Then you must believe in CO2 is a perpetual motion machine…
Comment on Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan by Wagathon
↧
↧
Comment on Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan by Bart R
John Carpenter | January 17, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
If you can substantiate it, then yes. Do as Dr. Curry, though.. don’t talk about showing it, just show it.
As for the divergence between observation and projection, I’m glad you mentioned that.
A small part of the gap is explained by how truly awful the observation is. While it’s true BEST reproduced a far more accurate representation of the observations than any other, and BEST indicated strong signs that other collections were falling further and further behind the actual temperature trend, we know BEST has some drawbacks: they’ve presented (to date, that I know of) land only, and that dataset stopped quite some time ago.
Cowtan and Way’s method again shows up this fact about how observations that take into account all observations instead of the biased sample that is easiest to collect are much closer to projections.
And still even with all corrections, we see a decided trend of divergence between actual and projection. In part, Senator Inhofe has this exactly wrong: the projections do predict the past ten years, and they do it quite reliably; many of the projections show at some point in their runs very similar trends (when we look at what BEST or Cowtan and Way tell us, especially). In part, it is right to note that the projections are not predictions, which is what every competent analyst — including those who constructed the projections — has said all along. The remarkable improvements with increasing resolution of the model grids tell us, however, that we are on the right track and fast approaching a point where model runs can adequately project probable outcomes. Twenty years from now, we might see that happen. But in the meantime, the projections all adequately show that AGW is a real affect, and a world without anthropogenic contributions is less volatile and bears lower social costs of carbon emission.
↧
Comment on Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan by Beth Cooper
Say, jim2, them cheshire sunspots disappearin’ in a solar lull …
We’ll need ter call on old King Coal, stored sunshine over eons.
Pity about them intermittant, inefficient renewables’ storage
problems … jest not there when yer need ‘em most..
beth the serf.
↧
Comment on Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan by Wagathon
There is absolutely no doubt that mankind has liberated huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the past two centuries. But mankind did not “create” this carbon dioxide out of nothing. It was released by the burning of “fossil fuels”, created by the Earth over millions of years from the remains of plants and animals (who themselves ultimately obtained their nutrition from those plants). So where did those plants get their energy and carbon dioxide from? They absorbed the radiant energy of the Sun, and breathed in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as plants continue to do today. In other words, when we burn fossil fuels, we are utilizing a small part of the solar energy that had been collected and stored by plants over millions of years, and in the process we are liberating into the atmosphere the carbon dioxide that those plants had absorbed from the atmosphere in the first place.
This may sound like a fairly benign sort of natural cycle, until you realize that a couple of hundred years is a mere blink of an eye compared to the millions of years it took for the planet to build up those resources. It is right for scientists to worry about whether that massive and almost instantaneous “kick” to the planet may throw the equilibrium of the biota into complete chaos. It is a valid question, of ultimate global importance—one that most people would have thought would have demanded the most careful, exacting, and rigorous scientific analyses that mankind could muster.
Climategate has shattered that myth. It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their “old boys’ club”, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their “research”. Most people are aghast that this could have happened; and it is only because “climate science” exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of mere years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long. (John P. Costella, ‘Climategate Analysis’)
↧
Comment on Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan by JCH
Waggie, the sun is about as close to that as we have.
It’s up because the winds are back to normal, which means upwelling in the Eastern Pacific is diminished, and that warm water from the Western pacific is sloshing back toward South America, Latin American, and North America.
Just as Trenberth said it would.
Smearing Trenberth – good sign you have an abject moron on your hands.
And just wait until we’re leaning toward El Nino. ’cause bingo, new record hottest year.
↧
↧
Comment on Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan by JCH
One can find climategate right where it belongs: between billygate and coingate.
↧
Comment on Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan by jim2
JCH – right now the ENSO meter on WUWT is leaning towards la Nina. The hot water in the Pacific has made a rather dramatic move South. It sure doesn’t look like an el Nino at any rate. Or do you believe this heat you speak of will sneak up on us while we are sleeping?
↧
Comment on Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan by jim2
Check out this SST animation. (Pretty cool.)
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/gsstanim.gif
↧
Comment on Mann on advocacy and responsibility by Steven Mosher
Gates
“Is this evidence as strong as the paleoclimate data? Should we ignore what we are learning about the Pliocene?
Given what I’ve seen of the paleo data and given what Ive seen of the newer observation work, I would say the new evidence is better than the Paleo. But even here you get the new paleo wrong
“Koehler
et al. (2010) used an estimate of LGM cooling along with its uncertainties together with estimates of LGM
radiative forcing and its uncertainty to derive an overall estimate of climate sensitivity. This method accounts
for the effect of changes in feedbacks for this very different climatic state using published estimates of
changes in feedback factors (see Section 5.3.3.2; Hargreaves et al., 2007; Otto-Bliesner et al., 2009). The
authors find a best estimate of 2.4°C and a 5–95% range of ECS from 1.4°C–5.2°C, with sensitivities beyond
6°C difficult to reconcile with the data. In contrast, Chylek and Lohmann (2008b) estimate the ECS to be
1.3°C–2.3°C based on data for the transition from the LGM to the Holocene. However, the true uncertainties
are likely larger due to uncertainties in relating local proxies to large scale temperature change observed over
a limited time (Ganopolski and von Deimling, 2008; Hargreaves and Annan, 2009). The authors also use an
aerosol radiative forcing estimate that may be high (see response by Chylek and Lohmann, 2008a;
Ganopolski and von Deimling, 2008).
Recently, new data synthesis
products have become available for assessment with climate model simulations of the LGM which together
with further data cover much more of the LGM ocean and land areas, although there are still substantial gaps
and substantial data uncertainty (5.3.3). An analysis of the recent SST and land temperature reconstructions
for the LGM compared to simulations with an EMIC suggests a 90% range of 1.4°C–2.8°C for ECS, with
SST data providing a narrower range and lower values than land data only
#####################################################
Should would discount Sherwood 2014? Give me links to what you feel are the strongest papers justifying me to move my “most likely” ECS from 3C and I’ll consider it. This is after all, exactly what honest skeptism is all about!
Sherwood 2014? they used the worst observational dataset (re analysis ) imaginable. They did not study the sensitivity of their results to slection of observational data and they included models in collection of “best” that have severe problems matching other more well measured observations.
You left your skepticism at the door.
↧
↧
Comment on Mann on advocacy and responsibility by Bart R
Steven Mosher | January 18, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
I did what?
I stopped to give you a chance to catch up.
So I listed a shopping cart of euphemisms for “anti-science”; in measured commentary on how Dr. Curry reframed Dr. Mann’s #AntiScience. You’re making that out to be me creating a straw man argument. Which would require Dr. Curry’s to be to. If you don’t intend to say Dr. Curry’s built a straw man, then say so, and we can proceed from there. If you say Dr. Curry has built a straw man, then say so, or just let it go at that, and we’ll understand what you mean to imply.
Hashtags are specific artefacts of the Twitter community. Construing them to other meanings is a hoary undertaking, open to misunderstanding. Teapot. Tempest.
↧
Comment on Mann on advocacy and responsibility by chuckr
David…Please credit the source…from my home state… for anyone new to the war,,,,Minnesotans for Global Warming.
↧
Comment on Mann on advocacy and responsibility by rpielke
Hi Judy – You wrote
“A comment on my testimony vs Dessler’s. Two very different perspectives. Dessler’s testimony represents the consensus view of science, focusing on what we know. My testimony focuses on the uncertainties and what what we don’t know, and why this is an important consideration for policy makers.”
Actually, your testimony and that of Dressler are in conflict in important areas. It would be useful for you to cross reference each major point in a new weblog post and identify issues of agreement and disagreement between the two of you. Than Mike Mann could, if he chooses, contribute with respect to each issue (as would I and others).
On his attack on you, I have been the recipient of such vitriolic attacks by others both up front and behind my back (as others have told me; with a few documented in e-mails).
The approach I have adopted to respond is to continue to provide my perspective (such as my minority statement on the AGU Climate Change Statement – http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/rpt-851.pdf) when asked and in the peer reviewed literature.
Recently I was asked to serve on another committee (this time for the AMS), and will again provide my input. That I am asked indicates there are others in our profession who share our perspective, but for one reason or another, do not want to be visible.
Please keep up your excellent and very much needed involvement in the climate science discussions!
Roger Sr.
↧
Comment on Mann on advocacy and responsibility by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
RG said
“As discussed at great length, here and virtually everywhere in the climate blogosphere, the so-called “pause” or lack of a continued rise in global tropospheric temperatures since 1998 is not a reason, nor a case for the weakening of the anthropogenic influence on climate. “
Right, interesting how they do not understand how to add free energy components together to infer the capture of energy in the environment.
When we see an increasing trend in temperature with fluctuations resulting in a pause or hiatus, any trained physicist will immediately recognize the possibility of the thermal energy (temperature) trading places with kinetic energy (wind, pressure, etc) or compensating with other natural forcings that happen to make up the deficit in warming.
Showing a belief in uncertainty is not an excuse for not having a handle on the physics.
↧
↧
Comment on Mann on advocacy and responsibility by Brandon Shollenberger
George Turner, don’t ask me. I don’t get the position. You don’t see people saying they were wrong to rely so heavily upon surface temperatures as their standard. You don’t see people criticizing past work which ignored things like OHC. You don’t see people saying Roger Pielke Sr. shouldn’t have been criticized for suggesting OHC was a better measure for global warming. You don’t see them doing anything they ought to do if they’ve had a genuine change of heart.
All you see is them trying to change the subject now that their preferred standard has stopped giving them the results they want. They may be right that we should changing standards, or they may be wrong. But if they won’t take a strong stance about their past position, how much faith should we have about their current one?
If in a decade surface temperatures have risen but OHC has remained constant, what will they do? Will they still say OHC is far more important, or will they hop back to surface temperatures?
↧
Comment on The denizens of Climate Etc. by kiaskx
Someone recently published a book bemoaning the tendency of scientists these days to explain all sorts of natural phenomenon as resulting from global warming when the true cause is something quite different. The case I remember him mentioning concerned the disappearance of tree frogs or something like that. Does anyone know what the title of the book and the name of the author are?
↧
Comment on Mann on advocacy and responsibility by kim
Comanche on the Serengeti Plain.
====================
↧
Comment on Mann on advocacy and responsibility by Jim D
DocMartyn, there might still be a few hold-outs that deny the evidence of this, or is the case too overwhelming with a big consensus?
↧
↧
Comment on Mann on advocacy and responsibility by Brad Keyes
Joshua,
thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, in your effort to be helpful, reasonable, nuanced, thoughtful and philosophical, you’ve managed to ignore my question. In short, you are acting like a typical Humanities graduate, which is not necessarily a bad thing—in fact it’s usually a great thing—and I am one, so I’m allowed to make jokes about them—but I’m going to need to ask you to suppress this instinct if we’re to get anywhere. I dimly recall that you and I once spend a couple of days talking at cross purposes and would like to avoid a recurrence of that. But I don’t know how to do so, other than rephrasing my question in a way that avoids certain Philosophy-exam stimulus words:
Do you think that, in the first 2 sentences of the article, Michael Mann offers consensus as a reason why the reader ought to believe in some idea?
Note that I didn’t ask whether Mann is being fallacious (he isn’t, by the way), or whether someone else was fallacious, or whether two rights make a wrong, or anything like that. I also didn’t use the words “proof” or “dispositive.”
I implore you to read the question again and give your honest reaction to the question, not your thoughts on whatever topics you think the question raises.
I know this is taking a long time but I think it will be worth it if we put in the effort.
Again, what I’m curious about is:
Do you think that, in the first 2 sentences of the article, Michael Mann offers consensus as a reason why the reader ought to believe in some idea?
Thanks again,
Brad
↧
Comment on Mann on advocacy and responsibility by John Carpenter
“Making out as if what Mann said has context outside of Twitter is just plain madness.”
Oh…so twitterland has its own rules. Ok, What’s said in the twitter sphere stays in the twitter sphere… Wink wink. Yeah… Don’t tell Willard.
Bart, that is a lame excuse ….don’t you think? What other context can we ascribe to the tweet when it was in direct reference to Judy’s recent testimony vs Dessler
A tweet for a tweet
Yes, I can see how JC tweeting back a similar #onewordinsult would be considered elevating the discourse.
↧
Comment on Mann on advocacy and responsibility by RichardLH
Null Hypothesis = Scenario C
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
