Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Dan Pangburn

March 9, 2015, 9:05 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Ron C.

Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some politicians and many others mislead the gullible public by stubbornly continuing to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a primary cause of global warming.

Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through December, 2014) increased since 2001 by 28.47 ppmv (an amount equal to 31.8% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; December, 2014, 399.60 ppmv).

The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat (average of the 5 reporting agencies http://endofgw.blogspot.com/). Graphs through 2014 have been added. Current measurements are within the range of random uncertainty with respect to the trend.

That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 28.47 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.

Before you think cherry picking, examine http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/ . It considers all measurements since before 1900 and corroborates that CO2 change has no significant influence on climate.

This link also shows that there are only two primary drivers of average global temperature change. They very accurately explain the measured and reported up and down temperature trends since before 1900 with R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95) and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610). It also provides science that explains why CO2 change has no significant effect on climate. The two drivers are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471

↧

Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Joshua

March 9, 2015, 9:06 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Dan Pangburn

All across the country, parents are no longer instructing their children to look both ways before crossing the street.

Now they say something on the order of:

“No need, dears, to look both ways before you cross street. You can just look one way only and then walk forward. You can’t prove that you will get hit by a car if you look one way only, and if you can’t prove a net negative there’s nothing to work about. Now run along and go play in traffic. And remember, don’t look both ways!!”

↧

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Willard

March 9, 2015, 9:07 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Joshua

> Clearly one of those models is flat wrong.

I’d even go so far as to say they’re all wrong. Taken together, they’re useful. Which is why playing some against others is wrong, this time the wrong kind of “wrong.”

Yet we lukewarmingly see that kind of gerrymandering all the time. Nic is due for another round on this very Bat channel. Probably after the new show of invisible hands will subside.

↧

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick

March 9, 2015, 9:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Willard

R. Gates:

That the term “rate of warming not consistent” seems to imply that the climate system itself has not been gaining energy consistently

Well the problem with this cognate is the system doesn’t gain energy consistently, at least over short enough periods of time (pulling a number out of a hat “less than 10 year” intervals).

The Earth is not a closed system, and it is not a simple open system like a heated tea kettle.

As a result both the amount of radiant heat energy that makes it into the system and the amount of radiant heat energy loss vary over time.

And over short enough time periods (a few years) there are measurable periods with heat energy loss.

Now this is the sort of variability driven by atmospheric-ocean oscillations. (My speculation is the primary driver for changing the short-period energy balance is probably cloud albedo modulated by these oscillations.)

Beyond that, “Alex I’ll take what the topic is a major tropical volcanic eruption for 1000 dollars.”

:-)

↧

Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Joshua

March 9, 2015, 9:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Lucifer

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick

Ron C. makes an excellent point:

==> “They accuse skeptics of motivated reasoning, subservience to funding sources, cherry-picking data, intimidation and malicious attacks on reputations. Alarmists so obviously engage in all of these themselves and take no ownership of their own behavior.”

Isn’t it amazing how “realists” do all of that without taking ownership? Thanks god “skeptics” don’t behave like that. Never see them accusing “realists” of motivated reasoning, now do you? They never make accusations of cherry-picking, never try to intimidate, and certainly never make malicious attacks on reputations. And lord knows, they’d never, ever, make accusations of subservience to funding sources.

But most importantly, if they did any of that, they would take ownership.

Too funny.

↧

Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Lucifer

March 9, 2015, 9:13 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Michael

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Joshua

HOWEVER, just because something can’t be reliably quantified, this doesn’t mean you can’t assess risks. Many components of projected future climate change will clearly be detrimental to agricultural productivity – very high temperatures are known to harmful, and so (obviously) is reduced water availability. Increased CO2 fertilisation will probably have beneficial effects but it’s not clear how much this will offset the negative effects of high temperatures and droughts. Since we don’t know how these things interact, there are risks of the negatives outweighing the positives.

Nonsense.

Droughts cause high temperatures ( heat is realized as sensible, not latent because of lack of water ).
There’s no evidence the converse is true.
Precipitation is largely a matter of fluid flow.

‘Very high temperatures’ are also a matter of fluid flow.
Heat waves occur because of large stagnant summer time air masses which foster clear skies and increased solar load.
When this occurs in winter, we tend to call it ‘nice weather’.

↧

Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Michael

March 9, 2015, 9:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Alan Millar

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Lucifer

“LOL–the Keeling curve does nothing to prove AGW is a net negative.” – Rob.

LOLs aside, may I remind you that it was yourself who pointed to some wonderously positive news on CO2 residence time. I merely responded with “facts and data” which appear somewhat unmoved by this good news.

↧

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Alan Millar

March 9, 2015, 9:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Michael

lolwot | March 7, 2015 at 8:24 am | Reply

Lolwot provided graphs from 1970 showing no pause and he is in fact correct, which is unusual for an idiot, there is an ongoing long term warming trend perfectly visible in the temperature record.

His idiocy is revealed by his inability to see the real affect of such graphs, they completely overturn the idea that CAGW is happening and that there was a sudden perturbation to the Earth’s climate beginning in 1950.

We are told that the facts of this perturbation are visible to all in the temperature record and that only an idiot would say otherwise.

Well here is the temperature record from 1850, not cherry picked from 1970 and I would like all CAGW believers, lolwot, R Gates etc to verbalise and comment about what it as about these FACTS, not speculation that causes them to be so worried. Also to convince the rest of us that something really did happen in 1950 that is visible to them but apparently not to the rest of us.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2013/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2010/trend/offset:0.4/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2010/trend/offset:-0.4/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2010/scale:0.00001/offset:-2

Alan

↧

Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Willard

March 9, 2015, 9:22 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Una versión "austríaca" del cuento del calentamiento global| Desde el exilio

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Alan Millar

> Nonsense.

Chewbacca roars.

↧

Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Una versión "austríaca" del cuento del calentamiento global| Desde el exilio

March 9, 2015, 9:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Willard

[…] ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom […]

↧

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick

March 9, 2015, 9:29 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Rob Starkey

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Una versión "austríaca" del cuento del calentamiento global| Desde el exilio

willard:

I’d even go so far as to say they’re all wrong. Taken together, they’re useful. ”

Um no.

They aren’t all wrong on ECS. Some of the models are certainly right, and others just as certainly wrong.

But you’ve missed the context here. JCH was basically claiming all of the models were “right” because they were consistent over a 60 year period that they should have been consistent with because they were tuned to it.

He should have realized that ECS is the primary predictor of temperature change, and by having models that vary between each other by this amount, that the amount of agreement he was getting between the models had to mean something else besides model validation.

Which was the point of my comment.

Which is why playing some against others is wrong, this time the wrong kind of “wrong.

Heh. It looks like you got your initial thesis wrong, then ran off into the land of cluelessness with it.

My view is these tribalistic outbursts on your part are not only wrong, they aren’t even useful.

↧

Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Rob Starkey

March 9, 2015, 9:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Hugh

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick

Willard

You will notice that I did NOT write that warming is good. I expect that some places will benefit while others are harmed.

In order to conclude and justify the expense to implement significant and costly CO2 mitigation actions today, it is necessary to come to the conclusion that there is a significant probability that higher CO2 levels will cause harms overall AND that action must be taken now to avoid these consequences.

When it appears that the rate of warming is much less than was believed a decade ago, and when it is now also believed that CO2 stays in the atmosphere a shorter time than was thought a decade ago; the case for immediate action to avoid harms in 100 years seems to have disappeared from reality.

↧

Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Hugh

March 9, 2015, 9:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by steven

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Rob Starkey

Lucifer,

Surely it is worse than that? We have forty years before end-of-world, says Markku Kulmala. /sarc

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fi&tl=en&u=http%3A//yle.fi/uutiset/maailman_viitatuin_geotieteiden_tutkija_meilla_on_40_vuotta_aikaa_pelastaa_maailma/7855631

↧

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by steven

March 9, 2015, 9:35 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Lucifer

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Hugh

Decadal changes in cloud cover have been observed. A decrease in cloud cover in the tropics is consistent with ocean heat transport models and just happen to match up with temperature changes fairly well.

↧

Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Lucifer

March 9, 2015, 9:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by steven

Nonsense. Chewbacca roars.

So you want to pretend that global warming causes drought, even though you can’t conceive of a physical basis as to why?

Fine. It’s a free country, or at least it used to be.

But the real world doesn’t seem to harbour such delusions:

↧

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Jim D

March 9, 2015, 9:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Lucifer

Carrick, what doesn’t do well for the last 60 years is a model with little or no sensitivity to GHGs. In fact, their central effective TCS near 2 C per doubling would be a good takeaway as a guideline for planning. This still underestimates the land warming rate, so some caution would be advised in that direction, if any.

↧

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Willard

March 9, 2015, 9:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Rob Starkey

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Jim D

> They aren’t all wrong on ECS. Some of the models are certainly right, and others just as certainly wrong.

Just like we can be sure that there’s an odd or an even number of grass leaves on my lawn. All we need is to count them. And then there are audits.

In case of climate models, this accounting is looser. We must allow for some kind of margin of exactness. Right and wrong might as well be replaced with more right and more wrong.

And all this depends on our ability to determine ECS. Considering that models themselves are used for that task, this assumption is far from being trivial.

If bivalence is the hallmark of realism, realism is more plausible regarding true or false than right or wrong.

↧

Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Rob Starkey

March 9, 2015, 9:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Planning Engineer

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Willard

Michael

The keeling curve does does not conflict the a much shorter residence time. A much shorter residence time would seem to largely eliminate the need for any immediate actions if the current levels are not clearly resulting in net harm

↧

Comment on Week in review by Planning Engineer

March 9, 2015, 9:42 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Rob Starkey

Joshua – surely you can give credit where credit is due. Judith points to articles representative of divergent viewpoints across the spectrum. (She often links to her own severest critiques.)

I think the Energiewnend article is pretty weak, but I support and appreciate her linking to differing perspectives, unlike others who just want to parrot an whatever supports the accepted truth.

Probably too complex for a comment here, but all the talk on reliability in Germany is off-point. Don’t know if it is deliberate misrepresentation or if they just don’t know better. Reliability is a term used in discussion of related but different concerns. Whenever I’ve used reliability (and the concerns I’ve heard about renewables) have to do with avoiding system voltage collapse, cascading outages, islanding, loss of synchronism (basically MAJOR outages). These are rare events and metrics on such are not readily agreed upon or available. Reliability also means how well you prevent smaller (non-serious from the bulk system point of view) isolated outages from happening. These include your SAIDI, SAIFI and MAIFI measurements by which accounts Germany has good stats (They should they are a population dense, well connected system).

Having good numbers for SAIDI, SAIFI and MAIFI doesn’t really address the risks of collapse. In fact efforts to bump up SAIDI, SAIFI and MAIFI with automated switching for example, can make your system less reliable from a major Bulk perspective. (Shedding load is a good tool for managing risk-but it looks bad on the other numbers so utilities often make trade-offs between the two).Trying to keep your system so you never lose load, or you quickly bring it back, can be an invitation for disaster. It’s kind of like comparing one airline which rarely delays flights for potential mechanical problems versus another one which delays for any risk. The later will have worse reliability stats as far as delays for mechanical problems, but the first may be at more risk of a major problem.

Bottom line – it’s good to post dissenting views, but one “challenging” article does not overturn the group wisdom. In any case you should be thanking her and perhaps asking others if we find the article challenging.

↧