i’ve adjusted my holdings to include more companies in the Permian.
Comment on Week in review by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
I have to wonder if he ever figured out that you can model what you don’t know? Attempting to predict developments in oilfield tech is a fools game.
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Vaughan Pratt, “That would only explain the hiatus if it came with a convincing argument for the amplitude and phase of those variations and overestimates.”
That isn’t hard. In the NH the ratio of land to ocean amplifies variability more than the models predicted.
Volcanic forcing is more likely the driver of the pseudo-oscillations than just solar and since they, solar and volcanic, have similar frequencies, may be connected, so you can argue that their longer term impact is underestimated and not really natural variability, but there is a “oscillatory” settling pattern.
More simple models are including that “oscillation” there just isn’t agreement on the real cause of the oscillation. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “Natural internal variability averages itself out more the longer the averaging period. For a century average, it doesn’t matter, but might add or subtract a tenth to the several degrees of forced climate change.”
First, natural variability will average to zero over some time frame.
Second, your second sentence is arm waving.
That is the equatorial SST imbalance. That would be the source of the oscillating settling pattern that “causes” natural variability. You have two hemispheres that do not respond exactly the same to “global” forcing. If models correctly emulate that imbalance, then natural variability would be small in the model world. As it is, the magnitude of natural variability is inversely proportional to what the models “get” right. There is no “fixed” limit to natural variability.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
captd, I don’t count locally variable responses to forcing as “natural variability”, and also I mean the globally averaged temperature and its natural variability, not regions. That narrows it down to the more normal definition here.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Brandon Shollenberger
The absurdity keeps on coming with Vaughan Pratt’s latest comment:
If Brandon is right about fraud then the courts got it wrong.
I’m at a loss as to what he is thinking. No court has ever presided over a case trying Michael Mann for fraud. As such, no court could possibly have gotten it wrong (or right). Even if that weren’t true, courts routinely fail to find guilty people guilty. Everyone knows this. And even if that weren’t true, there are statute of limitations on most actions. All one has to do to get away with something is not get caught for a long enough time. And even if none of that were true, not all fraud is criminal.
Pratt’s comment once again shows how weak the defenses of Michael Mann are.
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, captd, I don’t count locally variable responses to forcing as “natural variability”, and also I mean the globally averaged temperature and its natural variability, not regions.”
Then you have a problem. If some region has a greater amplification of variability, it would have a greater impact on “global” variability. Southern hemisphere forcing has a greater impact on ocean heat content and a northern hemisphere forcing has a greater impact on “surface” temperature.
Crowley and Unterman 2013 is likely the current state of the art volcanic reconstruction and it is done by hemispheres. “Normal” volcanic forcing in the NH is greater than “normal” volcanic forcing in the SH. If you have unequal forcing you will have unequal response. Unless you account properly for regional forcing/response you are never going to get global response correct.
Then if you use a questionable paleo reconstruction to estimate impact, you get some combination of fruit and ham salad.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Brandon Shollenberger
Canman, that comic is depressing. Did you notice it completely misrepresents Michael Mann’s work? From one panel:
Michael Mann’s graph confirmed all of the climatologists theories: the defininitive proof of everything they were saying. The temperature of the planet had risen 0.5C over the previous 50 years.
But Mann’s work tells us absolutely nothing like that. Mann’s work used the modern temperature record to establish temperatures of the last ~100 years. He had nothing to do with that work. His work dealt only with temperatures before then.
It’s pretty pathetic when people defending Michael Mann from his critics misrepresent his work in ways even Mann himself would acknowledge are wrong.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Bob Ludwick
@ David Appell
“Which output?”
You make popesclimatetheory’s point perfectly.
No matter WHAT happens to the Climate/Temperature of the Earth/Weather/etc, there is a model that predicted it.
Since there are so many models, it is pretty easy to observe the climate in action, then pick one of the many models that RETROACTIVELlY ‘predicted’ what actually occurred closely enough that it could be argued that the observed climate was ‘not incompatible’ (favorite phrase of Climatologists) with the model predictions. Then have the sycophants in the media release stories proclaiming that ‘The climate models have been shown to be correct! The science is settled! Let the taxing and regulating begin.’
Back to your original question: ‘Which output?’. I would think that it would be reasonable, given the wide range of predictions from the models, to settle THAT question before embarking on a policy to ‘Battle Climate Change’. A thought that is obviously not widely shared within the Political/Climate Science Complex.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
captd, we all know that the globe doesn’t warm uniformly. The global-average land is currently warming twice as fast as the global average ocean. This is nothing to do with “natural variability” because we are talking about responses that would not happen without forcing. Don’t you see the difference? The paper by Armour is all about this and why this effect renders simple assessments of ECR like Lewis’s as underestimates (because they don’t fully account for slow responses).
↧
Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse
It has been immensely gratifying to read the various scientific works that you praise, Delta Dawn!
Has the climate recently shifted?
by Kyle L. Swanson and Anastasios A. Tsonis
Geophysical Research Letters (2006).We caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing.
It is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming.
It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies
If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability.
Conclusion 1 The statistical predictions of Swanson and Tsonis (2006) have not been affirmed … better dynamical simulation codes are needed … and they’re coming!
Conclusion 2 The thermodynamical prediction of of Swanson and Tsonis (2006) — namely, sustained anthropogenic warming superimposed upon decadal fluctuations — continues to be strongly affirmed.
Moreover, the Swanson-Tsonis conclusion that “warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models” strikingly affirms the predictions of Naomi Oreskes!
Conclusion Climate Etc readers owe you a debt-of-thanks, Delta Dawn, for contributing yet another (!) article that strikingly affirms the consensus Hansen/Mann/Oreskes/Baez/Gromov/Unger/Smolin/Pope Francis climate-change worldview.
Good on `yah, Delta Dawn, for consistently praising climate-chance science that exemplifies commitment, consensus, and consilience!
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Fernando has dodged the tough question about the future prices. Just about anyone with an IQ above 69 knows oil is of limited supply for all practical purposes. The tough question is when will it price itself out of the market. The answer to this question hinges on technological development in the future. Fernando claims to have some magical power that allows him to see the future. I don’t believe in magic.
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, ” This is nothing to do with “natural variability” because we are talking about responses that would not happen without forcing. Don’t you see the difference?”
Of course I do. What you don’t see is that all forcing estimates are based on assumed normal.
If I assume today is “normal” I can estimate the cumulative volcanic forcing by hemisphere using the Crowley and Unterman reconstruction.
If the Little Ice Age was “caused” primarily by Volcanic forcing, that would be the approximate forcing curve. With that unbalanced forcing you would get an oscillating response between hemispheres. If you pick 1900 as “normal” you would have a positive volcanic forcing because you picked the wrong baseline. Then if you assume that the majority of forcing is CO2 equivalent gases, your projections over estimate impact, David Rose write about a “pause”, etc. etc.
Your simplistic view assumes that everything previously published is 100% correct. There isn’t a very good chance of that since models are diverging from observation and will continue to until initial assumptions are revisited.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
captd, it is even easy to see relatively weak forcings like the solar cycle that only is about 0.2 W/m2, so anything else going on is not masking that either. I don’t think people are surprised that volcanic forcing can be seen in the temperature record too. These are small and short shots of forcing nothing like a sustained forcing growing from 2 to 6 W/m2 as it would from CO2 alone this century. Quantification tells you what is important. Trying to ignore the relative importance of CO2 is what gets you into trouble in explaining things.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Brandon Shollenberger said in his post on December 20, 2014 at 6:42 pm
“Feel free to take the last word.”
______
Thank you, Brandon. I would not be surprised if foes of Michael Mann found your argument compelling. However, as you know, I believe your argument is based on supposition, and therefore I don’t accept it.
↧
Comment on Week in review by RiHo08
Robert Stavin’s article suggests that a breakthrough has been achieved as all countries (Annex I and Annex II) rich and poor are participatory in a mitigation strategy:
“Importantly, the Lima decision provides that each country’s INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) shall include a clear statement of emissions mitigation, and may include quantifiable information on reference points (such as base year), time frame of implementation and coverage, assumptions and methodological approaches for estimating and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, as well as each country’s own assessment of its INDC’s fairness and ambition.”
Stavin’s goes on to make the distinction between “may” and “shall” include a clear statement. Stavin also points out that Green Groups don’t like the lack of mandates upon rich countries and that rich countries are concerned about legal liability, essentially rich countries writing a blank check to poor countries.
Everything will be said and done by December 15, 2015 and an agreement signed.
Ah, let’s see. The US Senate has to approve such treaties, not Harvard Professors of Environmental Economics. So, what is the mood in the Senate come December 2015 regarding a treaty on handing money, no strings attached, based upon self determined and ephemeral CO2 mitigation targets, that don’t have to be met? I guess that President Obama can declare some commitment for the USA hoping that the 2016 election will replace the Republican Senate with a Democratic Senate.
The first images from the CO2 sensing satellite have been released for October & November 2015 and to my eyeballs, the Southern Hemisphere has the most CO2 emissions. That is also where the many Annex II countries are located. Hmm. the calculated CO2 emissions from economic data and the measured CO2 emissions from satellite imagery may not match up. Another case of model vs observation divergence. If perchance the economic models used to calculate CO2 emissions are wrong (going along with all models are wrong theme), what does that do to mitigation calculations? self-determined mitigation strategies? etc etc etc.
Now if the CO2 signal in AGW remains a mystery for much longer, aren’t all these climate conference negotiations a huge waste of money, time, and resources?
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Good ol’ Rocky Top,
Gone to gen. electricity.
=================
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, ” Trying to ignore the relative importance of CO2 is what gets you into trouble in explaining things.”
I never ignore CO2 forcing. In fact I use it to estimate other forcings.
That pre-industrial tail is what would be assumed “normal” if you have a high sensitivity to CO2. So you are effectively say that the depths of the LIA is “normal”. Then you end up adding the volcanic forcing reduction to the powers of CO2. When the SS troopers pick 1973 as their start date they are assuming there is zero natural variability, zero residual volcanic effect and declaring that is a anthropogenic only trend.
Why Muller did his CO2 + Volcanic fit to BEST he was doing the same thing, assuming 1750 was normal and that there are no longer term effects.
When you make “ideal” assumptions you should expect your estimate to be high. For some reason you don’t realize that.
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
PE @ 4:32 yesterday details the mechanism for the ironic inversion of skepticism suffered over climate. Is there nothing global warming can’t do?
=================
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bob Ludwick
@ Lady in Red
“PS: Although creationism is pleasantly fanciful, the older I get the more I wonder if there are not a *lot* of missing puzzle pieces in the evolution theory.”
It would seem so to the ‘casual bystander’, wouldn’t it?
Fred Reed ( http://www.fredoneverything.net ) addressed that obvious observation in his column of March 7, 2005, here:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/EvolutionMonster.shtml
He asks some ‘Could you provide a few additional details as to how ‘this’ was the result of evolution?’ type of questions and provides an example of why invoking time and random chance does not necessarily advance the evolutionary case.
The aforementioned ‘casual bystander’ appears to be faced with two leading theories:
A. ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth………..’
and
B. In the beginning, there was nothing. At all. Then, for no apparent reason, there was around 1e54 kg of stuff, a universe to put it in, and a bunch of ‘laws’ to keep it ticking along smoothly. 15 billion years and a lot of evolving later, here we are.
He is told that one is scientifical as all get out; the other primitive superstition.
His task is to run them through his ‘plausibility filter’ and determine which is which.
* Just to help him along, he is now told that theory B. requires that in addition to the 1e54 kg of stuff that we can see, there is around 1e55 kg of stuff that we can not see, touch, or detect with any instrument we have devised to date, but whose presence, behavior, and distribution is required to make our observations of how the universe IS behaving match our unquestioned and unquestionable theory of how it SHOULD behave.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
