Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Upton Sinclair]

Pity the FOI'ed emails cast show that they Neukom "found" the error 2hours after Jeans at climate audit.

People should read the link and make up their own minds

Yeah people should make up their own minds - the rantings of a sell-professed "mathematician" who published on s blog, who isn't qualified to assess the fields he claims to "audit" from the safety of his blog, whose only attempts at publishing his criticisms in the peer review literature was so irrelevant to
o anything was essentially laughed out of the room

You've done nothing to address my points, we started discussing whether it has continued to warm over x number of years.

Instead of addressing the empirical evidence of the ocean continuing to absorb 80%/ of the observed heat flux imbalance, or conceding the fact that your "no warming" meme relies, or the fact that you can't cherry pick your way to a convenient outcome when 10 out of the record high temp years have occurred in the last 16 years.

Instead, we get half baked conspiracy memes, repeated ad nauseum no matter how many times their debunked, that only have the vaguest connection to the actual issue.

You can try to smear the historical record but the fact that satellites record the energy imbalance, ocean records confirm where that energy is going...

you seem to think that energy magically disappears because you know a blogger who can use statistics to plot a negative trend over a decade or so.

Physics wake up call, heat energy doesn't just magically vanish, in a closed system it must be accounted for. Until the deniers can develop a viable alternative mechanism that works within the laws of physics then their absurd conspiracies should and will continue to be laughed out of the room by anyone who matters.

 

[Ripper]

heat energy doesn't just magically vanish,

Can't magically be created either E=MC^2

There is only one power source.

P.s. Wonna has obviously not read the correspondence

Karoly:

Someone has now tried to reproduce the screening of the 27 selected proxies against the target Australasian temp series and is unable to reproduce the claimed results in the paper. http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/06/gergis-significance/. I suggest that you look at this Stephen Mcintyre post. Given that the error is now identified in the blogosphere, we need to notify the
journal of the error and put the manuscript on hold

So it would have been all systems go if it "wasn't identified in the Blogosphere"

And don't worry about getting the right result

Gergis:

“Although we attempted to be transparent about our methodology, this has backfired and caused a lot of trouble.”

They should welcome errors being spotted early. The more open source the better. That why Linux is so good. If Phil Jones hadn't obfuscated for 25 years over the stations and data we may have a better handle on the temperature.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Can't magically be created either E=MC^2

There is only one power source.

Excellent. We're getting somewhere. We're actually talking about physical mechanisms.

So there is one energy source, an energy source that has remained relatively constant for the last few centuries. So clearly there isn't more heat going into the system, something else is happening. And, thanks to the wonders of satellite technology we can measure that while the incoming energy remains constant the outgoing energy is declining, its a very clear heat flux imbalance. And, again through the empirical observation of satellite instruments it is possible to analyse the spectrum of the outgoing radiation to identify which molecules are trapping the heat and at what rate it is happening at.

That excess heat is being absorbed into the oceans at an incredible rate, heat energy equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima bombs every year since 1961.

Its a clear, undeniable empirical observation that fits perfectly with the greenhouse model developed over 120 years ago and governed by inflexible physical laws. No amount of cherry picking your way to a trend can change them

P.s. Wonna has obviously not read the correspondence

Karoly:


So it would have been all systems go if it "wasn't identified in the Blogosphere"

And don't worry about getting the right result

Gergis:


They should welcome errors being spotted early. The more open source the better. That why Linux is so good. If Phil Jones hadn't obfuscated for 25 years over the stations and data we may have a better handle on the temperature.

The results aren't in question, just the way the methodology was written up, the paper has been resubmitted and is currently under review.

This is such a non-issue, absolutely typical of the heat & noise that passes for "debate" in the conspir-o-sphere. But I certainly do understand why you'd choose to focus on conspiracy theories rather than face reality and be forced to address hard physical truths like that outlined above, it is a convenient diversion.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

And this is what starts happening when you introduce such vast quantities of heat into the ocean

A changing Gulf Stream off the East Coast has destabilized frozen methane deposits trapped under nearly 4,000 square miles of seafloor, scientists reported Wednesday. And since methane is even more potent than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas, the researchers said, any large-scale release could have significant climate impacts.
Temperature changes in the Gulf Stream are "rapidly destabilizing methane hydrate along a broad swathe of the North American margin," the experts said in a study published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature.
Using seismic records and ocean models, the team estimated that 2.5 gigatonnes of frozen methane hydrate are being destabilized and could separate into methane gas and water

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...destabilizing-off-east-coast-study-finds?lite

 

[Ripper]

The results aren't in question, just the way the methodology was written up, the paper has been resubmitted and is currently under review.

LOL.

Karolygate II

Now re-read proposition #3 -- the one that concedes that, if the study had been done as advertised -- only nine proxies would have been relevant, with just one of those purporting to define climate prior to 1400AD. Obviously, that's not going to save the research and get the paper published.

Karoly's preference is to .... ignore that option!

Now look at option #2, one of Karoly's two favoured options, and don't forget that the paper originally sold the notion that Australian temperatures were at a 1000-year high on the strength of allegedly "detrended" data. That detrending wasn't done, which is why the paper had to be spiked, so now Karoly's idea is for everyone concerned to insist un-detrended numbers are the better option.

Just coincidentally, that approach saves the headline-grabbing claim that Australia is hot as Hades and poised to get a whole lot worse.

And

On June 10, a few days after the Gergis-Karoly-Neukom error had been identified, I speculated that they would try to re-submit the same results, glossing over the fact that they had changed the methodology from that described in the accepted article. My cynical prediction was that a community unoffended by Gleick or upside-down Mann would not cavil at such conduct.
The emails show that Karoly and Gergis did precisely as predicted, but Journal of Climate editors Chiang and Broccoli didn’t bite. Most surprising perhaps was that Karoly’s initial reaction was agreement with the Climate Audit criticism of ex post correlation screening. However, when Karoly realized that the reconstruction fell apart using the methodology of the accepted article, he was very quick to propose that they abandon the stated methodology and gloss over the changes.
Read on

 

[OldBlueFan]

LOL.
Karolygate II
And

So Ripper, planning to debunk over 50% of all climate papers published in the last 20 years or so? Or are you another denialist who thinks that you can challenge the entire field by focussing on one paper that you think has issues?

I think it's revealing that all denialists have left is:

• smear of individual scientists, hoping for some "guilt by association" association effect
• ridiculous conspiracy theories
• blatant cherry-picking of data
• outright lies

Meanwhile the planet just keeps forcing reality squarely back into the frame.

 

[Ripper]

So Ripper, planning to debunk over 50% of all climate papers published in the last 20 years or so? Or are you another denialist who thinks that you can challenge the entire field by focussing on one paper that you think has issues?

I think it's revealing that all denialists have left is:

• smear of individual scientists, hoping for some "guilt by association" association effect
• ridiculous conspiracy theories
• blatant cherry-picking of data
• outright lies

Meanwhile the planet just keeps forcing reality squarely back into the frame.

A large number should be withdrawn as they use faulty methodology (the screening fallacy).

This is acknowledged privately.

The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking about over-fitting and the potential bias of
screening against the target climate parameter.

Therefore, I thought I'd play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could 'reconstruct' northern hemisphere temperatures.

Karoly even acknowedges the same.

”If the selection is done on the proxies without detrending ie the full proxy records over the 20th century, then records with strong trends will be selected and that will effectively force a hockey stick result. Then Stephen Mcintyre criticism is valid”.

The Journal editor agrees.

After consulting with the Chief Editor, I have decided to rescind acceptance of the paper- you’ll receive an official email from J Climate to this effect as soon as we figure out how it should be properly done. I believe the EOR has already been taken down.
Also, since it appears that you will have to redo the entire analysis (and which may result in different conclusions), I will also be requesting that you withdraw the paper from consideration. Again, you’ll hear officially from J CLimate in due course. I invite you to resubmit once the necessary analyses and changes to the manuscript have been made.
I hope this will be acceptable to you. I regret the situation, but thank you for bringing it to my prompt attention.

So as with everything knowledge has progressed and Macintyre was right all along.

 

[Ripper]

Interestingly a new paper from Briffa and Melvin from the UEA show no sign of hockey sticks,

Abstract

We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.

Note that the 1860 onwards graphs are similar to the BOM records from Geraldton and Kalgoorlie on the other end of the world.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Interestingly a new paper from Briffa and Melvin from the UEA show no sign of hockey sticks

Why is that "interesting"? In your own words, please.

Note that the 1860 onwards graphs are similar to the BOM records from Geraldton and Kalgoorlie on the other end of the world.

So why have these criticisms not been submitted to a journal? Why is it that "sceptic" arguments simply aren't reflected in the peer review literature? And why is it that you uncritically accept everything you read on a blog while dismissing the vast body of evidence to the contrary?

And why is it that when given the opportunity to discuss the physical reality of your claim that it "hasn't warmed" you instead choose to discuss conspiracy theories that the temperature record has been manipulated and perceived inconsistencies in paleoclimatological reconstructions of temperatures 1000 years ago?

They're rhetorical questions btw , no need to reply as the answers are pretty self evident

 

[Upton Sinclair]

So while our denier friends are trying to outwit reality by cherry picking their way to a statistical trend, mother nature is giving us a taste of things to come.

Now, Sandy was a big storm and while there are good reasons for believing climate change played a role in the storm itself it will take some time to find such a link. What is undeniable now though is the role climate change played in exacerbating the disaster.

New York, like most centres of global trade is close to the sea and susceptible to flooding from storm surges. Since 1900 tidal gauges bear Battery Park have recorded a 30 cm increase in sea level, normally not a huge problem for civic authorities to deal with but when extreme conditions like those Sandy caused then every creeping cm multiplies the damage from future extreme weather evenrs, events that are already demonstrably increasing in both frequency and intensity

http://skepticalscience.com/hurricane-sandy-climate-connection.html

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Another round of "recent research", maybe Dan and Ripper can finally explain why it is that their "sceptical" worldview is simply not supported by the vast body of research being published week in week out

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/new-research-from-last-week-432012/

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Finally!! No more beating around the bush - this **** is serious and America is waking up

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Finally!! No more beating around the bush - this **** is serious and America is waking up

Cmon, you cant just post a localised weather effect and call someone stupid.
This new york thing was nowhere near as bad as the 1931 China floods.
Not even sure if its worse than cyclone tracy.
It just happened to hit new york.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Cmon, you cant just post a localised weather effect and call someone stupid.

For starters, I'm not sure that you're getting the context of the 'stupid' comment - 'it's the economy, stupid' was Bill Clinton's line from 1993. We are in the last week of the election campaign and Bloomberg himself came out today endorsing Obama for taking climate change seriously. So that's the context.

As for the "localised weather event", there is a concerted effort to attribute extreme weather to climate change, with varying methods being tested over the last few years. But even if you discount climate change as having any effect on the storm itself, the damage wouldn't have been nearly as bad were sea levels not already > 30 cm higher than they were at the start of the 20th century. If the exact same storm hit New York in 1900 the storm surges would have been less severe and Manhattan would likely not have flooded.

This new york thing was nowhere near as bad as the 1931 China floods.
Not even sure if its worse than cyclone tracy.

Do you have a source for where you're getting this from?

 

[bomberfan11]

Lol Antarctica reaches record high ice levels apparently means nothing

A category 2 hurricane forms all of a sudden it proves global warming

 

[SaintsSeptember]

New Yorks strongest known hurricane was in the 1600's or thereabouts

 

[Upton Sinclair]

New Yorks strongest known hurricane was in the 1600's or thereabouts

It wasn't the strength of Sandy that was exceptional, it was the sheer size of the thing. It was unprecedented, and that was at least in part caused by the warming Atlantic. But all if that aside, regardless of how much a role AGW played in Sandy, the fact is that the damage was greatly exacerbated because sea levels around New York are nearly a foot higher than they were 100 years ago - the storm surge that hut Manhattan was 14 feet high. These kinds of events will continue to increase in frequency and intensity. The question needs to be asked, how many times in a century can we afford to submerge cities like New York before the cost of emission reductions start to look like a good investment.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Lol Antarctica reaches record high ice levels apparently means nothing

No, it means something, just not what you apparently think

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It wasn't the strength of Sandy that was exceptional, it was the sheer size of the thing. It was unprecedented, and that was at least in part caused by the warming Atlantic. But all if that aside, regardless of how much a role AGW played in Sandy, the fact is that the damage was greatly exacerbated because sea levels around New York are nearly a foot higher than they were 100 years ago - the storm surge that hut Manhattan was 14 feet high. These kinds of events will continue to increase in frequency and intensity. The question needs to be asked, how many times in a century can we afford to submerge cities like New York before the cost of emission reductions start to look like a good investment.

If only the sea was a foot lower the surge would have only been 13 feet high and everything would have been OK.
Where was the tide when the surge hit?

Anyway, its happening, when do we start building the nuclear power plants which would be the most effective way of combatting the greenhouse gas emmisions?

 

[bomberfan11]

Super Typhoon Tip was actually a fair bit larger in size and strength back in 1979

 

[Upton Sinclair]

If only the sea was a foot lower the surge would have only been 13 feet high and everything would have been OK.
Where was the tide when the surge hit?

That assumes that storm surge height is directly proportional to the sea level height by a 1:1 ratio, which is a flawed assumption. That's not how storm surges work.

For example:

The main result is that while sea level is expected to rise only by less than 3 ft (1m) during the next century, it tends to increase the frequency of coastal flooding by factors of 2 to 10 by the year 2100. The mean increase in frequency is a factor of about 3. Therefore, what may have been in the past century a marginally tolerable risk exposure will become during this century a less tolerable risk with ever-larger consequences and ever increasing frequency of occurrence

http://metroeast_climate.ciesin.columbia.edu/reports/infrastructure.pdf

Anyway, its happening, when do we start building the nuclear power plants which would be the most effective way of combatting the greenhouse gas emmisions?

Another flawed assumption.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Super Typhoon Tip was actually a fair bit larger in size and strength back in 1979

Did Super Typhoon Tip form in the Atlantic? No? Then what is the relevance to Sandy then?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

That assumes that storm surge height is directly proportional to the sea level height by a 1:1 ratio, which is a flawed assumption. That's not how storm surges work.

For example:



http://metroeast_climate.ciesin.columbia.edu/reports/infrastructure.pdf



Another flawed assumption.

Flawed?
I assume you believe that "massive solar" power stations ( http://greens.org.au/content/austra...t-beginning-wa-unless-barnett-plays-wrecker-0 )( http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...plant-scores-100m-funding-20100921-15kow.html) , "oh dear these "massive" and expensive plants are a fraction of the capacity of the not really that massive Hazelwood coal station. Maybe we'll just increase the duration of brownouts.

Maybe I could assume that you believe that stupid carbon credits will have a real effect.

If this is an issue the size that many are saying, its pretty ridiculous to sit back and wait for a way for a solution to be invented. Unfortunately those who are "green" seem to be also "anti nuclear" and cant choose between evil.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Flawed?
I assume you believe that "massive solar" power stations ( http://greens.org.au/content/austra...t-beginning-wa-unless-barnett-plays-wrecker-0 )( http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...plant-scores-100m-funding-20100921-15kow.html) , "oh dear these "massive" and expensive plants are a fraction of the capacity of the not really that massive Hazelwood coal station. Maybe we'll just increase the duration of brownouts.

Maybe I could assume that you believe that stupid carbon credits will have a real effect.

If this is an issue the size that many are saying, its pretty ridiculous to sit back and wait for a way for a solution to be invented. Unfortunately those who are "green" seem to be also "anti nuclear" and cant choose between evil.

I acknowledge what you are saying, there is real merits to your argument...

However....

I'm pretty sure there are threads dedicated to nuclear power, with many captivating arguments for and against and I'm personally torn on the issue but it isn't something I'm particularly interested in discussing tbh.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I acknowledge what you are saying, there is real merits to your argument...

However....

I'm pretty sure there are threads dedicated to nuclear power, with many captivating arguments for and against and I'm personally torn on the issue but it isn't something I'm particularly interested in discussing tbh.

Fair enough. There are plenty of risks and bad effects from nuclear power, its just that greenhouse gas isn't one of them.
I consider that one of the problems associated with the global warming issue, is that it tends to be associated with general environmentalism, and so forth.
Logically it does not need to be lumped in with pollution and saving the dolphins and whether the rivers should be dammed.