That’s kerogen. You lose. Peak oil concerns oil not kerogen.
Comment on The legacy of climategate by WebHubTelescope
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate by omanuel
The legacy of Climategate e-mails and documents of 2009 can be traced to <i><b>surprising events</b></i> sixty-four years (~64 yrs) earlier (2009-1945 = 64):
<b>August 1945:</b> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were consumed by <I><b>"Nuclear Fires"</b></i> that ended the Second World War.
<b>October 1945:</b> The United Nations was established <I>"to save succeeding generations from the <b>scourge of war</b>, which twice in our lifetime has brought <b>untold sorrow to mankind</b>, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, . . ."<i> [First sentence in Preamble to the UN Charter, 1945].
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml
<b>1946:</b> Immediate, abrupt <i>lock-step <b>surprising U-turn</b> in scientific beliefs about the Sun's source of energy,</i> - led by Fred Hoyle and the Royal Astronomical Society - <i>element synthesis, and the composition of stars beneath the layer composed almost entirely of light elements (91%H and 9% He) at the top of stellar atmospheres.</i>
Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” <i>Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society</i> <b>106</b>, 255-59 (1946)
Fred Hoyle, “The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen,”<i>Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society</i> <b>106</b>, 343-83 (1946)
Sir Fred Hoyle reported much later, in his 1994 autobiography, on the opinions of astronomers and astrophysicists, specifically those of Sir Arthur Eddington and himself, before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed:
<i>"We both believed that the sun was made mostly of iron, . . .”
“The high-iron solution continued to reign supreme in the interim (at any rate, in the astronomical circles to which I was privy) until after the Second World War, . . .”
Fred Hoyle, <i>"Home Is Where the Wind Blows,"</i> [University Science Books, 1994, 441 pages ]page 153 (bottom)
<i>. . ."when I was able to show, <b>to my surprise</b>, that the high-hydrogen, low iron-solution was to be preferred for the interiors as well the atmospheres" of all stars.</i>
Fred Hoyle, <i>"Home Is Where the Wind Blows,"</i> [University Science Books, 1994, 441 pages] page 154 (top)
The legacy of Climategate sprang from these <i><b>surprising events</b></i> sixty-four years earlier.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
Web, I agree that Bartemis is incorrect, however your equatorial oceans driving the mauna loa annual cycle is also incorrect. The annual variation at Mauna loa is a touch more complex than your insinuation.
My comparing the monthly mauna loa deviation from the average monthly deviation is simple signal processing. The average monthly is the carrier frequency and the deviation is the AM signal. The equatorial signal is weak.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Terry Oldberg
Girma:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. The IPCC models are not predictive models. Thus, when climatologists such as Kevin Trenberth state that the models make no predictions, they are correct in saying so. As they make no predictions, the models cannot be statistically tested. It can be concluded that the IPCC’s inquiry into global warming was not a scientific inquiry from the lack of falsifiability of its models.
The “predictions” of a predictive model have a one-to-one relationship to independent events in a statistical population. A “prediction” is an extrapolation from an observed state of a system to an unobserved but observable state of the same system. The latter state is called the “outcome” of the associated event. The former state is called the “condition,” for it is a condition on the model’s independent variables.
A predictive model is tested by comparison of the predicted to the observed relative frequencies of all of the various possible outcomes. If there is not a match, the model is falsified by the evidence. Otherwise, it is “validated.”
The climatologists who designed the IPCC’s inquiry into global warming blundered by failing to describe this inquiry’s statistical population. In failing to describe it, they ensured that their inquiry would not be “scientific.” In its assessment reports, the IPCC covered up this blunder by claiming that the methodology of the inquiry was “scientific” because it was conducted by people calling themselves “scientists.” I describe this phenomenon in more detail in the article at http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ .
In answer to your question, the IPCC’s statement is irrelevant, for it serves neither to falsify nor to validate the IPCC’s models. It can neither falsify nor validate them because:a) these models are not predictive models and b) the statistical population that is required for testing the models does not exist. Widespread confusion of “predictions” with “projections” serves to cover up the blunder that was made by those climatologists who designed of the IPCC’s inquiry. In blogging, my purpose is to force climatologists to own up to and fix their error.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Paul S
Capt. Dallas,
I’m not sure what you’re trying to demonstrate with your graphs. You’re showing temperature graphs with annual cycle removed against Mauna Loa CO2 data with annual cycle intact.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by TerryMN
The dog is sitting in the back of the truck.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
That was just for Web, what I am doing is comparing Mauna Loa annual deviation from mean, the AM signal, to regional temperature variation from mean. That enhances the signal so you can better see what regions at what times have an impact. Annual and multi year smoothing destroys the signals, which just about every statistician has noted.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/maunaloadeviationfrommean.png
that is what Mauna Loa looks like as a demodulated signal.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/TropicalOceansversusMaunaLoa.png
That compares the demodulated tropics ocean lower troposphere temperature to the demodulated Mauna Loa. Web says that the tropical oceans are driving the annual Mauna Loa change, then there should be a stronger correlation between the two.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Eli Rabett
The annual variation in [CO2] is from the greening of the Northern Hemisphere during summer. Most of this later decays away (and you sweep up the leaves). This is not seen in the Southern Hemisphere. Go to CDIAC and look at the CO2 concentrations as a function of latitude.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Eli Rabett
Yeah, after you eliminated most of the 80 ppm or so increase in CO2 concentrations by taking the derivative. In any case, most of the rise that you are looking at in the d[CO2]/dt line is the non linear component of the growth of CO2.
You fail because you have not thought about what you did and what it means
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
Eli Rabbet is exactly right, the majority of the signal is from the greening. When I remove the greening signal it gets more interesting. There is some southern ocean impact and the multi-year ENSO. There is even an inverse solar correlation with mainly the southern polar orientation. Finding the magnitude of each is a bear with limited data, but it is fun to mess with.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Girma
Terry
We are on the same side.
Wish you a good journey.
My main beef with the IPCC is it reported a global warming rate of 0.2 deg C per decade, but this warming rate includes a transitory warming rate due to ocean cycles. I have estimated the value of this cyclic warming rate to be about 0.12 deg C per decade. As a result, when you remove the transitory warming rate, the current warming rate of the long term secular trend is only 0.08 deg C, so IPCC’s estimate is 2.5-times than this value. All of IPCC estimates therefore must be divided by 2.5 in order to arrive at the correct values.
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by Steven Mosher
David, If you want to do it right ( I used to draw these as a kid in the late 60s) you basically want to create a huge virtual canvas of the entire tree and then you can pan/zoom etc on the section you need.
If I wasnt so busy I’d code it up for you. The approach isnt that unique. Its basically an opening book for debate. Or, planning what to say when your parents catch you doing something wrong.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Paul S
OK, I think I’ve figured out what you’ve done – you’ve effectively used the ‘seasonally-corrected trend’ column of the Mauna Loa data (though I think you’ve taken a longer route to effectively doing this). Each monthly value represents that month’s entry in that column minus the previous month’s. I’ve plotted that and it looks extremely similar to your ‘deviation from mean’ graph.
I’m not sure what this can show, other than perhaps degree of intra-annual autocorrelation. Perhaps I’m not up-to-speed on what Web is claiming?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by willard
NARRATOR could belong to an ad by the Heartland Institute.
We’d need to check to video to validate this hypothesis.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by jim2
It’s easier to say you can predict what will happen in the 2050′s, but of course, you will have to wait a long time to know if you actually can or not. This idea of Ms. Pope’s reeks of hubris.
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by John Costigane
David,
Binary trees in database design allow fast access to data records since they avoid the slow sequential checking of all records otherwise required. I think this is the basis of your design as well though having much more complexity.
Have you done an issue tree for the climate debate?.
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by Peter Lang
John Costigane and David Wojick,
That is what I’d really like to see. Can either of you point me to an ‘Issue Tree’ for the climate debate, or anything else that tackles this?
I’ve just seen this World Economic Forum report “Global Risks 2012”: http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-2012-seventh-edition
It attempts to tackle the issues and relationships between them and present the information to show this.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Terry Oldberg
Chief Hydrologist:
You seem not to grasp the significance of the idea of an independent statistical event for scientific research. The complete set of these events are an example of a statistical population. Events drawn from this population and observed provide the sole basis for the statistical testing of the associated model. For the IPCC climate models, there is no such population. Thus, these models are non-falsifiable and unscientific. To state, as you did, that these models make predictions is to falsely imply that non-falsifiable and unscientific models are falsifiable and scientific.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by WebHubTelescope
Bartemis was the one claiming that all of the co2 increase was due to elevated temperatures — degassing or outgassing as material scientists typically call it.
I am just saying the small ripple on the curve was due to that effect, a much more modest factual assertion.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Bart R
[This is identical to my conclusion]
No, Mr. Orssengo. Your conclusion is that you are 100% without doubt of cooling for the next two decades. Remember, you said so just a day or two ago?
Dr. Swanson et al conclude it is possible, “..current models underestimate climate sensitivity..global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate.”
That’s as opposite as one can get.
Anyone who follows the twistyness of your crusade over enough months divines that your purpose is not to competently counter claims you reject, but rather to obfuscate the issue by populating the field with so many, so absurd, claims as possible dressed up to resemble something vaguely technical-sounding as to confuse those without the skills or training to tell the genuine article from your sham.
Shame on you.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
