Greg, I have now found the time today to read your interesting paper. You have made a lot of thoughtful observations and calculations, and also have exposed how and why some careless analysis came up with apparently wrong conclusions. Plainly some VEI 5 and 6 reduce AOD and cool for periods reflected in your volcanic forcing.
I am stuggling however with your subsequent ‘overcompensation’ subsequent additional volcanic warming response illustrated by the integral in your figure 10. My problem is this. Your climate response is defined from TOA radiative balance/imbalance. That includes everything. We know that there was a warming response from about 1975 to about 1998. We know it must have been partly natural because of the pause, because climate model attribution was mostly CO2 (and other GHG 20% or so), and the now significant model/ observation divergence. So in your data fits, I don’t see how or where it is possible to wash the other natural stuff out that was also occurring and is imbedded in TOA. Think forward from the Pinatubo event in 1991. Cools. Sure, because of stratospheric aerosol effects, mainly on albedo via AOD. Measured at MLO. Washed out by 1994. Your simple relaxation response. Essay Blowing Smoke. But by 1995-1996 the climate rebound would not have been to 1991, it would have been to something higher because of other stuff, however much of whatever that was. Assuming it is possible to reasonably estimate ‘how much higher’ as you have tried, would not the result be from everything? In which case is it not more plausible that the volcano effect is washed out back to ‘zero’ while the other stuff just carried on.
Put much more simply, the blue line in figure 4 is not flat. It has a positive slope. Where is that accounted for in fig. 10?
Or have I missed something by not reading carefully enough?
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by Rud Istvan
↧
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by pdtillman
Greg Goodman,
Did you submit this for publication? As you know, there is a pretty extensive literature on using the Mt. Pinatubo eruption to estimate TCS, and I think I recall results not too different from yours, at the lower end of the range. Lots of room for interpretation, but at least it’s based on actual observations Vs, theoretical model-thrashing.
It would be helpful to do a Cliffs Notes-style summary of the previous work and yours, for those of us who have limited time available.
TIA, Peter D. Tillman
Professional geologist, amateur climatologist
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
Energy efficiency doesn’t decrease energy used.
Ha
I heard that on npr
↧
Comment on Week in review by R Graf
Huff Post’s promo article on new movie “Merchants of Doubt” equate climate change denial with smoking, both being examples where scientist’s warnings were hampered by influential corporate campaigns stifling action.
So if you’re a skeptic of harmful GCM predictions you are likely a smoker. They’re also pretty sure climate denial is related to a propensity toward alcoholism and STDs, (peer reviewed paper pending).
BTW, this site is a perfect example of deniers conspiring to propagate their doubt and smear good men like Professor Mann, who had to resort to use of civil action to protect his good name from smear-miester Mark Steyn. And, don’t write any mean letters to Prof. Mann or they might be read in the follow-up documentary, “Zombies of Merchants of Doubt.”
↧
Comment on Week in review by k scott denison
Gee, Joshua, you think there might be some form of nonlinear relationship between low cost energy and economic wealth? Or are you implying that African nations will be able to pull themselves out of poverty without low cost energy?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wagathon
<blockquote>Students’ unions are not just a pc-gone-mad sideshow but a prism through which you can see Western civilisation doing away with itself. ~link: The suppression of free speech on university campuses is reaching epidemic levels</blockquote>
Fascist to the core?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
Brazilian women are da bomb, Justin. I used to make sure I had some business to do often down there, before I got married. I can’t go there now without a chaperone.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Lucifer
Declining emission rates for all the developed nations and soon for China, and for the world in 15 years.
Better start thinking about what the next panic will be because this one’s dying before your eyes.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
captd, I am sure some models are warmer and some are cooler in the mean. They all have trends, and this is about the trends and whether the trends are faster than observed. When they claim the models are running hot they are referring only to trends. The SkS piece shows the trends. You went off on a tangent.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
scott –
==> “Or are you implying that African nations will be able to pull themselves out of poverty without low cost energy?”
I’m arguing against simplistically equating advocacy for renewables (or ACO2 mitigation, or reducing particulate matter emissions, or less enriching of civil-rights depriving autocrats) with more starving children in Africa.
↧
Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder
Is it true or false? Just curious…
↧
Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler
Valuation of Distributed Solar: A Qualitative View [link] …
That is a good article, but their argument against net metering isn’t applicable everywhere. In my neighborhood, San Diego Gas and Electric bills me separately for actual electricity I consume and for maintenance of the line. If I had roof-mounted solar and exported electricity to my neighbors, that electricity would flow through their meters, and SDG&E could collect the full retail cost of the electricity without having produced any of it, while still billing me and them for the line maintenance. For this billing scheme, I think net metering for roof-mounted solar is fair, because my neighbors do not subsidize my backup from the grid.
The only part of this billing system that is like a market now is the bidding and buying of the electricity between electricity producers and SDG&E.
↧
Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder
I have a naive (mis)understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, but wouldn’t creating more order require creating even more entropy in the form of waste heat, and thus co2?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
<blockquote>more entropy in the form of waste heat</blockquote>“[N]<i>aive (mis)understanding of the second law of thermodynamics</i>” indeed.
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by Greg Goodman
Thanks again Paul. I have no problems with your comments, they are very helpful. I invited you to comment because we speak the same language and you familiar and competent with this kind of analysis.
I’m in no way ruffled by your comments. That is precisely the kind of critique that is required.
I do not think there is significant alias in the ‘net’ figures. Solar incoming channel looks stable and reliable. I only used WFOV total broadband upwards And I checked this by 72d anti-alias filter on the daily data and resampling at monthly. The differences to the data I used were small. Using the filtered data may reduce the 6mo residuals.
There is some remaining question about their orbital adjustment which does not seem to agree with phase drift in the SW alias pattern. I’m very wary of this kind of post hoc tweaking. I’d like to resolve that difference.
.
I was not critiquing your model because it is “trivial”, but only because it demonstrably does not work very well in this instance when we look at the phasing of the net flux and temperature time series.
I’d read your posts a long time ago, but it was useful to be reminded of them now I’m a lot more familiar with the data and the papers.
You note a phase mismatch in the data you looked at , not what I used here. You tentatively explained that by adding diffusion to a second ocean slab. If I follow you, the cooler SST after the eruption would lead to less diffused heat to 2nd slab. This would be functionally equivalent to extra heat input in my cumulative integral in fig 10. So far they seem to be equally valid possible explanations to what we both have noted in the data.
I’m calling TLS as an independent witness to suggest the flux difference may be atmospheric rather than oceanic and D&K’s response where they claim diffusion is too small to matter. ( I have not checked the maths on their claim ).
Thanks again, Greg.
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
They’re beating a(n almost) dead horse. With battery storage for night, and a backup generator using gas from the line (with a backup butane tank system if appropriate), you could skip even the costs of connection to the grid. Costly of course, but value is relative. It would have a far lower carbon footprint, and be much more reliable. If that’s what you value.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Canman
In the link about Siding with the Deniers, his 8 examples of actions proposed by the true believers being worse than doing nothing are succinct and excellent:
>Renewable* energy targets. Why take this indirect and probably counter productive approach? Who says renewables reduce emissions system-wise? Show me one country with emissions below 100 grams per kWh that has achieved it primarily with solar and wind. The silence is deafening.
>Subsidies (overt and covert) for renewables. Let’s not overlook that priority access to the grid by renewables IS a sort of subsidy. Why are reliable producers penalized to accommodate random energy dumps from renewables? It is not fair.
>Label wood as “renewable” and shamelessly burn it. And since Europe doesn’t have enough, then let’s burn the forests of North America!
>Block energy access to the poor (particularly in poor countries). Oh, yes, India doesn’t have the “right” to burn coal. Let them “leapfrog” to the newest technologies, like solar. Never mind it is not reliable and very expensive. Never mind the Energiewende has been a failure. WE know better than these bunch of Indians.
>Campaign against nuclear. This almost seems like a bad joke: campaign against the premier low carbon energy! Are they kidding? Can you consider yourself an environmentalist and be against nuclear? Can you consider yourself an environmentalist and NOT be pro-nuclear?
>Tax incentives for electric vehicles (so, the poor have to pay for the toys of the rich? Wow!). Yes, divert more public funds to the ultimate cool toy of the rich: a Tesla!
>Carbon taxes: when you boil them down to their essentials, they are just another tax. So, thanks, but no thanks.
>Oh, and finally: scare the population to death. Yes, no doubt the best way to get everybody on board is to create panic. And nobody is too young to escape this: let’s begin by planting fear in the hearts of children at the most tender age possible.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder
AK,
I was looking for clarification, perhaps redirection …suggestions?
↧
Comment on Week in review by HAS
Jim D
I note that these comments have wandered away from your specific points. k scott denison has made the point that the Lewis objection is that Marotzke’s “central claim” that models overestimate the response to forcings is unfounded depends on circular logic.
The objection to Marotzke’s approach is really quite simple, and you can understand it without having to understand complex regression analysis. The forcings Marotzke used to compare with the models were themselves derived from the models. Marotzke compared models with models – and that can tell you nothing about the models’ response to forcings.
Contrary to your claim that Lewis didn’t “attack” the central claim, because of this error the whole paper comes tumbling down (as no doubt you can now see).
I’d also note that Lewis didn’t attempt any alternate analysis, just demonstrated the error, so you later comments criticising him for “not showing his results” and claiming he “put forward an alternative method” in later comments are also misplaced.
I hope that helps you understand the issues. There are probably better places to find out what is happening in Climate Science than rely on Skeptical Science.. They seem to have particular fish to fry, despite their title.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler
Jim D: <i>I have looked at it. Unlike Maroztke, he didn’t show his results which is going to make it hard for anyone to argue for him. I have questions about his short-term regression variability, or at least the way he states it. </i>
Post your objections at CA and see what response you get.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
