text:
← Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?
Consensus angst →
Posted on June 29, 2014 by curryja | 342 Comments
It's your turn to introduce topics for discussion.
Here are a few things I've spotted on twitter this past week:
Jay Ambrose: Climate -change scientist using court to silence skeptic
Peter Gluckman's My address on the science-policy-politics nexus at the Siftung Mercator Conference on Science & Policy in Berlin [link].
Brigitte Nehrlich on the dangers of overselling research [link]
Brigitte Knopf and Oliver Geden on emissions targets [link]
Pew: Only 40% of Americans think there is global warming and its caused by humans [link]
What really annoys climate scientists about the state of the climate change debate? [link]
The broken science funding system [link]
How to win an argument [link]
Jeffrey Sachs on climate policy [link]
BBC debate between Brian Hoskins and Lord Lawson [link]
This entry was posted in Open thread. Bookmark the permalink.
342 responses to "Open thread"
Wagathon | June 29, 2014 at 9:31 am |
Now that all those Chinese are the biggest polluters of all – even more than Americans — and because there are so many of them, we'll soon be coming around full circle to Paul Ehrlich's original contribution to science which was nothing to do with fear of global warming, per se. Ehrlich like Nadolf Nitler and the Germans simply believed there were too many people in the world… and, nowadays, Al Gore and the Left believes they're causing the globe to ignite.
Peter Lang | June 29, 2014 at 9:38 am |
Expected Value of Carbon Pricing Policy
Sir Nicholas Stern, William Nordhaus [1], Richard Tol [2], Ross Garnaut and many other economic analysts have argued for carbon pricing and justified it on the basis of projected net-benefit. The analyses estimate the cumulative Abatement Costs and Climate Damages Avoided over projection periods of hundreds of years –300 to 500 years in the future – and use what are arguably unrealistically low discount rates. 'The ultimate cost of Australian "carbon" policies' [3] explained the costs per person from Treasury's projections of the economic cost of the carbon tax and ETS. Treasury's estimates are based on highly optimistic assumptions about what carbon mitigation policies the rest of the world will implement. There's more detail on the real cost of the carbon tax and ETS in Submission 2 Mr Peter Lang [4], to the Senate inquiry into repeal of the carbon tax legislation.
However, all the economic analyses and projections have a critical omission. They do not deal with the probability of success of the chosen carbon pricing policy, where 'success' means the projected benefits (in terms of climate damages avoided) are delivered in full and on the projected timeline. If we estimate the 'Expected Value' of carbon pricing for a country as the Net Present Value (NPV) of the policy if it succeeds (in delivering the projected benefits), multiplied by the probability the projected benefits will be delivered, I expect an objective analysis would estimate that the Expected Value of the policy is negligible. And the opportunity cost huge.
If we estimated it objectively, I expect we'd find the probability of success of a global carbon pricing scheme of any type is low. There is general agreement that carbon pricing must be global and have high penetration for it to have a chance of succeeding. And it must remain operating and effective for a century or more. But what is the probability the world will agree to a coordinated carbon pricing scheme given that each country knows that domestic and international politics and disputes mean the policies will be frequently changed and probably abandoned? Each country recognises it is likely to be disadvantaged each time the policies change. They recognise it is likely countries will pull out, as several did from the Kyoto Protocol, and this will mean the costs for the participants would rise (to achieve the defined benefits). Disputes will be inevitable and likely to be frequent and ongoing. Each country knows that raising its cost of energy compared with others reduces its international competitiveness which retards its development and its ability to provide improving standard of living and improving human well-being.
Any carbon pricing scheme will inevitably be subjected to frequent tampering for political purposes, as has been the case to date. Examples:
• EU ETS – ongoing political disputes and frequent changes to the rules
• Ireland's carbon tax – Ireland's PM admitted the reason he increased it was to pay off the country's GFC induced debts
• Chicago Carbon Exchange – collapsed
• Australian ETS – strong public support and electoral mandate for repeal
• NSW GGAS – superseded after a few years
• US EPA regulations – never ending changes to EPA emissions regulations
• Australia's RET – although not a carbon pricing scheme it is a carbon abatement scheme and therefore is another example demonstrating how the politicisation of climate and carbon abatement policies causes such schemes to be continually changed.
This saying is applicable: "If we always do what we always did, we'll always get what we always got!"
We've been debating and negotiating carbon pricing schemes for a quarter of a century. There is negligible tangible progress. It seems apparent they are unlikely to succeed. It's time to accept the realities and move on to alternatives that do have a high probability of success.
Every way we look at it, there seems low probability of carbon pricing succeeding. But there is an alternative approach with a high probability of success. In fact, history demonstrates it is almost inevitable it would succeed. The issue is the timing. We could speed it up if we changed our focus away from the economically irrational policies that have been advocated to date.
After a quarter century of failed approach, surely it is time to change the approach.
[1] http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/
[2] https://sites.google.com/site/climateconomics/
[3] http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/in-the-next-37-years-labor-will-spend-60000-per-australian-to-change-the-weather/
[4] http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Clean_Energy_Legislation/Submissions
Fernando Leanme | June 29, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
Peter Lang if I may, two comments: 1. Have you considered the utility of using two discount rates? I have given this a lot of thought for about 23 years and I concluded very long term projections do require two discounts. Maybe I need to get my glasses back on and write a paper about it? Or has somebody already advocated it?
2. As I've mentioned, I've been working in the oil industry for many many years, and I'm afraid we are running out of oil, therefore a carbon tax which alters behavior towards other forms of energy is probably going to yield positive results.
If you want to debate the subject in email form feel free to look me up, I'm not that difficult to find.
Peter Lang | June 29, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
Fernando Leanme
Thank you for your comment. Regarding discount rates, it is a highly contentious subject. I am not an authority on it Faustino, a regular commenter and sometimes poster on Climate Etc., mentioned some time ago he might write a post for Climate Etc. on discount rates, but never got around to it. I hope he will reply to your comment here.
There has been a lot of debate about discount rates for justifying carbon pricing and other climate mitigation policies. A few that may be of interest are:
Professor William Nordhaus, 2008, 'A Question of balance' http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf See, for example the section starting p10 and the Chapter on 'The Stern Review', p165. Also search the document for 'discount' (191 hits) or discount rate (94 hits).
Professor Ross Garnaut used two discount rates. He did the analyses to support carbon pricing in Australia.
The two paper linked below are interesting, IMO. They show how discount rates are estimated, in this case for use in policy analysis for infrastructure investments and for estimating fair rates of return for natural monopolies like the electricity transmission and distribution grid. I tend to lean towards these being the applicable discount rates to use. I am not persuaded by the low and declining discount rates used by climate activists to justify policies which seem to have a political agenda, at least in part.
John Handley, 2011, An Estimate of the Historical Equity Risk Premium for the Period 1883 to 2010 Report prepared for the Australian Energy Regulator
http://www.aer.gov.au/sites/default/files/Professor%20Handley%20-%20Historical%20Equity%20Risk%20Premium_0.pdf
Brailsford, Handley and Maheswaran, 2012, 'THE HISTORICAL EQUITY RISK PREMIUM IN AUSTRALIA: POST-GFC AND 128 YEARS OF DATA http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1594&context=business_pubs
I'm afraid we are running out of oil, therefore a carbon tax which alters behavior towards other forms of energy is probably going to yield positive results.
I believe policy should be designed to address the issue. Therefore, if shortage of easy-oil is the issue, the policy needs to be designed to address that. The policy may be to leave it to the markets to sort out. I believe free markets and the multi-national corporations will handle the issues far better than NGO's, bureaucrats, politicians and special interest groups.
I'd prefer to continue the discussion in the comments here so other contributors who know more about discount rates and economic analyses than I do will contribute.
Fernando Leanme | June 30, 2014 at 9:14 am |
Peter, I worked inside a very large multinational and then consulted for others, and their behavior is quite unrelated to matters of national security for individual nations. The use of a carbon tax to discourage the use of fossil fuels such as oil is more of a strategic move to help a nation cushion itself from price spikes which may turn out to be permanent due to the increasing depletion of the world's oil fields. This isn't an issue NGO types worry about. And I have a hunch there are many governments which use the global warming excuse to shift towards an "energy fortress condition"
Peter, I worked inside a very large multinational and then consulted for others, and their behavior is quite unrelated to matters of national security for individual nations.
My point is that free markets respond to the needs of the market. When they identify a problem ahead they move to invest in alternatives so they are best placed to meet the future markets. They have a long term vision, mission and strategiers. They manage their risks to optimise investor value for the long term. Multi-nationals seek out the least expensive inputs. They spread the work and hence the wealth around the world to the most competitive country at the time. Multi-national corporations have been in business a very long time. They wouldn't survive if they couldn't manage their risks well. The main point is that freeish (lightly regulated) markets and free trade have proven, over virtually the period humans have been communicating, that they are best able to deliver to meet the needs.
Carbon pricing is certainly NOT the way to deal with shortagers of easy-oil.
However, all this ignores the point of my comment – i.e. that the probability of a global carbon pricing system being implemented and sustained for as long as needed is low. Therefore we are damaging our economies for no gain. I refer you again to this in case you missed it:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Clean_Energy_Legislation/Submissions:
A fan of *MORE* discourse | June 29, 2014 at 9:51 am |
(mainly for students and young researchers)
• Post-Crash/Post-Autistic Economics Gathers Strength
Gosh … Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein are *BOTH* just plain wrong? No! This can't be TRUE!! This is IMPOSSIBLE!!!
• Germany's Glut of Electricity Causing Prices To Plummet
Gosh, this along with Germany's massive trade surplus, cradle-to-grave healthcare, extraordinary life-expectancy, and free education at all grade-levels?
No! This can't be true EITHER!! This is impossible TOO!!!
• If You're Gonna Be Dumb, You Gotta Be Tough.
Steve Goddard's new favorite video.
Canman | June 29, 2014 at 10:48 am |
You seem confused about what is happening in Germany. WUWT can clear things up for you:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=germany
The german people are starting to openly mock so called green policies:
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 29, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
About the German video. Did you notice that they were complaining about burning more and more lignite coal ?
Did you know that burning lignite coal is barely a step above burning peat moss for heat?
Do you not realize that the world is rapidly depleting it's reserves of high-grade fossil fuels and is now resorting to bottom-of-the-barrel alternatives such as lignite coal?
And do you not realize that this has little to do with the greens nor does it have a lot to do with climate change. This in fact is a result of the laws of nonrenewable resources — something that you would learn if you took classes in Earth Sciences at a university such as Georgia Tech.
Canman | June 29, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
It looked to me like they were mocking the high prices they were paying for energy. It's hard to take proponents of renewables seriously when they're applauding the closing of nuclear plants and they have no economically viable answer to the duck curve.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 29, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
High prices for energy are ultimately related to scarcity of high-grade fossil fuels, which are relentlessly depleting as the resources are extracted. Did you miss that part in your supply&demand education?
Canman | June 30, 2014 at 8:56 am |
Natural gas, the highest grade of all fossil fuels in terms of GHG's, is getting cheaper. Germany's high energy prices are caused by renewables.
kim | June 30, 2014 at 9:13 am |
I think Web barfed up a fuel rod after breakfast.
A fan of *MORE* discourse | June 29, 2014 at 11:02 am |
FOMD posted
• Post-Crash Economics Clashes with 'Econ Tribe'
Link now is paywall-free.
Question Does 21st century diversity-in-science naturally synergize with 21st century diversity-in-economics?
21st century students are proclaiming "YES" … obviously.
Climate Etc's "Denial Tribe" … not so much.
Wagathon | June 29, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
"…Economics education should begin with the study of economic problems, where economic phenomena are outlined and the student is given a toolkit and must evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of how different theories explain different phenomena."
–e.g., the record of socialism is one of misery, poverty and death. Socialism has been tried and failed enough times that it has a record and we know what to expect. "Socialist governments", as Margaret Thatcher warned, "traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
We now have a government grown too large that plans to tell what you can't have before you want it. Government will do all of the prioritizing, after running out of other peoples money and ink to run the printing presses and when the market runs out for more zero-interest bonds, the house of cards comes down.
rls | June 29, 2014 at 9:07 pm |
Fan: Starts out good. Who could dispute it? The need to look at all economic theories. However, after a few paragraphs the group reveals itself when it trashes the theories and organizations it doesn't agree with.
GaryM | June 29, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
Fan doesn't even read the articles he links to. Which can be funny as hell.
The German electricity "glut?" The blog/comment fan links to cites this as evidence:
"Germany's New Coal Plants Push Power Glut to 4-Year High"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-26/germany-s-new-coal-plants-push-power-glut-to-4-year-high.html
Fan is such a funny guy.
The lawyer doesn't even read the article he links to. That is lignite coal, which is a step above peat moss. It figures that Germany is reduced to burning lignite, all due to the first law of earth sciences — non-renewable natural resources are non-renewable.
huxley | June 30, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
Missing from the story about plummeting prices for German electricity is the context that Germans pay some of the highest prices for electricity in the world.
These high prices have consequences for the German economy:
According to Germany's Chamber of Commerce and Industry, half of the country's industrial companies believe their global competitiveness is threatened by Germany's energy policy, and a quarter of them are either shifting production abroad or considering doing so. The United States is among the top destinations.
Nickels | June 29, 2014 at 9:53 am |
Wow. I find this suit very disturbing, thx for pointing it out.
Nickels (and Judith Curry) spotlight editorials that praise "Mark Steyn, an unbelievably talented and thoughtful writer"
Q Since when does "unbelievable talent" properly describe groundless accusations of fraud and egregious analogies of scientific research to child-abuse?
The world wonders … and young science-students especially wonder.
Those accusations of fraud are not groundless. Mann hid his data and methods which included an invalid modification to PCA that mined hockey sticks. The analogy was not of scientific research to child abuse, but of an investigation of scientific research to a whitewash investigation of child abuse.
Nickels | June 30, 2014 at 12:26 am |
Time will tell if the accusations were 'cooked'. They will need strong evidence of flagrant disregard. The child abuse thing was ruled protected. Of course that is ugly and only brings negative results.
I just cant see this as anything but another attack on anyone who disagrees with the hotties especially since it seems to fit the MO.
Inquisition move.
"When I talk about the 'global warming denial machine' I'm not talking about science debates and intellectual skepticism, I'm talking about the politically and ideologically motivated attacks over the years, dating back at lest to the early 1990s, much of it funded by corporate interests, seeking"
Quote in a libel suite article by someone representing Climate science Watch.
1) the existence of this org is very scary. You couldnt find this stuff in a movie.
2) i thought I was just motivated by seeing a bunch of physics folks saying absurd things about the accuracy and predictive ability of a math code. But since I now see i am supported by a corporation, can anyone tell me where I can get my check?
Michael | June 29, 2014 at 10:41 am |
Yes it was – a disturbingly disturbed rant.
No one is being silenced. M0r0ns like Steyn can lie, smear, misrepresent and vilify all they want – this is just a reminder that there may be consequences.
If you're confident of your facts, and don't knowingly spread falsehoods, there's nothing much to worry about.
jim2 | June 29, 2014 at 10:45 am |
The falsehood part of the trial, it's called discovery, hasn't happened yet.
pokerguy | June 29, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
".If you're confident of your facts, and don't knowingly spread falsehoods, there's nothing much to worry about.:
Right Michael. Defending yourself in a lawsuit… as anyone with an IQ over 65 surely knows… is an inexpensive, altogether delightful experience.
Nickels | June 29, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
"But we can no longer continue the unworthy, fake debate about whether the problem exists"
Sounds to me like were free to debate ad long as we dont disagree with the hotheads.
Michael | June 29, 2014 at 11:59 pm |
poker,
Steyn apears to be doing OK, getting people even stupidier than he is to give him their money.
Not forgetting that the process isn't free for the litigant either.
Suing somone on a blog is PR suicide.
No one approves of vicious lies tho….
But the plaintiffs comments on the case that I mention above seem to belie a more sweeping motive….
harkin | June 30, 2014 at 8:29 am |
"morons like Steyn" who pointed out that Mann falsely (I better not say fraudulently) declared himself a Nobel Laureate in his court filings and also declared himself exonerated by investigations where he was never mentioned.
Too funny
There is a growing disconnect between proposed(some enacted) policy action dependent upon AnthroCO2 caused warming and the climate science facts on the ground. Whether this disconnect widens or narrows depends more on narrative in the short term, and temperature in the long term.
Peter Davies | July 1, 2014 at 5:49 am |
This is vintage Kim! Good to see that she and Beth are still around.
Zakaria is featuring the "Risky Business" report, discussed here earlier.
Zakaria on CNN has Henry Paulson on the show.
kim | June 29, 2014 at 10:07 am |
It's alarming how predictable his journalism will be, as opposed to climate.
Also, Robert Rubin. No skeptic on this panel.
Jim D | July 1, 2014 at 1:12 am |
Paulson has given the righties a reason to act sooner rather than later on climate change. Basically the later you leave it, the more government you need for it. You can tell he is not running for any Republican office, because he seems to be a rare Republican case of a free thinker on this subject.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/hank-paulson-climate-change_n_5545810.html
rls | June 29, 2014 at 10:06 am |
Regarding Datagate, seems that the algorithms (Al Gore ithims?) being used need an impartial review. But where can impartiality be found?
For years I've told completely intransigent alarmists to 'Watch the thermometers'.
Eventually they will run out of definitions for "warming". They're out on a limb and sawing in the wrong direction.
Al gor ithims are never subject to impartial reviews!
Jim D | June 29, 2014 at 10:12 am |
Lawson relies on the pause and says the ocean temperature rise is just speculation. The moderator puts some good questions to him that he just sidesteps, like the trained politician he is. He is also an expert in the art of using the straw man argument.
sunshinehours1 | June 29, 2014 at 10:27 am |
Ocean temperature rise is speculation. There is no old data from the 30s.
The rate of increase in the very sparse data has slowed.
Check out Rosenthal for ocean heat content through the Holocene. It tanks it up, it spurts it out, 'til it cain't no mo. UR Wilkommen.
phatboy | June 29, 2014 at 10:34 am |
Good questions, like asking him to either speculate, or to confirm someone else's (Hoskins') speculations?
I don't call those good questions.
He didn't even want to answer about the possibility that much more warming could happen if nothing was done. It wasn't denial as such, more a side-step of that whole issue, which is clearly a slippery slope for him to get onto, and he must have realized that. You won't see this question answered by his type.
That wasn't the question asked
Jim D | June 29, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
This was the question asked of Lawson
"Can I just put this to you? If there is a chance – and some people would say there is a strong chance that man-made global warming exists and is having an impact on us; doesn't it make sense whether or not you believe that's a 95% chance or a 50% chance or whatever, does it not make sense to take care to try to avoid the kind of emissions that may be contributing to it? What could be wrong with that?"
Lawson, just side-stepped into the pause meme. You can read the transcript at the link.
phatboy | June 29, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
As for emissions, this country is responsible for less than 2% of global emissions. Even if we cut our emissions to 0 – which would put us back to the pre-industrial revolution and the poverty that that gave – even if we did that, it would be outweighed by China's increase in emissions in a single year. So it is absolutely crazy this policy. It cannot make sense at all.
I would not call that side-stepping.
phatboy, he didn't say what his policy would be if warming was a reality. That was the question. He just said what it wasn't, or that we're screwed anyway so why even try?
I suppose we could always ask everyone to jump off a cliff.
What would your workable 'solution' be?
In any case, the question was not about what his policy should or would be, but rather:
…does it not make sense to take care to try to avoid the kind of emissions that may be contributing to it?
Lawson simply pointed out the inherent futility.
Hit 'Post' prematurely…
What could be wrong with that?
I reckon Lawson answered that perfectly.
kim | June 29, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
It's not cutting off noses to spite faces, more like crippling ourselves from fear of mild blessings exaggerated into horrifying demonic forces. Man is simply not likely to be able to raise the temperature or the CO2 level high enough to be net detrimental.
H/t Max Anacker.
No, given Lawson's stated concerns about China, he could be encouraging international agreements to curb emissions. Obviously he doesn't because he has given the chance of the science being right a very small probability, and he won't be around in a few decades to say 'my bad'.
You didn't read it properly, and got called on it – get over it.
phatboy, Lawson used the traditional straw man. Zero emissions too quickly does damage. His fear is one of immediately going back to the Victorian pre-industrial society, rather than supporting a gradual phase-out to more modern post-carbon clean energy society. In fact most countries are already on that gradual path whether he likes it or not, so he has been marginalized as far as the real decision-making goes in the UK, and it is not clear why the BBC even bothers with him.
Jim D, which part of, "Even if we cut our emissions to 0 … it would be outweighed by China's increase in emissions in a single year", did you not get?
thisisnotgoodtogo | June 29, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
Jim D, sidestepping once again.
That should argue for an international agreement, yes? He basically has said surrender to China on international emissions and their consequent global change that feeds back to the UK. This kind of passivity is surely not the way Britain does things.
I suppose he could always find a cure for cancer? Or invent cold fusion? Or find a way to achieve world peace? I mean, why stop at convincing China to reduce emissions?
Why should he do it anyway? Why don't you do it, seeing it was your idea?
He's clearly very concerned by China. That is a start and should be a guiding principle. How far he takes it, we will see.
Don Monfort | June 29, 2014 at 7:45 pm |
This thread is a very good example of jimmy's little game of deliberate obtuseness. You are wasting your time here, jimmy. The BBC could use you.
phatboy | June 30, 2014 at 1:27 am |
No Don, Jimmy is just being human – we're good at finding fault with those whom we don't like.
It's just that some of us recognise that fact better than some others.
Specifically the rise of the ocean heat content during the so-called "pause" is well documented, and was the context of this question.
climatereason | June 29, 2014 at 11:26 am |
As regards Ocean Heat content it is nowhere near as clear cut as you state.
here is a reply I gave to RGates a few weeks back following my attendance at a climate conference at Exeter which featured a number of IPCC authors/editors and the Met office. Please follow the link
The panel for the evening Q and A consisted of Prof Chris Field, Prof Peter Cox, Prof Andy Challinor, Dr Richard Jones, Prof Christine Williams and Prof Thomas Stocker
I was allowed to ask my question on natural variability but got a poor answer (see attached link to RGates)
https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/16/reflections-on-bengtsson-and-the-gwpf/#comment-558243
Prof Stocker gave an interesting reply concerning ocean heat content (also in this comment link)
Obviously the uncertainties on measurement of ocean heat are very much greater than is normally publicly stated. You may remember that I commented to you that when I was reviewing the draft of AR5 that I complained that the IPCC refused 3 times to give me a reference to back up their stated assertion that the abyssal depths were well known to be warming. Apart from Purkiss (a very limited study) there appears to be no research at all to back up this claim and this seems to have been admitted to by Prof Stocker.
steven | June 29, 2014 at 11:54 am |
Jim, don't you think that prior to ARGO and once ARGO was fully implemented should be split much as BEST did to surface station readings? If not for the calibration period to ARGO there isn't much increase in OHC. Maybe not even a significant amount.
Jim D | June 29, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
It was his wording. He dismissed actual large amounts of data on the OHC rise as "speculation" mostly because it was inconvenient, and he has to minimize it for his purposes rather than take the data presented at face value and its possible consequences seriously.
climatereason | June 29, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
I am not sure what you mean when you say it was 'his' wording? It was Stockers words not mine. The uncertainties in the ocean temperatures is huge. The 'global' SST record prior to around 1960 is really not worth having. The abyssal record is simply not known. The depth to 2000metres covered by Argo are very new and patchy.
We simply haven't been measuring for long enough to have much idea of what is going on in the oceans. It is likely to have been warming in places but to what depth and how widespread and how long for and who caused it?
The suggestion made by Steven sounds sensible.
climatereason, data is not "speculation" which is what Lawson described ocean warming as. That is what I meant by his (Lawson's) wording in that BBC interview.
TonyB,
It must be embarrassing for you to ask those questions when you don't understand the physics of thermal diffusion.
climatereason | June 29, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
It is speculation. Which is why I posted the comments from Thomas Stocker of the IPCC.
what question do you think I asked?
tonyb, the abyssal depths are not where most of the warming is occurring. This is just an academic side issue for Stocker.
The one that JimD just answered for you.
You are way out of your league.
Do stop trying to be so smart and pay attention. I said
'The abyssal record is simply not known..' That surely tells you that I did not say that is where the warming is occurring.
It is the IPCC who have previously said there is warming there. You really need to take this up with Purkiss Thomas Stocker and Rgates.
The uncertainties of the ocean heat content are many and varied. You appear to know as little about it as anyone else. Perhaps after Argo has been operating for another five years we may know but even that wont tell us what has happened in the past pre Argo will it?
You appear to know as little about it as anyone else.
I know the physics of thermal diffusion. You apparently do not.
Tonyb | June 29, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
As I say read what I say, not what you think I say. Then take it up with stocker, Purkiss and gates.
jim2 | June 29, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
Plot that heat content as temperature and you shall be tranquil, as I am.
"The abyssal record is simply not known.."
If I took a big heat sink and attached it to a hot component, I may not know the exact temperature of the core of the heat sink, but I could infer it from known physics. It's just not that hard to understand, if you know what you are talking about.
Climate change deniers do not know what they are talking about is a good general rule:
http://thebulletin.org/did-climate-deniers-just-admit-they-don%E2%80%99t-know-what-they%E2%80%99re-talking-about7261
Raving | June 29, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
From climatereason's link to this blog … Subsequent private conversations with the met office intriguingly demonstrated that natural variability is not discounted as being the major signal but I would hazard a bet this would never be repeated in public.
Average ocean depth is 4,000+ meters. 2/3 ? of the heat uptake from the last 50 years is within the top 700 meters.
The OGCM models stand little chance of pulling a signal out of the large noise floor. Most importantly, insisting that the data and science are good, ensures a disaster for credibility regarding science and tecnology
It is preverse to argue that climate changes over the past 100 aren't predominantly due to natural variation. That's what makes the hockey stick claim preposterous and misleading
Here is professor Thomas stockers cv and brief publication list
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/
If you would like to post yours we can decide which of the two of you is more likely to know whether or not we have the technology to determine the abyssal heat content, or the heat content in much of the ocean.
Alistair Riddoch | June 29, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
For Tony B
Then credentials aside, and the existence of extra warming in the oceans, accepted, at least for the purpose of discussion, as real and factual, (I don't doubt it),
The questions remain as to what the source of increased heat is, and secondarily whether it can be attributed therefor to humanity, I believe.
Is the only possible answer perceived by those close to the subject, that it is directly related to CO2??
Alistair
Good questions, but the only answer according to some is co2.
Alistair Riddoch | June 30, 2014 at 1:36 am |
hmmm. I can't manage to limit myself to one suspect like that.
Yes, he probably took a course in graduate-level statistical and thermal physics like I did. Or maybe he didn't. This is basic stuff, perhaps you should take a course.
lolwot | June 29, 2014 at 11:15 am |
there is no pause.
Steven Goddard showed that the pause is based on faulty data.
Hee, hee, yeah, it might actually signal the end of the pause and the beginning of cooling.
Hey! That's not very amusing.
to be fair, in order to be accepted, it should be data that shows the pause is based on faulty data, and an individual that shows us the data. :-)
otherwise it is another request to accept a postulation on faith. :-(
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 29, 2014 at 10:16 am |
How to win an argument:
http://contextearth.com/2014/06/25/proxy-confirmation-of-soim/
Natural variability of climate contributing factors such as ENSO are bounded and characterizable.
Wagathon | June 29, 2014 at 10:36 am |
If you want to win an argument, ask the person trying to convince you of something to explain how it would work. Odds are they have not done the work required to hold an opinion. If they can explain why they are correct and how things would work, you'll learn something. If they can't you'll soften their views, perhaps nudging them ever so softly toward your views.
How does the Left suggest we solve society's problems with the success of the economy so far down on their list of important matters?
GaryM | June 29, 2014 at 11:41 am |
"If they can't you'll soften their views, perhaps nudging them ever so softly toward your views."
Yeah, not happening. For a progressive to reconsider his/her views, he would have to consider the fact that he is wrong on something he has been absolutely certain about his entire adult life. And that certainty is frequently the source of his sense of self.
That is why conversions from progressivism to conservatism are relatively common among young people, (almost all conservatives, myself included, were more progressive when they were young), but they are almost non-existent among older adults.
It takes great humility to admit you have been wrong about the most important policy issues of your life. And progressivism's greatest appeal is to vanity. All you have to do to belong to the "elite," is vote the right way and have contempt for those who disagree with you.
A fan of *MORE* discourse | June 29, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
GaryM notes "It takes great humility to admit you have been wrong about the most important policy issues of your life."
Good on `yah, oceanographer Adm. David Titley, and author Michael Prescott, and scientist Ed Wilson!
You three are wonderful examples to all young scientists … and all young voters!
Rationalistically,philosophy without experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, is a dead end to overcoming ignorance. Leftists' criticism of someone like Ayn Rand boils down to the fact that despite being an atheist she refused to share the Leftists' belief that individual liberty is a myth. They know she never can agree with them in praise of socialism and hate her because, Rand believes in free will.
LOL … Wagathon, young scientist/voters appreciate that twenty-first century authors like Francis Spufford (Red Plenty and Unapologetic) exist wholly outside the "Denialist Tribe's" fossilized Randian worldview.
Please consider reading some 21st century science, economics, and art, Wagathon!
Wagathon | June 29, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
Even Sartre I'm sure repented that misconceived logic of becoming a commie after the first few million deaths behind Russia's iron curtain.
Also read 14th Century BC Egypt. Or is it 13th? I nefer can titell.
Tom Fuller | June 30, 2014 at 7:18 am |
Umm, in the US it's fairly easy to chart economic growth under democratic and republican administrations. It is greater under the dems. By quite a lot, actually.
Umm, cash for clunkers is no way to run a railroad. What happens to a society that finally does wake up but is too decrepit to move on? When the tide does turn – and after the people accept the skeptics' truth that global warming was nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic – will the crowd finally turn away from the self-defeating nihilism of the Left? Perhaps but steadfast contrarians like GW must stand up and have the courage to tell a generation of graduates from the public-funded dropout factories that facts are facts: there is no such thing as a free lunch and there is a long road ahead.
David Wojick | June 30, 2014 at 8:49 am |
Tom, you need to look at Congresses not just Presidents. Congress directs the government, not the President, especially spending.
Also we tend to only get Republican Presidents when the economy slows. Perhaps the economy causes the President, not the other way around.
Tom Fuller | June 30, 2014 at 10:27 am |
The figures are right there for everyone to see. Economies that focus on helping the middle and lower classes outperform those that focus on helping the upper class. It's pretty obvious why and the figures bear it out.
True, true, the record of socialism is pretty clear.
…and, the record is very bad.
Edim | June 29, 2014 at 10:27 am |
The new record Antarctic sea ice anomaly:
RACookPE1978 | July 1, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
And that "minor" and inconvenient +2.04 million square kilometer record anomaly – by itself far larger than Greenland's entire area – was exceeded again today at +2.12 million square kilometers!
USHCN infilling makes warming trends warmer and cooling trends colder.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/ushcn-2-5-estimated-data-is-warming-data-usa-1980-2014/
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/ushcn-2-5-estimated-data-is-warming-data-usa-1945-to-1980/
Steven Mosher | June 29, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
as it should
k scott denison | June 29, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
Where will one find graphs of unadjusted, un-filled, un-gridded, raw temperature readings?
Scott, you are talking about well over a thousand graphs. According to BEST something like 30% show cooling. What would you do with all these records? The important point is that there is no way to accurately determine global temperature from them. This is why the satellites are so important.
"Pew: Only 40% of Americans think there is global warming and its caused by humans [link]" – JC
And the number who think there is no warming is about the same as those who think that evolution isn't real.
And how does global warming rank as a concern? It doesn't move the needle. It's a dull thud.
Over 50% of Americans are accept man is changing the climate. The number is higher is more educated countries.
They may accept that man is changing the climate but it is not a concern to them.
tell the person who lost their home to forest fires or drought that climate change isn't a concern.
The net is always beneficial to the biome with warming or rising CO2 within man's appearing capability to effect either. A warmer world, with higher CO2, sustains more total life and more diversity of life.
Please point me to one person who has lost their home to climate change. Just one.
nottawa rafter | June 29, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
lolwot
What an absurd statement. No scientific basis introduced as evidence.
That kind of logic is used on HP by HS dropouts. Raise your game a little.
I don't think losing homes to drought and forest fire can be used as evidence of man caused global warming?? And highly unlikely related to climate change, man or nature caused.
Due to weather variation would be a more plausible explanation.
Tell the greenie whose Antarctica "penguin watching" cruise/expedition is cancelled due to sea ice condotions that climate change isn't a concern. They can replan their visit by chartering aircraft and helicopters.
Dont tell the homeowner that they shouldnt build on scenic flood plains or scenic places know for landslides, subsidence or frequent wildfires
lolwot | June 30, 2014 at 4:00 am |
Forest fires and drought triggered by high temperatures. Crop failures, deadly heatwaves. Sea level rise and floods.
Is it any wonder that scientists and the public are concerned about climate change?
Michael | June 30, 2014 at 8:08 am |
rls is right- it doesn't rate as highly.
But that's no surprise. People respond more to immediate concerns than to very long term ones.
We are very bad at judging long term risk. Just tell an 18 yr old smoker that they'll be at risk of CV disease in a few decades. It's a dull thud.
We have the same problem in reverse with AGW – tell a 60 yr old male conservative that AGW is real and we need to do something about. They're not going to be around to have to worry too much about it, so why should they rate it as a concern.
Alistair Riddoch | June 30, 2014 at 11:04 am |
or they "may" be 60 year olds that like warm weather, and think it wouldn't be such a bad thing. Save them gas money to get to Florida each year.
surprisingly 60 is a great age to use to represent someone who in their OWN LIFE EXPERIENCES can first hand attest to, the fallacy of several major scare issues within their own lifetime.
I for one, am a decade shy of 60, but have first have heard the tail end of global cooling, acid rain, global warming, global climate change, ozone hole size increase, zebra mussels, ocean acidification, Y2K, 2012, autism causing vaccines, nuclear accident fallout, and any crackpot that has predicted the demise of humanity during my life time. (or their removal to another planet on some specific date).
it can "stretch" one's willingness to accept at face value, the fears you hear sensationalized in the media, when you start to realize, that there have been ZERO victory parties, yet non of the problems ever turned out to be real problems. because non of them have been defeated by us, yet here we are.
OK Y2K had some basis, but I can tell you flat out from personal knowledge and experience, it was VASTLY over-sensationalized and over-feared. sound familiar?
naq | June 30, 2014 at 9:50 am |
Zbigniew Brzezinski, started something a long time ago by telling, as they like to say: 'half-truths' to the unenlightend.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/isis-mocks-obama-in-latest-video-obama-did-you-prepare-enough-diapers-for-your-soldiers/
It's no secret now, we have gone a long way. Do you see a near term tipping point yet? Experience is an uncaring teacher. It's some gas you got.
ordvic | June 29, 2014 at 11:24 am |
It's a little more nuanced in both cases:
17% not happening 17% don't know 40% human caused 18% natural
8% uh what?
They didn't ask: part natural/part human
Evolution:
42% god made man 31% god guided evolution 19% man evolved
(Pew)
I suppose your right, there's about 40% ignorant christians. God>Man
derived:
73% predilection to believing heart over evidence
73% predilection to believing in the great flood of Noah's time
73% predilection to believing heart over evidence, when the entirety of the circumstantial evidence is hearsay, and obviously flawed if they themselves don't believe in Noah and the great flood.
Hardly a group of ideal members to comprise a jury from within.
are there poles about climate change from a group that is 73% atheist?
I wonder how the numbers would differ, between those programmed from birth into the role of "believer", and those who prefer to refrain from committing until they have more information.
ie conduct a pole containing 73% atheists, agnostics, and existentialists, and see if it skews the numbers somewhat.
always a good idea to "know your source"
ordvic | June 30, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
Good point(s).
Bob Ludwick | June 29, 2014 at 11:32 am |
In the beginning there was nothing. At all.
Then there was around 1.5e53 kg of 'stuff' and a universe to put it in. Plus another 3e54 kg of non-stuff that we can't see or detect in any way, other than how it makes the stuff that we CAN see behave. 14 billion years and a bunch of evolving later, here we are.
What could be simpler, more straight forward, or more believable?
Quoting Fred: "Evolution writ large is the belief that a cloud of hydrogen will spontaneously invent extreme-ultraviolet lithography, perform Swan Lake, and write all the books in the British Museum."
Big Bang Theroy.
Bob Ludwick | June 29, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
@ lolwot
Well, you might try this:
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point
which contains the opinion of the 20 year director of the Tufts Institute of Cosmology:
"But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can't pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he's found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself."
Dr. Vilenkin's opinion may not be authoritative, but it is certainly qualified. If you have an alternate (personal) view of what was around BEFORE the much referenced 'Big Bang' I would interested to hear it.
lolwot | June 29, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
That's like asking what is north of the north pole
rls | June 29, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
But what is time? What is space?
The Big Bang, is a Theory, n'est pas??
Question: The universe itself has an rotational flow as well as an outward trajectory. In an outward explosion of a single mass, where does the universe's ~600km/s rotation come from?? There is no angular momentum causes by any explosions I am aware of?
naq | June 29, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
Time, Space, Matter.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I hope this will help.
Well evolution and the big bang are actually two separate scientific facts.
beththeserf | June 30, 2014 at 4:29 am |
Theories, lolwot, are not facts.Theories may be falsified
and replaced by new theories. C'est la methode scientifique,
n'est ce pas?
I don't believe in the "non stuff", that's only a theory, and it sure looks pretty weak.
Bob Ludwick | July 1, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
@ Fernando Leanme
Of course it is weak. But is indubitably the 'accepted consensus'. You may in fact, based on Wikipedia and other sources, say 'The science is settled.'. Implying that the 'fact' that the universe consists of 95% invisible, undetectable 'stuff' and 5% regular old stuff like we and everything we can see or touch is made of sounds a bit fishy makes you an 'anti-science' kook. A bit like questioning whether CO2 is the 'control knob for the temperature of the Earth' makes you an 'anti-science denier'.
I would guess, for the US, that the majority who don't believe in manmade warming also don't believe in evolution, and the majority who don't believe in evolution also don't believe in manmade warming. This is simply because both groups overlap significantly with Republicans so it is a statistical expectation. However, you can get in trouble by inferring one belief from the other, as Lewandowsky found, even if there is a correlation.
And I suspect your guess to be incorrect. I believe fully in evolution and do not in man made warming. Plus I know many like me.
omanuel | June 30, 2014 at 1:18 am |
I agree! AGW believers have lost the debate and seek to change the topic.
I would like to see a simple combined poll
1. Republican or Democrat
2. evolution or no
3. AGW or no
I think there's a link to creationism and anti global warming attitudes via the information feed that sector of the population has absorbed. I observe the opposite effect in the "Amy Goodman" crowd. They tend to be leftists who latch on to catastrophism as a political vehicle. It's an excellent means to advocate radical changes they wouldn't get via the ballot box.
Fernando: There is a clear link, shown on this blog, between catastrophism and the "occupy" sympathizers. Makes sense. Bad corporations are ruining the planet, eh?
Nickels | June 29, 2014 at 11:59 pm |
Evolution is. Interpolation not extrapolation. So add one to the believers.
Liberal as the day is long.
Temperatures over Greenland Fast Approaching 400,000 Year High, Risk 15-19 Feet of Additional Sea Level Rise
http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/temperatures-over-greenland-fast-approaching-400000-year-high-risk-4-6-meters-of-additional-sea-level-rise/
Predictions of catastrophic events are not helping the AGW cause. The public is not buying it.
Most of them are, the rest are in denial of science.
They are weary of false predictions.
The prediction was that oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war.
Pew research above says you are wrong. Only 40% buy into AGW. In most dictionaries that doesn't classify as most. They are catching on to the hysterical claims that are not materializing.
They are catching on to the hysterical claims that are not materializing.
Actually, the hysterical claims were that Irag was developing weapons of mass destruction and the evil-doer Saddam was harboring Al-Qaeda terrorists.
Web. Watch the news? About ISIS taking control of a chemical weapons facility in Iraq, a facility where Saddam had produced chemical weapons?
But ….. Iraqi aluminum tubes !!!!
Mr Telescope. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I thought you might be watching/reading the news of 2014 and might even be aware of the group called ISIS, which is causing much concern of late. I acknowledge that you are well educated and respect you for that. However I'm surprised at your lack of curiosity.
the group called ISIS, which is causing much concern of late.
I think the quote you were looking for was, to paraphrase, "we will be greeted as liberators".
At one time the geniuses at PNAC called the campaign Operation Iraq Liberation, but then some other genius pointed out what the acronym spelled out.
sunshinehours1 | June 29, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
Sea level in the Eemian (previous interglacial) was 2 meters higher than today and hippos roamed where London and Berlin are now.
No man-made CO2 in the Eemian.
Which just goes to show the ice sheets are not stable
There's manmade CO2 today.
From your linked article:
"The human emission is so rapid that we hit atmospheric forcing levels high enough to melt all ice on Earth (if maintained over the long term) within 23 years. It's a vicious threat to the world's coastal communities. One that is difficult to overstate."
Difficult, maybe. But obviously not impossible.
Re-read the article that you linked above.
Then read this one:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
Then, from your perspective, which paper seems more scientifically plausible?
Larry | June 29, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
Article in today's paper about the Great Lakes water level. It has been going down for past 15 years. A group of American and Canadian scientist completed a 5 year study on the water levels in April of 2013. Their conclusion was that water levels will continue to go down because of climate change. By June 2014 lake levels have RISEN by 12 in. and are still rising. But I guess it is supposed be easier predicting world wide climate?
I grew up in Mississauga, Ontario Canada, playing in fields behind my house that used to be part of Lake Ontario. It was a couple of kilometers from the current shoreline. So this is a topic that I have been aware of, paid attention to, and researched (non-professionally) for 40+ years and I can speak to the nature of the lakes, due to personal research done over that period.
Yes they trend towards losing water over time and yes, it is in direct response to climate change. But wait for the punch line.
10,000 plus years ago climate change.
Three of the great lakes sit on a massive rock trampoline, that got depressed by the weight of ice during the last glaciation of North America, and has been bouncing back ever since. As the water from above it has drained, it has risen the entire area and created the Niagara Escarpment, Niagara Falls, the Niagara Gorge (chewed from the edge of the plate as water drained from it.
The length of the Niagara Gorge as it chews into the edge of the rock disk, is a measuring tape of the time scales involved.
With a continued upward trend in rock due to release of weight above it, the lakes will continue to get shallower, perhaps when a winter totally freezes the drain plug, this process gets temporarily reversed.
However to blame the Great Lakes levels on climate change and ignore the root cause of their creation as being far more significant, and definitely NON-human based, would be an ironic oversight of large proportion.
In my honest, and relatively well informed on this topic, opinion. :-)
Alistair. Thank you – very interesting.
That was very interesting about the lakes.
Similarly in Britain some of the country is still supposed to be 'springing back' after being crushed by ice.
It does make me wonder how long it can possibly take land to spring back to presumably to where it used to be before the glaciers?
I think it has to be considered situation, by situation,
The three upper great lakes having become a basin of sorts, are runnoff for a huge area, which may collect as much as drains. The raising of the escarpment would argue this has not been the case, but who knows when a balance point may have, or will be reached.
for the situation to change drastically (barring climate changing it, like it did the first time), would take the gorge to chew all the way to Lake Erie. I think that is a LONG time, but haven't looked, estimated, or heard that number. My guess is, it will be meaningless as other changes will take place before that. But that is a guess, not even a postulation. Question mark material.
Other places geological situations are not likely related, at least in that particular manner. And my knowledge of them is pretty much nil, to be able to answer for their fates.
RiHo08 | June 29, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
In the instrument measurement period for the Great Lakes, from @ 1835 onward, the highest water level was in 1986 (581 ft above mean sea level) and the lowest was in 1964 (576 ft). Today it is 578.78 ft with 3 inches more projected. Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District. In 22 years Great Lakes water levels have gone from the lowest to highest levels, and now back up to a calculated average for the instrument period. Needless to say, the weather has more to do with the Great Lakes water levels than glacier rebound. Of course, glacier weight rebound may have something to do with the Niagara Escarpment and the plethora of limestone caves previously underwater a while back you can now enjoy if you want on Flower Pot Island in the 5 Fathoms Park at the tip of the Bruce Peninsula.
In the NY Times article, featuring the Wisconsin side of Lake Michigan, was a statement made by a prominent climatologist from somewhere in the Mid-West who said the upper Great Lakes had a record low water level for December 2013. He left the impressions that the Great Lakes had experienced their lowest levels ever when indeed, the lowest average was 1964, which had transient lower levels that made up that average. The NY Times goes on to say that people are sitting on pins and needles waiting for the water level to drop again leaving marinas high and dry and Great Lakes ore carriers with tons of lighter loads. So what was left out of the article? the distinction between transient water levels and average water levels, averaged over a years period of time. A little hype. A little juice to the narrative without really lying, just misleading.
As for the rebounders club, I am not a member. Nice idea. Hard to prove.
RIHO08…As for the rebounders club, I am not a member. Nice idea. Hard to prove.
Fair enough, and to your credit, Wikipedia says:
Some of my information came from a tv show that had a specific segment about the process. I have a recording, I will recheck my source, and see if I can find where the difference of opinion. It was either Nova, Discovery, or National Geographic.
If I have been misled, or misinformed, I apologize. If I misheard, misconstrued, or remembered falsely, I will be truly embarrassed.
might be there are alternate theories. That sometimes happens.
Get back to you shortly.
Alistair.
I don't think anyone is disputing That land rebounds after being glaciated. As I said, the same happened here. My reply to you was more a musing of something I had not really thought about before which is how long can land go on rebounding for? Sensibly there must be a limit, but how long that is I have no idea
I rechecked my sources, and am reconvinced it is rebound.
The first paragraph of WikiPedia says the Niagara Escarpment is not a fault line, but they may mean as in between tectonic plates?
It might be wrong, but a series called how the earth was made, goes through the whole process quite thoroughly. 45 minutes worth. plausible and compelling.
and have found an estimate for the time they think, till the Niagara hits Lake Erie and a bit of hell breaks loose, somewhere around 23,000 years.
if interested, they figure erie will mostly dissappear, and superior, and huron will drop 180 feet. the little oscillations people are worrying about now, are pretty insignificant in comparison.
exciting!!
Allistair
Yes the Niagara Escarpment begins in Watertown NY, courses above Lakes Huron and Michigan and terminating close to Chicago Ill. The geology of hard dolomitic limestone serves as a cap to the underlying softer rock which has been eroded away. The Niagara Escarpment is believed to have been formed by differential erosion.
Now the issue you and many others raise, glacier rebound of the earth's mantel. My question is: how to prove that what we can see now as the Great Lakes are a result of glacier rebound.
The cave floors I mentioned that one can walk into on Flower Pot Island in 5 Fathoms National Park are currently 75 feet about the current water line of the Georgian Bay. In places along the Bruce Trail on the Escarpment, one can be 300 feet above the water line and the fall off is almost another 300 feet below the water line. Taking at face value the Niagara Escarpment formation (as exposed by Wikipedia) coming from differential erosion, there was wave action that formed the caves. As a matter of fact, there are caves all along the Niagara Escarpment at different heights from current water levels one can visit at Grieg's Caves just South of the Village of Lion's Head and the Grotto at Cyprus Lake National Park is being formed via current water level wave action.
All of this geology seems a bit complex and to throw into the mix glacier rebound is somewhat hard for me to envision. A lot of moving parts all at the same time. What does seem to be a constant, wave action over a very long period of time making caves that I use to climb in and out of at a nimbler time of my life. Did the Niagara Escarpment form first after the great ice sheets retreated, their melt waters carving this formation and the residual waters filled the Great Lakes? and in this case, the Georgian Bay? Then the earth's mantel rebounded 75 feet or more while the Georgian Bay was sloshing at the soft limestone to make caves?
Good stuff to learn about.
Iolwot
The hottest two consecutive decades in Greenland are the 1930's and 1940's according to Phil Jones. I have linked to the paper several times. I will go off and find it again if you are seriously going to read it. Otherwise wait until 2021 to see if the 21st century has beat it.
Every time I look at histocal records, be they Global Temperatures, Sea Level rise rates, Arctic Sea Ice extent, drought, Greenland or Great Lakes water levels, there are those pesky 20s to 40s. You would think someone would catch on to how there doesn't seem to be anything unprecedented.
Let's see, Greenland may warm to temperatures seen in the last interglacial. Check. Sea levels may rise to levels seen in the last interglacial. Check.
So, Greenland and sea levels may reach values they have reached in the past. Yawn.
The post you linked does seem somewhat excessive. This type of material does make your side lose credibility. If you wish to raise people's concerns you could explain sea level does increase if the planet warms and this could lead to as much as 60 cm to 1 meter sea level rise, which can get expensive. That Greenland post didn't work very well.
"Chelsea Clinton, from her $10.5 million perch on Gramercy Park, declares that she finds it impossible to care about money. Bill and Hillary Clinton, shuttling between their multimillion-dollar homes — Chappaqua, Washington, the $200,000-a-month rental in the Hamptons — denounce the wicked rich and protest that they are not "truly well off." A professor of poverty and left-wing activist at the University of North Carolina School of Law is paid $200,000 per annum to teach a single class; anti-inequality crusader Elizabeth Warren was paid $350,000 per annum to teach a single class and thinks deeply about the plight of the little guy in her $1.7 million Cambridge mansion. The city of Bell, Calif., was nearly bankrupted by the very generous salaries its political class secured for themselves: nearly $800,000 per annum for the chief executive of the modest Los Angeles suburb, on his way to collecting a $1 million annual pension. (Several Bell leaders were later charged with misappropriating millions of dollars' worth of public money for their own benefit.) Philadelphia was paying the feckless chief executive of its violent and defective government schools some $350,000 a year before the mayor got around to firing her, but not before the city wrote her a check for nearly $1 million to make her go away — and then she filed for unemployment benefits. A Philadelphia police lieutenant on an $87,000 annual salary takes home nearly $200,000 after nearly a hundred grand in "overtime" kicks in. The head of the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal enterprise, was paid nearly $6 million in 2013; the agency's chief financial officer and chief lawyer were paid $2.1 and $1.9 million, respectively, that same year. The school superintendent in Lubbock, Texas, is paid nearly a quarter-million dollars a year.
Politics pays."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381474/politics-pays-kevin-d-williamson
Funny how he managed to forget Al Gore, the progressive politician who has perhaps ashed in to the greatest effect. Then there's GE, Solyndrea, etc. Which shows that government control of the energy economy can be just as lucrative for crony socialists as any other government endeavor.
But, "it's for the children."
i think national review and it's readers are simply jealous. they wish they had so much money, but they won't work hard for it.
ordvic | June 29, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
Ah the hypocritical rich:
(ie drought las vegas)
Mr Mrowka cited Lake Las Vegas a mega resort where stars like Celine Dion live, as one of the "most egregious examples" of wasting water.
He said: "It's a community for the rich and famous and it has a 320 acre lake filled with three billion gallons of water from Lake Mead. That's three billion gallons of drinking water, and each year they take millions more to keep it from stagnating and smelling".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10932785/The-race-to-stop-las-vegas-from-running-dry.html
I read somewhere that it was calculated that each water molecule on the planet would have gone through a dinosaurs digestive tract, about 60 times, based on the duration of their existence.
Which makes me wonder whether concerns of wasting water are not overshadowed by the question of exactly how one can even do that, unless we start ejecting it into space??
I guess we could say we waste Potable FRESH water. The solution for those rich "vegans" would be to take water from their pond, clean it, and put it back in. To make up for evaporation they can add treated sewage water and run the lake water through a solar powered reverse osmosis desalination system. That ought to enhance their green credentials and leave them in inner peace knowing they have done their part for their environment.
The best way to win an argument is not to try
Agree. Successful lawyers say that the first step is to win the trust of the jury. – Trust in government today is at an all time low; beware those who have a government backed agenda.
lolwot notes "The best way to win an argument is not to try."
Yep. Instead, focus upon recruiting the young scientists
who create new scientific and economic ideas for the 21 century.
The superannuated geezers of the rapidly aging "Denialist Tribe" will wither/retire/pass-on soon enough!
*EVERYONE* understands this accelerating dynamic … younger scientists and voters especially!
Fan. "Recruiting the young scientists". Indoctrination has been going on at the elite schools for decades. After graduation they move to elite clusters where they can all agree on everything. – my summary of the book "Coming Apart".
A fan of *MORE* discourse | June 29, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
rls opines "Indoctrination has been going on at the elite schools for decades centuries."
Correction FOMD means … indoctrination ongoing for millennia!
And therefore, destined to continue throughout millennia to come, eh rls?
No ray of sunlight is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith.
— Albert Schweitz
rls, it is a pleasure to assist you (and Climate Etc readers too!) to a broader appreciation as to why researchers — of all nations and centuries — prize millennial foresight.
Question What value can neo-conservative economists place upon Schweitzer-type faith in a millennial-timeframe future?
Answer For neocons, the question itself has no meaning.
*MOST* folks — scientists and historians — appreciate *THAT'S* the problem, eh Climate Etc readers?
Fan: "and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith". Thank you fan. It is a fitting tribute to our founders. And all conservatives thank you, for it is those founders that bind conservative thought.
FOMD posts a quote: "No ray of sunlight is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith."
— Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Laureate
rls responds [inexplicably] "Thank you fan. It is a fitting tribute to our founders. And all conservatives thank you, for it is those founders that bind conservative thought."
It is immensely gratifying (to FOMD) to hear such high conservative praise for a committed lifelong activist for world peace, global disarmament, animal rights, and socialized medical care of the caliber of Albert Schweitzer.
Moreover, in regard to USA's Founders, please allow me to commend to Climate Etc readers the kind of in-depth original-source history that ain't taught in US high schools.
Your thirst for knowledge is appreciated rls!
It is immensely gratifying (to FOMD) to hear such high conservative praise for a committed activist for world peace, global disarmament, animal rights, and socialized medical care of the caliber of Albert Schweitzer.
Moreover, in regard to the comparably radical activism of the USA's Founders, please allow me to commend to Climate Etc readers the kind of in-depth original-source history that ain't taught in US high schools.
America's School Boards are deplorably timid when it comes to teaching *REAL* science and history (and human reproductive biology too) to young kids, yah know!
The deniers blew their wad with the rocket scientist David Evans climate change theory.
That will hover over them like an albatross. They should never have tried an argument. Now they are laughing stocks. Should have kept their mouth shut, or do what they usually do — engage in rhetorical arguments against libs and greens.
Perhaps climate deniers should just admit they don't know what they're talking about…
jim2 | June 29, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
The poor Democrats … figures …
Hillary Clinton claimed that, at the moment she and her husband were signing up for $18 million in book deals, that they were "dead broke."
Harry Reid (who lives in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel) said liberals are getting bullied by Republican billionaires but the Democratic Party "doesn't have many billionaires" behind it.
Joe Biden (family earnings: $407,000 last year plus a free house, driver, meals, etc.) claims he "I don't own a single stock or bond. . . . I have no savings accounts . . . I'm the poorest man in Congress." (Triple fail: Joe isn't poor, isn't in Congress and wouldn't be the poorest member of it if he were.)
Right here in New York, we've learned that City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, the daughter of a wealthy doctor who left a $6.7 million inheritance, took advantage of a no-interest loan intended for underprivileged New Yorkers to buy a Harlem townhouse. Then she forgot to declare the rental income on required city disclosure forms. The townhouse you and I helped buy her for $240,000 is today worth $1.2 million.
The more Democrats insist on their proletarian cred, the more absurd it gets. They're no longer just holier than thou: Now they're prolier than thou.
http://nypost.com/2014/06/28/why-democrats-insist-on-lying-about-how-poor-they-are/
omanuel | June 29, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
Professor Curry,
I would love to see an open discussion of common truths in science, religion and constitutional governments, e.g.,
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/enjoying-gods-creation/
This is my contribution to the topic:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Man_God_and_Sun_%281500-2100%29_%281%29.pdf
And this is my conclusion on the common traits in
1. Science, religion and democratic constitutional governments, on the one hand, and
2. Lock-step totalitarian sciences, governments, and anti-religious dogma of Stalin et al.
Dogmatic scientists and dogmatic religionists are identical twins, each hiding under a different cloak of social respectability !
I suppose this will be a surprise but I'm completely lacking in faith in supernatural beings. It's not my fault, I just can't believe. And at the same time I really really, really, dislike Joseph Stalin.
Bad Andrew | June 29, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
I asked Mosher a question a little while back that he didn't answer, but I would love to hear someone try to respond.
If Global Warming is a reality, at what geographic location(s) has it been detected and how?
Somewhere toward the center
due to a hot core
(Sorry I couldn't resist)
In the Arctic
And the Deep,
With garrulous krigging
And magic convection,
Both by butlers,
@ ordvic,
I can't help but disagree more, and I am sure I will have your agreement momentarily.
By traveling from the equator, you journey some 26km towards the center of the Earth, yet, would realize a drop in temperature from +30 to -50 (I approximate for brevity's sake).
Sorry, I too, found myself unable to resist. :-)
Here, where I live, it has gotten very much warmer over the last six months.
I can't resist either…
1. Where is that?
2. How much warmer?
3. Is it Global Warming?
Michigan. In January it was below freezing and today it is sweltering hot.
have they mentioned it in the papers, or is it being suppressed as denialist propaganda?
My cousin lives in Grand Rapids, and he told a diametrically opposed tale just six months ago, of a severe 6 month cooling trend.
Michigan must be a real "hot spot" for climate change!
In my neck of the woods, two small towns near me have had tornadoes, three in Angus, one in Tottenham, on the past two Tuesday's running, and we are at an increased risk of tornadoes in my area again for this Tuesday, Canada Day.
I cannot begin to imagine if the string of Tornado Tuesday's continues in a region that sees ONE tornado every thirty years or so, gets a third occurrence, what the media will start to say about it.
We did have the longest, coldest winter in a VERY long time, with snow staying on the ground way later in the year than normal. It makes sense therefor there is a lot of rapid ground warming right now, because of the COLD winter, so I would suggest they are not an artifact of warming, or climate "change" in an warmer direction. Instead the result of the non-existent warming, and quite a cool winter.
Vaughan Pratt | June 29, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
@BA: If Global Warming is a reality, at what geographic location(s) has it been detected and how?
If beauty in the Mona Lisa is a reality, at what point in the painting has it been detected and how?
Welcome to the dark side. You seem to be saying that Global warming, like beauty, is subjective.
Who says beauty in the Mona Lisa a reality? I think she's a little on the Plain Jane side.
@Andrew – "Who says beauty in the Mona Lisa a reality? I think she's a little on the Plain Jane side."
Ah, but that is the beauty of subjectivity,
for beauty, like global warming, exists only in the eye of the beholder.
?;-)
Enigmatic, pacific, heh.
captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | June 29, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
Imagine that Da Vinci had used crushed velvet instead of canvas or Ruben had been into thin chicks.
I've got 'Ginevra de' Benci'. Well, I keep her in a gilded cage in the District of Columbia, but the reproduction print looks about the same and flies quite freely about the house.
Her beauty lies in her eyes; they follow you as you cross the room.
The special allure, of the Mono Lisa,
as it relates to Climate Change,
was indeed just a guy blowing smoke!
No joke!
Who says beauty in the Mona Lisa a reality? I think she's a little on the Plain Jane side
Like the picture of Dorian Gray, the Mona Lisa grew old and wrinkled with time, leading art critic Walter Pater to write in 1869, "She is older than the rocks among which she sits, like the vampire she has been dead many times".
While history does not relate whether the Mona Lisa's subject, Lisa Gherardini del Giocondo, retained her appearance as steadily as Dorian Gray, to her five children she may have seemed that way.
What passes today for an enigmatic smile may have been her gesture of impatience: kids, calm down, Leonardo, please can we wrap this thing up soon?
Despite sporadic work on the painting between 1503 and 1516, Davinci never did finish it.
As Lisa del Giocondo is to the Mona Lisa, and Dorian Gray to his picture, so is Swedish model Lena Söderberg to Lenna. The difference is that the modern miracle of digital photography has arrested the aging of pictures, as can be seen by comparing the pictures of Lena taken at ages 21 and 46 here..
So, has technology ended the Dorian Gray effect? Not at all, in fact quite the opposite. You can watch your own Dorian Gray portrait age at any of a number of websites listed here.
It's only a matter of time before one of these websites adopts the URL mydoriangray.com.
That, Andrew, is a great question, thank you.
For the record, like rls it has warmed dramatically in the past six months where I live too. And we cheese heads are very thankful for that.
You can take a 30-year climatology of the summer-average temperature from 1951-1980 and compare the last decade, in whatever region you live, especially on mid-latitude land, and find that it has shifted warmer by a standard deviation (probably 0.5-1 C). This is just the beginning, and it is something you can test for yourself at home. E.g.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=0603&year1=2004&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob
Jim D,
I don't want homework. I want an answer to my question. Where geographically has Global Warming been detected and how was it detected?
It's called global for a reason. Almost any good thermometer anywhere over the last 60 or so years would have detected it.
"Almost any good thermometer anywhere"
lol Then just pick one of the good ones. Why is this so difficult for you?
That's why I linked GISTEMP. It uses the GHCN thermometers. They show warming and it is global, hence global warming. Why is this so hard for you?
"They show warming"
Can you please pick one of the good ones that detects Global Warming?
BA, why isn't a global graph of area averages sufficient? Basically I gave you all of them right there. You can choose a point from there if you like. How about your own back yard?
"Where geographically has Global Warming been detected and how was it detected?
The land. Thermometers. Too bad it's where you live. Too Bad Andrew.
Jim D: " Almost any good thermometer anywhere over the last 60 or so years would have detected it."
Andrew : I don't think thermometers detect Global Warming.
So Please Jim D, pick a thermometer somewhere among the ones you claim in the above quote that detects Global Warming.
"Thermometers."
OK. Pick one that has detected Global Warming.
BA, why would you want one thermometer when you can average 20 in a neighborhood and get a more robust statistical measure? GISTEMP uses 2-degree squares of stations for its map. Surely that is better if you want to robustly demonstrate global warming to someone.
You said "any good thermometer". So pick one.
BA, why do you prefer one thermometer more than a two-degree square of them? I think it is because you prefer a noisy signal to a clean one which helps your own uncertainty to persist rather than being quashed by the cleaner data.
BA, your "Who says beauty in the Mona Lisa a reality? I think she's a little on the Plain Jane side" was sensible. Have you considered quitting while you're ahead?
"Have you considered quitting while you're ahead?"
Sure. Why?
Here's nano terms ting site Jim: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mkx/wiwx.php
Nearest NWS center to my home. Please show me the anthropogenic global warming signature in anything you find at this site. And if you have a reference to the raw temperature data at Sullivan, WI.
*an interesting site*
Wow, what fat fingers on that first post.
ksd, if I have found anything out, it is that skeptics only like to look at blurred representations of the global warming effect so that they can claim they can't see it. What global warming? I can't see it in my backyard yet? Therefore it can't possibly be happening. My advice is to cast a broader net for your data, if you want to see it, but I am guessing you would prefer not to.
Spitsbergen or Svalbard, North of Norway, seems to be warming quite nicely. Maybe I should look at the data and sketch a simple map, in which I draw in different colours the temperature increase in the last 30 years? It would be a hand drawn sketch, but it will show the Barents is warming quite nicely. I also noticed it has a really nice outgoing long wave anomaly.
I mentioned the Barents because I used to work in that part of the world, and I have the suspicion there's insufficient attention being paid to that sector. For example, are any of these climate centers monitoring the water flows from the large rivers flowing into those seas? I'm referring to the Pechora, the Ob, and so on. Do you guys get the data from the Russians?
Link to the raw data please? Not adjusted, to be clear.
Fernando Leanme | June 30, 2014 at 10:08 am |
You'll have to look it up yourself. You see, I used to work for a large oil multinational. In the 1990's we had a project which required I coordinate the work of several groups of people, and this included a team of what we called Metocean experts, "ice guys", naval architects, platform designers, and other odds and ends one needs to find, extract and ship oil in arctic conditions (we weren't desperate enough to look at Antarctica, the furthest south we have looked isTierrra del Fuego). So…I'm afraid I can't link you to the data. I can't even say I kept some of it in my head. But it's there.
While I'm at it, in my case I decided the search for oil in the Eastern Barents, Pechora, and Kara would be too risky. Do you know what really bothered me? How the heck were we going to get off the oil platform if we were surrounded by drifting pack ice if the darned thing caught on fire?
From the humid murky brine,
Arose a fated peculiar slime,
Destined for greatness, Lord of The World,
Began the tale, here it unfurls,
We love the heat, we love the cold,
But our endless discussions about them grow old,
Never two minds thinking exactly the same,
Often the chats grow angry, or lame,
For mankind in his greatest of follies,
Thinking with all the trucks, cars and trollies,
Has damaged the air, ever so badly,
Presumably, determining our fate, quite sadly,
But hark, for hear come some tidings of joy,
For I tell you I've heard this tale since I was a boy,
And in every version, in every tome,
There is a persistent and ensured outcome,
For every story, has been just a story,
Those that believed in the past should be sorry,
The proof that not just one, but all
Were misguided,
Is your existence today, you should be excited.
For surely the tale, told 20 times over,
Itself should provide the crimson and clover,
Sleeping well at night, needs to be earned,
By finally, "GETTING" the lesson we learned.
Of for the day, when that comes true!!
Hail and Cheers, Applause!
It's a first effort, inspired by Kim and BethTheSurf, so profuse thanks, and a humble, very low bow.
And OH how I wish I could edit it, and OH how I wish I could change "of for the day" to the "OH for the day" as intended. I really should proofread.
Up there with Keith DeHavelle. Most of you poets make me very, very jealous. There's real talent out there, this poor boet poses improbable poverish, impossible nonsense, and cautionary curiosity.
Kim, on multiple occasions your ability to convey improbable poverish, impossible nonsense, and cautionary curiosity, succinctly, and eloquently, has caught my impressed and entertained me, for one. The credit was well deserved. :-)
kim. Your words are always a pleasure.
Belinda | June 29, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
Plus one, Alistair.)
An everlasting story, so it seems,
maunderings of global warming
till the cows come home or come
homing pigeons ter the loft, black
swans are also aloft, episodes
of Armageddon, or worse,
ter trouble yer dreams, tipping
points and other things averse
in each episode, in each new
infilling of missing records that
record some new high, seas rising
(land subsiding edited out ,it's
deux-ex-machina in this story)
The climate tale of man's
irresponsibility and greed.
Fear and guilt make fer
a compelling read
in this interminable story.
Belinda the serf.
Sounds like you put lots of work into it. Great job.
The BBC has ruled that a radio debate about climate change involving former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson should have been censored. Fraser Steel, head of the BBC complaints unit, said a Radio 4 Today programme about the causes of last winter's storms should never have been broadcast.. http://www.thegwpf.org/hoskins-vs-lawson-the-climate-debate-the-bbc-wants-to-censor/
This is the face of science? Scientists are crazy
BLH | June 29, 2014 at 9:11 pm |
I appreciate the link to the debate, and cannot help but laugh at the following exchange at the very end [square brackets mean I added something for clarification]:
:::Sir Brian Hoskins: It [global temperature] hasn't risen very much over the last 10-15 years. If you measure the climate from the globally averaged surface temperature, during that time the excess energy has still been absorbed by the climate system and is being absorbed by the oceans.
Justin Webb [interviewer]: So it's there somewhere?
Sir Brian Hoskins: Oh yes, it's there in the oceans.
Lord Lawson: That is pure speculation.
Sir Brian Hoskins: No, it's a measurement.
Lord Lawson: No, it's not. It's speculation.:::
I was suddenly hearing the voices of Michael Palin and John Cleese from Monty Python's "The Argument Clinic," which would be hilarious if we weren't completely wasting so many resources on what (in my opinion) Lord Lawson correctly identifies as speculation.
Vaughan Pratt | June 30, 2014 at 1:56 am |
@Sir Hoskins: It [global temperature] hasn't risen very much over the last 10-15 years. If you measure the climate from the globally averaged surface temperature, during that time the excess energy has still been absorbed by the climate system and is being absorbed by the oceans.
The good knight speaketh through his helmet.
If the cause of the pause is the oceans, why didn't the oceans also absorb the rapid rise from 1970-2000?
climatereason | June 30, 2014 at 2:55 am |
That is a good question. How has warming suddenly switched to oceans over the last decade or so, whereas before it was land and oceans. When did this change occur and what is the mechanism?
How has warming suddenly switched to oceans over the last decade or so, whereas before it was land and oceans.
Good question, Tony. According to the analysis in the slides for my 2013 AGU Fall Meeting talk there was no sudden switch. The oceans have always responded more sluggishly than the land to global warming, GW.
As GW accelerates, the oceans lag further behind, resulting in a reduced observed sensitivity as per Hansen et al's 1985 paper addressing ocean mixing. The steeper the rise in GW, the further behind the oceans get, just like a fanless CPU heatsink which heats up only slowly even when the CPU is heating up very quickly (and is therefore a more effective heatsink for a short period).
The only contribution of the oceans to the pause phenomenon is that the AMO masked what would otherwise have been a pause during 1980-1990. In the absence of both the AMO and global warming we would see a one-decade pause every two decades as per the curve MID on slide 14. AMO + GW can be loosely identified with the curve LOW obtained on slide 13 of my talk using a simple filter. HadCRUT4 is LOW + MID + high frequency components of no obvious relevance to multidecadal climate, pace Bob Tisdale.
As can be seen at Wood For Trees, HadCRUT4 paused during the decade 2001-2011 with a near-zero upwards trend of 0.026 °C/decade. The next decade, 40 months or 1/3 of a decade, has started out with an upwards trend of 0.431 °C/decade, 16x steeper, though we'll need to see the remaining 2/3 of the decade before deciding whether the pause is really over.
At the other end, the decade 1991-2001 trended up at 0.236 °C/decade. The previous decade 1981-1991 trended up at only 0.165 °C/decade, not quite a pause even though it should have been, explained in my talk by the AMO's strong rise during the neighborhood of that decade.
The trends for each decade of HadCRUT4 since 1870 have alternated between up and down as per my post here. Bill_W then argued that this demonstrated that climate was random, which I answered by pointing out that all trace of randomness disappears when looking at trends over 20-year periods rather than 10. Instead of an oscillation in trends, temperature rises steadily upwards with an ever-increasing slope, even for the 20-year period 1990-2010.
That is, the pause that is clearly visible for 10-year periods totally vanishes for 20-year periods.
This is all consistent with, and supported by, my AGU talk slides.
question for Vaughn Pratt,
had you noticed that the interceding years, between peaks, have a greater warming effect when the cycles are low
compared to the interceding years, when the cycles are high,
that seems to correspond with the earths magnetic field strength, which I believe in turn relates to earths gravitational field.
which explains warming in the early 1900s, which had a pattern similar to that we are just getting started into with cycle 24, matching cycle 12, so beautifully, therefore expecting a 25/26 similar to 13/14 perhaps?
and with all that then relating to the variation in magnitude of ocean temperature variation, equator to pole, perhaps?
Alistair, could you clarify some of your terms? By peaks do you mean those of the 60-year cycle at 1940 and 2000? And what do "low cycle" and "high cycle" refer to? Even and odd solar cycles? And do you have a plot of the Earth's magnetic field illustrating the correspondence you're seeing?
The mere existence of MID as a strong 20-year component of HadCRUT4 may be a positive answer to your "had you noticed that the interceding years, between peaks, have a greater warming effect" depending on what you were meaning to say.
backup for my food for thought….
for the relationship between solar cycles and magnetic field strength, can see it here:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/
the premise of their story is it's usability as a predictor of future solar cycles, but it is useful for showing related inverse relationship. especially the last 40 years or so.
by "peak" I mean the peak of the individual solar cycles. there is excellent detailed information and comparative graphs at solen.info. especially see:
http://solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png for comparison of 24, and 12.
to see relationship between solar cycles and hadcrut, can see it here:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/07/why-i-am-still-skeptical-about-sunspots-and-temperature/
I think the guy sees the relationship but doesnt recognize the strength of the inverse signal (the release of "pressure" on the magnetic field) which has a greater equatorial effect, than the solar cycle peaks do.
Basically I suggest we warm more equatorially, during the summers of the "minimums", and cool more in those winters. more ocean differential and associated correction. due to relationship between magnetism and gravity. and light and magnetism. And that this is generally more significant than the amount of warming during the maximum solar cycle peaks.
longer history based relation between magnetism and temperature are available from several sources. I think people have "seen" the results, but not recognized the transfer mechanism??
Alistair, sounds like a question for Leif Svaalgard, who is usually happy to comment on either by email or on climate blogs and has half a century of experience with magnetic phenomena involving the Sun—for example he and Mansurov discovered the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect in the 1960s which describes an influence of the interplanetary magnetic field on diurnal variations of the Earth's magnetic field at high latitudes.
I like to look at it as a shift in the rate of energy input into the ocean.
I haven't done the calculations (I suppose I could but I'm getting lazy). However, lets say the energy imbalance is 0.5 watts per square meter (question: does anybody have an idea of what the number has been running over the last 10 years?)….to observe an absence of warming all we need is for the ocean to absorb all 0.5 watts per square meter.
If the oceans absorb less than this value then the surface warms a little bit. Given the atmosphere's puny heat capacity, a slight change in the 0.5 value (such as caused by a weaker sun, those wonderful Chinese aerosols and clouds) will lead to an absence of surface warming while the ocean keeps absorbing heat. As far as the ocean is concerned, and this is one heck of a generalization, the ocean absorbs heat because it's colder than the surface.
I could be wrong, but given the very subtle temperature changes (or lack of changes) being measured, my baloney sounds pretty good to me.
maksimovich | June 29, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
The south sea bubble persists,a new record.
ketchemandfleezem | June 29, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
The National Climate Assessment – 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.
http://ketchemandfleezem.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/scientists-respond-to-the-obama-administrations-national-climate-assessment/
I often find it disturbing that even at sites such as this the issue is so politicized. Yes, the "left" have their dogmatic faction (e.g., on climate change), but the "right" has theirs as well (e.g., often aligned with opposition to teaching evolution). I do not see either climate change or evolution as "matters of opinion," and therefore, the factual issues related to these topics are not subject to political whims. That is not to say that the uninformed will not make political arguments on these topics – clearly they do; but, as a scientist I am not interested in, nor in any way persuaded by arguments that simply impugn one party or the other.
The NCA comes from the same government and media hybrid culture which gave us the gulf of Tonkin incident, the Kosovo genocide, the Iraq WMD, and Walter Reed discovered a mosquito gave people yellow fever.
The global sea ice area hasn't been this high at this time of year since 1996. What say you, you cagey CAGWers?
R. Gates | June 30, 2014 at 1:35 am |
Jim2,
You seem to have missed the rather lengthy discussion here related to the very different responses of the Antarctic and Arctic to more net energy in the climate system, and how increasing sea ice around Antarctica can be (counterintuitively) related to more net energy in the system. Such misunderstandings on your part (and others) lead to unfortunately ignorant and false proxies for the effects of more net energy in the system, which is the fundamental effect of increasing GH gases,
Wow, how much more does the planet therefore have to warm before it's frozen solid?
bob droege | June 30, 2014 at 9:25 am |
Ice leaving the Antarctic continent is now floating
On the other hand I can start writing one of those blog posts about the earth's record ice albedo we can expect IF this trend continues for another 10 years. Can you imagine? What happens if all that ice goes multiyear, and we start seeing the earth cool and those darned Chinese keep adding aerosols to the air and the sun keeps refusing to cooperate and stays cool? I bet I can write an inverse imitation of the catastrophic "sea level is going up by 16 meters" the alarmists love to write.
Can you describe some half-credible mechanism by which this is supposed to happen
@jim2: The global sea ice area hasn't been this high at this time of year since 1996. What say you, you cagey CAGWers?
It's all done with intelligent design. Just as natural selection is the most intelligent way to design and introduce new species, so is floating Antarctic ice towards the equator the most intelligent way to melt it.
The side effect is to increase the area of sea ice. If this is a problem for you, bring it up with your assigned intelligent designer.
maksimovich | June 30, 2014 at 10:43 am |
Thinking is its internal not eternal eg Prevdi and Polvani 2014
The results of coupled GCMexperiments therefore suggest that
the observed expansion of Antarctic sea ice during the satellite
era cannot be explained by stratospheric ozone depletion. This
expansion is also at odds with the expectation of diminishing
ice cover in response to GHG-induced warming. Climate model
simulations driven by all known natural and anthropogenic
forcings indicate that the total Antarctic SIE should have declined
in recent decades, in contrast to what has been observed
(Arzel et al., 2006; Maksym et al., 2012; Turner et al., 2013). An
alternative explanation, suggested recently by Polvani and Smith
(2013), is that the recent sea-ice expansion is not a forced response,but instead is a reflection of internal variability within the climatesystem (see also Mahlstein et al., 2013; Zunz et al., 2013
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2330/abstract
@m: Thinking is its internal not eternal
Jim2 was referring to global sea ice area. It stands to reason that as more of the Antarctic's glaciers calve off in chunks the area of a US state (that of RI being a popular unit of size) and drift into the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, global sea ice will increase, at least in the SH. Very simple.
What's much less clear is which parts of the ACC and environs are warming and which cooling, which amongst other things influences the lifetime of ACC sea ice—is that what you meant by "internal"?
At http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice.htm Marcel Bökstedt, an algebraic topologist at Aarhus, discusses relevant papers of Boning et al, Turner et al (both cited by Previdi), and Zhang et al, which together paint a richly detailed picture (to put a positive spin on it) that is hard to evaluate without a ton of both insight and data. Bökstedt's position, with which I agree, is that neither side of the climate debate will find strong support for their position based on how temperature varies in and around the ACC, the picture is much too murky.
I can't tell whether Previdi and Polvani's review helps, in particular I haven't been able yet to quantify their "despite lingering uncertainties." What's your take on their review?
Rob Ellison | June 29, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
Uncertainty seems to have come of age – the new warminista meme is that uncertainty implies a lack of knowledge. The obverse is much closer to the truth – uncertainty involves understanding the limits to knowledge and the potential for climate surprises.
How to get the development and environment agenda on track in the face of such egregious obtuseness? One can only try.
http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/30/black-carbon-a-health-and-environment-issue/#more-754
Uncertainty increases knowledge….
Not for me. Just says the models are likely wrong.
"Used to be things you could know snd others you couldnt"
Brilliant simplicity.
Rob Ellison | July 8, 2014 at 1:18 am |
Testing a cool new button I found
I encourage critics of Tony Heller's aka Steven Goddard's criticism of global temperature adjustments to go to his site and accept his challenge to debate the issue in public:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/the-scumbags-are-out-in-force/
Bob Koss | June 29, 2014 at 9:30 pm |
Here is an animated gif of 8 stations within 500 km north of Key West. Data is from GHCN. I think it demonstrates just how schizophrenic the adjustments are. This is all individual station data and shows only those station years with 12 months data in both the raw and adjusted datasets. As it is full years no one can complain about averaging the twelve months to create a yearly value.
In most cases the raw set has 20-30% more 12 month years. In many cases the adjustment process has not simply removed a single month here and there from a year in raw dataset. In many cases it has removed 6-12 months of data. Gives an idea how much is likely being removed in other years which may not have even had 12 months raw data to start with.
You will notice in some cases there are stretches of 5-10 years where the adjustment remains flat. I don't know, but I think those periods are dominated by the TOBS adjustments. 5 of the 8 stations show adjustment toward cooling the past, the others show warming.
Runs continuously at about 7 seconds per image. Arranged alphabetically.
Note: The temperature scale is not the same for all images. The software auto-adjusts according to value range.
These all happen to be USHCN stations. GHCN starts with USHCN raw and creates their own adjusted. Doesn't do the estimated thing.
From the U.S. Department of D'oh!
"A group of California Democrats is having second thoughts about the state's expanding cap-and-trade program, urging Gov. Jerry Brown's administration to rethink the plan out of concern that it will drive up gas prices and hurt low-income residents."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/29/dems-worry-californias-cap-and-trade-expansion-will-drive-up-gas-prices/
We want to pass stupid progressive policies because it makes us feel superior. But when we realize that it might cost us our phony baloney government paid jobs….
Bad Andrew asks "If Global Warming is a reality, at what geographic location(s) has it been detected and how?"
Bird-migrations are thermometers that never go out of adjustment … bird-watchers are incorruptible citizen-scientists who work for purely for love … and the world's bird-migrations plainly show pole-ward translations in every location that bird-watchers have studied.
*EVERYONE* understands *THAT* — especially citizen-scientists and the birds they watch — eh Climate Etc readers?
What is your next question, Bad Andrew?
Now that you appreciate that climate-change is *REAL*!
Ragnaar | June 30, 2014 at 12:13 am |
This link doesn't appear to work:
More details on the methods used are available in the 'Methods Paper'.
https://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a-new-release-from-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature/
Wow, step away from the internet for a few days and the faux-skeptics bring out all manner of "look squirrel!" distractions.
No matter how surface temperature data is adjusted, what very very likely won't change is the fact that the past two month period has been the warmest such two-months on instrument record as part of the warmest decade on instrument record as part of the highest CO2 levels in many millions of years. These are the essential details that humanity must deal with as it comes to terms with the consequences of the effects of the Human Carbon Volcano.
Rgates
What are you personally doing to substantially curb your human volcano proclivities?
Quick-eze?
Tony B,
Why do I have to? The HCV is very much a natural result of a civilization's evolution to a point where it needs to use more energy than has recently (in the immediate past) fallen as sunlight on Earth. Thus, in the burning of fossil fuels, we use sunlight that has fallen on the Earth millions of years ago. Quite a natural step for an advancing civilization. The really important question is– is this natural step a potential answer to the Fermi Paradox, and a cause of the Great Filter:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
It seems reasonable that if you are especially concerned about the HCV you should take serious steps to mitigate your own impact.
R. Gates | June 30, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
I am not "concerned" about the HCV. It is an interesting phenomenon, along with its effects, and I wonder how many other civilizations across the universe (or multiverse) have come to this juncture in their development.
Human Carbon Volcano? I don't know whether to label that as extreme or absurd, not that the two terms are mutually exclusive… what is our contribution, about 3% of the total CO2 set free every year?
All of the increase
Tom Fuller,
The term Human Carbon Volcano is all at once exceptionally creative, descriptive, appropriate, and enlightened. If you fail to understand how the massive transfer of carbon from lithosphere to atmosphere by humans through the burning of fossil fuels is very much like volcano, then the failure of vision is yours– not the term or dynamics behind the HCV.
If one does not agree to accept the term "human carbon volcano", it does not necessarily mean they do not understand you. It could mean they find the term non-appropriate as applied to the situation. with their full understanding of exactly what you mean.
don't mistake refusal to accept and ability to understand.
My vote… I believe I understand. I refuse to accept it as appropriate. As I think the term "greenhouse" applied to the earth is inappropriate oversimplification, and I wish it did not exist. It enables a belief in understanding a situation by people who do not understand the situation.
they don't distinguish between "exhibiting [ AN ] similar trait to a trait of a greenhouse" and "being [LIKE] a geenhouse" and attributing ALL of the traits of a greenhouse to the situation.
this misconception of the publics ability to undrestand, provides them with reason for false belief. They will choose to believe that which they "can" understand, before that which is "correct".
and that has certainly been proven time and again throughout history.
often to no good purpose.
imho.
Puttin' the Hyper in hyperbole. Y'all just keep stretching–sooner or later you'll find a term that is apocalyptic to… just make everyone roll on the floor laughing, I guess.
JCH | June 30, 2014 at 10:55 am |
The truth is people in a burning theater are very reluctant to yell fire. It's the exact opposite of the myth: free speech does not extend to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. An itsy bitsy tiny number of people have been hurt by that. It's really stupid. The history is when there is a crowded theater that is actually on fire, often nobody speaks up until it's too late. "Stay seated people. Remain calm. Nobody's dead yet. We're okay. Listen to us, we're sensible conservative white men." That's the real hyperbole that happens when there is a fire. Wouldn't want to commit alarmist hyperbole 'cause sensible people hate alarmism because they think it's the tool of an unstable personality. So fire marshals have taken the stupid humans, like Tom Fuller, out of the equation and turned it over to ALARMIST robots who scream, "Get the F out of here."
R. Gates | June 30, 2014 at 10:57 am |
One's refusal to accept a term as appropriate or not is a personal choice most likely guided by one's knowledge, experience, and world view. The HCV is a descriptive term describing the massive human caused flow of carbon from lithosphere to atmosphere cause by the burning of fossil fuels. The flow of that carbon and the cause are facts– if you don't like the descriptive term I've created to characterize that factual dynamic– oh well.
@ R Gates, re: Human Carbon Volcano….Oh well.
we could ask for a consensus. :-)
don't take it hard. it was a nice try, and has some emotional allure. creative.
so, for me, not accepted, but after the fact, the effort is recognized and acknowledged. :-)
captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | June 30, 2014 at 10:59 am |
"The truth is people in a burning theater are very reluctant to yell fire. It's the exact opposite of the myth: free speech does not extend to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater"
There appears to be a serious medication distribution problem
We're going to have to start all over with RGates. First lesson is the letter 'A'. This stands for Attribution.
Barnes | June 30, 2014 at 3:27 am |
That "human volcano" has about as much impact on climate as a fart has on a hurricane. You apparently have a problem discerning that the adjustments to the data have all gone in one direction only – that is to make earlier periods cooler and more recent periods warmer, creating an artificial "warming" trend. I suspect that soon the pause will be eliminated just like the LIA and MWP.
Rob Ellison | June 30, 2014 at 4:36 am |
A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than
over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios,and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans. http://users.monash.edu.au/~dietmard/papers/dommenget.land-ocean.jcl2009.pdf
Surface land temps are running half a degree C too hot for this reason – http://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2010/2000-2009wOceanLabels.jpg
Does no one get this?
Edim | June 30, 2014 at 4:59 am |
Yes, water cools the Earth's surface.
WebHubTelescope | June 30, 2014 at 7:47 am |
Own goal by the deniers.
Webby, please use at least some argumentation. What do you disagree with?
A little mercy, Edim; can't you see him writhing all around on the ground?
nottawa rafter | June 30, 2014 at 9:35 am |
He is too busy. Had to go back to his basement to work on his Ravell plastic model.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | July 1, 2014 at 1:12 am |
Edim has set some sort of all time record by making countless assertions without a citation or deeper analysis to be found.
That is what you call massive projection based on his own acutely felt inadequacies, anxieties, and angst.
As you can see, these guys don't like it when the tables are turned.
Jonathan Abbott | June 30, 2014 at 9:48 am |
See my comment regarding enthalpy as a metric, below.
The tide is turning!
Anthony Watts suggests today that the UN's IPCC has "Forced Deliberate Creation of Misinformation" in headlines to a guest post by Climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball.
Dr Ball begins his guest post noting the link between constitutional government and honest science by quoting John Adams' 1765 Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/30/ipcc-method-of-proving-the-human-caused-warming-agw-hypothesis-forced-deliberate-creation-of-misinformation/
Congratulations to all AGW skeptics!
More pablum that Watts tosses out for his echo chamber faithful. They lap it up as is provides a small (though artificial) island of relief in the middle of an increasingly vast ocean of evidence of the rapid changes going on in Earth's energy balance.
If it IS pablum (surely the word of the week) why don't you go over there to refute it? Anthony Watts has agreed that you can do so and it would improve the acoustics of the echo chamber you believe exists over there.
Bad Andrew | June 30, 2014 at 10:15 am |
"island of relief in the middle of an increasingly vast ocean of evidence"
R. Gates,
You should enter this in a poetry contest.
I can refute Ball's nonsense by simply looking at one exaggerated and actually very confused statement. He says:
"…most of the last 10,000 years was warmer than today as the Greenland ice core shows."
This faux-skeptic meme was running around the blogosphere a few years ago and I am amazed it has resurfaced again, but perhaps Ball is desperate to prove his point so he is grasping at these old false memes. In reality, the current Greenland temperatures are among the highest of the last 10,000 years, as this chart shows (look to the far right for more recent years):
And here's a good dissection of this faux-skeptic meme:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
Watts must daily put out the pablum for his faithful, and of course, with the increasing obviousness of the increasing overall energy in the climate system, it seems regurgitation is necessary as the sources for the pablum grow ever more scarce.
as I read, a couple of phrases popped out at me…
exaggerated and actually very confused statement [AND]
human carbon volcano
That's great Alistair, those terms should stand out.
Alistair Riddoch | June 30, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
oh, they do, R Gates….they do. :-D
omanuel rejoices "The tide is turning!"
Yes, TeaParty activists and the Kochtopus alike simply *LOVE* Tim Ball and Principia Scientific International's bizarre gallimaufry of pseudoscience:
"The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, by Tim Ball PhD, convincingly lays out the case for believing that the current climate change narrative is 'a liberal plot.' (Read a review from Principia Scientific International.)"
What an unholy union! Principia Scientific International's unique brand of bizarre science, and the Kochtopus' aggressive brand of astroturfed anti-science FUD!
A vast image out of Spritus Mundi troubles my sight:
Somewhere in the sands of the desert …
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
What anti-science 'rough beast', born of the unholy Kochtopus/TeaParty/PSI union, now is slouching toward the general elections?
The world wonders!
I recently became curious as to why climatologists seem to concentrate so closely on the temperature of the atmosphere, instead of the actual heat content, which is surely the real parameter that will (or won't) result in damaging climate change. (Or are there any key processes that are purely driven by temperature alone?)
I have found a paper by Fall et al a here that discusses the use of moist enthalpy as a suitable metric and another published a here in GRL by Peterson et al; both date from 2011. This latter paper introduces an overall energy content metric for the atmosphere that includes kinetic energy (i.e. wind speed), which seems to me to be exactly what should be used instead of just temperature.
Peterson et al do note that the observations required to calculate the energy content only exist post-1973, so perhaps it can't be used for historical reconstructions, but why not for recent and forward-looking research? They also say that they have no data post-2003 because HadCRUH hasn't been updated, but the more recent data must be available somewhere, surely? Does anyone have any data post-2003, and does anyone know how 'The Pause' looks in terms of energy content instead of just temperature?
As an aside, I must admit I was shocked to read the following in Peterson et al:
"We do, however, have concerns about the potential for the general public to misinterpret heat content analysis. Figure 1 shows that heat content tends to be decreasing in Australia despite increases in surface temperature. Presenting heat content as the primary metric for global warming could lead lay readers to erroneously perceive Australia as cooling – after all, its heat (content) is decreasing. Our concern is not just nomenclature. Heat content by any other name if used as a global warming metric has the potential to imply cooling even in places with increasing temperature simply because the location is becoming dryer."
WTF? They argue that scientists shouldn't use the correct metric because the poor, stupid public may misunderstand what they're saying? And if the heat content of the atmosphere over Australia does decrease, surely that tells us that it won't experience damaging changes to its climate. Only somebody who wants to ensure the public only get the 'correct' message (regardless of what the data says) could write such rubbish.
The use of moist enthalpy was also suggested by Pielke Sr.:
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/18814227/equivalent-temperature-climate-science-roger-pielke-sr
Your general point is quite valid, but we should never lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of the energy in the climate system is in the ocean, and it is the movement of that energy from ocean to atmosphere and ocean to cryopshere that dictates both weather and climate.
Jonathan Abbott | June 30, 2014 at 10:39 am |
The Loneliness of the Non-Crazy Republican
"The GOP you imagine, which respects science and is willing to consider even market-friendly government interventions like carbon taxes, no longer exists."
"The reins of power now rest firmly, irreversibly, in the hands of men who believe that climate change is a hoax concocted by liberal scientists to justify Big Government."
Young climate-change scientists are seeing this dynamic plainly, right here on Climate Etc, isn't that right Judith Curry?
The GOP's leaders are subjugated by political calculus:
• Special interests are supplying unbounded FUD-and-cash …
• TeaParty fundamentalists are dominating primaries …
• And so, GOP leaders are throwing science under the bus.
And needless to say, thoughtful science-respecting conservatives are steamrollered in the primaries, by the coalition special-interests and fundamentalists … and so the GOP loses precisely the candidates it needs to win main elections. Ouch!
Question Is it any wonder that junior *AND* senior STEM professionals alike reject the GOP's brand of anti-science anti-education denialism?
And reject too, a faux-conservative party that nowadays has grown so selfishly short-sighted as to be hopelessly dominated by special interests and denialists?
pokerguy | June 30, 2014 at 10:21 am |
"Is it any wonder that junior *AND* senior STEM professionals alike reject the GOP's brand of anti-science anti-education denialism?"
Think you need more wild-eyed histrionics, Fan. Just not crazy enough.
amongst the non-CO2-warmist crowd…
is there an accepted forecast of the future climate, from a non CO2 warming advocate? does the skeptical side have a popular prediction they stand behind? warming/cooling/same/don't know??
may I ask,
is it common on the skeptics side to view the 20's and 30's as a mystery, because they seem to refute the sun's impact on the earth?
I am picking up that they are an anomaly, and wander "why" it is considered such, if so.
Please?
5 biggest mysteries according to Neil deGrasse Tyson:
1. Dark energy, that "mysterious pressure in the vacuum of space" that's forcing the universe to expand. Quoth Tyson: "I want to know what that is"
2. Dark matter:"Basically 85 percent of all the gravity we measure in the universe has a source about which we know nothing."
3. What was around before the Big Bang, during what Tyson calls "negative time"?
4. How we went from organic molecules to self-replicating life. "That's a transition that we're challenged to accomplish in a laboratory," Tyson explained, "but Earth had no problem accomplishing this — Earth did it early, and did it well." Added Hayes, "Nailed it."
5. The big question: whether we're alone in the universe.
IF solving the 20's and 30's anomaly solves the issue of man-caused global warming, you think it would be up there.
Those are all indeed big mysteries, and worthy of pondering daily. 1, 2, and 3 will likely have a common solution.
If angular momentum contained in an otherwise static field is found to be the root cause of all energy/perception of matter/motion of substance, then planetary and galactic, and universal, and sub atomic motion will all be related, as will the most natural crystalization pattern of DNA, which matches the true path of the planets through space quite beautifully, because it is the universal substance. One answer. That would be nice and "pat".
compare these photos for some "make you think" comparisons…
4. How we went from organic molecules to self-replicating life. "That's a transition that we're challenged to accomplish in a laboratory," Tyson explained, "but Earth had no problem accomplishing this — Earth did it early, and did it well."
That is indeed a mystery, but it is unproven that Earth "accomplished" self-replicating life on its own.
Panspermia has long been my bet that life spread to the Earth from outer space.
The classic rejoinder is that panspermia simply kicks the can up the road for the origin of life. That's true, but still doesn't rule out the possibility of panspermia.
Panspermia allows for a much longer time window in which life can develop. If life began on earth, it did so in a geological eyeblink, while the earth was a violent chaotic place.
The self repairing was the fabric itself which if every piece desires to both orbit and rotate, will fold back in on itself in every presentation. to move in a coil. dna, fluids, liquids, etc. because it is natural to do so. driven by a fabric that creates that desired motion. as a thought.
and I LOVE the term Panspermia. Should Einstein's missing Aether get found, and be found to promote the creation of DNA as snowflakes are a natural extension of ice crystalization, then Panspermia sounds like the correct resulting term. Panspermia! I like that!
The Panspermia Theory. with sub atomic physics to back it up. Nice. Thank you. been looking for a name for a while. Will include that somehow. :-D
It's not quite right, implies incoming external information. Not for me. :-(
Universal Abiogenisis driven by a universally present unifying energy/matter field. Explaining mechanically, not just the fundamental forces, but the nature of the beginning of life, and an alteration in the perceived probability of extra-terrestrial life. Based on the extreme minimization and replication of the shape of the universal gravity wave, set in a tetrahedral matrix, and counterspun at the speed of light.
Sounds so crackpottish. But so does the standard model with worm-holes, time dilation and magic "forces".
Jasper Gee | June 30, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
He said "awakens" and you FOMD have unwittingly destroyed a beautiful utterance of unsurpassing poetry. You unforgivable philistine.
Ragnaar | June 30, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
"One of the most important and mysterious events in recent climate history is the climate shift in the mid-1970s. In the northern hemisphere 500-hPa atmospheric flow the shift manifested itself as a collapse of a persistent wave-3 anomaly pattern and the emergence of a strong wave-2 pattern." – Tsonis et al 2007
The above has intrigued me for some time as I try to see regime changes. Jennifer Francis has some helpful background words:
It seems the Northern jetstream went into meander mode in about 2001 which goes along with more lobes or waves which could reverse the 3 to 2 swap above. I think she says the circulation slows down and lengthens North to South. I am thinking that it's in a cooling mode now.
Not too long ago the topic was GCMs or something better? Once a change in the system has occurred start pointing in the new direction and keep pointing that way until it changes again.
Alistair Riddoch | July 1, 2014 at 12:39 am |
Interesting reading
Gravity variations much bigger than previously thought
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-gravity-variations-bigger-previously-thought.html
Earthquake scars Earth's gravity
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-earthquake-scars-earth-gravity.html
Jim D | July 1, 2014 at 12:49 am |
In an enlightening moment, WUWT posted this saying that warming above 25 C average temperature was a big factor in migration away from areas.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/30/claim-heat-more-than-natural-disasters-will-drive-people-away/#more-112260
Needless to say, the denizens unanimously denied that this could possibly be true, and panned the Princeton researchers who brought them the message. In a ridiculous response, Knappenberger posted an item that warm states like Florida were popular (average temperature near 20 C). Missed the point. Entertaining though. It's like a zoo over there.
R. Gates | July 1, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
"It's like a zoo over there."
Not like a zoo…is a zoo with Watts as the zookeeper of his echo-chamber creatures.
vukcevic | July 1, 2014 at 7:47 am |
UK Met Office just released Min-Max daily temperatures for the month of June. As this graph shows
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-dMm.htm
the June CET is still above the 20 year average.
Alistair Riddoch | July 1, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
more interesting reading relating gravity to magnetism which is related solar activity and sunspots cycles).
which all directly relates to the magnitude of impact the sun can have on the earth, which I believe to be grossly underestimated. :-)
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-rapid-earth-core-magnetic-field.html
Ragnaar | July 1, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
Another things will be Okay article, at least it looks that way:
http://blogs.plos.org/models/no-need-to-worry-about-greenlands-waterslides/
Part of it says excess meltwater tunnels through the ice and drains. Less meltwater does what Minnesotan's call frost heaves. Water in things like rock or pavement freezes and gains area. It in effect lifts what is above it, promoting movement. Their model found what I'd call a number of negative feedbacks.
It interesting to ask, why does the earth stack ice on Greenland and then unstack it as it is doing now? During an ice age it's pushing the cold as far away from the equator as it can, similar to what a heat pump does. The oceans are freezing but they are first transported to the land. So I guess the oceans are unfreezing at the moment.
"During an ice age it's pushing the cold as far away from the equator as it can…"
This makes no thermodynamic sense and is in fact not true at all. The high and mid-latitudes both cool during a period global glacial advance. During warm periods the opposite is true.
I was thinking of the transport of heat and water. Suppose we have ocean water that can only go to – 2.0 C. We move it to Greenland where it can go to a lower temperature, meaning heat must pop out somewhere in the system. Let's also say the hydrological slows down as you can't get much slower than the Greenland icesheet. We happen to be able to see an interglacial and I think the glacials provide context and hints about these polar/equatorial movements
R. Gates | July 2, 2014 at 1:22 am |
Generally, during glacial periods you have less net energy in the system, both atmosphere, ocean, and the in the expanding cryosphere. You will see lower heat content in the oceans, with colder water expanding towards the equator. This generally leads to a more arid overall climate during glacial periods. The trick is, even though less snow falls with a less moist atmosphere, even much less melts in cooler summers, and so the glaciers advance.
jim2 | July 2, 2014 at 8:59 am |
Poll after poll shows President Obama's approval rating dipping recently, and one new Quinnipiac University Poll finds that voters say Mitt Romney would have been a better choice in 2012.
With Mr. Obama deploying military troops to Iraq, failing to find compromise with Congress and seeing major defeats in the Supreme Court, voters continue to sour on him.
PHOTOS: Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Quinnipiac found 45 percent of voters say the country would have been better off if Mr. Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, had been election, while just 38 percent say Mr. Obama remains a better choice. Even Democrats aren't so sure — just 74 percent of them told the pollsters Mr. Obama was clearly the better pick in the last election.
Voters also rate him the worst president since World War II, topping even his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who had left office with terrible ratings.
"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/obama-worst-president-wwii-new-poll-shows/
GRACE is NASA's Gravitational Field Variation Sensing pair of satellites.
You can view the variations in the Earths gravitational field here:
http://geoid.colorado.edu/grace/dataportal.html
(A tribute to NASA's G.R.A.C.E. Satellites)
Amazing Grace, how sweet she is
That saved the wretched Earth,
For once, were lost, but now are found,
Were blind, but now CAN see,
Two angels watching over Earth,
Dancing endlessly,
Sometimes grow close, sometimes grow far,
The same trajectory
Their tale of push and pull, goes on,
Revealing much to see,
The job between these two angels,
Is feeling gravity.
For even in a greenhouse, hot,
GRACE thinks you aught to know,
The ONLY omniprotent force,
Universal gravity,
It's known to drive the universe,
Jittering, up and down, and around,
We're shaken like some little ants,
Barely knowing where we're bound,
GRACE goes on, to say to us,
The sun is next to none,
Her warm and loving, strong embrace,
Fluxes gravity off and on,
One bind that ties the Earth to Sun,
Providing heat, and light of day,
And when the sun, she goes to sleep,
Our magnet has his way,
For deep inside the Earth, GRACE says,
The inferno surely burns,
The heat kicked up, by many a ton,
Of IRON being churned,
With the Sun's release, between sunspot peaks,
The inner Earth warms up,
Releasing at the equator more,
The ocean's heating up,
We think this heat, we are the source,
Look here says Mr Gore,
My Inconvenient Truth will guide your eyes,
Inside the Earth, look naught,
The inferno inside Earth boils on,
Cloaked in mystery,
Consensus says, we are to blame,
And minions we are not,
Now GRACE, her gentle, whispered word,
Sent down, from up above,
Says, please, my heart it begs of you,
Remember the Heaven's up above,
So know the true source of the heat,
That drives the climate here,
Comes partly from the Sun above,
Thence thrice from down below,
The infernos heat, we need not fear,
Is surer, than our own,
The paltry effort of our coal,
Can not affect the Sun,
Burn your fires, bright at night,
Keep toes as warm, need be,
With GRACE above, sending love,
your heart can be at peace.
The holy trinity's thus revealed,
With gravity lording all,
His Sister's GRACE, bringing us,
His message, for once and all,
The path, to sleeping well at night,
Is follow what GRACE says,
Below in steps, she gives to you,
The path to clarity…..
SUNSPOT CYCLES
SOLAR ACTIVITY
SOLAR MAGNETIC FIELD
EARTH MAGNETIC FIELD
EARTH GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
EARTH POLE TO EQUATOR MASS DISTRIBUTION
FLUXING CONSTANTLY, PROPORTIONALLY TO ONE ANOTHER
DRIVING REGIONAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURES
LIGHT=ELECTRO MAGNETISM
GRAVITY=MAGNETO MOTIVE (pressure)
MAGNETISM=ELECTRO MOTIVE
There is a direct correlation from magnetism to gravity that drives the shape of the earth from the inside, as well as the outside, that constantly fluxes as it sees fit, converting mass to energy, and energy to mass, such that the center of the earth is always in balance with the entire environment that the universe provides, because it HAS NO CHOICE.
Stuck in the middle, we at the surface, are on a trampoline, and thank goodness, for the bouncing effect that the correlation between light, gravity, and magnetism provide, is the guarantee that it would take enormous changes to shift the temperature of the earth. We would have to MOVE MOUNTAINS.
Climate is all about forcings:
If the direct impact of the Sun on the Earth, is much greater than previously realized, it directly undermines CO2 as a significant warming factor.
Universal Conservation of Energy, and Gravity, work together to choose, and balance the two off each other, CONSTANTLY, and that is what GRACE reveals, and that should be the end of the climate mystery story,
Weather is all about barometric pressure:
GRACE may provide some ability to predict gravitational flux,and therefor barometric pressure models, and provide better, more advance weather predictions too, perhaps.
As far as I can figure.
Please check for yourselves. :-)
GRACE implores you!
A little different perspective on the Human Carbon Volcano:
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-volcano-thousand-mouths.html
So the HCV emits both CO2 as well as black carbon, each with different effects, short-term and long-term.
Rob Starkey | July 2, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
Posting links to yet more inaccurate propaganda does not help make a case for doing much