It was accurate enough to mention as an early effort. He was not saying it had to already be perfect back then, but it was part of the historical development. The 1981 Science paper would have been my choice. That had a sensitivity of 2.8 C per doubling and that still holds up well.
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
It’s nice to get some good news for a change! Thanks!
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by DataTurk
PDave, I agree with your other points as well.
I see the abuse heaped on Dr Curry and others who are at the very least representing rationality, logic, clear thinking and the scientific method against the Pharisees of the consensus, I think that such is the path of truth…never easy.
But when the zealots start calling Andy Revkin a denier, I think it’s time to admit that the inmates have taken over the asylum.
Cheers!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
Steven,
One thing I don’t ever recall being called on any blog is ‘entertaining’. :)
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
One of the morning shows had Fiorina saying that the greens had prevented building more dams and they wouldn’t be in this trouble if they had more dams. Gov. Jerry Brown responded that no amount of dams would have helped in this drought. If you don’t have enough water for years that is not going to help.
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #193 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #193 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by nickels
Residents of 43 states could see double-digit % increases in their electricity bills under @EPA carbon rule [link]
“Overall, the regions hit the hardest by high electricity prices are areas served by rural electric cooperatives, which prominently feature crucial industries like agriculture and manufacturing. ”
Great, shouldnt need those. They should probably be nationalized anyway.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by verdeviewer
Given a bit of wind, can’t the “AC exhausted at roof top level…” be sucked down into the relative vacuum on the lee side of the building?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by JCH
If she had said California should have had more damn lids, Gov. Brown would have agreed.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Don Monfort
So yimmy, more dams holding back water would not have helped alleviate the shortage of water due to the drought. That’s just Moonbeam CYA BS. That would only work as an excuse for not having built dams, if all the existing dams’ reservoirs were dry by now.
Obviously, if more dams were extant then more water would have been prevented from flowing to the ocean and more water would now be available. Of course Gov. Moonbeam can get away with that transparent BS in a one party state.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by harkin1
Slate went for broke and said the rate of heating was the worst in 100,000 years.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by John Sidles
Judith Curry's been doing a <i>terrific</i> job of purging gratuitous personal abuse. That's a lot of work by Judith, for not much public credit. Thank you Judith Curry, for this outstanding public service.
To factually address a few open questions:<blockquote><b>DataTurk</b> observes "[Feynman, or anyone, might wonder] what observations or analyses are inconsistent with the AGW theory proposed by Hansen"</blockquote>Hansen himself is pleased to answer your question! From <b>"<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140" rel="nofollow">Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications</a>"</b> (arXiv:1105.1140)<blockquote>"Most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols."
"Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this [aerosol] large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change."
"If the negative aerosol forcing is understated by as much as 0.7 W/m^2, it means that aerosols have been counteracting half or more of the GHG forcing. In that event, humanity has made itself a Faustian bargain more dangerous than commonly supposed."
"Aerosol climate forcing is unmeasured. Aerosol uncertainty is the principal barrier to quantitative understanding of ongoing climate change. Until aerosol forcing is measured, its magnitude will continue to be crudely inferred, implicitly or explicitly, via observations of climate change and knowledge of climate sensitivity."</blockquote><b>General advice</b> Please join with James Hansen in candidly, dispassionately, and comprehensively acknowledging weaknesses in our present understanding of climate-change, and especially, join Hansen in publicly calling for <i>expanded</i> NASA observations of climate-change data.
--------------
Hmmmm ... what about Feynman-style <i>personal</i> apologies?
<b>Historical fact</b> Just as Feynman famously apologized to Robert Hanbury-Brown — for Feynman's <b><a href="http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_55/iss_7/75_1.shtml" rel="nofollow">disgraceful (and wrong) ridicule of the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss Effect</a></b> — James Hansen's recent communication (of July 27, 2015), titled <b>"<a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/" rel="nofollow">Ice Sheet 200-900 Year Time Scale</a>"</b> publicly extends a similarly handsome apology<blockquote>Yikes! It has been pointed out to me that the specificity of 200-900 years in my post about ice sheet time scales has the potential to be very unfair to specific individuals. The example that was shown to me was a paper by Ian Joughin published in Science 16 May 2014 in which that range of time scales is mentioned. […]
I apologize to Joughin, his co-authors and any other scientists who may have a similar situation. It was my fault for not thinking through possible repercussions of my presentation. I should have stuck to discussion of the amplifying feedbacks that we identified and their potential to reduce the time scale for large sea level rise.</blockquote><b>More general advice</b> Please join with Richard Feynman and James Hansen in the excellent practice of extending no-quibbles apologies.
Everyone (including Mark Steyn) take notes.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Davies
rhhardin +10. There are always countervailing regional effects that are never adequately explained by use of any global average, which is merely an artifact and of no value as a measure of climate change at the regional level.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Jim D, externalities are costs and benefits which accrue to people other than those directly engaged in an activity or transaction. Economics Online: “A negative externality is a cost that is suffered by a third party as a result of an economic transaction. In a transaction, the producer and consumer are the first and second parties, and third parties include any individual, organisation, property owner, or resource that is indirectly affected.”
The issue of externalities is usually not straightforward: many economic activities provide both benefits and costs to third parties. Both costs are often widespread and/or difficult to quantify, and those who benefit from one externality might gain from another.
I like Ronald Coase’s analysis of the issue in “The Problem of Social Cost.” A link showing on Google as http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/…/coase.pdf timed out, but I’ve downloaded it before.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by bedeverethewise
don’t be silly nickels. The average American family will save an extra $85 in their annual energy bill. You see, we build more expensive renewable energy systems, then we build gas back-up plants, then we build a new smart grid that can handle the widely distributed, intermittent power. Those things are all added expenses and will be added to your bill. But on the other hand there must be many hidden savings that we will realize to more than offset those expenses. Savings such as….um….uh….well, there are just too many to list them all here. It’s simple math.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by matthewrmarler
John Sidles: Please join with James Hansen in candidly, dispassionately, and comprehensively acknowledging weaknesses in our present understanding of climate-change, and especially, join Hansen in publicly calling for expanded NASA observations of climate-change data.
What an extraordinary comment! I and others have written persistently about the weaknesses in our present knowledge and understanding, and have been advocating more research and study. Hansen has argued repeatedly that we already know the results of extra CO2 are going to be disastrous, catastrophic, and worse for sure, the only unknown (or at least inconsistency) being whether they will happen immediately or merely almost immediately. Where has Hansen argued that too little is known for us to reliably change climate; or admitted that all of his temperature projections to date have been too high to be reliable indications of future temperature?
Do you admit (join with us in acknowledging) that too little is known for us to confidently expect that specific CO2 reduction measures will produce specific desirable outcomes? Or do you stick with your previous pronouncements that the climate is changing exactly as Hansen predicted in the 1980s?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by erikemagnuson
Peter.
My comments were directed at Stephen whose comments about solar penetration and ELCC raised my eyebrows a bit.
If dramatically lowering GHG’s is a priority (I’m a lukewarmer), then nuclear has to be part of the solution. In the short term next 50 years), LWR’s have been in production for decades and thus are a mature technology. Long term would be either the EBRII/IFR/PRISM design or fusion.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Ron Graf
Regarding more general advice, voicing the word “apology” does not have direct bearing on character. Just as voicing 1000 apologies does not. A sincere and relevant apology can be one example however. Character comes down to doing the right thing even when nobody is looking and even when it is not in your own favor.
Thus the voice of twenty whistleblowers should be heard as being more significant than the voice of twenty maintaining the establishment line given the weight of evidence on both sides being equal in the cross claims. The Climategate whistleblowers were anonymous but were supporting the few. They were authentic and powerful evidence of collusion to conceal truth from the public. It blew the honest mistake defense of the hockey stick out of the water.
The notes of the IPCC Lead Authors’ Meeting, Sept 1999, covered in detail here,showed that Briffa’s reconstruction was a thorn in the IPCC’s shoe. There was knowledge and collaboration of Jones, Folland and perhaps other with Mann to persuade him to deal with the embarrassing decline. Mann, in turn, put pressure on a protesting Briffa, who eventually caved.
It may be determined in a DC court exactly what hiding data means in legal terms but there is no question it was not science.
What else is not science is making predictions after a very destructive hurricane that man is causing the hurricane as will be evidenced by an increasing number of them to come. Then a historic lull in severe hurricanes follows. But you still stick to your claim without blinking that man is behind every destructive weather event.
What else is not science is when you have a streak of significant increases in global mean temp and you proclaim this is the beginning of the new normal trend caused by man. You build the trend into 52 models offered by dozens of countries in a the world organized climate panel to prove this new trend and then the trend stops. And stops for 18 more years. Then you have a new theory that a natural cooling spell is counteracting man’s warming, forgetting that 15 years earlier your logo featured a static sideways climate before man’s influence. And, that hockey stick would still have been your logo if it hadn’t been for a meddling lay person who got a hold of the data somehow and revealed your science was anything but that.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by bedeverethewise
The full interview is linked above.
here is what was shown on the show,
“You know what’s also made it worse? Politicians. Liberal politicians who stood up for 40 years as the population of California doubled and said, “You cannot build a new reservoir and you cannot build a water conveyance system.” And so for 40 years, 70% of the rainfall has washed out to sea. That’s pretty dumb, when you know you’re going to have droughts every single year. Or every three years, let’s say.”
In the full interview, she also discussed Californian plans to manage scarce water supplies and balance environmental and economic concerns, and government agencies over-riding those plans to protect “endangered” fish.
There was a pre-taped clip where Jerry brown responded
“I’ve never heard of such utter ignorance, Building a dam won’t do a damn thing about fires or climate change or the absence of moisture in the ground and vegetation in California. So I think these people, if they want to run for president, better do kind of eighth grade science before they make any more utterances.”
Carly responded:
“That’s a lot of insults. But of course, it makes no sense what he just said. It would be helpful if he were fighting fires to have more water. Firefighters in California have difficulty getting enough water now. So they’re using other means. It would be helpful to agriculture and everything else to have water saved in the good years so that you could use it in the bad years.
I’m not denying that California’s air is dry. That’s obvious. I’m not denying that there was a drought. But there is no denying that politicians have made this problem immeasurably worse.”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
