The temperature records have been incorrectly adjusted, RichardLH, as has now been exposed with carefully analysis published on WUWT recently. The records from weather stations which were not affected by urban crawl were incorrectly assumed to be showing too slow a rate of warming, so they were adjusted to reflect the rate of warming seen in about two-thirds of the stations which were the ones exaggerating the warming because they were affected by urban crawl. It is of course also absurd that a much higher density of weather stations occurs in the US than anywhere else. All warming, and the hiatus, are natural, as discussed in this comment of mine above …
http://judithcurry.com/2016/01/01/a-war-against-fire/#comment-756131
Comment on A War Against Fire by johnturnerphysicist
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Geoff Sherrington
Douglas,
Yes, the Antarctic paper has models and satellite data and one needs to be cautious – until you see and think about the rather different OLR spectrum that they show from above the Antarctic.
Then it all looks so logical.
But the climate models seem to want to convert many things to a surface temperature basis, when they should be looking at equi-temperature atmospheric imaginary surfaces where the picture can be brought together in a better way to look at global effects.
Rather like Davis Evans was doing through 2015 at the Jo Nova site.
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by physicistdave
AK,
Well, I guess my point is that everyone agrees that climate is complicated, and that you are wasting your time making that point again.
I think the more valid point would be to say that it is conceivable that the effects of anthropogenic CO2 are sufficiently small and sufficiently varied in different geographic regions that the effects of anthropogenic CO2 are swamped by regional variations, natural climate variability, etc.
Pointing out that the effects of anthropogenic CO2 might be small enough so as to be swamped by other effects is more likely to be taken seriously than simply pointing out the (obvious) fact that the effects of anthropogenic CO2 are indeed not uniform across the planet.
Then, of course, the issue becomes does the fact that the effects of anthropogenic CO2 might be small mean the effects really are small?
That is the 64 trillion dollar question. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has a definitive answer. Come up with a definitive proof, and you will be deservedly famous.
Dave
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
physicistdave, “However, the frosh physics analysis does show, definitively, that the “sky dragon” analysis is simply wrong when it says that anthropogenic CO2 cannot in principle warm the planet.”
Just playing devil’s advocate, but the skydragon’s start with a questionable position, constant volume, then find a small effect and embellish with vigor. Assuming that T is a reliable proxy for E in a planetary scale open system can have a few pitfalls.
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by physicistdave
(corrected for my error in HTML tag)
David Springer wrote to me:
The term you want to use here is hysteresis. It can easily overshoot in the cool direction. Many feedback loops, natural and artificial, do exactly that and average out to zero.
I don’t think you mean “hysteresis”: hysteresis is a specific effect where you get a sort of mutual lock-in due to different parts of the system holding others in their current state — the standard example of course is ferromagnetism. (I’lll acknowledge ahead of time that you can of course find people on the Web who misuse the term “hysteresis”: I hope most of them are not physicists, who really should know better!)
What Matt Marler and I have been discussing are simply oscillations due to time delays in the system, a very common phenomenon that everyone knows occurs in the weather. My guess is that such oscillations cannot wipe out the entire initial forcing, but I agree that it is worth further research. In an ideal world, the guys who own the GCMs would be tweaking them trying to force this sort of behavior and seeing if it is plausible.
I don’t agree with you that feedback loops tend to average out to zero. I have analyzed various feedback loops over the years and have never seen it happen. Present a concrete mathematical or electronic system that behaves as you claim, and then we can discuss whether it is plausible that the climate system behaves that way. I’m skeptical.
Dave
↧
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by ulriclyons
By reason it should, because long wave radiated from water vapour that has absorbed solar NIR at a higher altitude will warm the surface less than that at a lower altitude.
But in reality for the last 20 years the climate has displayed a decline in forcing, with a fall in upper level humidity, and an increase in near surface humidity. Along with the increase in negative NAO that warmed the AMO and Arctic.
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by physicistdave
JCH wrote to me:
<blockquote>Also, demanding models have to demonstrate predictive skill may, given the complexity of the system, may be unreasonable...</blockquote>
Actually, I agree with you on that. But, then, shouldn't people stop claiming that these models <i>do</i> have predictive power?
At the current state of the art, the models are being misused. The modelers <i>should</i> be using the models to investigate <i>possible</i> interactions among climate variables and should then turn to people such as Judith to ask whether those interactions have any empirical support.
I'll give a concrete example of what I have in mind:
Suppose the models predict a correlation between summer temperatures in India and winter precipitation on the East Coast of the US. Ask people like Judith whether empirical observations show such a correlation. If they do, the modelers and empirical climatologists can work together to see if the model provides insight into the causes of that correlation. If not, the modelers can go back and try to see why the models are misleading.
<i>That</i> is real science. Unfortunately, it doesn't produce blockbuster movies for Al Gore, soundbites for irresponsible politicians, etc. Real science is hard, painstaking, plodding work.
Some climate scientists, alas, want to take shortcuts.
Dave
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by ulriclyons
@David Springer
“H2O does have a deep absorption band at the low frequency end of the near infrared..”
And a few more further up too!
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by ulriclyons
@David Springer
“H2O does have a deep absorption band at the low frequency end of the near infrared..”
And a few more further up too!
↧
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by RichardLH
I agree your analysis may be correct. Not knowing the relevance to the question is the problem IMHO.
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by RichardLH
“And a few more further up too!”
The physics is probably safe from doubt. The conclusions less so. Not yours, everybody’s.
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by Arch Stanton
Anything is possible when you like the model you see.
http://news.yahoo.com/dubai-property-giant-restore-hotel-damaged-fire-181819754.html
Nothing like Building Seven, oh well a lot can happen in less than seven seconds.
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Atmospheric absorption of sw has a fun little twist related to path length. If you assume the stratosphere is part of the surface you add a couple of percent to the area of the “disk”. That couple of percent is semi-transparent and tends to bend light. If CO2 is a big honking driver, that small error in assumption means not much, but if CO2 isn’t, you have to consider the real geometry. Heck, before long things could be complicated. :)
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
I suspect ybutt is one of those people who do drive-bys, throws fire-crackers in your lap, then runs away and hides. In a previous post he threw a few anti-nuke crackers, got thrashed in the responses, and ran away never to return and admit he was wrong – a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/
I and others refuted his last comments and he never replied. I had done more work in response to his last disingenuous assertion, but there was no point in posting it if he wan’t prepared to respond and acknowledge when he’s wrong. So, I’ll post it below.
Ybutt asserted (disingenuously, misleadingly and incorrectly) @ http://judithcurry.com/2016/01/01/a-war-against-fire/#comment-755618:
If you want to talk economics: Nuclear power industry would not survive without the Price-Anderson Act which subsidizes their insurance. The nuclear power industry cannot afford to buy insurance on the open market — they require a government handout to even survive.
This comment is disingenuous. Only nuclear would survive if all technologies had to pay for the fatalities they cause. To understand this let’s estimate how much should society subsidise nuclear, or penalize other electricity generators, to compensate equally so all technologies pay for the fatalities they cause? Viewed another way, how much would we need to subsidise nuclear to reward the comparatively higher safety of nuclear power?
The answer from my quick, back of an envelope calculation is we should subsidise nuclear by $140/MWh to substitute for coal-fired generation and $37/MWh to substitute for gas fired generation in the USA. Much higher in developing countries. With those subsidies, nuclear would be “too cheap to meter”; but since the subsidies would exceed the cost of production of nuclear power, we’d need to meter consumption in order to pay the consumers around $50/MWh instead of them paying the power company! :)
Inputs used for the estimate:
1. Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in USA = $9.4 million (2015, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL2015_0.pdf )
2. Fatalities per TWh (Source Forbes in http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html )
Coal electricity, world avg = 60 (50% of electricity)
Coal electricity, China = 90
Coal, U.S. = 15 (44% U.S. electricity)
Natural Gas = 4 (20% global electricity)
Solar (rooftop) = 0.44 (0.2% global electricity)
Wind = 0.15 (1.6% global electricity)
Hydro, global average = 1.4 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear, global average = 0.09 (12% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
3. USA TWh per technology in 2014 (source EIA) https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1
Coal = 1,581,710
Natural gas = 1,126,609
Nuclear = 797,166
Hydro = 259,367
Solar = 17,691
Other renewables = 261,522
Results:
If each technology was required to pay insurance or compensation for the annual cost of fatalities caused by that technology, the amounts they would have to pay per MWh are:
Technology $/MWh
Coal 141
Natural gas 38
Hydro 13
Solar 4
Nuclear 1
Or, if each industry is not penalized, society should subsidise nuclear $140/MWh to substitute for coal and 37/MWh to substitute for natural gas generation.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Arch Stanton
Where does all the waste end up and how should it be stored for thousands of years? Any idea on how long before Fukushima, is ready to allow the property owners back?
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by rogerknights
angech | January 2, 2016 at 5:53 pm |
Skeptics have one last chance to consolidate their position and focus a discussion.
The only way to force a discussion is for a science court to schedule a “trial” on the topic (or topics). Since no official SCs exist, colleges should simply set up unofficial SCs and then set a date. Be there or be square. If contrarians say they’ll appear, warmists will lose by default unless they show up. That will force them into the open. (I’ve written a longer piece on this theme that I hope will appear–somewhere.)
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
Arch Staunton,
All this information is well publicised on authoritative web sites. Before I waste time explaining answers to anti nukes who are not interested in the answers. please tell me if you are an anti-nuke, are you genuinely interested in learning?
In short, management of once used nuclear fuel is not a serious technical issue, it is a political issue. The cost of used fuel and nuclear fuel waste management is trivial at about $1/MWh. That is the total cost of permanent management.
Fukushima killed no one and is unlikely to ever kill anyone. Compare that with other industries. However, the evacuation caused over a thousand lives. If you are genuinely interested, you’ll consider question before asking them so you properly compare across industries.
Consider the comment I posted above and compare the fatalities per TWh of electricity produced by different technologies. Blocking nuclear is causing many of avoidable fatalities per year – if nuclear replaced coal electricity generation over night it would avoid 1.3 million fatalities per year.
↧
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by David Springer
@physicistDave
“But, the anthropogenic CO2 will have a net warming effect while it remains in the atmosphere.”
Really? Somehow our globe spanning satellites carrying microwave sounding units measuring the temperature of various levels in the troposphere missed that net warming for the past 17 years or so.
The data don’t support your assertion, physicistDave.
In what academy of science were you taught that theory trumps observation?
Cheerios,
polymathDave
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by David Springer
@physicistDave
“But, the anthropogenic CO2 will have a net warming effect while it remains in the atmosphere.”
Really? Somehow our globe spanning satellites carrying microwave sounding units measuring the temperature of various levels in the troposphere missed that net warming for the past 17 years or so.
The data don’t support your assertion, physicistDave.
In what academy of science were you taught that theory trumps observation?
Cheerios,
polymathDave
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by David Springer
physicistdave | January 2, 2016 at 7:00 am |
Geoff, a negative feedback does not give zero change: it just reduces the effect from what it otherwise would be — i.e., the multiplier is positive but less than 1.0.
The reason is simple to explain to anyone who understands control theory: indeed, anyone who understands control theory already knows the answer.
You obviously don’t understand control theory. It’s an engineering thing. Lots of systems maintain some constant state despite changes in forcings. A constant current source in electronics keeps current flow constant despite changing loads. An aircraft with positive longitudinal stability maintains level flight despite passengers moving around changing the center of gravity. The thermostat that controls the temperature of your home. All these are governed by feedback loops.
I’m beginning to believe you aren’t a physicist, Dave. That’s the trouble with internet anonymity. Why don’t you use your real name?
Cheerios,
polymathDave
↧
