
22) Timothy La Farge
This guy seemed interesting. If it’s the same guy in these publications, then he seems like he is into forestry (no work on climate). He has a couple of writeups in some obscure sources (and supporting some obscure material like geocraft.com, and Lindzen’s wall street journal article) on global warming, which are far from impressive.
M
July 21, 2011, 11:25 pm23) Robert P. Ma
Sorry, couldn’t find anything on this guy. Certainly nothing relevant to climate.
24) Tso-Ping Ma
Department of Electrical engineering . Interested in technological issues related to semiconductor devices. No publications relevant to climate
N
25) Misac Nabighian
I suppose this is as close as we get to a goody. Dr. Misac Nabighian is a senior researcher in the department of geophysics at Colorado School of Mines. Research interests are Potential and electromagnetic fields in Geophysics: theory, data processing and interpretation. No publications relevant to climate.
26) Robert E. Nabours
Consulting Electrical Engineers. No publications relevant to climate.
O
27) Robert Quincy Oaks Jr
Couldn’t find anything on him here. I tried a few different search terms, but the guy doesn’t seem too popular. I get no publications relevant to climate (or anything)
28, Deborah O’Bannon
A civil engineering proferssor. She was also awarded the “Fellow Grade of the Society of Women Engineers for her empowerment of women in engineering.” No publications relevant to climate.
P
29) J. Pace
Hard to do much without a first name, but I googled J. Pace AND climate and got nothing. Miraculously, this guy seems to be another nobody. If anyone knows Dr. Pace, I’d love to hear it.
30) Gilbert E. Pacey
Professor at Miami University in the Center for Nanotechnology, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. No publications relevant to climate.
Q
31) Forrest W. Quackenbush
Into biochemsitry. Looks like a lot of work in biology and chemistry involving genetics, cellular level stuff, etc, but nothing on climate
32) James R. Qualey
The guy looks like he knows his stuff about smoke detectors, and appears to be a principal systems engineer. Unless the fire alarms have something to do with more forest fires in a warming world (maybe he’s preparing us all), he doesn’t seem to have any involvement with anything pertaining to climate
R
33) Bernard Raab
Couldn’t find anything really. He had a reply to a post about finding intelligent life in the universe where he says he’s a retired physicist. I don’t see anything of a publication record, let alone anything to do with climate.
34) F. H. Raab
Works with amplifiers and Transmitters. Cited in work on electronics, radio engineering, wireless communications, etc. No publications relevant to climate
S
35) Patrick Saatzer
Received his phD in Chemistry. Some publications on photochemistry of saturated molecules, but nothing on climate.
36) Burns Roy Sabey
Looks like he’s involved in soil science, and has am Introductory Experimental Soil Science book. No found publications on climate
T
37) Widen Tabakoff
Professor of Aerospace Engineering & Engineering Mechanics . No relevant publications (on his page) to climate.
38, Ronald Dwight Tabler
Check out Tabler and associates involved in engineering for snow, sand, dust, and wind control. No publications relevant to climate. Though, he has some work on the effects of snow fences on crashes, controlling blowing snow with fences, etc…maybe it’ll come in handy with climate change…who knows.
U
39) Herbert M S Uberall
Knowledge in scattering of soundwaves and acoustics. Now a retired professor, as they announced in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America . No publications relevant to climate.
40) Waheed Uddin
Professional in research and instruction, design, construction, maintenance management of highways and airports, sustainable development, and related areas of transportation engineering. Degrees in engineering. Publications in infrastructure management, but nothing to do with climate .
V
41) James P. Vacik
In Pharmaceutical area, here and from a college of pharmacy. To me astonishment, he has no publications relevant to climate
42) Juris Vagners
Retired professor in Aeronautics and Astronautics department. Degrees and teaching in engineering disciplines. Of course, no publications relevant to climate
W
43) William R. Wachtler
Patent of a Liquid processing and sorting system…interesting. Publications relevant to climate: zero
44) William Howard Wade
Couldn’t find anything scientific related. Some stuff on that family history and genealogy stuff. No publications relevant to climate
45) Ning Xi
degree in Systems Science and Mathematics, an M.S. in Computer Science, and background in engineering. Research interests include robotics, manufacturing automation, micro/nano systems, and intelligent control and systems. From his publications page (inside), nothing relevant to climate.
46) Y. Xie
A hard search term, and I got a few things, none of which was relevant to climate. Best bet is in biology.
Y
47) Dmeter Yablonsky
Mathematics professor for Pace University. No publications relevant to climate
48, Richard Howard Yahner
If it’s the same guy, Professor of Wildlife Conservation and Assistant Director for Outreach. Interests are in Wildlife ecology and conservation biology in forested and human-induced landscapes and ecosystems. Has publications in ecosystems, but not climate.
Z
49) Robert V. Zackroff- Microbiologist
Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. No relevant publications on climate
50) Daniel J. Zaffarano (retired)
Involved in physics (Science Education K-12, retired Dean of Graduate College and Vice President, Research). Looks like some interesting stuff on Beta and Gamma Rays, but no publications relevant to climate.
Update- Apparently there is a Robert Quincy Oaks Jr. here and at least some papers in stratigraphy (back in the 1960′s, he’s retired now).
Malcolm:
The site has a page on the qualifications of signers:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
If you want to go name by name, we can do this, but then we should do the same with lists of people who the IPCC (or anyone, really) claims support CAGW.
July 21, 2011, 11:36 pmWaldolm:
And, Willie Soon is a big deal for two reasons:
He took big money (over a million) from energy companies—which should leave one to question his integrity. Perhaps this does not invalidate his work, but it certainly seems to suggest a vested interest in coming to a certain conclusion. One should at least give him as much scrutiny as one does someone like Phil Jones, for instance.
For years the denialists have been accusing climate scientists of acting out of self-interest—to get funding, to further their careers, etc. But now a prominent skeptic is caught taking a very large amount of money from corporations who have an interest in public perception and political intervention…and the denialists are quiet. Not a word except for the occasional “So?” as if there were nothing vaguely suspicious about $1.3M paid to a scientist. There are those on this very board who repeatedly ignore the question.
Which CAGW scientists took energy money anyway?
July 21, 2011, 11:38 pmMalcolm:
Waldo, it should be noted that the amount of money you cite for Willie Soon is for about 10 years. 100 thousand per year on average is still substantial but not quite as alarming as you paint it. Many proponents of CAGW received and / or continue to receive today similar or greater amounts of money from the same energy companies. If you want to say that these money are “dirty” and the receivers of these money should be subject to additional scrutiny, go ahead, but then apply it to people on both sides of the debate. I don’t agree with the “additional” scrutiny, but that’s not important.
And, it’s not 1.3M, it’s 1.033M. Just so you know.
July 22, 2011, 12:05 amMalcolm:
Missed the question on which CAGW scientists took energy money. So, who? Well, a lot. If you want an example, take CRU:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Scroll down to the acknowledgements section. Quoting from the list: British Petroleum, Central Electricity Generating Board, … (names, names, names) …, Shell, United States Department of Energy, etc.
July 22, 2011, 12:16 amChippas:
Malcolm,
Thanks for responding, unlike the useless Netdr, but there is a big difference between what Nerdr claimed and what you provided. So it is still a lie on his part.
Why do the ‘skeptics’ even bother with petitions when they continually state that ‘consensus isn’t science’ motto of theirs??
Why are ‘skeptics’ so indifferent to Willie Soon’s conflict of interest but can be completely condemning of climate scientists who are merely in alleged conflicts of interests??
Why do skeptics who have read 20 papers feel confident that they understand the topic rather than admit that they are probably victim to the Dunning-kruger effect?
It is because they are not skeptics, they a deniers.
It is completely mind-blowing that the response Waldo gets from Malcolm (and others) when asking about Soon is ‘So?’ Either you guys have been living under a rock for 3 years, or you are being incredibly obtuse to not understand the significance of this information.
July 22, 2011, 5:23 amAs Waldo has said, these are not logical discourses. You guys think you are championing science when rather you are messing it up. Thank God more people don’t listen to you.
netdr:
sock puppet
Your link did not say here wasn’t a lag between temperatures and CO2 like you claimed it did.
EPIC FAIL !
It gave the old ” amplification” song and dance which anyone with a brain can see through. Throwing 1 tablespoon of salt in the ocean amplifies the saltiness but is it a significant amount?
.
Since the temperature went down when the CO2 was the highest it had been CO2′s effect was minimal if measurable at all. Just like now the effect is unmeasurable.
.
What was worse the snake oil salesman [AL] gave the impression to the viewers that CO2 caused the warming even though he knew better.
.
July 22, 2011, 6:44 amThe litany you quoted from Realclimate just repeated the song and dance which the other papers I have read spouted.
.
As Ted said about numbers:
.
“Another point re engineers. They are taught to quantify things. Many schemes sound wonderful until you hang numbers on them. Examples are water and air storage of energy, making gasoline out of CO2, etc. A few simple calcs illuminate the flaws in these schemes, even though the idea, without numbers, sounds great. I have shot down a whole bunch of ideas of my own by simply quantifying them. ”
.
Without numbers the “amplification” is just so much cow dung.
netdr:
Now I know why the alarmists won’t debate, they loose.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate/#more-43775
The skeptics have an unfair advantage. Their arguments make sense to the public and the alarmist’s arguments don’t.
July 22, 2011, 7:21 amPauld:
I am not an engineer, but I will make a few comments in their defense.
Some people want to create the impression that climate science is some arcane field that make sense only to climate scientists. This is nonsense. A reasonably intelligent person with a very basic background in science and math can easily read and understand the IPCC reports and most of the technical articles that it relies upon.
My own daughter is an undergraduate in biomedical engineering. She has a strong background in calculus, linear algebra, statistics, physics, biology and fluid mechanics. She has no problem following the most technical discussions in the climate science literature.
Obviously, to understand climate science one must take the time to read a good deal of background information. Any competent engineer can do this.
The most frequent comment I read from engineers concerns the poor quality of the IPCC reports. They observe that IPCC reports are no where near the quality that engineers expect in a technical report made for decision makers. I think that this is a reasonable criticism for engineers to make and it is well within their experience and expertise.
July 22, 2011, 7:39 amPauld:
“Why are ‘skeptics’ so indifferent to Willie Soon’s conflict of interest but can be completely condemning of climate scientists who are merely in alleged conflicts of interests??”
I have read a bit of Willie Soon’s work and for the most part I have not been that impressed with it. His work certainly is not important to my skepticism about CAGW. That is why I am not particularly concerned about him.
Certainly, the fact that he received money from industry sources would cause me to be more careful in reading his research. However, any journal article should be evaluated based on its merits, not based on how the research was funded.
As to why skeptics are so concerned about the funding sources of climate scientists, I am not. For the most part, when I have seen the issue raised by skeptics, it is usually in response to alarmists who try to say (falsely) that all of the skeptics have been tainted by big oil.
Ultimately, evidence and arguments stand or fall on their own merits. In general, I think it is a waste of time to devote much time to arguing about funding sources. It is much more useful to discuss the quality and merits of a person’s research.
In short, rather than pointing out who funded Willie Soon’s research, I think it is much more helpful to provide information as to why it is good research or bad research.
July 22, 2011, 8:25 amTed Rado:
The reduction of CO2 emissions to Kyoto levels is a first step. To stop global warming (according to the CAGW pushers) CO2 emissions must be reduced by 80%. Many governments (I believe Obama included) state this as a final target for 2050. Thus, the first step is to get the camel’s nose in the tent with what seems to be a reasonable proposal. Trying to hide the 80% reduction behind the first Kyoto step is a joke.
This is all well documented. There is NO doubt that an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions would destroy our modern industrial economy. There is also NO doubt that that is the final goal of the CAGW pushers. This is WELL documented.
Someone should either explain that a reduction beyond the first step in unnecessary, or explain how industry can run on 80% less carbonaceous fuel.
As to Willie Soon, I am not familiar with his story. There are mindless zealots on both sides of the argument. I have no interest in those sort of people. Decisions should be based on reality, not hysteria and zealotry. If someone can show me a TOTAL plan for a future without fossil fuels, I would be delighted to see it. Otherwise, the whole idea sounds like keeping our finger tightly pressed on our self-destruct button.
Having a contest to see which side can muster the most adherents, or demonizing each other, is a childish waste of time. “My dad can lick your dad”. Hopefully, we are all intersted in finding the truth, not just pushing our own opinions.
July 22, 2011, 8:57 amTed Rado:
One other point re the Soon thing. Unless one has been unemployed all their life, they can be accused of “taking money” from someone. Perhaps we should get all our expert testimony from skid row. Those people are not taking money from ANY employer.
July 22, 2011, 9:03 amTed Rado:
Further on the 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. The EU and G8 have commited to this. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security act mandates a 70% reduction by 2050.
See: euroalert.net , also Heritage Foundation website re Liebermen. The latter discusses the consequences.
There are any number of references to the 80% reduction goal. How to do this without destroying industry is not explained. Our scientists/engineers will pull a rabbit out of the hat, I guess. Maybe waldo will do it?
July 22, 2011, 10:17 amWaldo Won:
***”Your link did not say here wasn’t a lag between temperatures and CO2 like you claimed it did.”
“EPIC FAIL !” (WTF are you even saying here?)
Come on, netdr. You posted that there was no explanation for the 800 year lag time. There is. You are trying to change what you initially posted because you have been caught. Or you are in denial.
****”It gave the old ” amplification” song and dance which anyone with a brain can see through.”
Prove it. Go ahead. Prove “amplification” wrong.
July 22, 2011, 10:23 amWaldo Won:
So Malcolm–
“The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.”
–this is enough qualifications for you to place your faith in? Fine. But, unless then next 8,500 signatories are radically different from the first, then you have a bunch of educated people who actually don’t have much of a background in climate science.
So let’s just jump to the punch: this petition is bogus. It proves nothing. An “MD” studies the pathologies, injuries, and cures of the human body, so unless these MDs have studied specifically the effects of CAGW on the human body, they probably don’t know any more than, say, netdr does on the subject. DVMs study animals. A PhD can be in any number of subjects; how many of those on your list have actual climate science backgrounds in their PhDs?
Your list is a bogus agitprop.
July 22, 2011, 10:35 amWaldo to PaulD:
Paul, thank you for actually addressing intelligently the issues of Soon and IPCC quality.
However, I always return to the question about how we, the lay people of the world (including engineers), can determine how honestly someone like Soon does his research? It is easy to say that we are only worried about the outcomes of the science and not the source of the funding, but unless we can actually address the science itself (unless we have an equivalent understanding to the scientist), how can we be sure that the results are unbiased? As netdr pointed out(unfortunately for himself)who has the time to become educated enough to critically evaluate Soon’s work? I personally do not buy the idea that anyone with a science background can adequately evaluate someone like Willie Soon.
July 22, 2011, 10:52 amPauld:
“However, I always return to the question about how we, the lay people of the world (including engineers), can determine how honestly someone like Soon does his research? ”
The same way one would evaluate the research of anyone.
July 22, 2011, 10:58 amWaldolcom:
So Malcolm, do you have any other information about CRU funding? Or are you just going to refer to a brief, vague list at the end of a CRU webpage?
And Ted, “Decisions should be based on reality, not hysteria and zealotry.” I agree. So please, no more hysterical or zealous comments (like “pull a rabbit out of a hat” type comments). And when you see someone like ADiff making a “kill the poor” allegation, call him on it.
And be reasonable—”If someone can show me a TOTAL plan for a future without fossil fuels, I would be delighted to see it.”—this is the whole point of development. America and the Western world would be infinitely better off without a dependance on fossil fuels. And certainly, if you really are an engineer, you must realize that a TOTAL plan takes time and support and is developed incrementally. This reasoning is a little like a creationist who claims that evolution is false because scientists cannot show a monkey becoming a person. Remember, we’re being reasonable here (so personally I’d ditch the Heritage Foundation).
July 22, 2011, 10:59 amWaldonet:
There is one thing that I can agree with netdr about—
****”The skeptics have an unfair advantage. Their arguments make sense to the public and the alarmist’s arguments don’t.”
I suspect this is true. Even Real Climate—a public outreach—is terribly written and very hard to follow. It is also extremely complicated and frequently refers to theories and papers which would be familiar to climate sciences but are alien to the rest of us. They really should hire a science journalist or a technical writer to do their work for them.
Of course, skeptic arguments tend to be grossly simplified to make them palatable to the general public (‘CO2 lags warming’) but does that make them correct?
July 22, 2011, 11:05 amWaldonet:
****”The same way one would evaluate the research of anyone.”
How would you do this? Are your abilities that good?
July 22, 2011, 11:06 amPauld:
“****”The same way one would evaluate the research of anyone.”
How would you do this? Are your abilities that good?”
It really is not that hard. I would do the following:
1) I would read the article and form my own initial impression based on the author’s description of the existing literature, his research method, his results and the logic of his analysis;
2) I would read what others have said in response to the article;
3) I would read what other researchers have written regarding the same topic.
As to your question, “Are your abilities that good?” On an issue that is important to me, that I am able to understand and that I have taken the time to investigate, I trust my own assessment.
July 22, 2011, 11:54 amMalcolm:
Chippas:
Why do the ‘skeptics’ even bother with petitions when they continually state that ‘consensus isn’t science’ motto of theirs?? — I guess they do this to show that even if one were to use this flawed criteria of the truth, the debate is far from over.
Why are ‘skeptics’ so indifferent to Willie Soon’s conflict of interest but can be completely condemning of climate scientists who are merely in alleged conflicts of interests?? — I can’t speak for all skeptics, but I think many of them basically only care for the science no matter the source of funding, applying this to both sides. It should also be said that if we were to mark energy companies as questionable sources of funding, it would perhaps make sense to extend this to Greenpeace and similar activist organizations. Add to that that energy companies in particular fund both sides of the debate and you have a complete mess, with no clear view as to which side is more guilty as regards money you’d like to mark as “dirty”.
Why do skeptics who have read 20 papers feel confident that they understand the topic rather than admit that they are probably victim to the Dunning-kruger effect? — No opinion. I am not sure why you feel you have to ask this question.
It is because they are not skeptics, they a deniers. — Meh. I am not going to call you names in return.
Waldo:
So Malcolm, do you have any other information about CRU funding? Or are you just going to refer to a brief, vague list at the end of a CRU webpage? — Yes, I do have other information about CRU funding. US DOE in particular has given CRU millions of euros, significantly more than the 1.033M figure for Soon that so amazes you. This shows in the Climategate emails. You should be able to inquire US DOE to verify. Or ask CRU.
July 22, 2011, 11:54 amMalcolm:
Forgot to reply to one last bit from Waldo:
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 … –this is enough qualifications for you to place your faith in? Fine. But, unless then next 8,500 signatories are radically different from the first, then you have a bunch of educated people who actually don’t have much of a background in climate science. — Maybe. Still, many of the claims made by the proponents of CAGW, eg, on how CAGW will affect the world, involve biology, physics and all other sciences the petitioners are specialists in. Plus, if you want to say that scientists who specialize in studying climate overwhelmingly support CAGW, I’d be interested in seeing numbers that show that. I saw a paper or two that tried to make this case and they had serious flaws.
So let’s just jump to the punch: this petition is bogus. It proves nothing. — It proves that there is no consensus on CAGW among scientists, by listing a large number of scientists who disagree with it. If you want to take a look at numbers among some subset of scientists, let’s do that and see whether the criteria you use for filtering makes sense.
July 22, 2011, 12:06 pmWaldonation:
****”biology, physics and all other sciences the petitioners are specialists in.”
So, you are saying that the petitioners have done research in these areas?
And I hate to point out the obvious, but the IPCC is the leading climate science body. There is the NOAA, the Joint Science Academies, The Royal Society, and the UN.
Then there is this from the National Academy of Scientists which actually did survey climate scientists:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
I’ll excerpt the abstract for you:
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
Now, I will not do anyone else’s homework on this page!! Really, this stuff is not hard to find!! You’re all old enough to take responsibility for your own information!!
July 22, 2011, 12:55 pmTed Rado:
That the western world would be better off without fossil fuels may or not be true. It has nothing to do with the point in question.
You don’t start tearing something down before you know what you will replace it with. Let’s have a clear total energy program before we wreck the one we have. I never heard of starting construction of anything without having all the engineering drawings completed, and the materials lined up. If someone wants to plunge ahead without a plan, go for it, but not on my dime!
The idea that the engineers “will think of something” so lets charge ahead is the biggest piece of nonsense I can imagine. Particularly when one considers the consequences. We MUST have a total plan before dismantling our current energy and industrial system.
Yes, it takes time to do large things. But it must be based on a workable plan.
Everyone seems to agree that we have no energy policy. Whatever we develop in that area must be based on DOABLE things, not pie in the sky ideas. The lack of viability of wind/solar (backup and/or standby) and other schemes on a large scale has been discussed to death. Until there is a viable alternative that can be implemented on a large scale, we have to stick with what we have. We certinly need to keep looking, but let’s keep our hands off until we find it.
What I find rather amusing is that those who comlain that we don’t blindly follow the climate scientists, clearly are not willing to blindly agree with engineers on purely engineering matters. Nothing like good old hypocracy.
July 22, 2011, 12:57 pmMalcolm:
Waldo:
So, you are saying that the petitioners have done research in these areas? — Yes, among others. I agree that most people on the petition do not specialize in climate science, if you mean that.
Then there is this from the National Academy of Scientists which actually did survey climate scientists: [...] “Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.” — Well, the 97-98% figure is for a list of researchers composed by the authors of the paper, and the paper itself says that this list was neither comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community. The authors think this list is still useful, but they don’t claim that the 97-98% figure extrapolates to the entire field of climate science. Also, the 97-98% figure is for scientists that think that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century. This is relatively weak. The amount of warming that we saw is small. The main point of contention is whether or not we will see catastrophic amounts of warming in the future. The paper does not explore this question.
July 22, 2011, 1:34 pmnetdr:
Waldo Won:
***”Your link did not say here wasn’t a lag between temperatures and CO2 like you claimed it did.”
“EPIC FAIL !” (WTF are you even saying here?)[I am saying you are wrong NETDR]
Come on, netdr. You posted that there was no explanation [No I didn't--- Netdr] for the 800 year lag time. There is. [Of course there is. What is your point ?-- Netdr] You are trying to change what you initially posted because you have been caught. Or you are in denial.[You are the one in denial.-- Netdr]
****”It gave the old ” amplification” song and dance which anyone with a brain can see through.”
Prove it. Go ahead. Prove “amplification” wrong.
***************
Netdr Won
Your own article ADMITTED there was an 800 year lag. [I have never said there was no reason for it, you just made that part up.] Warming causes CO2 but CO2 may or may not cause significant warming, no one knows now or then.
AL Gore sold it like CO2 caused the warming and got caught red handed. The climate scientists rushed to his defense with the amplification tap dance.
The whole amplification tap dance is:
CO2 is a GHG
CO2 was there
CO2 caused unmeasurable [and unmeasured] warming[amplification].
I was interested in how they could tell exactly how much warming would have been caused by natural processes including water feedback and remove them so they could determine how much warming was caused by CO2.
Since this is impossible then or now they just fall back on their mantra.
July 22, 2011, 4:36 pmCO2 is a GHG
CO2 was there
CO2 caused unmeasurable [and unmeasured] warming.
netdr:
Re: Why alarmists won’t debate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate/
The reason the skeptic won the debate was that he had the facts to back up his position. The alarmist had only emotions.
They were talking about Australia’s CO2 tax and the alarmist likened it to insurance. You insure your car even though you hope there won’t be an accident.
The trouble with his analogy is that if implemented the tax would forestall .02 ° C in 100 years. That is the what the majority of climate scientists say. Paying hundreds of billions of dollars to forestall that amount of warming makes no sense.
Using the insurance analogy if it cost thousands to insure my right headlight it would make more sense to self insure and spend the savings to fix the car.
Mitigation makes more sense than avoidance.
In the CO2 case the cost of Australian [or American ] carbon taxes would cause jobs to go overseas and actually increase worldwide CO2.
The reason the skeptic won was because his arguments made sense and the alarmists arguments didn’t.
July 22, 2011, 5:21 pmNetdr is denying the obvious---I've actually shone that.:
This is getting tedious, netdr.
****”[I have never said there was no reason for it, you just made that part up.]”
Yet you claimed that:
****“If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people.”
They did “explain away the 800 year time lag.” They did not “keep it a secret.” You didn’t know that. The issue was never that scientists denied the CO2 lag. You came up with that once I showed you where you were wrong.
Did you or did you not post “If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people”?
If you did (and we can both see that you did), then you are wrong.
And since you are so sure of your three note explanation of amplification, why don’t you take it to the big boys and girls? Peer-review. Are you chicken?
July 22, 2011, 11:18 pmWaldolcom:
So Malcolm, is your contention that the 11-hundred plus scientists surveyed don’t represent the state of thought in the climate community? That would be a fairly silly thing to suggest. Also as I mentioned before—all the major scientific bodies in the world stand behind CAGW. If you want to contend otherwise, go ahead. But again, that would simply be silly.
****”The main point of contention is whether or not we will see catastrophic amounts of warming in the future. The paper does not explore this question.”
You are correct. But that was not the issue in the paper I linked. The issue is where does the climate science community stand, which is pretty obvious. Those people like vets and medical physicians, unknowns, and people who have expertise in areas other than climate science? They sign petitions like the one you linked. I also have to point out that, even if you had 9K+ “scientists” who signed an online petition, they are only a tiny fraction of the overall scientific community, and thus not really statistically significant (this is not my argument, by the way, but something you might Google yourself).
July 22, 2011, 11:29 pmMalcolm:
Waldo:
So Malcolm, is your contention that the 11-hundred plus scientists surveyed don’t represent the state of thought in the climate community? That would be a fairly silly thing to suggest. — Well, the researchers themselves say the list of scientists they have come up with was not designed to be representative of the entire climate science community, so if you want to say that it is, indeed, representative, that would be your claim, not the claim of the researchers. If you are going to make this claim, fine, but be prepared to back it up. I personally can’t say whether or not the scientists selected by the researchers are representative anything without seeing the list of their names.
The main point of contention is whether or not we will see catastrophic amounts of warming in the future. The paper does not explore this question. — You are correct. But that was not the issue in the paper I linked. The issue is where does the climate science community stand, which is pretty obvious. — I don’t get it. So, where does the climate science community stand with respect to whether or not we will see catastrophic amounts of warming in the future, which you agree is the main point of contention? You say it is pretty obvious where the community stands, but apparently not when it comes to the main question.
July 23, 2011, 12:04 amChippas:
Malcolm,
No one uses the term CAGW. The survey shows those that support the tenets of the IPCC, which is what you deniers dispute right? So just using that language would be better, no??
you and Waldo can argue about who’s survey is better but NetDr’s claim still remains unsupported–the liar liar.
The comment I made about the 20 papers and Dunning Kruger effect specifically pertains to netdr, who rather than accept he is prob. victim to the Dunning-kruger effect thinks he is able to understand the lit. But it can generally apply to any of you who think you have enough understanding to critique climate science (but strangely enough, never publish any papers in it…)
Calling you guys ‘deniers’ is not name-calling. It is just the label that fits. If you take offence to it, well the problem lies with you.
All o’ ya,
The responses from a number of you guys to my last post are generally things I would agree with, namely that the science only matters, but you can’t pretend for a minute that you guys only focus on that. Netdr is a prime example of this currently. He seems to say what ever he want’s, unsupported, and than when someone asks him over and over again to give evidence, he just ignores them.
Of course the more reasonable thing for netdr to do, if he genuinely cared about the science/argument, is to admit that he made a mistake, but he won’t even do that. Wouldn’t you agree he is doing the wrong thing?? I don’t like to reduce these things to taking sides, but don’t you think he is doing the argument on your side a disservice??
July 23, 2011, 5:31 amnetdr:
sock puppet
I wrote:
****“If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people.”
*************
What I was referring to was your claim that there was no 800 year lag. [Which your own link proved bogus.]
“Explained away” meant that they had explained that it didn’t happen.
You misunderstood as usual.
July 23, 2011, 6:52 amWaldo to Ted:
I see your point but you must admit that your response is, again, a little bit paranoid and frankly overblown.
Essentially what you have said it, ‘Unless they have a fully blown, workable plan which I can see now I will believe that the point is to destroy industry.’ But, to make an analogy, how would we have built the Space Shuttle? How would we have developed the automobile or manned flight? Would you have told the Wright Brothers that, since they do not have blueprints to a 747, they shouldn’t attempt glider flight? All these began with some sort of mandate. All these took development and incremental advances. The Wright Bros first heavier-than-air flight was in 1903; and by 1943 the Brits were flying Spitfires (actually, when I looked it up, the Spitfire was only about 30 years after the Wrights). Should we not develop a photon computer since we don’t have a plan right in front of us? Eventually we will have fully electric cars, possibly within even the next 40 years—but should we abandon them now since we only have the Prius? Should we not attempt to find a cure for cancer? You could accuse any cancer researcher of “pulling a rabbit out of a hat” under your reasoning.
Plus, as I mentioned, we’re only talking about reductions to “pre 2000″ levels.
There is nothing unreasonable in asking for reductions by 2050. It will not destroy industry. The mandate might even provide green jobs. The only way you can infer that climatologists and environmentalists are trying to damage industry, or are even jumping the gun, is to come in looking for a fight.
July 23, 2011, 10:51 amWaldo to Maclcolm:
I was thinking about your petition above, and the more I thought about it, the funnier it seemed to me.
Lets take a scenario: lets take Dr. Wilbur A. Aanes (4th on your list)—a veterinarian (there is not very much about him on the Net, so he is probably retired).
Dr. Aanes comes home from a day of spaying, neutering, pulling ticks and expressing anal glands. He sits down at his laptop and—what, exactly? Downloads the IPCC database, evaluates it with his expert knowledge of canine and feline anatomy and animal pharmaceuticals, and comes to the conclusion that, since the effect on zoology and biology (his areas of expertise) will not be affected to any degree, he is doubtful of CAGW? How exactly does Dr. Aanes evaluate climate science?
Or let’s take “Roger L. Aamodt”—who is this guy, Malcolm? It’s actually very hard to verify who this guy is. Are you going to put your faith in someone who may or may not actually exist?
Or the first guy on the list, Earl M.J. Aagaard. Professor of biology. At a 7th Day Adventists college. I was thinking of emailing him and seeing what he had to say about global warming. Shall we?
Here’s his email: eaagaard@southern.edu
July 23, 2011, 11:12 amMalcolm:
Waldo, what is it you are trying to say? If you want to talk about the consensus, let’s. Otherwise, I am glad you are having your fun, and believe me, I am having mine. I just watched a video of the debate between Lord Monckton and Richard Denniss. It was hilarious. I particularly enjoyed the analogy of a doctor which Mr Denniss tried at the beginning of the debate (you know, the usual shtick with the Earth being a patient, the proponents of CAGW being doctors and skeptics being nutsies that don’t believe in science), especially after having seen this version of it:
Doctor: You have a melanoma on your arm, I need to amputate the arm.
July 23, 2011, 12:03 pmPatient: Where is it?
Doctor: You can’t see it yet.
Patient: So how do you know I have it?
Doctor: I ran a computer model.
Patient: Has the model ever successfully identified a melanoma before?
Doctor: No, but this time we have it right. There is an overwhelming consensus that it works.
Patient: How does it work?
Doctor: There is an overwhelming consensus that it works.
Patient: But how does it work?
Doctor: There is an overwhelming consensus that it works.
Patient: I think I need a second opinion.
Doctor: There are no other opinions, there is an overwhelming consensus.
Patient: I think I’ll go and see Dr Smith.
Doctor: You can’t trust him, he’s a denier.
Patient: He published a paper on chemotherapy treatment for melanoma.
Doctor: It wasn’t peer reviewed.
Patient: It was the Medical Review.
Doctor: Yes but the reviewers were all deniers and the editor was fired.
Patient: I think I’ll go now.
Doctor: It’s much worse than we thought.
Patient: I’m going.
Doctor: First pay me 4 trillion dollars.
Patient: Bye now.
Dr. Waldo:
So the scenario above is an accurate analog to the current climate debate, Malcolm? How about this one:
Doctor: You have a melanoma on your arm.
Patient: This will cost a lot of money. Therefore I don’t believe it.
Doctor: We got the tests back from the lab.
Patient: But I read online–actually on a blog run by a parks service manager–that there was no such thing as melanoma.
Doctor: Look, I’m a professional. I went to med school. I studied dermatology and, even if I don’t know everything yet, I’m fairly certain that what we are looking at on your arm there is cancer.
Patient: I found a petition online. It was signed by 9,000 people who said there was no such thing as skin cancer.
Doctor: There are several generations of scientific writing on the subject of cancer. Why would you trust an online petition?
Patient: Because some of these people actually have a little bit of science in their backgrounds.
Doctor: Are they dermatologists or oncologists?
Patient: No. I’m not actually sure who they are. But the website said they had DVMs and PhDs (I don’t know in what—they only posted names) and some even had bachelors degrees.
Doctor: All the major scientific bodies in the world believe in skin cancer.
Patient: They does not convince me. I read online. Also, I watched FOX news.
Doctor: I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you find a climate scientist and ask him or her about the best way to treat your cancer. That makes about as much sense as going to an MD and asking about climate science.
Patient: One science degree is as good as another. And if you tell me I’m sick again, I’m going to call you an “alarmist” and charge you with trying to ruin the economy. Then I’ll go see Dr. Soon—he was paid by a cigarette company to study cancer and he also says there’s no such thing.
Doctor: Best of luck to you.
July 23, 2011, 2:08 pmTed Rado:
All the examples of human progress have nothing to do with the current debate. Inventors have always been looking for better ways to do things. Investors have always looked for promising places to put their money. The competitive market economy thrives under these conditions. Every company has R&D people looking for better ways to manufacture their products, make new products to suit the customers, etc. This has worked well and resulted in the marvelous economic system we now have. The idea that USG diktat is a better way is moronic. Leave it to the business enterprises. Bill Gates and the other leaders in the computer field did it without (perhaps despite) the USG, and very well indeed.
An exception is military hardware. The Spitfire (indeed all military hardware) was developed out of military necessity. The fallout from military development frequently leads to economically usefull civilian applications. The space program was put in place to avoid the Soviets gaining space supremacy. Although useful and interesting stuff has come out of the program, I doubt if it would have been done without the Soviet threat. Including military needs in the discussion is meaningless. Do you really think that spending 600 billion per yeay is a good idea except for believing it is militarily necessary? There certainnly is no economic reason to build guns and aircraft carriers.
Apparently, there are those who feel government diktat in setting R&D priorities is a good idea. If there is a need for a product or service, normal economic forces will steer the money and effort in that direction (cancer research, for example). If electric cars are a sound idea, business men will develop them. No need for USG intervention. If it is not a sound idea, it will fail. Substituting USG diktat for this normal process in absurd. All USG intervention accomplishes is to distort natural economic activity. Does anyone really think that the USG (or any government) is a wonderful source of wisdom? Look at housing and the deficit!
The AGW folks have MANY TIMES stated that the CO2 emmisions must be reduced by 80% to stop warming. This is the stated goal of the EU and G8 (and USG as well). The first step is to go to pre-2000 levels. That alone won’t do the trick, so there is no point in doing it unless you are prepared to go the whole way. Why are you dodging this point?
I have never seen a project move forward without paper studies that showed that, if it worked, it was doable economically and rechnically. Then you do the R&D needed to confirm that it does indeed work. I am all for progress, as is everybody else. There are well-established and proven ways to go about this. Let’s stick with those methods rather than Don Quixote.
Finally, how do you reduce CO2 emmisions by 80% without destroying our industrial econmy? Merely saying it won’t doesn’t cut it. Show how we would produce steel, aluminum, run airlines, etc. Where is your energy and material balance for the fossil fuel-free scenario? If you can’t, go back to a new red herring (which I am sure you will).
To say that anyone who disagrees with this, or raises questions is just looking for a fight is a copout. If you have no legitimate point, attack the other guy. Answer the questions rather than go off on nonsensical tangents.
July 23, 2011, 2:58 pmTed Rado:
The original theme of this blog was the fudge factors in the computer models. The discussion then got into who is sufficiently expert in climate science to be qualified to comment?
I don’t believe one has to be expert in climate science at all. In any calculation, we have something like:
Temp.=f(V1,V1,V3,..Vn,F1,F2,F3,…Fn,U1,U2,U3,…Un)
Where the V’s are known variables, F’s are fudge factors, and U’s are unknown variables we are not even aware of. The latter might include, cosmic radiation, solar wind, etc. I am sure knowledgable people could come up with a whole bunch.
We know that there are many things that are not well understood, such as cloud formation, different sorts of aerosols, solar wind, etc. There are also completely unpredictable events, such as volcano eruptions.
It is not clear to me how anyone, even an Einstein of climatology, could say with a straight face that in this mathematical situation, he can design a model that he is certain can predict the future. One cetainly does not have to be a climatologist to legitimately raise this question. Anyone with a background in computer modelling would be aghast at the idea of basing action on such a model.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, unless there in a viable alternative energy plan, and the Indians and Chinese are on board, doing away with fossil fuels is idiotic. Thus, even if the CAGW thing is correct, there is little we can do about it, except move north. There are those who say “plunge ahead with hope in your heart”. They make entertaining reading, but offer nothing in dealing with the problem.
July 23, 2011, 3:28 pmWaldo to Ted:
Again though, Ted, at the base you are suggesting that we scrap everything if we don’t know everything. This is your central point boiled down. We need a “paper path” in front of us or we are simply going to stand still. Okay, I’ll play it again, Sam: let’s scrap cancer research, alternative energies, building earthquake proof buildings, etc.; anything and everything that doesn’t already have a clear cut paper trail in front of it, out the door. Yet everything you quoted above—private enterprise, military hardware, all R & D—is a product of invention and evolution, no? That’s why we have till 2050.
****”That alone won’t do the trick, so there is no point in doing it unless you are prepared to go the whole way. Why are you dodging this point?”
Didn’t know this was a point. Fine. We will go the whole way. First, by 2050, let’s get to “pre 2000″ levels. Then we can worry about getting 80%. That’s reasonable.
****”It is not clear to me how anyone, even an Einstein of climatology, could say with a straight face that in this mathematical situation, he can design a model that he is certain can predict the future.”
Well, Hansen’s original “Scenario B” is fairly accurate. And I don’t think modelers are trying to “predict the future”; rather, they are using the best available knowledge to see how a system might work with certain forcings. The climate scientists admit these models are not and will not be perfect—what’s the conflict?
****”I have never seen a project move forward without paper studies that showed that, if it worked, it was doable economically and rechnically.”
Okay, let’s develop these paper studies and then move. Part of the mandate. That’s why we have 40 years to do it.
****”All USG intervention accomplishes is to distort natural economic activity. Does anyone really think that the USG (or any government) is a wonderful source of wisdom? Look at housing and the deficit!”
Well, to be fair to the USG, we could also point out the government successes—the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the world, highway system, national parks, the most advanced space exploration, a number of the top universities in the world, etc.—and the housing crisis was brought on by deregulation—in that case we need more government, not less. One can always cite either failures or successes in government. Clean air act anyone?
Personally, while I find commercial air travel uncomfortable and a draining experience, I’m glad the Wright Brothers didn’t give up simply because it seemed like flight was a daunting task that a great many people thought was impracticable. Wonder what their paper path looked like?
July 23, 2011, 9:51 pmLord Waldoton:
Oh yeah, and I love Lord Monckton:
“Lord Monckton called for more respect for climate science sceptics and said the debate should be more civilised.
On the eve of his Australian tour Lord Monckton was forced to apologise after he compared the government’s climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, to Hitler.
Lord Monckton dismissed the question mark over his credentials as a member of the House of Lords, producing his passport as evidence.
“My passport says I am, get used to it,” he said.
The clerk to the British parliament wrote to Lord Monckton last Friday, repeating requests by the previous clerk asking him to “cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication”.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/monckton-compares-climate-risk-to-asteroid/story-e6frfku0-1226097709474#ixzz1SzzI1nWQ
And more by the way: Monckton was debating an economist, not a climate scientist.
July 23, 2011, 10:51 pmnetdr:
I had to share this: [The author is admittedly a better writer than I am.]
CO2 lags temperature:
“Cook uses the usual talking counter-point, trying to say that the influence goes in both directions. Qualitatively speaking, it’s right. Quantitatively speaking, the influence of CO2 on the temperature during the ice age cycles has been so much weaker than the opposite influence that it is pretty much undetectable and remains a theoretically justified by empirically unsupported speculation. It’s clear that the outgassing etc. – the influence of temperature on the concentration of gases – explains the bulk of the correlation between the temperature and the concentrations as seen in the Vostok ice core (and others). It’s a very important that the Vostok charts provide us with no evidence of the greenhouse effect and whoever is saying something else is a liar: Al Gore has been caught as one of them but there are many. More generally, it’s preposterous to pretend that the greenhouse effect is “on par” with the opposite effects because it’s at least one order of magnitude smaller and undetectable in
practice.”
Pretty much what I said only more eloquently phrased.
It’s all about the numbers which is why engineers are skeptics.
I also found out that dams emit CO2. [they release dissolved CO2 like shaking up a bottle of soda.]
The wacko’s also want to stop windmills because they kill birds. Some [not all] just want to stop civilization, the self hatred radiates from them.
July 24, 2011, 7:51 amMalcolm:
Waldo:
So the scenario above is an accurate analog to the current climate debate, Malcolm? — Yes, I would say it is pretty accurate. Your scenario is much less so.
As to your picking on Lord Monckton, I am not impressed. He apologized for whatever he did. Did any of the correspondents asking him about his membership of the House of Lords, after he specifically requested the organizers of the debate to try and refrain from asking questions like these and stick to the issues of climate science, apologize to him? Did the organizers apologize? No, they didn’t. So, don’t try to say Lord Monckton does not know how to hold a civilized debate. He does. His opponents frequently don’t.
July 24, 2011, 8:01 amnetdr:
Malcom
Your analogy of the doctor was “spot on”.
Sock Puppet wote
Well, Hansen’s original “Scenario B” is fairly accurate. And I don’t think modelers are trying to “predict the future”; rather, they are using the best available knowledge to see how a system might work with certain forcings. The climate scientists admit these models are not and will not be perfect—what’s the conflict?
*********
Scenario “B” is not fairly accurate as of 2011, how can you possibly claim that with a straight face. [I assume you aren't laughing.]
Here is Hanson’s defense dated 2007
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
My calendar says it is 2011 doesn’t yours?
Updating the chart.
The predicted temperature anomaly for scenario “B” is 1 ° C.
The actual temperature anomaly for 2010 [an El Nino year] was: .63
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
so far 2011 is cooler:
Jan to June
45 41 57 54 42 50 = average = .48 cooler by .15
Place even the 2010 dot on the chart and is is clearly way below scenario “B” and even below the control scenario “C” with huge expensive carbon taxes which never happened!
He even included a simulated volcano or his predictions would have even been more laughable.
How can anyone possibly say Hansen’s model is “fairly accurate” ?
He blew it get over it.
July 24, 2011, 8:12 amMalcolm:
Ted Rado:
The original theme of this blog was the fudge factors in the computer models. The discussion then got into who is sufficiently expert in climate science to be qualified to comment? — I am ready to talk about computer models. As many other people on this blog I think that the existing climate models are either unproven (too new to be verified) or unreliable (old enough to be verified, failed verification). It is just that none of our opponents here feel like talking about models seriously. Waldo’s reason is, if I am not mistaken, that he doesn’t know enough to talk about models seriously and that we don’t know enough to do that either. Since we can’t thus talk about models, I am talking about things our opponents are ready to talk about, like Willie Soon and consensus. That’s a far call from what I would like to talk about, but it looks this is the best we could do here and now.
July 24, 2011, 8:15 amnetdr:
The realclimate discussion that says part of the model is only off by x % so fix that and it will be correct in the future is laughable.
#1 The future probably will not mirror the past especially if the 1978 to 1998 rise is included in the past.
#2 Claiming that one part is all that is wrong is sloppy thinking at it’s finest. The amplification of that part must also be wrong since the model was wrong by more than the cherry picked parameter.
July 24, 2011, 8:29 amTed Rado:
This is getting more and more hilarious. The scientists admit they are not sure, but we should plunge ahead anyway. Great idea. Lets screw up based on speculation. Why didn’t I think of that.
We should plunge ahead and then try to think up a plan for the 40 year scenario, while our economy spirals down (or moves to China). Great idea again. And if we can’t come up with viable alternative energy? I guess we can call waldo and he will tell us what to do.
This whole thing is getting more and more insane. I guess we should start building a bridge first and then do the stress calcs 40 years later. What an inspiring approach to engineering!
The bottom line still remains: Unless we have a plan to deal with a fossil fuel-free economy, and the Chinese and Indians are on board, we have nothing but a plan for economic self-immolation. Hoping we will come up with something in the next 40 years is idiotic. I can’t imagine presenting such an idea to the VP of engineering of any company I have ever seen. Great way to the unemployment line.
If wqldo really believes this nonsense, he is beyond repair. I have had enough. I will visit the state mental hospital if I need more of this stuff.
July 24, 2011, 8:51 amWaldo Ashamed for Ted's Behavior:
Now Ted, weren’t you the one who posted about “jumping on people who disagree” and weren’t you the one who would like a “more gentlemanly discourse”?
July 24, 2011, 11:22 amWaldo:
I am more interested in the denialists. I find you more interesting than model forecasting simply because the good peeps here are not really interested in the science, they are interested in finding whatever information (no matter how dubious the source) that contradicts the evaluations of the most qualified people.
There are different reasons for this, I suspect, but most probably have to do with political ideology. Some people, I suspect, just want to feel like scientists for a while.
In other words (and here I’m being blunt, Ted, not necessarily trying to be rude), you don’t want to believe in climate change, and you come here looking for validation, very carefully avoiding the real science community while bravely inserting your opinions here where you all agree with each other.
And that’s pretty interesting.
July 24, 2011, 11:55 amTed Rado:
One point I neglected to mention in my previous post was the repeated reference to cancer research. This is an excellent example of the point I am trying to make.
1) A need for a better cancer drug is seen.
2) Reserch, usually by a drug company, is carried out to find one.
3) If one is found that shows promise, clinical tests are run.
4) If it is proven to be more effective than the current drug, engineers design and build a plant to manufacture it.
5) Then, and ONLY then, the old plant making the old drug is torn down.
This is invariably the sequence of events in technical progress. You don’t tear the old plant down before you have a new bird in hand. This is so obvious that I am amazed it has to be argued. I can give endless examples.
Nobody I know says that they are sure the AGW thing is bugus. Most people who are labeled “skeptics” simply make the point that the evidence (mainly from computer models) is insufficient to trigger the draconian program being pushed. The ONLY points I have made are a) we must have an viable alternate to fossil fuels in hand, and b) we must get the Chinese and Indians on board. If the AGW theory is correct, the only alternative we have is to move north unless we can achieve a) and b) above. If the AGW thing bombs (for example, if global warming continues to stall for many years), then we have wasted piles of money for nothing. I have no objection to the USG wasting piles of money (they are extremely good at it), but it is very unwise to destroy our present energy system without a viable alternative available. It is extremely reckless to plunge ahead without addressing a) and b). That has nothing to do with being a “denier”. It is only common sense and reads right on what is routinely done in industry.
July 24, 2011, 1:52 pmTed Rado:
Malcolm:
You are so right. I would thoroughly enjoy a discussion of the things you mention. Arguing with someone who is obviously devoid of any understanding of engineering, modelling, or (seemingly) of anything else, is frustrating. Perhaps we should ignore that and discuss the real issues.
I mentioned earlier that I spent several years modelling chemical plants and processes. The ONLY models that are really usable are those based on first principles, are rigorous, and contain NO fudge factors. In one case, $27 million was spent to expand a plant’s capacity by 18%. The work was based on an empirical model. Shortly before the expansion was completed, I finished a rigorous model which showed that the capacity would actually GO DOWN by 10% because of subtle changes in the operating conditions. This caused a furor, but when the plant came on line the capacity was indeed down by exactly 10%. I wrote a series of programs for a large chemical plant complex, and every stream flow and composition, as well as steam and power consumption, was exactly as per the measured data. This was because the models were RIGOROUS. Thus, I have lots of faith in rigorous, well validated, models, but NONE in empirical (fudge-filled) models. I am sure everyone with modelling experience has similar views.
The point is that computer models are marvelous for studying “what ifs”, process control, product mix optimization, cost reduction, etc. Bad models (as in the case I described), can lead to horrible decisions. This is what I fear re AGW.
The ability to discuss scientific snd technical issues is important. Many times I have seen good things come from the exchange of views, calcs, and experimental results among colleagues. Yes, I have seen similar situations to waldo in industry, but (thankfully) that is the exception. Most people try to be constructive and solve the problem rather than just push their views.
If one surfs the internet re alternative energy and related fields, it is astonishing how much of it is pure mindless zealotry and technical nonsense. Also, much of it is motivated by getting goverment grants (that sure brings out the worst in us). I am always glad to find out if I have a mistaken view of some issue. This requires that the info I get is sound and objective. Unfortunately, 99% of the stuff on the net is nonsensical zealoty (on both sides). Perhaps we can, in our own way, improve the situation.
July 24, 2011, 2:30 pmChippas:
Ted Rado said: ‘Perhaps we can, in our own way, improve the situation.’
Sound’s good. I’m all for it. Go publish.
July 24, 2011, 3:30 pmMalcolm:
Waldo:
… very carefully avoiding the real science community … — Not true. I’d be glad to talk to Gavin Schmidt, for example, it is him who wouldn’t talk. On his site, he just bans comments he doesn’t want the general public to read. I guess this way the science looks more settled. I agree Gavin is not obliged to talk to me or anyone else, but the fact remains, it is him who isn’t willing to talk, not the skeptics.
July 24, 2011, 10:36 pmWaldzilla:
****”The ability to discuss scientific snd technical issues is important.”
****”This requires that the info I get is sound and objective.”
Two things, Ted:
1) Willie Soon! Willie Soon! Willie Soon!
2) Warren Meyers! Warren Meyers! Warren Meyers!
Both these men are potentially dangerous to sound and objective information. That is the point I have been trying to make for quite some time. This is a point that most of the people here would avoid.
How are these people not just “pushing their views”? How is someone like ADiff simply not “pushing his views”?
And what about the petition that Malcolm posted? Do you seriously consider that that is a component of a sound discussion of the science involved?
July 24, 2011, 11:54 pmLet's Actually See What Industry Says:
While we are very beholden to engineers, we must also admit that we are equally if not more beholden to the scientists. I understand your objection to emission reduction,—and we should probably let that discussion stand since we are simply repeating ourselves—but it is a long stretch to talk about destroying an economy simply by slowly implementing technological change. And not everybody in industry is as upset about this as you seem to be. These actually seem to supporting what I’ve said all along—progress, invention, evolution:
http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/press.nsf/0363c1f07c6ca12a8025671c00381cc7/c89c2266d47c69128025729d003952ef?OpenDocument
http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=494
http://www.climatefruitandwine.co.za/
July 24, 2011, 11:59 pmChippas:
Malcolm says: ‘I agree Gavin is not obliged to talk to me or anyone else, but the fact remains, it is him who isn’t willing to talk, not the skeptics.’
Nonsense. Out of anyone in this debate he has done an enormous amount of communicating, both through peer-review and online.
Does it make you feel better to know that many of my posts on Realclimate have been rejected too?
Have a little common sense. RC is probably the most popular CC blog in the world. We are not alone in our interest in CC science, so one would expect that the RC admin have to filter an enormous amount of material. Further Gavin is one of the most well-known climate scientists and probably the most contactable. Do you think he has time to reply to everyone??
Here is a hint, if you would like to communicate to a climate scientist then email/ call your nearest University Climate science Department.
And if they don’t decide to help you out don’t jump to the ‘silencing-debate!’ conclusion. Not everyone has the time, and some answers might be too complicated. I wouldn’t expect a professor in neuroscience to explain to me fully what a memory is. I’d best become a student.
July 25, 2011, 1:17 amMalcolm:
Chippas, I disagree. Yes, Gavin Schmidt is not obliged to respond to everyone. I said as much. But since he does take the time to review large amounts of posts, letting posts that praise the science behind CAGW through, and censoring posts that run counter to that by either peppering them with snide remarks or just throwing them away, one would think that his failures to respond to skeptics are not due to the lack of time on his part. He does have the time. He just chooses to spend it on censoring the debate instead of on actually participating in it.
No, it does not make me feel better to know that many of your posts on RC have also been censored.
July 25, 2011, 2:20 amMalcolm:
Also, Chippas:
RC is probably the most popular CC blog in the world. — Just in case, realclimate.org has significantly less visitors than either climateaudit.org or wattsupwiththat.com. So, if you want to say that RC is the most popular blog related to CC, you would have to invent some boundaries, like “the most popular blog run by real scientists” or “the most popular blog for normal people who support the consensus, not deniers”.
July 25, 2011, 2:27 amChippas:
Malcolm :’But since he does take the time to review large amounts of posts, letting posts that praise the science behind CAGW through and censoring posts that run counter to that by either peppering them with snide remarks or just throwing them away,’
No, the admin (not just Gavin) censor comments that are abusive, or off topic, or caught by a spam filter.
What evidence do you have that they specifically censor counter argument posts? Give evidence that Gavin has any worse a manner on forums than anyone else, and then try explaining why that difference matters for you getting your answers.
If you don’t like Gavin, fine, but don’t sulk about him, go talk to someone else.
Re. wether RC is the most popular I don’t know for sure, you could be right. It doesn’t bother me. The point is that they can’t be expected to respond to everything.
Again, if you don’t like RC, why not check out your nearest Uni?
July 25, 2011, 4:33 amChippas:
Oh an Malcolm, Seeing as you are rightly against those that actively avoid reasonable debate, maybe you could convince netdr to respond to my several attempts to get him to substantiate his claim:
‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.’
(I am interpreting ‘CAGW’ as the general IPCC hypothesis, because no one uses that term in the science.)
July 25, 2011, 4:41 amnetdr:
sock puppet
The paranoia of the Looney left about “big oil” is silly when it is counterbalanced by far more money and time from the alarmists . Despite their advantage in money and time they are losing because the facts are not on their side.
[That is an important fact, Lord Moctin demolished the alarmist in their recent debate simply because he was right. Spending hundreds of billlions of dollars [Australian] to avoid .02 ° C in 100 years is stupid.]
According to the report, conservative think-tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations raised some US$907 million during 2009, and spent a total of $787 million on their activities, with $259 million of that devoted specifically to climate and energy policy issues.
Over the same period, national environmental groups had revenues of $1.7 billion and spent $1.4 billion on their programs, which included $394 million devoted to climate and energy issues
Those who claim that the public’s belief in CAGW is being undercut by industry need to see how much the alarmist side is outspending them.
The is on top of the billions of dollars of grants given to universities to keep their research departments operating.
According to a study in “Nature “
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110419/full/news.2011.248.html
July 25, 2011, 7:11 amnetdr:
Study Finds Higher Educated Less Concerned About Warming
Warmists very frequently claim that skeptics are dummies and that if only they understood “the science”, they would become Warmists. These results shoot that down. The authors waffle on in an attempt to explain the finding in ways that preserve Warmism but the parsimonious explanation is simply that Warmism is wrong. In science, the most parsimonious (simplest) explanation is normally the one chosen
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2011/07/study-finds-higher-educated-less.html
I myself believe [like the British Royall Society] that doubling CO2 would cause .4 ° C of temperature rise. Amplification can be shown not to have happened in the past why should it happen in the future ? [Have faith ?]
Since water vapor is the instrument of the amplification and it has gone down since 1950 how could it have amplified anything ?
The better informed and educated know these facts.
July 25, 2011, 7:34 amMalcolm:
Chippas:
What evidence do you have that they specifically censor counter argument posts? — Some time ago I have been on RC and have submitted several comments which contained a couple of specific scientific inquiries, contained no foul language, were on topic, were not repeating other comments, etc. My comments never made it to the site. Out of the interest, I submitted a fluff comment which was basically restating that ‘the science is settled’ without adding anything useful to the discussion, and that comment did appear on the site. I repeated the experiment twice, using two different new names, with the same results. I have talked with other skeptics and their experiences were largely the same. Not all comments get filtered, but it looks like the majority does, and a significant portion gets cut and edited. This is my evidence. Is there other evidence you’d like to see?
Again, if you don’t like RC, why not check out your nearest Uni? — You’d be surprised, but my Uni does not support the concept of CAGW. My Uni is in Russia, perhaps this explains it.
… maybe you could convince netdr to respond to my several attempts to get him to substantiate his claim: ‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.’ — I am not sure I have seen any decisive numbers on that, maybe I have missed something. I would suggest though that the fact that the leading web sites of the proponents of CAGW are much less popular than the web sites of the skeptics speaks in favor of the netdr’s point.
July 25, 2011, 8:14 amnetdr:
The skeptics have an unfair advantage over the alarmists, they happen to be correct.
That is an important fact, Lord Monckton demolished the alarmist in their recent debate simply because he was right. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars [Australian] to avoid .02 ° C in 100 years is stupid.
The fact is that it won’t help alarmists to explain their position better if the positions themselves aren’t valid.
Ad Hominem attacks against Monckton are just signs of desperation at losing
A child could have defeated the alarmist if he had that one fact so a good debater isn’t required.
Al Gore or any spokesman [like Dr Hansen] saying freakish weather is caused by CO2 could be shot down by any mildly intelligent child.
BTW: I have posted the link about literate people not believing in CAGW before but you continued to demand it. Why ?
July 25, 2011, 9:01 amWaldo to Ted: Industry Response to GW:
I thought I would look into the actual response from industry to GW. There actually is not as much forthcoming as I would have thought (considering how dire some of the predictions are) but Mr. Meyer’s spambot deleted my post with the links (note: apparently any post with more than one link gets deleted). So you might just Google “industry response to GW” or something to that effect. I did not find any industry captains who thought heavy industry was going to be destroyed.
This is from the Chairman of Dupont:
Addressing Climate Change Can Reinvent American Industry
DuPont Chairman Calls for Legislation to Include Cap-and-Trade Program
We need sound policy that takes broad, coordinated, economically sustainable actions across the entire economyQuote end
Washington, D.C. (Vocus) April 22, 2009
Addressing climate change may be the single greatest opportunity to reinvent American industry while putting the United States on a more sustainable path forward, DuPont Chairman Charles O. Holliday, Jr. told the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee here today.
“We need sound policy that takes broad, coordinated, economically sustainable actions across the entire economy,” Holliday said. “We need clear, strong and workable emission reduction goals that will show us the pathway to a low-carbon economy. And we need a cap-and-trade program that focuses our efforts on the emission reduction opportunities that offer the most environmental benefits for the lowest costs.”
Holliday spoke on behalf of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a group of companies and non-governmental organizations which have come together to forge a consensus view regarding the United States’ actions on the challenging issue of climate change. DuPont and other USCAP members believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence on climate change to warrant prudent action.
Between 1990 and 2004, DuPont reduced greenhouse gas emissions 72 percent globally from its operations through a variety of innovative efforts. The company has further committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by 2015 from a base year of 2004.
“The current economic situation has served as a reminder to the importance of our resources and how efficiently and wisely they must be used, and a federal climate change program must be both environmentally effective and economically sustainable,” said Holliday. “At the same time, we cannot allow the current economic conditions to slow our efforts. A federal climate change program has the potential to create real economic growth through innovation.”
DuPont – one of the first companies to publicly establish environmental goals 19 years ago – has broadened its sustainability commitments beyond internal footprint reduction to include market-driven targets for both revenue and research and development investment. The goals are tied directly to business growth, specifically to the development of safer and environmentally improved new products for key global markets.
DuPont is a science-based products and services company. Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture and food; building and construction; communications; and transportation.
July 25, 2011, 9:21 amWaldo to Ted: Industry Response to GW:
The most interesting one, however, is the KPMG survey of mining executives.
http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Climate-Change-Mining-Survey-2010-final.pdf
About 1/3 were “wait and see”; about 1/3 had already taken action; 19% had done nothing.
From the report:
****”Key findings
Generally, mining organizations are adopting a “wait and see” approach to actions involving climate change. According to the survey:
• Less than 20 percent of respondents stated that climate change is a significant driver for new initiatives in their organization.
• Almost 50 percent of the respondents said that their organization has not quantified the potential cost of climate change on their business.
• Approximately 60 percent of the respondents said that their organization has not implemented structural changes to address climate change issues.
• Over 60 percent of the organizations, according to respondents, have not measured their carbon footprint and do not include climate change in dealings with suppliers and customers.
To be clear, many of the organizations have already implemented sustainability measures. In other cases, a lack of progress is not from skepticism about climate change but from the difficulties of building a quantifiable business case for addressing climate change.
However, the survey shows a surprising diversity of opinion among senior executives about climate change and the best strategies for dealing with sustainability and regulatory compliance.”*****
None of the respondents, Ted, mentioned that climate initiatives were going to destroy their industry.
Once again, I respectfully submit that you have overstated your case.
July 25, 2011, 9:25 amNetdr, PEER REVIEW YOUR FINDINGS Netdr, PEER REVIEW YOUR FINDINGS:
COME ON, NETDR, YOU REPEATEDLY IGNORE THE CHALLENGE. IF GW SCIENCE IS SO EASILY DISMISSED A MODERATELY INTELLIGENT CHILD COULD DO IT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TOO!!! YOU ARE IGNORING THE CHALLENGE. YOU ALWAYS HAVE. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.
IGNORE NO LONGER. GREATNESS AWAITS YOU.
By the way, I love Lord Monckton. I think he’s hilarious.
Go Netdr, peer-review. And if not, why not?
July 25, 2011, 9:29 amTed Rado:
I am not a climate scientist, so I am not in a position to make strong statements about the validity of the CAGW idea. However, anyone with a technical or scientific background can ask the obvious questions. To say that so and so has more degrees than a thermometer in climate science, therefore shut up and sit down, is absurd. I would think that those most knowledgeable would be delighted to explain their work rather than merely defend it.
As a computer modeller of much experience, I am VERY leery of programs with fudge factors and missing many variables, many of which we aren’t even aware of. Basing critical decisions on them is absurd (see my previous posts).
The argument about which side can muster the most adherents is nonsense. An opinion by any number of people on a model full of fudges and holes certainly cannot be argued to be able to predict the future 100 years ahead.
One can also play the “name the zealots game”. There are any number on both sides. So what? Simply ignore them and try to find people who have well thought out comments and ideas.
It is impossible to prove a negative. I certainly can’t prove that the AGW modela CAN’T predict the 100 year future. But the adherents can’t prove that they can either. Again, so what?
I encourage climate research. I am glad this AGW thing has triggered much activity in the field. Unfortunately, it has also triggered a huge number of idiotic USG sponsored expensive projects. This in turn has corrupted the research establishment. Jillions of professors have grants to study things that any engineer can quickly show to be nonsense. Virtually all the work on alternative energy, energy storage, carbon sequestering, etc. falls into this category. For those who don’t believe me, run some calcs of your own. Don’t just quote the Spaniards or the USG.
We need to go back to the drawing board and approach all this in a manner well established and practiced in private industry.
July 25, 2011, 9:39 amTed Rado:
An additional comment. Peer review is fine, but what does it accomplish in this discussion? The opinions of peers re a model full of fudges is meaningless.
July 25, 2011, 9:44 amWaldo Reviewed:
Well, if you say “Jillions of professors have grants to study things that any engineer can quickly show to be nonsense,” this is what peer-review is for. Prove them wrong. No one says “shut up and sit down”; what we are saying is “put your money where your mouth is” and even “beat them at their own game.” Otherwise you run the risk of armchair quarterbacking.
I’m always slightly amused at the apparent arrogance (sorry, Ted, just trying to be straight) that some engineers have.
By the way, netdr, not everyone is convinced of those numbers you posted re: spending. You really should follow the links in these things.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/19/207910/climate-shift-data-reanalysis/
July 25, 2011, 9:54 amnetdr:
Chippas: [SOCK PUPPET ]
Oh an[SIC] Malcolm, Seeing as you are rightly against those that actively avoid reasonable debate, maybe you could convince netdr to respond to my several attempts to get him to substantiate his claim:
‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.’
(I am interpreting ‘CAGW’ as the general IPCC hypothesis, because no one uses that term in the science.) [Slight warming has happened get over it. Did mankind cause a substantial part of it ? No one knows.It is the "catastrophe" which has been manufactured with smoke and mirrors and non-existent positive feedback. -- NetDr]
July 25, 2011, 10:32 am*************
Consider yourself replied to : See above [July 25, 2011, 7:34 am]
Pauld:
Ted Rado:
I appreciate the common sense approach you take to this issue. One does not need a PhD in climate science to understand the fundemental problems with existing climate models.
I found it interesting to read something Judith Curry wrote the other day. She is the Chair of the Department of Atmsopheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. She said she began to question the climate models when she was invited to host a discussion on Climateaudit.org regarding the climate models. In doing so, she had the opportunity to interact with professionals in other fields who work with computer models. People like you. This opened up her eyes to how flimsy the climate models are compared to industry standards used in the private sector. Her mind was opened by the comments to this post. http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/03/curry-reviews-jablonski-and-williamson/
The comments she found to be eye-opening were consistent with the common sense points you have been making here.
July 25, 2011, 10:36 amCaesar Waldus Authoritas:
Netdr, has Pauld just cited an “authority”?
And since “It is the “catastrophe” which has been manufactured with smoke and mirrors and non-existent positive feedback” why don’t you prove this. PEER REVIEW, NETDR! YOU ARE STILL IGNORING THE CHALLENGE!!
July 25, 2011, 11:10 amPauld:
One of the reason that laymen typical do not submit articles for peer-review in scientific journals is that they have better things to do.
Publishing is an important professional expectation for professors and research scientists. That is why they publish. It is their job. Laymen typically have other types jobs and do not gain professional recognition by publishing outside of their field.
Moreover, comments made in blogs do not contain the type of content that typical warrants publication in a scientific journal. Scientific journals want to publish articles that contain original research. Occasionally, they might publish unique and interesting prospective by prominent scientists on an existing controversy.
Thus, for example, while the point made in Warren’s main point is a valid one, it is not based on his original research and therefore not likely to be accepted for publication in a scientific journal. Moreover, he has other things to do with his time than write up an article for free.
July 25, 2011, 11:53 amIf you think it is important that any idea involving science be peer-reviewed, then don’t hang around blogs. If you are going to hang around, don’t make silly comments asking laymen to write up their blog comments and submit them for publication.
Ted Rado:
This “prove them wrong” and obsession with “peer review” is astonishing. One obviously cannot read everything or write a paper on everything. Some seem to think unless you do, you are disqualified from asking questions. If those proposing big changes at huge cost and serious consequences are unwilling to accept questions from those less skilled in their field, we have an autocracy. Why not just have a science and engineering “king” who decides everything and the rest of us shut up.
One other point. Engineers know more engineering than non-engineers. However, we welcome questions from non-engineers. I certainly don’t expect to have my work blindly accepted. In the same way, I don’t expect to blindly follow the teachings of someone else, especially if the consequences are serious. I feel free to ask questions and expect to obtain logical explanations. In some case, such as computer modelling, many outside the climate science field have expertise. The AGW people would be wise to heed their comments.
As an example of where I would welcome comment, I have done much study of hydraulic energy storage. The resulta show it to be totally uneconomical. Something close to ten times the electrical equipment as for the base load would be required. I would welcome seeing someone else’s study of the subject. Instead, all I get is “the USG is sponsoring work on it, so it must be a good idea”.
And by the way, I have “put my money where my mouth is” by trying to explain the reasoning behing my comments. Asking to have a rational response I guess is asking too much.
This lunatic jumping around like a frog on a hot rock is entertaining though. I have a friend who is a shrink. Maybe I’ll float some of this stuff past him for a laugh.
July 25, 2011, 12:14 pmWaldo to Paul:
I appreciate what you are saying, Paul, and you are not the first to say it.
However, the people here are not simply commenting on climate science or policy, they are being definitive and accusative about what they perceive as inept, careerist science or government waste; there are a great many accusations and allegations on these boards; there are also a great many definite comments about the science with little actual cited or quoted science (netdr’s obsession with “negative feedback”). They are not particularly temperate in their opinions. All this is out there for the world to see. I am simply challenging these people to test their conclusions.
If these people are confident in their opinions and their conclusions, certainly these opinions and conclusions would stand up to scrutiny. How do we know, for instance, that Mr. Meyer’s opinion above is, in fact, “valid”? At least one poster, “markm” at July 11, 2011, 7:16 pm, seems to think that Mr. Meyer misunderstood the role of plug variables. And this is exactly where the problem lies. Mr. Meyer may actually be wrong. His comprehension may not actually be good. He may not know enough. Yet he has now made a specific argument and posted it.
Not everyone differentiates between carefully studied, qualified, vetted science and the layman’s commentary which, for the price of a website or blog, anyone can post. Some people may be greatly overconfident. A great many people troll the Net looking for validation of their a priori opinions which are often based on political bias and not comprehension of science. Not everyone wants a balanced, factual discussion. All these are why we need scientists and peer-review.
It would not take much more work for Mr. Meyer to turn this into an actual article—and then he could get his opinion critiqued by professionals and we might find out how much he actually knows about plug variables. If Mr. Rado thinks he can explain models to the scientists, let him. Climate Skeptic is not a very good venue for such commentary.
I am with those that think the subject of climate change is an important subject. What I worry about is that people are disseminating simplified and unverified chunks of easily digestible junk science and turning the actual scientists into targets. And I’m afraid that the “little time to publish” excuse is a little like netdr’s excuse for why he hasn’t read more—if you don’t have the time to actually do the work, how can you possibly hope to be confident in your conclusions? And I have noticed that Mr. Meyer has plenty of time to write up his blog(s) and then travel to college campuses and give speeches—couldn’t he use one or two of those evenings to prepare a manuscript?
The truth is, Paul, on some level the posters here know that they would not be able to compete in the actual climate science arena (if they could, I have no doubt netdr, Wally, Alex, even Ted would not hesitate to take a scientist or agency down), and they would probably find that they were not as capable as they claim.
July 25, 2011, 2:26 pmChippas:
Netdr,
Sorry for missing your link to the paper. It would help if you addressed it to me, Chippas, not ‘sock puppet’.
I don’t think that this (unpublished?) paper backs up your claim:
Firstly, the study doesn’t say anywhere that ‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be’ It give no indication of CAGW or IPCC. it just gives a scale. 1- 10 with a mean of 5.7, which they say is less worried about the risks than the experts. Even if we say that the IPCC would score around 7.5 You can’t tell anything about the proportions of scores based off a mean, only the central tendency. you need info on the distribution. So it follows that you also can’t describe the proportion of scores pertaining to the subjects high in sci. lit.
Secondly, the data pretty much show that sci. and literacy (as instrumentalised in this study) are bad predictors of perception of CC–that r they found is nothing. So any implication (which you were obviously trying to make) that more education equals more IPCC skepticism is unfounded.
here’s a quote: ‘Our data, how-ever, show that as individuals become more science literate and more proficient in the mode of reasoning featured in scientific inquiry, they don’t reliably form beliefs more in line with scientific consensus. In-stead, they form beliefs that are even more reliably correlated with those of the particular cultural group to which they belong. ‘
Thirdly, this study looked only at US citizens.
If I have missed anything please show me.
July 25, 2011, 8:01 pmMalcolm:
Waldo:
The truth is, Paul, on some level the posters here know that they would not be able to compete in the actual climate science arena … — I think you misunderstand. I will use myself as an example. I am not interested in competing in the actual climate science area. I think I see serious, fatal flaws in certain works of some of the existing climate scientists. (If the flaws I think I see are not indeed flaws, I am completely willing to be proven that. Right now I am pretty sure what I see are actual, fatal flaws.) Given that these works are being pushed to become a foundation for certain policy decisions, which are going to affect me, I am interested in exposing these flaws. You say the proper way to do this is to submit a paper into a journal. Some of the skeptics are doing this. Maybe one day I will do this as well. Until that happens I will do my best at educating myself in the matter and talking with other people about what really is going on. This is what I am doing on this and other blogs.
July 25, 2011, 10:10 pmWaldo to Malcolm:
That is fair enough, Malcolm—although, by “competing,” I mean that the reasoning and science of most of these blogs would not stand up to fair and objective scrutiny by the scientific community (which I suspect most bloggers know). And if this is so—if the blog science can’t stand on its own in the scientific community—, then you are not really educating yourself but simply reading poorly stated, inexpertly done and ill-informed junk science.
I hate to harp on this, but you won’t get very far with sources like the Petition Project. What do you really learn from that? What has it really proven?
Part of finding out “what is really going on” is good information, no? This phrase suggests your mind is already made up, but I hope I am wrong on this. One hopes that you are also reading the scientific literature fairly and not just the blogs. If you really do find fatal flaws, do us all a favor, prove it to the world: write that paper, do your own scientific work.
July 25, 2011, 11:33 pmMalcolm:
Waldo:
I hate to harp on this, but you won’t get very far with sources like the Petition Project. What do you really learn from that? What has it really proven? — That many scientists are very, very skeptical towards CAGW. Scientists are normally intelligent people, who can first and foremost think critically. In my experience, scientists are normally keen to acknowledge when they don’t know enough about something. Consequently, when they see something they think they don’t understand enough about, they don’t say anything about it. They either do their homework, develop their knowledge up to a level where they think they finally understand enough to say something meaningful, and voice their opinion, or they remain silent. CAGW naturally attracted a lot of interest due to the scary scenarios with global calls to action offered by its proponents. That a great deal of scientists, after what I think was doing their homework on CAGW, have chosen not to remain neutral with respect to it, but have voiced their opinion about it in rather harsh tones, is, I think, telling.
July 26, 2011, 12:00 amWaldo Project:
We may have to agree to disagree, but I don’t think the Petition Project proved anything of the sort; if nothing else, it is too poorly verified, too small, and avoided those people who are in the best position to critically analyze the evidence. The climate scientists did not sign. Besides, I thought you were educating yourself—what do you care if a handful of scientists not in the climate field signed a petition? You are objective and unswayed by anything but science, aren’t you?
July 26, 2011, 12:12 amChippas:
To Waldo and Malcolm,
The paper netdr and I am discussing has some interesting conclusions regarding scientific literacy and opinion on CC in the US. It shows that scientific literacy is a poor predictor of how one will view CC science. What they found was that a better correlate was ideology (my word) and that science literate people just use the evidence and methods that best support their view. so smart members of the US General public, such as in a survey of academics, aren’t any less un-objective on either side.
July 26, 2011, 12:39 amAnother reason to just stick with the experts who publish.
Malcolm:
Waldo:
Besides, I thought you were educating yourself—what do you care if a handful of scientists not in the climate field signed a petition? You are objective and unswayed by anything but science, aren’t you? — Right. I don’t care much about petitions. The only reason I brought the petition above up is because of the discussion on consensus in this thread that I thought it was relevant for, however little my interest in discussions of that type is. As I said, I’d gladly talk about the science, but it has been my impression that neither you nor Chippas are ready or willing to talk about that. I understand you have your reasons.
I have to admit it is a little boring to talk about fluff like this. I mean we don’t yell at each other, that’s cool and all, but our discussions seem to lack substance. I feel if we continue further, we will just repeat ourselves, ie, you will say that if I want to talk about science, I should go publish a paper, and I will say what I already said about that a couple of posts above, etc. Meh.
July 26, 2011, 1:11 amMalcolm:
@Chippas:
Another reason to just stick with the experts who publish. — Well, no. The paper was aiming to figure out whether the claim that people who do not support ‘the consensus’ tend to be less educated than those who do. The authors found that not to be the case. If they did find that not supporting ‘the consensus’ meaningfully correlates to low education, you’d be arguing that this is a clear reason to listen to the experts, since, after all, only high school dropouts oppose it, presumably exactly because they can’t make sense of the science. Now that the authors found that the correlation does not exist you are trying to argue that this, too, is a good reason to listen to the experts. You can’t have it both ways. If you are going to say that it is a good idea to listen to the experts no matter the results of a particular study, do not bring that study as an argument.
July 26, 2011, 1:34 amChippas:
Malcolm,
You are gonna have to do better to show evidence that RC is biased. The plural of anecdote is not data. As I have said, I have had comments rejected many times too. Further, the contrarian blogs have been accused of censoring too. For example: http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/07/anthony-watts-denies-his-mother-ever.html
Like the paper I mentioned earlier, this seems like yet another reason to just stick with the science–blogs are just blogs. So forget about making your accusations unless you have better evidence. Focus your energy on getting answers to your questions, and if your local uni can’t help you out than go to the next one.
July 26, 2011, 1:37 amChippas:
Malcolm says: ‘You can’t have it both ways.’
Um, why not? How do they conflict?
July 26, 2011, 1:53 amMalcolm:
Chippas:
You are gonna have to do better to show evidence that RC is biased. — What data would satisfy you?
July 26, 2011, 1:53 amMalcolm:
‘You can’t have it both ways.’ — Um, why not? How do they conflict? — Because that would be arguing that X implies Y, and that not X also implies Y, and this is a logical fallacy.
July 26, 2011, 1:55 amChippas:
You are assuming Y can only be inferred from X. What about A,B,C,D?
July 26, 2011, 2:18 amChippas:
Re. data to prove RC bias. I guess a sample of all the posting activity including what is rejected and edited in a given time span would suffice. That way you could compare proportions of what is done to agreeable vs contrarian posts.
July 26, 2011, 2:29 amMalcolm:
Chippas:
You are assuming Y can only be inferred from X. What about A,B,C,D? — Unless you somehow tie A, B, C and D into your logic involving X and Y, they do not matter. Arguing that X implies Y and that not X also implies Y does not make sense, since this is logically equivalent to arguing just Y.
I guess a sample of all the posting activity including what is rejected and edited in a given time span would suffice. — Understood. I haven’t kept the posts I made during my experiment above, since I don’t normally keep posts made on forums. From my recollection, I made about 15 posts in total, maybe more, with all non-skeptical posts immediately accepted, and all but one or two skeptical posts rejected. If I ever get around to repeating the experiment, I will keep records for you.
July 26, 2011, 3:08 amMalcolm:
Chippas:
You know, it turns out that there’s a whole blog dedicated to discussing censorship at RC:
http://rcrejects.wordpress.com/
That’s saying something, no? Anyway, if you are looking for evidence of that censorship, this might be a good place to look, or, well, ask for it.
July 26, 2011, 3:20 amMalcolm:
Sorry for making several small posts in a row.
Here is another link for Chippas:
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/07/realclimate-censorship.html
The author theorizes that you might be able to estimate the number of rejected posts by looking at the IDs of accepted posts and counting the discontinuities. I don’t know whether or not this is the case. If it is, the number of rejected posts is significant and on par with my observations.
July 26, 2011, 3:30 ampauld:
Waldo says, ” How do we know, for instance, that Mr. Meyer’s opinion above is, in fact, “valid”? At least one poster, “markm” at July 11, 2011, 7:16 pm, seems to think that Mr. Meyer misunderstood the role of plug variables. And this is exactly where the problem lies. Mr. Meyer may actually be wrong. His comprehension may not actually be good. He may not know enough. Yet he has now made a specific argument and posted it.”
I went back and read markm’s comment out of curiosity. Waldo, if you are not able to understand and evaluate the point markm makes and how, if at all, it is consistent or inconsistent with Warren’s post, then you should not be attempting to understand science on your own. I agree with you.
July 26, 2011, 3:38 amChippas:
Malcolm,
still not grasping your logic here: ‘ — Unless you somehow tie A, B, C and D into your logic involving X and Y, they do not matter’
So I will bring it back to reality.
If the results showed a good pos. correlation between smartness and CC concern, one might (for the record I prob. wouldn’t because the reasoning is a stretch) use that as evidence to suggest we should listen to the experts because all the smart people are (So long as we can’t find anything wrong with the smart people).
If the results showed (they did) that their is no correlation between smartness and CC concern, one might use that as evidence to show that the smart GP are irrelevant and that leaves us by exclusion with the experts as our best guides.
There is more than one possible reason to reason that the experts are good to listen to. Two different reasons to reach a similar conclusion. –there is no logical fallacy in this.
In the abstract: Y can be infered from X, but it can also be inferred from A
Regarding RC. For your experiment you would need access to the admin’s activities otherwise how could you see what is rejected?
The links you posted are just anecdotes, opinions, stuff–not equal to data. The use of the ID as an estimate doesn’t tell you whether the censored post was contrarian or not.
July 26, 2011, 6:18 amkelly liddle:
I have a question to all here but mostly to warmists. When you discover that for example in Al Gore’s inconvenient truth some of it was inconveniently untrue. Also as an individual he is one of the largest emitters in the US. Does this not raise any suspicions? He is not the only one to behave like this. Another thing about any business leaders saying that they are doing something for CO2 emissions. Energy does cost money for an airline it is about 30% of there cost. So if they tell you that they are reducing emissions for the planet, could it just be they want to save money and sounds better to say they are saving the planet? If they are bankers or traders even worse they are large beneficiaries of any trading.
July 26, 2011, 7:17 amMalcolm:
Chippas:
“still not grasping your logic here:” — I will make it very simple. Let’s drop this “I wouldn’t use this argument” stuff, though, you have specifically asked me how the two lines of reasoning conflict with each other. Well, here I am, showing how.
Here goes:
“If the results showed a good pos. correlation between smartness and CC concern, one might (for the record I prob. wouldn’t because the reasoning is a stretch) use that as evidence to suggest we should listen to the experts because all the smart people are …” — This is the line of reasoning used by the proponents of CAGW that the authors of the paper specifically set out to explore. This gives us: X (the smarter you are, the more likely you are to support ‘the consensus’) implies Y (we should listen to the experts).
“If the results showed (they did) that their is no correlation between smartness and CC concern, one might use that as evidence to show that the smart GP are irrelevant and that leaves us by exclusion with the experts as our best guides.” — This is what you are trying to argue. This gives us: not X (support for ‘the consensus’ does not depend on how smart one is) implies Y (we should listen to the experts).
There are no external factors here. The first statement argues Y directly from X. The second statement argues Y directly from not X. Whether you think Y can be argued from something else does not matter one bit, the first statement still argues Y directly from X, and the second statement still argues Y directly from not X.
Now, arguing that X implies Y and that not X also implies Y is logically equivalent to arguing Y. Proof: Suppose Y can be false. Then from the first statement it follows that X is false – if X were true, Y would have been true, since the statement is: X implies Y. But from the second statement it follows that not X is false. Both X and not X can not be false at the same time. Thus, Y can not be false. Thus, arguing that X implies Y and that not X also implies Y is logically equivalent to arguing that Y is not false, or, said in simpler terms, equivalent to arguing Y. End of proof.
So, unwinding this, netdr linked a study, you have written some posts making some points based on that study, but the logic of your points was such that it boiled down to simply restating that ‘we should listen to the experts’ without actually using the results of the study at all. This does not work. You don’t reply to netdr, you just ignore what he is saying.
Do you see it now?
July 26, 2011, 7:41 amMalcolm:
Chippas:
Regarding RC. For your experiment you would need access to the admin’s activities otherwise how could you see what is rejected? — No, the experiment I talked about in the post from [July 25, 2011, 8:14 am] can be done without access to the admin’s activities. I certainly don’t need access to the admin’s activities to repeat it. I can see which of the posts are rejected and which are accepted by looking at the site (doh).
The links you posted are just anecdotes, opinions, stuff–not equal to data. The use of the ID as an estimate doesn’t tell you whether the censored post was contrarian or not. — You might be right. My experience with RC might be different from that of other people. I kind of doubt it, given what other people say their experience was, and given that there are entire blogs dedicated to discussing the issue of censorship at RC, but, yes, I don’t have the data. I don’t know how I realistically could get that data. If you ever get that data, I humbly ask you to forward it my way. Until any of us has definite data, we are left to our pre-conceived notions about the RC. I say they ban skeptics, since this has been my experience. You might, if you want, say that they don’t.
July 26, 2011, 8:01 amChippas:
Malcom,
You are ignoring that the reasoning is slightly different in each case (let’s not forget that I only argued for one case in the first place. The other case was your hypothetical). The first one is an argument that is based on the results that scientific literacy leads to support for the consensus, and that skeptics are prob. not worth listening to because they plainly don’t grasp the science. So we should listen to the experts instead, like all the smart people.
The second one is an argument based on the results that scientific literacy is no predictor of support for the consensus or skepticism. Instead it is biased to the individual’s ideology. So, the smart people (and illiterate alike) are not going to give any indication of what to believe in, so by elimination this only leaves the experts as a best indication of what to believe in.
Two different results could be used, using different reasoning, to come to a similar conclusion. It is not breaking any rules.
Your abstractions are nothing but analogies in short hand. Analogies always fail at some point. Just stick to reality and show where the fault lies in my logic.
Regarding netdr. I already discussed his claim before you started this tangent. The argument between you and I is completely different from mine and netdr’s (who hasn’t replied yet). Look it up.
Regarding your experiment. I see your point. But it assumes that you can make 2 sets of posts, that after posting, the difference (if found) in posts rejected would indicate a bias towards censoring debate, and not any extraneous variables such as a post’s argument being too often regurgitated– how would you control for that?
But if you did it I would not automatically ignore your results, because they could be close to the mark. Give it a try, and show us the two sets before hand.
July 26, 2011, 5:19 pmWaldo to Kelly:
Hi Kelly, I’ll take a shot at your first question about Gore’s movie: the scientists, at least, think his movie was accurate, but the accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth entirely depends on who is evaluating it. The alarmist bloggers? Not so much. The scientists who actually study CC? They praise the film. The film is based on peer-reviewed science. I personally put more faith in the actual experts who know about climate change. However, I do wish Gore would bow out simply because I think he’s a lightening rod and I suspect he is one of the big reasons that the CC debate became a political nightmare. (One wonders how many of these people here would question climate science if, say, Ronald Reagan had made the film instead of Gore.)
As for his being one of the “largest emitters in the US” I’m not sure what you are posting about. Are you referring to air travel or something? I’ve actually never heard this before.
As for the corporations: of course, probably most institute global warming because of PR. But, as someone who’s worked for several big corporations, this is true of almost any business venture—very few corporations do anything that doesn’t help either business or public image. Actually, when I think about it, I’m not sure what you are asking.
July 26, 2011, 9:00 pmMalcolm:
Chippas:
You are ignoring that the reasoning is slightly different in each case … — It does not matter, because neither line involves any external inputs. Sequences of X implies A, A implies B, B implies Y are collapsible to X implies Y.
Your abstractions are nothing but analogies in short hand. Analogies always fail at some point. Just stick to reality and show where the fault lies in my logic. — I didn’t make any analogies. I merely assigned symbols to arguments. Without symbols, the fault in your logic is that arguing both lines simultaneously does not allow the statement “we should listen to the experts” to be false (allowing that creates an unresolvable contradiction), hence arguing both lines is equivalent to arguing that “we should listen to the experts” is true, regardless of what the study says.
Anyway, if you still don’t understand why you can’t argue both lines of reasoning about the study simultaneously, fine, let’s leave this alone, since I am afraid I can’t make it any clearer than it already is.
Regarding RC, if I set around to making a controlled experiment, I will let you know.
July 26, 2011, 10:01 pmpauld:
Kelly: You are, of course, correct that Al Gore’s movie has many significant errors. He attempted to create the impression that it was based on peer-reviewed science and people such as Waldo seems to think it was, but large portions of it were not. As just one example, the movie presents scenarios involving increases in sea levels that far exceed the projections contained in the IPCC. The movie mixes facts that are well-established, such as CO2 is a greenhouse gas, with thinly supported speculations. It thereby leaves the viewer with a highly misleading perception of the state of the science.
I think it is significant that while he asks others to make major sacrifices and wants to adopt policies that will have adverse effects on poorest people in the world, he himself travels by private jet and lives in several large mansions that each consume about twenty times the amount of energy that a typical American consumer uses each year. It is hard to take his concerns about the urgency of climate change seriously when he acts so inconsistently with his own message.
Of course, many corporations try to gain favorable publicity for actions that help the environment and increase their profitability. For the most part, I have no problem with that. That is the way capitalism works. I do have major problems, however, with large corporation that seek government money to adopt policies that would otherwise be unprofitable. Unfortunately, that is becoming more and more common.
July 27, 2011, 2:15 amChippas:
Malcolm,
If the crux of your problem is simply that I am supposedly arguing both lines of argument simultaneously, then don’t worry I never did. I only argued from the study’s results. If in another universe, the results were different and actually showed a consensus among the smart GP to support CC science, one could use that as evidence to support the experts. If two similar studies were done, one each showing the aforementioned results, one would have to be wrong. Does this solve the problem for you? If not please persist in describing it because I found it interesting.
you said: ‘arguing both lines is equivalent to arguing that “we should listen to the experts” is true, regardless of what the study says.’
It does matter what the study says. If the results showed that the smart people all disfavoured CC science then that could not be used as evidence to support the experts.
July 27, 2011, 4:34 amMalcolm:
Chippas:
If two similar studies were done, one each showing the aforementioned results, one would have to be wrong. Does this solve the problem for you? — Yes. I have to say I am surprised to hear that you wouldn’t argue that we should listen to the experts if the study did establish that not supporting the consensus positively correlated with poor education, since other proponents of CAGW were trying to argue exactly that, but I will take your word that you wouldn’t.
July 27, 2011, 6:08 amMalcolm:
Damn, I just re-read what you said just a sentence before the excerpt I quoted:
“If in another universe, the results were different and actually showed a consensus among the smart GP to support CC science, one could use that as evidence to support the experts.”
This has me confused. So, since in our universe the study shows no correlation, you are arguing that no correlation means that we should listen to the experts, right? And, if the study did show a correlation, you would have argued that this correlation meant that we should listen to the experts, right? If you reply yes to both questions, I have a problem with that.
This will teach me to re-read everything carefully before posting.
July 27, 2011, 6:15 amChippas:
I would reply yes in both cases, more or less. I don’t see the conflict. Out of all the possible results of this test (so many dif. universes) there could have been results that could be used to support listening to the experts, support not listening to the experts, and maybe not support either. The ones we mostly discuss could both be used to support listening to the experts. I also gave an example of one that would not support listening to the experts in ‘July 27, 2011, 4:34 am’.
Again, I think it boils down to different reasoning using different evidence to support similar conclusions. In the situation where the smart people agree with the experts, this is an argument from authority. But when the smart people and dumb alike don’t show any objectivity, using this is an argument by elimination, or that we have no recourse (in terms of people to listen to) but to go with the experts.
July 27, 2011, 7:07 amMalcolm:
The many universes and many possible results of the study are irrelevant since I am only talking about two possible results which are opposite to each other: ‘yes, there is a correlation’, and ‘no, there is no correlation’. If you don’t see how being ready to argue your point from either of these opposite results means ignoring them and just restating that your point is true, after everything that has been said, I can’t help you.
July 27, 2011, 8:53 amMalcolm:
Interestingly enough, Chippas, the logic you are trying above is analogous to this shtick employed by certain proponents of CAGW:
1. Look at the current temperature and compare it to the temperature for the same day a year ago.
2. If it has warmed, say that’s a sign of CAGW.
3. If it has cooled, say that’s a sign of CAGW “for a different reason”.
There are plenty of variations: higher humidity vs lower humidity, more storms vs less storms, etc. Everything invariably is claimed to be a sure sign of CAGW.
Yes, some people actually think there is nothing wrong with this as if saying “for a different reason” from time to time somehow vindicates these complete non-starters.
July 27, 2011, 9:17 amChippas:
Malcolm,
I think you are alluding to the importance of falsifiability in science. And how good studies would be set up so that they could support a view or disprove a view, and hopefully nothing in between, which does nothing to advance the science (a ‘non-starter’).
I don’t mind admitting that the two results do not give great evidence for the conclusion, but there is nothing wrong with the logic in them. In the same way, there is every chance that a warm day relative to last year is a physical result of GW and a colder day is a physical result of GW. This does not break any laws of physics. What I do agree with you on is that this does not allow for any falsifiability in the warm/cold day thing if someone is using it as evidence of GW. But I don’t think scientists would use it as evidence, rather, they are just saying that a causal chain can be theoretically linked to GW.
Regarding the paper, certain results could have been used as evidence against the conclusion, so I could not just ignore the results and restate my point, so I don’t consider it a non-starter.
July 27, 2011, 6:03 pmWaldo to Kelly:
Well Kelly (assuming you are still around), if one Googles “Accuracy” and “Inconvenient Truth,” one can get critiques of the movie, both the good and the bad. Most scientists will say that, overall, Gore got most of it right, even if some parts were exaggerated. I found this one informative as a number of scientists weigh in on what Gore got right and got wrong:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414115107.htm
It evens has citations.
However, if you come to a denialist site such as this one, you will find people who only focus on and even exaggerate the errors and ignore what Gore’s movie gets correct. That is why it is a denialist site. Denialists don’t actually discuss science(though they claim they do), they look for reasons to disbelieve in CC.
And your question and Paul’s response point out two things: why Gore should bow out for everyone’s sake (he’s kind of a joke and people are often fixated on the man and the fact that he made a movie and won the Nobel) and, most importantly considering the conversation here, don’t listen to the amateurs, listen to the scientists.
Let me say that again: Gore is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t listen to the amateur layperson—he gets some of his stuff right, but not all of it. Listen the scientists.
This would mean, of course, that one should not listen to Warren Meyer, because he is also an amateur and likely to get a significant portion wrong…but this has been going on for a while.
What is also interesting in light of the recent conversation is how people here are immediately aware of the shortcoming’s of Gore’s film but seem to find nothing particularly wrong with someone like Willie Soon getting a paycheck from big oil. People here accuse Gore, excuse Soon. Hypocritical? It is outrageous if Gore is getting wealthy off CC; it is equally outrageous if a scientist, who we should be able to trust as we should our doctors or military people, are feeding us corporate science.
Certainly, Kelly, you are not one of these people who refuses to see this double standard.
In any event, I’m out of the country for a while but shall return. Best of luck. W
July 27, 2011, 7:59 pmTed Rado:
I continue to be astonished at the idea that only the “experts” are allowed to comment. I would think that if lay people ask questions or comment, the “experts” whould welcome the opportunity to explain their ideas.
There are those who continuously bash those who ask questions re CAGW. We are called denialists and worse. The CAGW pushers certainly have the right to criticize the skeptics. It would be more productive to respond civilly and factually rather than to shout shut up and accept the experts’ view. What blankety blank nonsense!
July 28, 2011, 9:35 amnetdr:
Sock puppet or to whom it may concern
How does CO2 cause cooling ? What is the theory which links freezing villagers in Peru with CO2 ? Al Gore [who is not a scientist ] claims there is one and spineless scientists haven’t corrected him.
The “dog which did not bark” is conspicuous by it’s silence.
I would be the first to admit freezing villagers in Peru don’t disprove CO2 warming but how on earth do they prove it ? Where is the causal link ?
CO2 should cause more uniform warming if anything ?
What studies were done ? Were there any or is it just the knee jerk reaction of blaming EVERYTHING on CO2.
July 28, 2011, 10:28 amPauld:
Waldo says: “However, if you come to a denialist site such as this one, you will find people who only focus on and even exaggerate the errors and ignore what Gore’s movie gets correct.”
I think I was the only person here to comment on Al Gore’s movie and here is the relevant portion of what I said:
“The movie mixes facts that are well-established, such as CO2 is a greenhouse gas, with thinly supported speculations. It thereby leaves the viewer with a highly misleading perception of the state of the science.”
As you can see, I did not say that Al Gore got everything wrong. I said he mixed well-established facts with thinly supported speculations. I think this is quite consistent with the opinions of scientists expressed in the link you provided Waldo.
If you want to discuss which facts Warren Meyers gets wrong that is why he allows comments that are, as near as I can see, completely uncensored. I think it would be more fruitful for you to spend your time here dealing with facts and arguments rather than arguing that no one but scientists can understand and criticize climate scientists.
July 28, 2011, 11:34 amPauld:
Waldo says:
“People here accuse Gore, excuse Soon. Hypocritical? It is outrageous if Gore is getting wealthy off CC; it is equally outrageous if a scientist, who we should be able to trust as we should our doctors or military people, are feeding us corporate science.”
I would be outraged if you presented some evidence that the source of Willie Soon’s funding caused him to falsify or misrepresent his research. You haven’t.
As a general rule, I think it makes more sense to discuss the merits of a scientists research than his funding sources. If you think Willie Soon’s research is incorrect, then present your arguments.
July 28, 2011, 11:48 amnetdr:
RE: An inconvenient truth
It isn’t about the % of correct science vs incorrect it is about manipulation.
When I left the theater I was 100 % convinced that mankind [CO2] was causing warming and the problem was serious. I was a “true believer”!
I based this upon:
1) The supposed fact that CO2 and warming went up and down together.
2) The supposed FACT that temperatures were stable or declining for thousands of years and just started rising recently as CO2 emissions increased. [hockey stick]
This was about 5 years ago. I got interested and studied the science with books and articles. My favorite mainstream book is “A Rough Guide ..” by Hansen. I have a copy around here somewhere.
Anyway I found that both arguments were lies. Not exaggerations deliberate lies.
1)The CO2 lagged the warming by 800 years and was the result of the warming. If the additional warming amplified anything that is just speculation not born out by any measurements.
Five years later they still haven’t measured any warming due to CO2, why not Because it is impossible.
2) The hockey stick was created using some if it’s proxies upside down and depended upon a undocumented computer program which found hockey sticks in Red noise. The author, Mann, was determined to get the answer he wanted regardless of the facts. The author did his best to not let his studies be replicated by other unsympathetic scientists contrary to the scientific method.
The more I studied the problem the less I believed a catastrophe was probable, and I found many peer reviewed studies which backed that opinion up.
In short, by exaggerating and misrepresenting the science he had created a skeptic probably thousands of us.
July 28, 2011, 12:44 pmkelly liddle:
thankyou for the replies
Hey I prefer to be called a skeptic i find denier very offensive (for waldo)in fact because the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard (as i am Australian) uses this term that is what made me more interested in this subject. To the comment that Pauld said that nothing wrong with capitalism doing whatever to make a profit i agree with this and don’t have any problem with it. My problem is that governments both mine and yours if you are American take too much notice of interested groups and don’t make there own decisions. From what I have observed and for example if you search climate change on nasa and look at causes it does not even list the main natural cause the Milankovich Cycles. Now considering this is the main proven component of climate change even though it may be slow seems silly to just omit it. If you believe in tipping points such as at a certain point in time for example the tundra or Arctic ice cap will start to melt and continue to melt but may not be in a linear way and dependant on the weather changes that take place also then the “warming of the arctic” for example seems probably and there is nothing to demonstrate to me that this is not anything but natural. As in at the current position in our cycle you northern hemisphere people will be getting just a little bit more sunlight each year and us southerners will get a little less. The deserts of the world are expanding because of the tilt of the earth is getting smaller same thing again this may not be linear but a bigger desert will be dryer and hotter on average so to me no surprise that deserts are getting hotter. So I have my reason to be skeptical even should i be wrong the co2 theory is not proven it is only proven that in an enclosed container it will get hotter with the same energy input.
July 28, 2011, 3:58 pmnetdr:
I have read that the horribly expensive Australian taxes will only avoid .02 ° C warming in 100 years if the alarmist climatologists are right.
If this isn’t the correct value please correct me and cite your source.
The jobs fleeing to China may eve increase worldwide CO2.
Even if you believe in manmade global warming this seems like shooting yourself in the foot.
July 28, 2011, 5:09 pmkelly liddle:
One website that i find informative is auscsc.org.au and this other one has the projected impact even if the alarmist scientists are right. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/carbon-tax-australia-welcome-to-futility-island/ I would note though no society has ever reduced energy use without collapse or if is relatively minor as in not a failed state such as global financial crisis reduced your energy use in 2008 or 2009 one of those years. If you believe the really alarmist alarmists we might as well just party until the earth destructs because even if we stop now will still happen lol. It is unlikely we will reduce emissions or i think politically impossible Europe tried that all they did is move some production to Asia tranferring the point of the emissions not stopping them.
July 28, 2011, 5:29 pmkelly liddle:
netdr I think you might like this one. http://www.bobinoz.com/blog/7516/australian-carbon-tax-protests/
July 28, 2011, 5:47 pmChippas:
netdr,
If you were talking to me:
you said: ‘How does CO2 cause cooling ?’
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD013568.shtml
is one theory.
You said: ‘ will only avoid .02 ° C warming in 100 years if the alarmist climatologists are right.’
Something like that, considering we are only a small emitter. But, my denialist skeptic, don’t forget the tragedy of the commons. If Australia sets a good precedent, others might likely follow.
That paper you cited for your claim:
‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be’
Did not back up your claim. I am interested in what you think about my argument here: July 25, 2011, 8:01 pm
July 28, 2011, 7:06 pmMalcolm:
Chippas:
If Australia sets a good precedent, others might likely follow. — Suppose everyone does the same as Australia. What would be the effect on global temperatures and how much would that cost?
July 28, 2011, 9:53 pmChippas:
Malcolm,
Dunno. I never took much interest into the whole area of tackling climate change. Economics, politics, business, etc not my thing. I only have very basic opinions on the whole thing. If the politicians in your neck of the woods are anything like Australia’s at the moment, I feel sorry for you. Don’t know if it is the actual people or the way our system is constructed but they just seem to waste time bickering. Re. the tax coming into place, I am undecided. Mostly because I don’t research about it. Lol.
July 28, 2011, 10:16 pmMalcolm:
Chippas:
Dunno. — I suggest you find out before saying things like “If Australia sets a good precedent, others might likely follow.” as if this solves everything.
July 29, 2011, 5:03 amChippas:
Malcolm,
What? Setting a good precedent could help others consider it. No one said it as if it would solve everything.
What’s the reason for your tone?
July 29, 2011, 5:36 amnetdr:
Chippas
I guess my objection to the CO2 causes cooling theory is that it is applied where no study has been done and no logical path exists.
The circumstances of the paper you cite are unique and unlikely to be duplicated in Peru so a knee jerk blaming of CO2 for EVERYTHING is brain damaged.
The spineless climate scientists didn’t point that out.
The argument:
If Australia sets a good precedent, others might likely follow. — Suppose everyone does the same as Australia. What would be the effect on global temperatures and how much would that cost?
That is ridiculous. The whole world isn’t going to do something so obviously against their national self interest without a world government to make them.
Are you willing to go there ?
I have seen figures of the whole world cost of CO2 abatement costing 70 Trillion dollars in 10 years and still not doing much good.
For enough taxes to really do some good [defined as 1 ° ] the cost would be staggering. Does anyone have that number ?
July 29, 2011, 6:12 amnetdr:
No one has responded to the probability of CO2 taxes in Australia or the USA moving jobs and CO2 emissions to China or India thus INCREASING worldwide CO2 emissions.
Why not ? Is this point incorrect and why do you think so.
Without world government the sovereign nations of the earth will not deindustrialize.
July 29, 2011, 6:46 amnetdr:
Chippas
RE: Literacy vs CAGW belief.
Note: I said CAGW because I believe in slight AGW. It is the “C” which is all smoke and mirrors. [The feedback is where the error in their thinking is buried.]
The paper said:
“On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503
The better educated people were LESS concerned about global warming.
That is what I stated originally and I stand by it. The proportions etc are irrelevant.
The belief of the alarmists that if people were more scientifically literate there would be more belief in CAGW is false. The opposite would be true.
Your arguments didn’t address this overriding issue.
I have found that the more I know about climate the less I believe in catastrophe.
Somehow we are supposed to believe that warming will happen 5 or 6 times as fast as has ever happened in the past based on models which haven’t been correct yet.
All known models failed to predict the failure to warm from 1998 to present.
We are also told that past radiation was radiated back to space so there is no “warming in the pipeline” like the alarmists are fond of babbling. So where is this surge going to come from ?
July 29, 2011, 7:26 amMalcolm:
Chippas:
What? Setting a good precedent could help others consider it. No one said it as if it would solve everything. What’s the reason for your tone? — Here is the exchange:
netdr: I have read that the horribly expensive Australian taxes will only avoid .02 ° C warming in 100 years if the alarmist climatologists are right. If this isn’t the correct value please correct me and cite your source.
you: Something like that, considering we are only a small emitter. But, my denialist skeptic, don’t forget the tragedy of the commons. If Australia sets a good precedent, others might likely follow.
Netdr was saying that the reductions planned by Australia were much too small to make a difference. It looks to me like you were trying to argue against that on the basis that other countries might follow Australia. As we discovered, though, you don’t really know what will be the effect if other countries did follow Australia. So, you don’t really know whether what you said really counters netdr’s point. Hence my suggestion that you first find out whether what you are trying to argue has any merit, and only then argue.
Sorry if what I said came out rude, this was not the intent. I would suggest, however, that you continue calling others ‘denialists’, even when it turns out that it is actually you who is arguing from ignorance.
July 29, 2011, 9:34 amTed Rado:
I am beginning to think that the CAGW thing is a plot by the Chinese and Indians to get industry to move from Europe and the US to their countries. Our self-destruction will be their rise to industrial prominence. We will become Somalia II. (This would be an excellent subject for conspiracy theorists).
I am only kidding of course, but the whole business, in the absence of viable alternative energy, is an exercise in idiocy. Will somebody PLEASE show us a viable industrial scheme in the absence of fossil fuels? PLease don’t say “the Spaniards are doing it”.
July 29, 2011, 4:26 pmChippas:
Netdr.
you say: ‘Note: I said CAGW because I believe in slight AGW. It is the “C” which is all smoke and mirrors. [The feedback is where the error in their thinking is buried’
But it is equivalent and more meaningful to say ‘IPCC science’ or similar. Go ask a climate scientist if they believe in CAGW and they would not know how to answer. It is not a well defined term to most.
You said: ‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be’’
I asked you to back up this claim. The 50% proportion was part of your claim. If you now agree it is unfounded than fine. If it was irrelevant to your original claim than you shouldn’t have said it.
You say: ‘The better educated people were LESS concerned about global warming.’
– On average. Without knowing the data distribution you don’t know the proportions of the sample which thinks one way or the other, hence your above statement is misleading and unfounded.
You say: ‘Your arguments didn’t address this overriding issue.’
Proponent may have said that skeptics are the dumb ones. I would never claim that because I know lots of smart skeptics, just as I know lots of smart people who believe in wacky ideas. I agree this data does not show that proponents are the smart people, but it does not show that skeptics are the smart people either. You don’t counter a false claim with another false claim.
Malcolm,
I said ‘IF’. If Australia is successful at meeting its target without destroying the economy. Other countries could model their system off ours, like the US and China, which would make a difference. I know that this assumes Australia’s tax works but I left that open with the ‘if’. Again, there is nothing wrong with my logic.
I used ‘denialist’ because netdr was also using an offensive word.
July 29, 2011, 7:40 pmMalcolm:
Chippas:
I said ‘IF’. — Again, you don’t see a very obvious problem in your logic. It is great that you said ‘if’, since, yes, that’s a big if. That said, even if there were absolutely no issues on that front, you admitted you don’t know what the result of all countries following Australia would be. Please find out about that before using ‘other countries may follow’ as an argument.
July 29, 2011, 10:44 pmChippas:
Malcolm,
My arg. has nothing to do with that other stuff. The only thing I am arguing against is the point that Aust. is too small to make a dent on Carbon, so is not worth acting regardless of the truth in science or the tax. I merely claim that a good precedent would help the major polluters take the same/or better step, again irregardless of the truth in the sci. or tax.
July 29, 2011, 11:56 pmMalcolm:
Chippas:
The only thing I am arguing against is the point that Aust. is too small to make a dent on Carbon, so is not worth acting regardless of the truth in science or the tax. I merely claim that a good precedent would help the major polluters take the same/or better step, again irregardless of the truth in the sci. or tax. — This is not the case.
Your words (July 29, 2011, 7:40 pm):
“Other countries could model their system off ours, like the US and China, which would make a difference.”
Can you show that if “other countries” “like the US and China” “model their system off” the Australia’s model, this “would make a difference”? No. You said you “dunno” what would happen in this case a couple of posts ago.
Look, I am not here to spot errors in your posts. However, what you are saying is so illogical (like: “I don’t know what would be the effect of all countries curbing emissions similarly to Australia, but I will argue that this effect will be big enough to make a difference anyway”), it is hard to talk with you about anything material. Sometimes it is hard to see what it is you are even stating.
I think it might be worthwhile for you to step back and reexamine what you really know about global warming.
July 30, 2011, 12:57 amChippas:
Malcolm,
I think our problem is working on different wavelengths. It happens, esp. in text.
I think you took my ‘Dunno’ a bit too literal. Of course the theory is that reducing emissions will curb global warming and be more cost effective than adaptation. But this only happens if the big emitters participate. I know that. Everyone is familiar with this idea. What I don’t know are many of the specifics.
July 30, 2011, 2:48 amMalcolm:
Chippas:
Of course the theory is that reducing emissions will curb global warming and be more cost effective than adaptation. — Fine. Any particular paper that you have in mind? The ones I saw were either propaganda pieces with no research behind them or were not exactly showing that reducing emissions would be more cost effective than adaptation.
July 30, 2011, 7:25 amChippas:
Malcolm,
You said: ‘Fine. Any particular paper that you have in mind?’
My argument never req. that I have proof for these things. The point was about Australia’s supposed lack of significance, which I countered by saying that we could set a precedent, a small scale model if you like, that if successful could give bigger nations the confidence to do something too.
There was never anything wrong with my logic.
Sorry, but I am not interested in your tangent.
July 30, 2011, 5:10 pmMalcolm:
Chippas:
My argument never req. that I have proof for these things. — Right. You demand that netdr backs up his points, but are unwilling or can not do the same wrt your own points.
You basically don’t know what you are talking about regarding emissions. Of course, you aren’t interested when other people call you up on that.
July 30, 2011, 10:47 pmChippas:
Malcolm,
You are becoming increasingly bizarre in your responses. For my argument I am not req. to have proof for those things, I have made that clear and explained why. And yet, you still say:
‘ You demand that netdr backs up his points, but are unwilling or can not do the same wrt your own points.’
Read more carefully. If it doesn’t make sense, tell me why.
July 31, 2011, 12:19 amMalcolm:
Chippas:
For my argument I am not req. to have proof for those things, I have made that clear and explained why. — This gets tedious, but I will try one more time.
Netdr’s point is that the effect achieved by curbing emissions according to Australia’s plan is tiny, too small to matter. You are saying that if Australia starts, other countries may follow suit. If by that you are implying that then the effect achieved by curbing emissions will become large, please back that up. If, however, you are not implying anything about the effect, what you are saying is understandable, but irrelevant to netdr’s point.
You seem to oscillate between meaning that you don’t imply anything (“I merely claim that a good precedent …”, “For my argument I am not req. to have proof …”, etc) and that you do (“Other countries could model their system off ours, like the US and China, which would make a difference”, “… the theory is that reducing emissions will curb global warming and be more cost effective than adaptation”, etc). Please make up your mind. If you aren’t going to say that curbing emissions worldwide is going to make a material effect on temperatures, your point is irrelevant, you are wasting our time. If you are going to say that, back this up, or you are wasting our time again. End of story.
July 31, 2011, 3:39 amChippas:
Malcolm,
You are still failing to grasp the point I am making. If my posts have wavered in focus, it is because I was struggling to get at your issue, however it seems to me that the issue is actually due to your misunderstanding.
My point in an analogy: one man in the street tidying his yard won’t stop his area from being the dirtiest in town, if no one else tidies. But that one man might influence others in the street who observe his actions. They follow suit and the street becomes cleaner.
Netdr was implying that one man should do nothing because no matter how clean his yard is, the street in general is dirty.
The key point is that any pioneering action by an insignificant few can have an influence on the significant majority.
July 31, 2011, 6:13 amMalcolm:
Chippas:
I would respectfully suggest that it is you who is missing the point.
Right here:
The key point is that any pioneering action by an insignificant few can have an influence on the significant majority. — You said you can’t show that the ‘majority’ is ‘significant’.
Clear?
July 31, 2011, 7:55 amMalcolm:
Or, even simpler:
They follow suit and the street becomes cleaner. — You said you can’t show that the street will become discernibly cleaner.
July 31, 2011, 7:56 amMalcolm:
To be absolutely clear:
I perfectly understand what you are saying. You are saying that if Australia starts, then others may follow, and you don’t know what the result of others following is going to be, but you believe it will be better than what we have now. You don’t want to go deep for whatever reason. You kind of sort of heard something that assured you that if everyone starts curbing emissions, then things will be great, and that’s it, you are satisfied.
I understand that you have this opinion. I suggest that this opinion is based on faith, not on science. I am fine with opinions based on faith. The only thing I ask is that *you* understand that your opinion is based on faith, not on science. If you do understand this, great, I am happy, and let’s end this debate.
July 31, 2011, 8:16 amTed Rado:
The Indians have made it clear that they will not stop their industrialization program by reducing CO2 emmisions. Unless they and the Chinese (and all other nations) are willing to join the reduced CO2 parade, the only result will be to impoverish ourselves for their enrichment, as our industry moves to other countries. To plunge ahead with the hope that we are leading by example is wishful thinking.
The analogy in previous posts is not suitable, as no catastrophe results. Reducing fossil fuel use drastically in the absence of a viable alternative energy system would indeed have catastrophic results.
July 31, 2011, 10:41 amChippas:
Malcolm,
You said: ‘but you believe it will be better than what we have now’
No. That is irrelevant to my point. The nature of the outcome is not important. netdr’s point is that there will be simply no outcome because of Australia’s size. My counter-point is that there could be an outcome because Australia could encourage action by others.
I think even Ted Rado gets it.
Ted Rado,
The analogy was not meant to be a suitable analogue to justify action against CC. It was simply used as an example of how an insignificant minority’s pioneering action can influence the majority.
July 31, 2011, 4:38 pmMalcolm:
Chippas:
Sigh. I outlined the two lines of argument between which you are alternating. So, right now you are staying on the one that does not say anything about the effect from curbing emissions worldwide. Guess what, since that line says nothing about the effect, it is irrelevant to this debate, because netdr was talking exactly about the effect. Not that I haven’t said as much already. Ted Rado says that the analogy in previous posts – in your posts – is not suitable. Yet you somehow misconstrue this to say that he agrees with you. You just can’t read, man. Frankly, I don’t see the point of continuing further.
July 31, 2011, 9:40 pmChippas:
Malcolm,
I have found our little discussions mostly curious. At first I thought I was going to learn something new about logic that I did not know, but as time goes by, it seems more apparent that we are having communication failures. When ever this happens I try not to become insulting, because sometimes it is more than one party that is at fault. If you would rather not continue, then fine.
But just for take-home: considering your claim that I just can’t read. I wonder if your confidence in your ability to identify such is not swayed by the fact that you just previously read ‘agrees’ where one writes ‘gets’ ??
August 1, 2011, 1:26 amWaldo to Paul:
****”I would be outraged if you presented some evidence that the source of Willie Soon’s funding caused him to falsify or misrepresent his research. You haven’t.
*****As a general rule, I think it makes more sense to discuss the merits of a scientists research than his funding sources. If you think Willie Soon’s research is incorrect, then present your arguments.”
You’re missing the point, Paul. The point is that absolutely no one here, yourself included, sees fit to look at Willie Soon’s research to see if it is, in-fact, tainted. The entire focus here is to try and find ways to discredit climate scientists, and that’s it (a fixation of modeling, really); the same sort of scrutiny is not given toward skeptical science as is given to mainstream science. That is why this is a denialist site and not a “skeptic” site (sorry kelly).
You are already very well aware of Al Gore’s personal failings and the points in the movie where the science was not altogether accurate, but instead of using your high-beam to examine both ends of the CAGW debate spectrum, you are only aware and only examined one end.
August 2, 2011, 2:34 amTed Rado:
Nobody is trying to discredit climate scientists. The question is, are we certain enough of the CAGW thing to carry out the draconian proposals the engender? Many of us think not, which is certainly a reasonable view.
August 2, 2011, 7:58 amTed Rado:
Virtually all climate and alternative energy studies are “tainted”. Most of it is done with government grants or subsidies. If the government solicits research proposals in some kooky area, thousands of profs and other researchers will respond. Just look at the DOE website for screwball programs.
Many other organizations are devoted to zealotry, or are a mouthpiece for special interests. That is why we must all use our own heads rather than just listen to the “experts”.
The USG with their R&D grants has corrupted the research community. If you put out a pile of cheese, here come the rats. Various researchers have been pointed out as “tainted”. I suspect most of them are. How many would forego a multimillion dollar grant and tell the USG they are full of poopoo?
August 2, 2011, 2:00 pmMalcolm:
@Waldo:
The point is that absolutely no one here, yourself included, sees fit to look at Willie Soon’s research to see if it is, in-fact, tainted. — I think a fundamental problem here is: how do you determine whether or not a piece of research is tainted? If we say that since Soon is arguing that there is no CAGW, this is proof enough that his research is tainted, then the research of everyone who is saying something as regards CAGW is tainted. This seems too broad. But what more specific criteria do we have? It definitely looks like it is best to just look at the research in a regular way, with a critical eye, but taking it on its own merits. Out of the interest, I looked into one of the latest papers of Soon. From the first look, the paper seems normal, if a bit boring. I will look into other papers of his, too.
August 2, 2011, 9:45 pmWaldo to Malcolm:
****”I think a fundamental problem here is: how do you determine whether or not a piece of research is tainted?”
Well, this is why we have experts in the field. This is why we have peer review. This is why we are suspicious, if not yet condemning, of someone whose patron is big oil, an industry which definitely has a stake in the CAGW debate. Perhaps Soon is absolutely correct and should be awarded the Nobel. Working for Exxon does not automatically make Soon an illegitimate scientist, but (unless we are naive about the nature of business) his professional patron is concerning.
****”If we say that since Soon is arguing that there is no CAGW, this is proof enough that his research is tainted, then the research of everyone who is saying something as regards CAGW is tainted. This seems too broad.”
I utterly agree. I never said anything like that, by the way.
****”But what more specific criteria do we have? It definitely looks like it is best to just look at the research in a regular way, with a critical eye, but taking it on its own merits. Out of the interest, I looked into one of the latest papers of Soon. From the first look, the paper seems normal, if a bit boring. I will look into other papers of his, too.”
Very good. But with all due respect, Malcolm, do you have enough expert knowledge to evaluate his research? What do you mean “normal,” by the way? How is a research paper normal?
And my point was very simply that the good peeps here ignore damning evidence against skeptics and accept almost uncritically any evidence against climate scientists (such as “polarbeargate”), even lumping them in, no matter how implicitly, with Al Gore.
August 3, 2011, 5:50 amWaldo to Malcolm:
****”Nobody is trying to discredit climate scientists.”
I have to disagree with you, Ted.
****”The question is, are we certain enough of the CAGW thing to carry out the draconian proposals the engender?
“Draconian”? Are you sure you’re not trying to discredit via demonization?
****”Many of us think not, which is certainly a reasonable view.”
This is a reasonable view. It’s the way you go about the public debate that is unethical.
By the way, I never said we should not “question” the work of climate scientists, only that we should be smart enough not to think we are smarter than they are.
August 3, 2011, 5:54 amMalcolm:
Waldo:
But with all due respect, Malcolm, do you have enough expert knowledge to evaluate his research? — Not in detail, no.
What do you mean “normal,” by the way? How is a research paper normal? — No tricks (like the infamous ‘Mike’s Nature trick’).
Good that we agree on so many points.
August 3, 2011, 7:56 amTed Rado:
Waldo:
I guess you don’t think that an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050 is draconian? Then what is? A 110% reduction?
Nobody thinks they are smarter than climate scientists. There ara obvious questions that anyone with a scientific or engineering background would ask. This sort of questioning is normal discourse in the scientific and engineering communities and shows no disrespect for the expert. If there is a reasonable explanation, it will be accepted. If there is no sound explanation, the questions will persist. The repeated assertion that anyone who has the temerity to question a climate scientist is a no good shmuck is ludicrous. Frequently, questions set off a discussion which leads to progress.
By the way, you are CLEARLY not an engineer. I have been an engineer for over sixty years but you do not hesitate to question everything I post of an engineering nature. Congrats on a wonderful exposition of hypocrisy.
August 3, 2011, 10:43 amWaldo to Ted:
****”If there is a reasonable explanation, it will be accepted.”
Well…again, I gotta disagree with you on this, Ted. What I have found often is that the explanation is either ignored or unrealized by the people here. I have yet to see anybody that, say, reads Real Climate fairly. The peeps here accept Mr. Meyer’s or Anthony Watt’s explanations almost without exception.
****”The repeated assertion that anyone who has the temerity to question a climate scientist is a no good shmuck is ludicrous. Frequently, questions set off a discussion which leads to progress.”
Exaggeration, Ted. Never said “no good shmuck” (that’s before my generation’s vernacular anyway). What I’ve said, Ted (which I think you are playing obtuse about), is that the people here use whatever scientific background they have to solely challenge climate scientists and not skeptic scientists and without doing most of the hard work it takes to make sure the science is correct.
You want to question? Fine. But don’t just “question” one side of the debate. Question Willie Soon also. Question Pielke and Judith Curry. And do it here rather than just asserting that ‘you look at all sides’ or something to that effect.
You wanna “question”? Good. But make sure you’ve been thorough and not just read Mr. Meyer’s post.
And if you’re really “questioning,” then peer-review it. Put it out there for the world to see and see if your “question” is really as good as you think it is when the experts take a look at it. Actually get the conversation started. Otherwise I suspect you know your “question” is not all that solid.
****”By the way, you are CLEARLY not an engineer.”
Um…never said I was.
****”I have been an engineer for over sixty years but you do not hesitate to question everything I post of an engineering nature.”
I have never questioned anything of “an engineering nature,” Ted. Never. I have questioned your objectivity and your attitude and the way you exaggerate to make a point (which implies that you may not actually have a point).
****”Congrats on a wonderful exposition of hypocrisy.”
Congrats yourself, Ted. If I am hypocritical then you are more so. I, at least, admit my limitations.
August 3, 2011, 9:08 pmWaldo to Malcolm:
****But with all due respect, Malcolm, do you have enough expert knowledge to evaluate his research? — Not in detail, no.
Then how can you possibly “evaluate” Willie Soon’s research? How can you tell if he is trying to hornswaggle you? I’ve argued all along that we need the experts. This is why. This is absolutely why. Soon may have just tricked the hell out of you or not, but how do you know anything he says is “normal”?
****What do you mean “normal,” by the way? How is a research paper normal? — No tricks (like the infamous ‘Mike’s Nature trick’).
Once again, if you can’t evaluate “in detail,” how do you know that there is no “trick”?
And you should probably look up the infamous “trick”—it may not have meant what you seem to think it does.
****Good that we agree on so many points.
The things we have in common far outnumber and outweigh those that divide us. Walt Disney.
August 3, 2011, 9:14 pmMalcolm:
Waldo:
Of course, I can only evaluate to the best of my own abilities.
If you want to say that you won’t accept that the works of Soon make sense and contain no tricks based on my abilities to evaluate them, sure, be my guest, I am not asking you to do that. I am asking you to do exactly the reverse, I am asking you to form your own opinion. (In fact, I believe most people on this blog are asking you to form your own opinion on various things related to global warming, it is you who is resisting.)
If you, however, want to say that *I* shall not accept that the works of Soon make sense and contain no tricks based on my abilities to evaluate them, I hear you, I accept that the works might be crap, but I will only change my opinion of them if you provide me with additional, specific information on their flaws. Do you have this information? If yes, please share. If not, sorry, I accept all my limitations, but I am not going to think less of Soon’s works that I read just because you want me to.
Meh.
August 4, 2011, 5:21 amTed Rado:
Waldo:
I question EVERYTHING I read. I long ago discovered, in my engineering work, that the old saying “don’t believe anything you hear ahd only half of what you see” is valid in technicolor. I have had engineers many times give me info or data that, when I checked it out, was erroneous. Any engineer who blindly uses info given to him by others becomes an ex-employee. Check and double check is the watchword.
If everyone agrees on some technical point, then it is time to recheck it. Obviously, everything has not been considered. The best way to smoke out mistakes is to have many points of view on the subject.
Nobody posting on this blog claims to be an expert in climate science. We simply ask the questions that anyone with a technical or scientific background would ask. This seems to offend you. I don’t know what you do for a living, but I have never been in a job situation where I could expect my word on engineering matters to be acepted blindly. Further, I would not want that to happen. If I made a mistake, I would want it to come to light before there were serious consequences. I could tell you war stories all day about engineeering screwups that would have been avoided had there been a critique of the work before it was implemented.
By the way, you have not responded to my concern that, even if CAGW is true, there is presently no viable way to implement it in terms of alternative energy. Please don’t give me a long list of things being studied, or the “Spaniards are doing it”, but a REAL answer.
If you want your views accepted without question, you are on the wrong planet. You would be way ahead if you would learn to discuss differing points of view in a constructive way.
I guess you can toss this post aside, as I am a white male who is hopelessly antique in my outlook.
August 4, 2011, 8:15 amWaldomeh to Malcolm:
****”I am asking you to do exactly the reverse, I am asking you to form your own opinion. ”
The whole point, Malcolm, is that you and I—neither of us—know enough to evaluate Soon’s work. You may form your “own opinion” or I mine, but we are not scientists, so how do either of us know anything. We can form opinions on anything we want—but it’s pretty silly if one does not know what one is talking about. How can you possibly form an informed opinion if you can’t understand the information? Plain silly.
****”I will only change my opinion of them if you provide me with additional, specific information on their flaws.”
I won’t. I’m not able. But, honestly, if a scientist who does understand the work provide you with flaws would you accept her or his decision, or would you stick to your own “opinion.”
Meh.
August 4, 2011, 5:22 pmMalcolm:
Waldo:
The whole point, Malcolm, is that you and I—neither of us—know enough to evaluate Soon’s work. — This looks like such a strong point, but it isn’t. Yes, I wouldn’t bet I didn’t miss any hidden rocks in Soon’s works that I read. There might be some. No, this doesn’t mean I can’t see what Soon is trying to say, whether or not that makes sense, whether or not his math adds up, etc. Yes, I can make a judgement error. You are arguing that because of this I should abandon all thought on my part and listen to the experts. Sorry, that might be your choice, but it is most certainly not mine. I accept that I can make a judgement error. That’s why I am staying open to other opinions, yours or scientists’. This applies to Soon’s works as well as to larger issues (to anything, really). No, I am not going to take anyone’s opinion on its face, I am going to evaluate it. Double meh.
But, honestly, if a scientist who does understand the work provide you with flaws would you accept her or his decision, or would you stick to your own “opinion.” — I am going to evaluate that opinion and either accept or reject it based on the result of that evaluation. I am not sure what’s so hard about this concept that you can’t wrap your head around it.
August 4, 2011, 9:24 pmWaldo to Malcolm:
****”I am not sure what’s so hard about this concept that you can’t wrap your head around it.”
There is absolutely nothing about your concept I don’t understand. You are going to “evaluate” the work of a scientist even though, admittedly, you can’t really understand it. You are going to “accept or reject” the opinions of experts and non-experts alike even though, again, you don’t really know what you are talking about. This is a beautiful philosophy.
****”This looks like such a strong point, but it isn’t.”
Actually it is a very strong point, Malcolm. And actually, it rests my case. You don’t know what you are talking about, plain and simple. Your situation is a little like someone who tries to represent himself in court without the guidance of a lawyer—fool for a client.
****”this doesn’t mean I can’t see what Soon is trying to say”
Actually, this does mean that you can’t see what Soon is trying to say. This is exactly what “in detail, no” means.
One just hopes that, God forbid, you get a mass in your lung or on your brain stem, you listen to your oncologist and don’t decide to come to your own “opinion” after reading a paper or two on cancer.
August 5, 2011, 1:13 amWaldo to Ted:
****”We simply ask the questions that anyone with a technical or scientific background would ask.”
Bovine X, my friend. We’re arguing in circles, but I’ll say it again, Sam: the only reason people are here is to denigrate climate scientists.
****”By the way, you have not responded to my concern that, even if CAGW is true, there is presently no viable way to implement it in terms of alternative energy. Please don’t give me a long list of things being studied, or the “Spaniards are doing it”, but a REAL answer.”
I think the long list of things being studied is a REAL answer, Ted. Are you saying that those almighty engineers now developing electric battery automobiles aren’t creating breakthrough green technology? Aren’t those almighty engineers as smart and hard working as you and your antiquated generation? What about those almighty engineers working on solar energy? Maybe you’re so much smarter as an engineer that you should tell them, ‘hey, you’re destroying industry trying to harness the sun’s energy!’
And, by the way, you have never given a REAL answer to why we won’t be able to implement green technology and reduce emissions. You’ve simply repeated again and again how “draconian” it is to try to reduce emissions, or how “impossible,” or how destructive reductions will be without any real evaluation. It’s not even clear from your posts that you know what is being done or why it will or will not work. Please, Ted, let’s not play that silly game.
****”I am a white male who is hopelessly antique in my outlook.”
You know, this has been one of the most interesting and informative threads to date. Netdr admitted he had only read about “20 papers,” Paul admitted he doesn’t really have time to become truly informed, Malcolm admitted that he can’t actually read the scientific literature, and you, Ted…well, you’ve confirmed kind of what I’ve suspected all along.
I’m just glad, Ted, that not all the engineers and scientists of the past thought along the same lines as you are doing now—anyone feel like hunting with clubs and flint-tipped spears? We wouldn’t want to destroy tribal society, now would we.
August 5, 2011, 1:26 amMalcolm:
Waldo:
You are going to “evaluate” the work of a scientist even though, admittedly, you can’t really understand it. … — No. I can understand it. Perhaps I can not understand it as well as some other people, but I can understand it. Given that I have a diploma of a respectable Uni and given my long-standing interest in climate science I think I can understand it well enough to make a rough judgement. If you want to point me to a specific issue in the paper on which my judgement is improper, be my guest. If you want to say that my judgement is just generally too rough to be useful, sorry, that’s just a baseless insult.
The rest of your reply is the same BS. You have lost an argument and are simply repeating yourself.
August 5, 2011, 7:31 amMalcolm:
One just hopes that, God forbid, you get a mass in your lung or on your brain stem, you listen to your oncologist and don’t decide to come to your own “opinion” after reading a paper or two on cancer. — Spare me your inept analogies with medicine. The tests used for, say, new drugs, are no match for what passes for tests in climate science.
August 5, 2011, 7:35 amMalcolm:
… Malcolm admitted that he can’t actually read the scientific literature, … — Oh, really? I didn’t know that. You are too funny, Waldo.
August 5, 2011, 7:38 amTed Rado:
Waldo:
Here is an example of the problem: Hydraulic energy storage.
Basis: 100 units of energy to the grid.
Since the wind power only generates 30% of nameplate capacity, the nameplate cap’y must be 100/30 or 3.33 times the grid demand, or 333 units.
Of this, 100 units (average)can go directly to the grid. Therefore, only 233 units need go to water storage.
The max efficiency of large water pumps, at optimum steady conditions, is 90%. The max eff of large water turbines is 95%. The total eff of the pump/turbine combination is therefore .9 x .85 = .855 or 85.5%. Then we have pressure drop to and from the reservoirs high in the mountains. Therefore, the eff of the entire storage system will be 75% or less.
Since only 233 units of energy goes to storage, the nameplate capy of the windmiill must be:
100 + 233/.75 = 411.7 units
The pumps must be 233/.75 = 311.7 units
The final turbine need only be 100 units.
Total electrical equipment must therefore be 823.4 units. This does not take into account electrical losses in transformers, motors and generators, and switchgear. Thus something approaching ten times the electrical equipment cost of the final grid load must be installed. Not to mention that we have lost about a third of our power along the way.
Finally, millions of GPM are required to and from the reservoirs, and the resevoirs need to be massive to accomodate swings in power. I will not bore you with these calcs.
Hopefully, you now see the need for CALCS, not just sighting down your thumb.
These are just a few of the calcs required to check out one particular scheme. I have done similar calcs for all the other schemes, carbon capture, etc. They all share the same fate. They are all impractical and hopelessly expensive. However, I keep looking.
Compressed air storage is even worse because of thermodynamic effects in dealing with a compressible gas. Waldo, buy a thermo book and check it out.
August 5, 2011, 10:08 amTed Rado:
Waldo:
You may be interestd to know that in 1910, there was an electric car with a 100 mile range, with a speed of 20 MPH. Electric cars are nothing new.
The problem with electric cars is:
1) They are expensive. They are more complicated and use expensive materials.
2) The range is limited, and it takes hours to recharge. If you run out of juice, you can’t walk down the road for a bucket of electrons. Many potential buyers (it is reported) are wary for this reason.
3) Most electricity is generated from fossil fuels. If you take the efficiency of power generation, the losses in distribution, the efficiency of charging and discharging the battery, you are hardly better off than if you used a CNG car in the first place. Small golfcart type vhicles might have a place for short trips. Trying to use electric cars for high performance highway applications is questionable.
4) The battery is reputed to have life of 7 years and will cost several thousand dollars to replace. Can you imagine trying to sell a six year old car?
5) Hybrid cars seem to be selling well. They are expensive and underpowered. I have read that mainly greenies are buying them to makle a point. I don’t believe you can justify them on the fuel savings.
The market place will answer the queations re the viability of electric and hybrid cars.
An interesting question: If you set out to design a low powered light weight diesel car, I wouldn’t be surprised if it got better mileage than the hybrid. You wouldn’t be carrying the heavy battery and electrical gear.
Every engineer is looking for better ways to do things. That is the definition of engineering. That we don’t charge off and do things without study merely indicates that we are not stupid. I will leave the charging off Don Quixote-style to you and other non-engineers.
The Chevy Volt gets the first 40 miles on the battery charge. After that, it is a low (very) powered gasoline car. Thus, you save .8 gal of gas at the start of each trip. Not surprisingly, sales are zilch.
I am all fo innovation. I made a living at it. New ideas must be thoroughly checked out before big bucks are spent. Is that a revolutionary concept?
By the way, where do you get the notion that we are here to denigrate climate scientists? We simply raise questions. If there is a good answer, hoorah!
Solar energy has also been around for a long time. As in the case of wind, how do you store it or back it up economically? Simple question. So far, no good answer.
A long list of things being studied is indeed an answer. It says that nobody has found a viable one, so they are still looking. No argument there.
By the way, we might really have to hunt with flint tipped spears if the CAGW people have their way and we destroy our industrial economy. That’s one of your better suggestions, waldo.
I posted some simple calcs re hydraulic energy storage earlier. Any comments? I am sure you know more than I about the subject. I am just an antiquated old engineer that has a compulsion to do calculations, rather than sight down my thumb.
I love the way you descend into nastiness when you are losing the argument (which is all the time). It’s very entertaining.
August 5, 2011, 1:24 pmTed Rado:
Waldo:
One other point re electric cars. You may recall that the CA legislature mandated in the 90′s that 10% of cars must be electric (or non petroleum) by the early 2000′s. Nothing came of it for the reasons enumerated above. Billions were spent on development and prototypes. What a waste. It made the greenies feel good though.
August 5, 2011, 1:35 pmJump the Gun to TomT:
****”Oh, really? I didn’t know that. You are too funny, Waldo.”
****”But with all due respect, Malcolm, do you have enough expert knowledge to evaluate his research? — Not in detail, no.”
You may not have meant to admit that you can’t actually read the literature, but you did.
August 6, 2011, 3:59 amWaldo:
Sorry—moniker from other thread.
August 6, 2011, 3:59 amWaldo to Malcolm:
****”No. I can understand it. Perhaps I can not understand it as well as some other people, but I can understand it.”
Essentially the same thing as above. A little bit of understanding is hardly understanding.
****”Spare me your inept analogies with medicine.”
It’s actually quite ‘ept,’ Malcolm. You may be able to understand a little bit about pharmaceuticals, even a little bit about physiology and biochemistry. You might even be able to sort of understand a paper written by a leading oncologist. But would you be willing to stake your life on this partial understanding? I betting and hoping not. But you are willing to stake your planet’s life on it? Your grandchildren’s planet? Apparently. Even though, interestingly, you admit that other people understand the science better than you do. And the consensus (yes there is one) from these people who understand the science better than you is that climate change is real and anthropogenic.
Now, are the scientists wrong about the world your grandchildren will inhabit? Perhaps. It is highly unlikely, however, that you or I or Ted can determine that.
August 6, 2011, 4:08 amWaldo to Malcolm:
Thanks for the update on the electric car, Ted. I was actually aware of the current problems. I even know that once upon a time Tesla envisioned a type of electric car. And, even though I am not an engineer, I am going to point out, again, that it is eminently conceivable that the scientists and engineers of the world will be able to resolve these problems in the near future. Are you seriously suggesting there are no solutions ever for these technical issues? Are you seriously going to suggest that, because there is not a readily available answer to the storage problems for solar energy, that there never will be one? Once again, Ted, I’m glad you weren’t at Kittyhawk.
But this is too funny:
First you say—
****”By the way, where do you get the notion that we are here to denigrate climate scientists? We simply raise questions.”
And then you say—
****”By the way, we might really have to hunt with flint tipped spears if the CAGW people have their way and we destroy our industrial economy.”
Do you really, truly not see the irony and contradiction in the above two statements?! Bwahahahahaha! That’s funny, my friend.
August 6, 2011, 4:19 amWaldo to Ted:
Oops, sorry, the preceding post is yours two, Ted. Thanks for the cool calcs on hydraulic energy storage. What I think you should do now is contact this guy…
http://www.ibridgenetwork.org/umn/hydraulic-energy-storage-systems
…and explain to him why his “open accumulator” won’t work. He claims that—
“This energy storage system design results in a lighter weight device, and up to 24 times the energy density of traditional hydraulic accumulators. This opens up applications in hydraulic hybrid vehicles and a cost-effective method for storing off-peak energy from wind turbines.”
But he must be wrong. Tell him, not me.
August 6, 2011, 4:29 amMalcolm:
“Not in detail, no” does not equal “I can’t actually read the literature”. I can read the literature. I don’t claim to understand everything I read perfectly. If you want to say that I do not understand a particular piece of literature well enough for a particular purpose, go ahead, but back this up, eg, by pointing a specific thing which I misunderstand. If you can’t back this up, sorry, but your argument is baseless.
A little bit of understanding is hardly understanding. — You continue to amuse. Nobody has perfect understanding. Again, if you are going to argue that some particular cases of imperfect understanding, eg, mine, can be classified as “a little bit of understanding”, back this up. Can’t? I thought so.
Seriously, at this point you understand that you have lost your argument and are just repeating yourself, seemingly just so you have the last word. Shame.
August 6, 2011, 4:54 amMalcolm:
Just so you don’t waste your time on another useless reply, please define “a little bit of understanding” in this phrase of yours:
“A little bit of understanding is hardly understanding.”
How much understanding is more than “a little bit of understanding”? How should we measure that? If you suggest we do this by looking at the number of publications in relevant fields, fine, but then your argument is circular:
(a) Malcolm, you should trust the experts, because you don’t understand the science (this is what you started with), and
(b) Malcolm, you don’t understand the science, because you are not an expert (the reasoning above).
Circular logic does not get one very far.
August 6, 2011, 5:07 amTed Rafdo:
Waldo:
The energy balance has nothing to do with what device is used. Someone can use a magic machine. It doesn’t matter. To store 100 units of energy, one must put in 100 units of energy (plus losses due to inefficiency). The exact design has no effect.
This cannot be avoided. If you could pump 100 units of energy to storage with less than 100 units input to the pump, and then get the 100 units back in the turbine, you would violate the first law of thermodynamics and have a perpetual motion machine. This is impossible.
Many people have studied optimizing a hydraulic energy storage system. How many pumping stages, optimum flow rate vs head, etc. This sort of study will optimize the design for capital cost and operability but has NOTHING to do with the energy balance.
His hydraulic accumulator may be a marvelous device, but it doesn’t change the energy balance. I gather it makes the reservoir smaller. I am not clear how you make water any denser, but I leave that to the inventor to explain to you. I am not interested.
Why should I contact the guy? His invention has nothing to do with the subject (energy balance) that we are talking about. You can talk to him if you see fit. Ask him if it permits pumping 100 KWH worth of energy up the mountain with less than 100 KWH. If he says it does, he is a fraud. If it doesn’t, we are back to start.
By the way, hydraulic accumulators are used in hydraulic drive machinery, such as power shovels, cranes, etc. He may very well have an improved device for this purpose. This has nothing to do with hydraulic (water) storage of wind or solar energy.
August 6, 2011, 9:46 amTed Rafdo:
Waldo:
Your comments re electric cars make me scratch my head. Electric cars need to be recharged, either with an on-board generator or from the grid. Battery technology is well understood. No doubt improvements will be made that permit cheaper, lighter bateries. The basic energy balance remains.
The first problem is the energy balance. A battery is not magic. It only puts out power that was previously stored. If you make a battery bigger and bigger to extend the range, the weight goes up proportionately and more power is required to run the car. Thus, range will always be limited, along with the other problems I described. The market place will determine if the high cost and short range will discourage buyers. It is not up to you and me to decide.
As to the spear, you are the one who suggeted it. I am merely making use of your point in a post CAGW world.
You seem to have a wonerfull faith in scientists and engineers. They will violate all the laws of thermo and other sciences and pull rabbits out of the hat, if only neanderthal old white men engineers would get out of the way. Good thinking!! Why did that not occur to dumb old me? Maybe levitation will be invented and we can fly airplanes with no fuel! That will solve CAGW and the energy problem in one swoop!
August 6, 2011, 10:10 amTed Rafdo:
Malcolm:
Waldo should listen to others on EVERYTHING, not just climate science. He obviously has no understanding of the physical sciences (or anything else) so he should shut up and sit down and listen to others. That is HIS advice. If there is anyone around who is more expert, everyone else should shut up. He should follow his own admonition and quit playing engineer.
August 6, 2011, 10:20 amTed Rado:
Waldo:
What’s this fixation re Kitty Hawk? Two brothers pursued an idea and it worked. A good example of free enterprise in action. The USG was not involved, which no doubt was a blessing. The Wright brothers sank or swam on their own.
You are making my point for me. The USG should get out of thw way and let free enterprise find new sources of energy. Everything the government touches turns to poopoo. Just check the projects funded by the DOE to see how much money is being wasted, and how much R&D effort is being diverted from something potentially useful (as the Wright’s did) to nonsense. Every hour spent on stupid projuects is an hour NOT spent on something with potential. Free enterprise recognizes this. The USG does not.
If the long-established procedures for checking out ideas on paper (see netdr and my previous comments) were followed, this waste would not occur and we would find alternative energy quicker. Instead, we squander our resources on schemes that can easily be shown to be losers (see water storage post above).
August 6, 2011, 5:08 pmWaldo to Malcolm:
****”(a) Malcolm, you should trust the experts, because you don’t understand the science (this is what you started with), and
****(b) Malcolm, you don’t understand the science, because you are not an expert (the reasoning above).”
Nope. I have always said the same thing:
a) Malcolm, we should listen to the experts—they know more than we do (which you’ve already admitted) and are thus in a better position to analyze the science (which you admitted you can’t do in any detail [and this leads me to think that you really can't in the first place]); and
b) Malcolm, you’re the one who admitted you don’t really understand the science.
There is nothing circular about it. You’re trying to make it seem that way because, frankly, you’ve inadvertently made my case for me. But that’s it.
August 6, 2011, 8:04 pmWaldo to Ted:
Ted, what are you telling me for? I believe you. Tell the fella at…
http://www.ibridgenetwork.org/umn/hydraulic-energy-storage-systems
…that he’s wasting his time.
I’m sure that you are (or have been, if you are retired now) an excellent engineer. I’m certain that all the issues with electric cars are true. But your reasoning is always that the government is evil and will destroy industry (very arch-conservative)and I am surprised at how little respect you give to other engineers who are working on these problems now.
August 6, 2011, 8:09 pmTed Rado:
Waldo:
Why should I argue with your guy? I have no interest in him. His work has nothing to do with the energy balance problem.
You continue to dodge the issue by changing the subject to something irrelavent. That’s OK, because I am getting tired of trying to talk sense with you. It’s hopeless.
I did not say your inventor was wasting his time. He may have a wonderfull design, which has nothing to do with the subject.
August 7, 2011, 8:30 amTed Rado:
Waldo:
The argument that the government will destroy industry is being currently validated. It can be stopped, if the USG gets their nose out of everything and leaves progress to free enterprise. I gather you don’t read the paper or watch TV. You might discover that the USG is screwing up BIG TIME.
August 7, 2011, 8:33 amTed Rado:
Waldo:
Many engineers are working on nonsense because they have been corrupted by the USG. I personally know an engineer who is making over 200K per year studyng compressed air energy storage. Anyone with an understanding of thermodynamics and engineering can figure out that it is nonsense in an afternoon. The engineer I mentioned and his family are all laughing about it, as they all recognize the absurdity of it. By the way, I have immense respect for the professional ability of the engineers working on USG nonsense. If they can double their income by working on a stupid USG projest, many of them will, and laugh all the way to the bank.
If the USG pays enough for it, people will study how many angels can dance on a pinhead. Almost everyone can be corrupted.
If the USG stays out of it, R&D will be driven by good science, engineering, and economics. The results will undoubtedly be better. They couldn’t be worse.
P.S. Auf wiedersehen. I won’t be responding to your idiotic stuff any longer. I’ll watch a children’s cartoon program instead. It will make more sen