another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

I think there is a couple of good points. What is the age of the graphs, and data provided? Have the models been updated since they were published?

If these scientests are correct, and smart, they should have invested in solar, and wind farm companies, and they should have big retirement sums by now.

I know my investments in oil companies are paying well, sorry about your investments in solar firms.

 

[rconnor]

Climate bets – I believe there’s a $10,000 bet between a climate scientist and a skeptic but, as I’ve said, I don’t understand why you’d care. The “confidence” is demonstrated by publishing a paper with your name attached to it. Do you place bets that your designs won’t blow up? No, you put your seal on it – that’s your confidence.

Removing natural events – well the difference would be one would have a scientific basis and one would not. Of course, you need to understand the scientific basis to be able to spot the difference…

Consistency in figures – read the description of what each line represents. You’re confusing what’s an observed temperature trend and what’s a calculated trend with ENSO removed. You should also note that AR5 Fig 1.4 has a much larger scale than RF2011 or KX2013.
Fig 1 (using your references) (FR2011)

the results of Foster and Rahmstorf 2011. The red line is the calculated trend with ENSO and volcano effects removed. The pink is the observed trend and the green is the IPCC model runs

Fig 2 (KX2013)

the results from Kosaka and Xie 2013. Black – observed temperature trends, red – modeled temperature trends, purple – modeled temperature trends with ENSO effects removed

Fig 3 (AR5)
AR5 Fig 1.4 (from graph): green (HadCRUT)/blue (GISS)/yellow (NOAA) lines – observed temperature trends with a smooth function (3-year smooth I believe). Faint, squiggly lines – model runs. Red dot (2010) and green dot (2012) - observed temperature + the adjustment from removing the effects of ENSO as per Kosaka and Xie.

Fig 1 Red, Fig 2 Purple and Fig 3 Red/Green dot are the calculated temperature trends with ENSO removed. They all show continued warming throughout the “pause”.

Fig 1 pink, Fig 2 black, Fig 3 green/blue/yellow are the observed temperature trends. They all show steady temperatures throughout the “pause”.

No inconsistencies when you compare the trends properly.

Observed temperature trends look like a staircase, with steady periods during La Nina dominated periods and sharp increases during El Nino dominated periods. However, when you look at the trend with a smoothing function of 30 years (where the temperature is averaged over both El Nino and La Nina dominated periods), the trend shows a very steady increase. Such as:
[image

http://agwobserver.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/30yrtemp.jpg

]
When you remove the short term noise of ENSO (such as Fig 1 Red and Fig 2 purple), the temperature trend increases steadily even throughout the pause and it very closely matching the 30-year smooth observed trend. This is not a surprise if you understand how ENSO events work.

Anomaly – difference between the base line for that data point/station and the actual temperature for that data point/station. For example, station #12345 reads a monthly average temperature of -12 deg C for February 2014. Using a 1961-1990 “Baseline” (as per the AR5 image), the reference point would be the average February temperature at station #12345 from 1961-1990, let’s say that’s -14 deg C. Therefore, the “anomaly” would be +2 deg C for that station, for that month.

Changing the baseline doesn’t change the trend, it merely changes how the y-axis is shifted (all points shift the same amount of course). This is important to understand when reviewing temperature “anomalies”. The actual value for the anomaly of any one point is meaningless without knowing what the baseline is. However, as the trend is more important than any one point, the baseline is usually up to the author. The most common baseline I’ve seen is 1961-1990.

 

[GregLocock]

However one of the claims that the models must be good is the way that they visually track the historical record, in the hindcast (calibration) period. Yet, if the models do not account for ENSO type cycles, with cycle lengths of 10-30 years or so, the fidelity should not be that good an an annual basis. Therefore I suspect that the models have been optimised as a best fit on an annual basis, to make them look good, and as every engineer knows, tracking the noise in a process leads to worse outcomes. Therefore in an effort to increase their apparent fidelity they have actually made them less accurate.

Anyway, we appear to agree, the enormous effect of slight changes in temperature in the oceans has a far bigger effect on the energy balance than a few atoms banging about on the edge of space, so until the models can accurately model the future temperature of the oceans then they are just idle fantasies. They are modelling a symptom, not the process.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[beej67]

You wouldn't be suggesting that the most important hockey stick is the population one?

Yep.

Humans do many things to change our environment. Burning coal is just one of many. The only reason the climate guys focus on CO2 and only CO2 while intentionally doing their best to disregard the rest, is that certain people are positioned to make a huge amount of money off of the intentionally confusing and arbitrary "Carbon Trading" market. The same people who were responsible for the last market crash, by the way.

It would be just as foolish to say that humans have no impact on the environment as it would be to say that the only impact is from CO2, or even that the primary impact is from CO2. The reason the models predict well is because they've been calibrated against historic data to predict well. That calibration is against a correlation, and causality has never been proven from that correlation.

CO2 concentration tracks upward just as urbanization tracks upward, and just as agriculture tracks upward. All of these things effect microclimates, and the macroclimate is just a composition of microclimates. But the IPCC year after year puts out highly spurious studies intended to disregard the effect of microclimates on the macroclimate, because they don't want people to realize there's more than one boogy man in the room. It is "science" that's intentionally backing in to a particular solution.

And that's not science at all.

Hey, look, I found the Warming:

My greatest fear is that when this all comes to light, and it will, that the near religious fervor of the CO2 Blamers is going to tarnish the environmental movement as a whole, and do far more damage than merely getting climate science wrong. We're in the middle of the Sixth Great Extinction right now, as we systematically destroy the planet, and it's got nothing, nada, zero to do with carbon. It has to do primarily with habitat loss and the real pollutants, which are heavy metals and exotic chemicals used in industry.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[beej67]

I'll redact one thing in my post above. CO2 does have one serious environmental impact right now, in the acidification of the oceans as all the coral reefs dissolve. And that is indeed a real problem. But you're not going to fix that with "carbon trading," "carbon taxing" or anything else unless China decides they're going to play along. And they're not.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

"as all the coral reefs dissolve" ... i think that many reefs are growing (probably just as many as are shrinking).

i think it's a problem with CC, that there are no absolute statements, and so the true situation is too complicated and fuzzy for most of the general public (and politicans).

to the replies about betting ... "Do you place bets that your designs won’t blow up?" ... why, yes, i do; it's called insurance and i'm maore concerned about things falling down. i believe that's a good indicator of your assessment of risk and consequence. How much auto insurance coverage to you have $10m (very high premium)? $1m (more typical)? none (just the legal minimum; if i cause an accident, i'm responsible to pay for it)? personally i opt for the typical coverage because it's a premium i'm prepared to spend for an event that is IMO pretty unlikely.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

rconnor, I am actually employed because things blowup. I actually am in the business of reducing damage from blowups. So I do bet on things going wrong (the great pessimest).

My concerns are that you may be wrong about CC, and I am stuck with taxes, and projects that don't fix anything.

Yea I get that we need to clean things up. But what solutions will work weather you are wrong, or right. I support those.

The solutions that only work if you are right, are as much a risk, as you believe are doing nothing. Because I think there is a chance you are wrong.

If you aren't willing to risk your money on your position, then I don't feel I should put my tax money on it.

 

[beej67]

"as all the coral reefs dissolve" ... i think that many reefs are growing (probably just as many as are shrinking).

No, read up on it. It's a big deal, and it's basic chemistry. Just like dissolving your tooth in a glass of Pepsi as a kid, because soda is carbonic acid. So changes in atmospheric carbon concentration lead to changes in oceanic pH, and then the reefs dissolve to counter the pH change. The reefs themselves are a natural buffering system. What's even worse, is the effects oceanic acidification are having on diatom shells and other microscopic ocean organisims that are crucial links in the food chain.

Of course the idiots in the media are claiming that the reefs are in decline because of Climate Change. Nitwits. It's like everyone in the world has completely forgotten the difference between correlation and causality, including apparently most of the scientists bogged so deep in computer models they can't look around and see what's going on.

So I do think carbon is a big problem, but not for the reasons the IPCC says, and nothing in the Kyoto Treaty is going to remotely fix it while China's over there doing this:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...n-air-cities-will-doom-climate-scientists-say

There are no solutions to managing the widespread changes the human race are causing to the Earth. The only thing we can do is preserve what we've got as best as we can while preparing for what the world's going to look like in a hundred years. Sucks, but that's life. And Carbon Credits do neither.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

go to NIPCC, search for "reef" and there're plenty of papers of current research into what's happening on the reefs.

i understand the acidification argument, and the nice simple analogies, but the research shows that reefs are responding in unexpected ways ... possibly increased dissolved CO2 > increased marine plant growth > increased marine animal populations > reef building (in places).

and yes, i know this site has an agenda (as every site does), and this one in anti-CO2. so i suspect they're selecting papers to emphasise their side of the argument (that reefs are growing) as a counter to the other sites selecting papers saying reefing are being destroyed. thus my assessment that as many reefs are growing as are declining.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[GregLocock]

Interesting summary from a scientist

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/22514hearingwitnesstestimonymoore.pdf

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JJPellin]

Moore has a PhD in ecology. He is a paid denier with no training, experience or expertise in climate science.

Johnny Pellin

 

[hokie66]

Johnny,
What type scientist do you have to be to have an opinion on climate science? Does it have to be a 'climatologist'? If so, I submit that there are a lot of the 'experts' who don't have a formal qualification in that field. Seems to me that competence in physics, geology, and some branches of engineering are just as relevant as some of the mathemeticians and computational experts who attempt to prove by models. These models show association, but not proof. Much like many of the medical statistical research efforts which show various associations, but not proof of cause and effect.

 

[GregLocock]

J pellin

O well in that case we might as well just drink the Kool Aid, as none of us are qualified climatologists. Instead of attacking the man, why not fault his arguments?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[cranky108]

Speaking of Kool Aid, has anyone seen this:

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...puter-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academia

 

[JJPellin]

The article by Moore is a case study in logical fallacies. He is not expressing an opinion. He is attempting to provide a scientific basis for global warming denial. He uses more straw-men than I have ever seen in a single document. I could spend a week going through the article point by point to show that almost every point he makes is invalid and a gross misrepresentation of the scientific data. But, I do not have a week to spare for such a futile effort. Moore and other paid deniers know this. It takes a few seconds to tell a lie and a few hours to disprove it.

I will give one example to demonstrate Moore’s straw-men. Moore claims that climate scientists are using global warming and climate change as if they are the same thing. Then he sets out to show how they are very different things. No climate scientist has ever claimed that global warming and climate change are the same thing. They claim that climate change is a consequence of global warming.

Rconnor has already done a fine job of providing the hard, peer-reviewed scientific data to disprove the major points Moore makes.


Johnny Pellin

 

[cranky108]

Solution 49: Tax climate studies and use the proceeds to buy everyone a new car.

 

[rb1957]

i read the article as saying in the media the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are used inter-changeably.

from waht i've read he records references for his data (eg public survays, survey of weather presenters, ...); i haven't seen "gross misrepresentation of the scientific data" or "more straw-men than I have ever seen in a single document" though certainly he is "expressing an opinion".

maybe we read two different articles ?

but then i guess i'm an unpaid denier, and should be ignored ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[hokie66]

Many of us believe (and we are all dealing with beliefs, not proofs) that AGW is itself a "case study in logical fallacies".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Moore has as much right to his opinion as any other scientist. I don't think there are many disbelievers that the climate is changing.

 

[GregLocock]

The fundamental issue is that nobody has come up with a falsifiable theory as to why CO2's effect on global temperature should be a high multiple of what is measurable in a laboratory. Until a testable theory is tested, it is just one giant pre-scientific brainstorm. Now, it does seem quite reasonable that heat storage in the oceans is responsible for some of the effects seen in the record, but again, you don't know until you have tested it. Given the huge lack of data it seems likely to me that ocean effects will remain a boundary condition on the atmosphere rather than an explorable theory.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rb1957]

"why CO2's effect on global temperature should be a high multiple of what is measurable in a laboratory" ... I thought that it was because increased CO2 induces increases in H2O; but then I'm sure if also read the opposite, and increased H2O causes increased clouds that decrease/increase the GH effect.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati