Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:47 PM GMT on August 07, 2012

Share this Blog
11
+

Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings: Models, Water, and Temperature (4)

This is a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature (see Intro). I am starting with models. In this series, I am trying to develop a way to build a foundation for nonscientists to feel comfortable about models and their use in scientific investigation. I expect to get some feedback on how to do this better from the comments. In order to keep a solid climate theme, I am going to have two sections to the entries. One section will be on models, and the other will be on a research result, new or old, that I think is of particular interest.

Doing Science with Models 1.1: In the previous entry of this series I argued that if one considered the types of models used in design and engineering, then we use models all of the time. In fact, when we build or do just about anything, we use some sort of model to get us started. I ended the previous entry with the example of building a simple picnic bench that would hold three, two-hundred-pound men. Not only do the materials need to be of sufficient strength, but the legs of the bench need to be attached in a way that they form a solid and stable foundation. If the bench wobbles and the legs spread apart, then it will be unsafe. If we have experience of some sort, we construct a model from this experience. For example, if we have built or repaired tables and benches we have some ideas of good and bad construction. If we have no direct experience then we can find or ask about plans. These plans might be a schematic, a graphic model of the bench.

For those who do not build benches, but who, say, balance their checkbooks, there are models as well. The forms in a ledger represent models that have proven usable through practice or that have become standard approaches. Information is collected and organized: the check number, the date, the payee, the amount, the purpose and the category of expenditure.

These graphic, tabular, or touchable models are common enough that we develop intuition about their use. Introductory materials to climate models often use the words “mathematical,” “numerical,” and “computational.” These words take us not only away from our intuitive notions of models, but also into subjects that many of us find difficult and obscure. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen the tabular models of checkbook balancing coded as computational products such as Quicken. Design and architecture move to tools such as Computer-assisted Design. Recently, we have seen this combination of the world of digital models and touchable products come full circle with the advent of three-dimensional printing. In three-dimensional printing, solid objects made of plastic and metal are rendered from mathematical descriptions of the objects. I will return to this idea of mathematical descriptions of objects later. The point that I would like to make now is that using computers as tools to represent the real world has in the last two decades become routine. Therefore, in and of itself, the use of computers to make numerical calculations of the real world is common. It might not be as universally intuitive to people as a ledger or a wooden design of a boat, but there is large body of experience that affirms the value of computer-based modeling.

There are a number of steps that need to be taken from here to climate models. So far, I have been talking about models that are in the spirit of a work or a structure used in testing or perfecting a final product. In climate modeling, the final product of the construction is a model. It is the purpose of that model to provide a credible representation of the climate. That representation has a number of attributes. There is the attribute of representing what we have already observed. There is also the attribute of predicting what we will observe, that is, predicting the future. Therefore, the final product of the whole process is the simulation of and the prediction of the climate.

As with many words, there is more than one definition of model in the dictionary. Another relevant definition from my print edition (third) of the American Heritage Dictionary is “A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further studies of its characteristics.” (American Heritage Dictionary online) This definition is directly descriptive of a climate model. But like those introductions to climate models that I referred to above, it quickly goes to words like “system” and “theory” that are not quite as intuitive as I would like. This is where I will start next time.


Interesting Research: Attribution of 2011 Extreme Weather to Climate Change - Some might recall in 2011, I wandered into the contentious subject of the attribution of climate change to humans (collected here) and talking about communicating extreme weather events in the media (Shearer and Rood). The paper I highlight in today’s blog is a compilation of efforts to understand the role of planetary warming in some of the extreme events of 2011. The paper is Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective edited by Tom Peterson and others and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper looks at six of the extreme events of 2011 and tries to attribute, in a variety of ways, the role played by human-caused global warming. (nice summary in New Scientist)

I want to focus on the part of the paper that discusses the extreme heat and drought in Texas in the summer of 2011. Much of that discussion is based on evaluating the effect of sea surface temperature, and specifically, the role of El Nino and La Nina. El Nino and La Nina are the names given to recurring patterns of sea surface temperature distributions in the eastern, tropical Pacific Ocean. The approach to this problem is to use models to make many simulations with sea surface temperature distributions similar to the La Nina conditions of 2011. Simulations were made for times in the 1960s and for the year 2008. The simulations provide an ensemble of many plausible outcomes, and it is possible to investigate the odds of a drought of similar extreme attributes as the 2011 drought occurring in the 1960s. The authors conclude that the warming climate made the 2011 drought 20 times more likely to occur now than in the 1960s. The authors point out that they cannot make statements about absolute probability. That is, they cannot state that in the absence of carbon dioxide increases and associated warming, that the drought would not have occurred.

This approach of using probability to discuss the impact of warming is an active area of research as well as an emerging way to communicate the relation between extreme weather and global warming. In the Washington Post, Jim Hansen has an op-ed piece that describes a paper which was released on Monday, August 6 (reference at end). In this paper Hansen revisits his metaphor that compares extreme weather in a warming climate with playing a dice game with loaded dice. That is, the dice are loaded in a way such that what used to be “extreme” will more likely occur. Going back to the Texas drought, that result mentioned in the previous paragraph says that the dice are loaded so that the extreme attributes of the 2011 drought are 20 times more likely. The takeaway message from Hansen is that we have, so far, underestimated how much the dice are loaded and that we have underestimated the probability of extreme events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and yes perhaps, persistent cold snaps.

r


Hansen, Early Edition, PNAS, Perception of Climate Change

Hansen, Perception of Climate Change, Public Summary

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 413 - 363

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Quoting misanthrope:


Aretha works for me anytime, anywhere. But, I have to add that what I've seen here disturbs me greatly - a bunch of old guys attempting to bully a kid into submission because he had the temerity to challenge their sacrosanct dogma. You don't agree with the kid, fine, do your best to explain your position then let it go. No need to insult, no need to badger, no need to bully. You're not always going to get your way in life - learn to deal with it.

I'm just wondering if the self-righteous folks who have been commenting here would be comfortable with their niece, nephew, son or daughter being given the same treatment that Snowlover has received.



Absolutely. Either a) Snowblower actually believes that stuff or b) he's intentionally spamming the blog with it (and even if a it's still spamming because of the repetition). Either way, it's sociopathic behavior.

Upon reflection, it's doubtful that abusing him in writing will have one whit of effect on him, since disrupting the blog with intellectual diarrhea is what he came here for to begin with and I'm sure the pushback was entirely anticipated, probably even desired, so my only regret is that I hesitated so long to pull the trigger with the management. Just expunging him is the only reasonable solution.

Say, what if your niece or nephew became a neo-Nazi and persisted in those views in the face of all reasoned argument? Actually that's not the best example, since climate denialism is more damaging in present circumstances, but still, you'd be all sweetness and light, right?

Er, oh, but wait, you are a misanthrope after all. Forget for a moment there.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting misanthrope:

I'm just wondering if the self-righteous folks who have been commenting here would be comfortable with their niece, nephew, son or daughter being given the same treatment that Snowlover has received.


After the same amount of time that he was taken seriously and answered seriously? Yep. I'd be very comfortable and probably add something along the lines of "That's what you get when you act like that" in the hopes that a lesson would be learned.

Respect is usually a two way street. When it's not there are collisions.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Daisyworld:

Heck, if that's the case, my methodologies tell me that I'm owed exactly 1 pound for every bottle, can, and mug of beer or distilled spirits consumed by anyone within the Western hemisphere.

If anyone refutes that, then according to the new found logic of peer-reviewed literature, they're wrong and can go to blazes! I know my methodologies, and they're not up for debate.

Right! I'm off to collect my tariffs now...


No, no! Don't go anywhere! You owe me money! ;-)

Ok. That's the funniest thing I've read on this blog. I bow before the master...as I drink my (sadly) duty-free iced tea.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Fellow bloggers, I will agree with Misanthrope and state that we can disagree with posts that are being made and still show respect to those that will choose to make their posts. As long as a fellow blogger remains respectful of our rights to post and remains civil in their conversations, then we equally as well should respect their right to post and be as civil towards them. A simple show of respect is always appreciated by all involved.

Put them on your ignore list, if you so choose.
Refrain from responding to them, if you so choose.

A simple show of respect to those that remain civil in their conversations should be a no brainer. When we are on a blog we are, after all, living in a glass house. Be careful of what you throw.

That is all I have to say. Heed this information, if you wish, or ignore it.

Perhaps this is a better video for the message, Misanthrope?

Respect


Aretha works for me anytime, anywhere. But, I have to add that what I've seen here disturbs me greatly - a bunch of old guys attempting to bully a kid into submission because he had the temerity to challenge their sacrosanct dogma. You don't agree with the kid, fine, do your best to explain your position then let it go. No need to insult, no need to badger, no need to bully. You're not always going to get your way in life - learn to deal with it.

I'm just wondering if the self-righteous folks who have been commenting here would be comfortable with their niece, nephew, son or daughter being given the same treatment that Snowlover has received.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
Quoting Snowlover123:


I think this year's melt is a combination of Climate Change in the Arctic and Natural Variability... (as it always is) how much is due to each, however, is still up for grabs.


I think it is a combination of anthropogenic climate change and natural variability how much of each is the 64'000 dollar question.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Hey Snowlover123 looks like your losing more snow and ice at record pace. What we going to do to change that?



I think this year's melt is a combination of Climate Change in the Arctic and Natural Variability... (as it always is) how much is due to each, however, is still up for grabs.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


I will agree that the phrase that I used earlier anyone else" in the post you quoted is not correct, hence why I changed it to "mostly".

I think my job here is done though. Rookie is the only poster left that is providing genuinely good and constructive posts on this thread. Unless Rookie responds with another good post, I think that my posting is done here, since many of the people do not have any arguments left to debunk my hypothesis do they are resorting to ad-hominem attacks with no basis, such as Xullon's amazing claim that I am getting paid to post on this forum.

It was nice of you all to confirm that my hypothesis and arguments are robust, since in the end, most of you resorted to attacking the person instead of the argument, which is the clearest sign of desperation.



Hey Snowlover123 looks like your losing more snow and ice at record pace. What we going to do to change that?

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting BobWallace:


All that help you gave me - and I'm still clueless....


Yep, you are. Again, my comment was directed to the adults in the room.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


Of all of the flawed logic our friend SnowBLOWER uses, this is the most glaring example that he can't construct a logical argument.

I think is is high time we all place him on ignore, since his incessant nonsense is distracting all of us for conducting the conversations that we joined this blog to be a part of.



I will agree that the phrase that I used earlier anyone else" in the post you quoted is not correct, hence why I changed it to "mostly".

I think my job here is done though. Rookie is the only poster left that is providing genuinely good and constructive posts on this thread. Unless Rookie responds with another good post, I think that my posting is done here, since many of the people do not have any arguments left to debunk my hypothesis do they are resorting to ad-hominem attacks with no basis, such as Xullon's amazing claim that I am getting paid to post on this forum.

It was nice of you all to confirm that my hypothesis and arguments are robust, since in the end, most of you resorted to attacking the person instead of the argument, which is the clearest sign of desperation.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting spbloom:


Because he's a crank like you. You're welcome.


This response is worth saving, considering it was a legitimate question that I asked...
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting misanthrope:

Just 'cause you don't like something doesn't make it lame, it just means you don't like it. Assuming that you really are clueless about the meaning of the song, you might want to Google Brenda Ann Spencer.

Or just revel in your ignorance - matters not to me.


From Wiki -

"Brenda Ann Spencer (born April 3, 1962) is a convicted American murderer who carried out a shooting spree from her home in San Diego, California, on January 29, 1979. During the shooting spree, she killed two people and injured nine others at Cleveland Elementary School, which was located across the street from her home. Spencer showed no remorse for her crime, and her full explanation for her actions was "I don't like Mondays; this livens up the day."[1] The explanation inspired the song "I Don't Like Mondays" by The Boomtown Rats, which was a UK number one single for four weeks in mid-1979."

Apparently she first tried to blame her behavior on PCP, but no traces were found in her blood tests. Then later she tried to blame it on being abused at a younger age. However this did not seem to be believable to previous counselors who had interviewed her.

So your point?

a) Snowperson is likely to go 'Monday morning' on people?

b) Snowperson's behavior is due to imagined drug use or imagined sexual abuse as a youngster?

c) You're planning something nasty for Monday?

d) A country that can produce groups like the Beatles and Stones can also produce groups that produce vacuous tunes?

e) You thought you were posting on different forum but wandered to another tab?

All that help you gave me - and I'm still clueless....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
img src="">
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting Snowlover123:
Question, why would Nicola Scafetta claim that Benestad and Schmidt are addressing the 2005 and 2006 papers only? Why would he claim that they did not address the mathematical methodologies used in the 2007 and the 2008 papers?


Because he's a crank like you. You're welcome.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


Of all of the flawed logic our friend SnowBLOWER uses, this is the most glaring example that he can't construct a logical argument.

I think is is high time we all place him on ignore, since his incessant nonsense is distracting all of us for conducting the conversations that we joined this blog to be a part of.



Unfortunately, while that might work for some, others are unable to resist the lure of endless argumentation, and more importantly there's the impression occasional of first-time viewers get -- off-putting, to say the least. Ideally, these threads would be a place for people to get questions answered and learn things they might not otherwise become aware of. Even with the relatively mild spam from the usual lower-volume trolls, the blog is pretty marginal. Note also how quickly things get derailed from what in principle ought to be the main thrust of these threads, which is to discuss Ricky's posts.

Anyway, I have made a request to the higher-ups, not just about our new friend (although I did not forget him!) but proposing a way to deal with these threads more comprehensively, so that hopefully they can become an asset to the WU site.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
New record low Anomaly from 1979-2008 mean edging out 2007. What plan is there to restore this to 1979 value?



Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
What plan is there to bring it back to 1979 extent?


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
What plan do you have to bring it back to 1979 extent?


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting BobWallace:


And what was the reason for listening to that lame song?

Just 'cause you don't like something doesn't make it lame, it just means you don't like it. Assuming that you really are clueless about the meaning of the song, you might want to Google Brenda Ann Spencer.

Or just revel in your ignorance - matters not to me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
I would give the author's opinion as the highest ranking opinion, since he knows his own methodologies better than anyone else.


Of all of the flawed logic our friend SnowBLOWER uses, this is the most glaring example that he can't construct a logical argument.

I think is is high time we all place him on ignore, since his incessant nonsense is distracting all of us for conducting the conversations that we joined this blog to be a part of.

Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Question, why would Nicola Scafetta claim that Benestad and Schmidt are addressing the 2005 and 2006 papers only? Why would he claim that they did not address the mathematical methodologies used in the 2007 and the 2008 papers?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

With that in mind, I hereby proclaim that I am King of the Universe. And if anyone refutes that, I'll just proclaim them wrong, thereby assuring that I am indeed King of the Universe.

First thing I'm gonna see to is that Uncertainty Principle. I like my principles certain, dagnabbit!


That makes about as much sense as the rest of your other posts on this thread.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

With that in mind, I hereby proclaim that I am King of the Universe. And if anyone refutes that, I'll just proclaim them wrong, thereby assuring that I am indeed King of the Universe.

First thing I'm gonna see to is that Uncertainty Principle. I like my principles certain, dagnabbit!

Heck, if that's the case, my methodologies tell me that I'm owed exactly 1 pound for every bottle, can, and mug of beer or distilled spirits consumed by anyone within the Western hemisphere.

If anyone refutes that, then according to the new found logic of peer-reviewed literature, they're wrong and can go to blazes! I know my methodologies, and they're not up for debate.

Right! I'm off to collect my tariffs now...

Quoting Snowlover123:
Xullon and Daisyworld, I didn't say that at all. Why the need for an amazingly false straw man? I said that the author probably knows his methodologies in his own paper better than most people do. I can see your posts when I log off, and if there are posts that are amazingly absurd as your past few, then I will reply to them.

No, no! Don't go anywhere! You owe me money! ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:
I would give the author's opinion as the highest ranking opinion, since he knows his own methodologies better than anyone else.

And that's why our grid is run today from cold fusion.

Fleischmann and Pons rule!!!


The discussion and misrepresentations about this have gotten out of hand... what I had said was that since the author spotted that the methodologies used in his 2005/2006 papers were only addressed in the Benestad and Schmidt paper, then it did not present a refutation to the 2007 paper that I posted, since it did not address the different methodologies used in the 2007 paper.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting misanthrope:
Just a reminder to the adults in the room that it's wise to tread lightly in some situations. Just sayin' is all.




And what was the reason for listening to that lame song?
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
I would give the author's opinion as the highest ranking opinion, since he knows his own methodologies better than anyone else.

And that's why our grid is run today from cold fusion.

Fleischmann and Pons rule!!!
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Just a reminder to the adults in the room that it's wise to tread lightly in some situations. Just sayin' is all.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This is a copy of some notes I took. It should be condensed into a more concise statement, but out of laziness, let me share it as found...

Original source - Think Progress

"Exxon Mobil tells its investors that “rising greenhouse gas emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems that could be significant.”

Chevron says on its website: “[T]he use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases … There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.”

Conoco Phillips goes further: “Conoco Phillips recognizes that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.” BP even cites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on its website.

And Shell urges that “CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/


------------------------------------------------- -

More...

Exxon Mobil

"Environmental performance (including GHG emissions) is assessed and recognized through the annual planning and budget process. During this process, key
strategies and objectives are established for each business line for both the short and long term. During the initial planning meeting and then each quarter, results
are stewarded against prior commitments.

Society currently faces, and will continue to face, two major, global energy-related challenges. The first is to maintain and expand energy supplies to meet growing
global demand. The second challenge is to address the societal and environmental risks posed by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Managing GHG emissions and energy challenges requires action by individuals, companies, and governments. This will require an integrated set of solutions, and
for ExxonMobil, this includes increasing efficiency; advancing lower-carbon energy technologies; and supporting effective, national and international policies. Our
efforts aim not only to reduce emissions from our operations, but also to reduce emissions by end users of energy.

At ExxonMobil, our strategy to reduce GHG emissions is focused on increasing our own energy efficiency in the short term; implementing current proven emission reducing technologies in the near and medium term; and developing breakthrough, game-changing
technologies for the long term.

--

While climate change remains extraordinarily complex, increasing scientific evidence makes it clear that rising GHG emissions pose risks to society and
ecosystems. These risks justify the development and implementation of responsible actions by governments, companies, and individuals.
ExxonMobil believes that the long-term objective of a climate change policy should be to reduce the risk of serious impacts on society and ecosystems, while
considering the importance of energy to global economic development."

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/cdp_inv estor_2011.pdf

-------------------------------------

Chevron

"At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment."

http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange /

-------------------------------------

Conoco Phillips

"Conoco Phillips recognizes that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate."

http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/susdev/policies/ climate_change_position/Pages/index.aspx

-------------------------------------

Royal Dutch Shell

"Population growth and economic development are driving energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. We believe the best way Shell can help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency."

http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_soc iety/environment/climate_change/

----------------------------------------

Saudi Aramco

"Saudi Aramco shares the world's concern that climate change is a long-term challenge, and we are working to play a leading role in developing and implementing technological solutions in a responsible manner."

http://www.aramcooverseas.com/en/about-us/about-s audi-aramco/

-------------------------------------------------

Hess

"We encourage the U.S. government to work with other countries to reach a global solution to climate change that encompasses developed and developing countries. We believe that establishing a global emissions market will facilitate emissions reductions in the most cost effective manner. Our experience in the European Union, its trading scheme and emissions reduction projects, provide guidance on how we manage greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for our operations in other parts of the world.

Our company recognizes the financial implications, risks and opportunities that come with climate change. We continue to evaluate a full range of options to responsibly manage our greenhouse gas emissions."

http://www.hess.com/reports/sustainability/US/200 8/Environmental%20Performance/ClimateChange.aspx

----------------------------

China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and Pemex (Mexican state oil company) have made similar statements
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting BobWallace:
I'm not seeing Snowperson's posts, but is he really arguing that any one person can declare that their version of the facts overrides everyone else's version?

That if I declare the Earth to be flat then it matters now what everyone else says or experiences, the Earth is flat.

I realize that we all have somewhat different realities, but....

With that in mind, I hereby proclaim that I am King of the Universe. And if anyone refutes that, I'll just proclaim them wrong, thereby assuring that I am indeed King of the Universe.

First thing I'm gonna see to is that Uncertainty Principle. I like my principles certain, dagnabbit!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:
I'm not seeing Snowperson's posts, but is he really arguing that any one person can declare that their version of the facts overrides everyone else's version?


Clearly, you are not understanding anything that I post if that is what you got from my comment about Scafetta understanding which one of his mathematical techniques are present in the Benestad and Schmidt paper.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Xullon and Daisyworld, I didn't say that at all. Why the need for an amazingly false straw man? I said that the author probably knows his methodologies in his own paper better than most people do. I can see your posts when I log off, and if there are posts that are amazingly absurd as your past few, then I will reply to them.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
I'm not seeing Snowperson's posts, but is he really arguing that any one person can declare that their version of the facts overrides everyone else's version?

That if I declare the Earth to be flat then it matters now what everyone else says or experiences, the Earth is flat.

I realize that we all have somewhat different realities, but....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting Xulonn:


Fascinating - I think you just stated that you don't believe in the validity of the scientific peer review process with respect to rejecting faulty research and bad science. Is that correct?

Why yes! I do believe he did!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover:
This is true, but I would give the author's opinion as the highest ranking opinion, since he knows his own methodologies better than anyone else.


Fascinating - I think you just stated that you don't believe in the validity of the scientific peer review process with respect to rejecting faulty research and bad science. Is that correct?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting robodave:
That depends. If enough people agree that his work was addressed sufficiently and can be safely dismissed then it doesn't matter what he thinks. He might be the author, but he's not the only judge of what's right and true. It's about consensus. In a free society this is really how we get things right. Of course, this means peer review and many distinguished people agreeing. Has this happened yet? I have read that most climate scientists have stopped looking at the sun as a source of explanation for AGW. I recall reading about a study where they had confidently eliminated it as a significant factor in AGW. Their conclusion was that humans were the best explanation. So maybe it has?

A quick google yielded this:
Link

'At face value, the data seem incredibly important,' Michael Lockwood, a space physicist at the University of Reading, told Nature.com.

'If solar activity is out of phase with solar radiative forcing, it could change our understanding of how processes in the troposphere and stratosphere act to modulate Earth's climate.'

'The findings could prove very significant when it comes to understanding, and quantifying, natural climate fluctuations,' he added.

'But no matter how you look at it, the Sun's influence on current climate change is at best a small natural add-on to man-made greenhouse warming.'

'All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic. It might be that the solar part isn't quite working the way we thought it would, but it is certainly not a seismic rupture of the science.'


If that report is right, we would need to seriously revise many many papers, including the highly cited Bond et. al 2001 paper which found a strong solar influence on paleoclimate.

One should be VERY skeptical about this paper.

Especially because solar activity has actually increased during the late-20th Century.

Also, please read my post 287 on this thread.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Daisyworld:
For corporations like Exxon, I think they're trying to avoid a tobacco-like class-action lawsuit by acting like they've been going along with climate change remedies the whole time. Whether this works or not is anyone's guess.

Depends on whether I'm on the jury. ;)

I'd relieve of them of responsibility up until the time of Hansen's Testimony in Congress, not because that was a turning point for the science but because it's impossible for them to claim ignorance after that point.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Snowlover123,

I have a question for you. I have read reports that suggests evidence concerning cosmic rays and cloud formation. These reports will state that more clouds will have a cooling effect while fewer clouds will have a warming effect. Are you aware of any studies that are based on discovering what the global cloud population, density, type, etc. is for any cosmic ray event and any apparent lag, if any? This would have to be a global study for it to show a global effect. We already know that a cloudy day will quickly warm after the clouds pass. How many times have you welcomed a passing cloud overhead on a hot day and then moan as it passes by you?

I am also aware that clouds require water vapor in order to form. More water vapor allows for further cloud production. Yet, water vapor has a more potent greenhouse effect than does CO2. So while more cloud cover allows for a cooling effect, increased water vapor allows for a more heating effect. My train of thought tells me that increased cloud cover along with increased water vapor will have some degree of cancelling each other out. The more dominate force taking precedence over the other. ... Any thoughts on this? ... Anyone?

Added: Also, any study of a relationship between clouds and cosmic rays conducted on a global scale will need to be several decades long in order to show any long term trends. A 10 to 20 year study would not be long enough to show the trend.


The Cosmic Rays influence the Low Clouds,and low Clouds are known to have a cooling impact overall on the climate, by reflecting more sunlight than they trap outgoing longwave radiation.



Cosmic Rays modulate the low clouds, so a decrease in Cosmic Rays would create a decrease in Low Clouds, resulting in an overall warming effect. (Usoskin et. al 2004) The radiative forcing from a Cloud Decrease is substantial, much more substantial than forcing from Solar Irradiance changes alone. In fact, according to Reis and Serrano 2009, a 3-4% decrease in Clouds (not low clouds) would result in a 0.8-1.7 w/m^2 radiative forcing, comparable to the anthropogenic forcing.

Since Cosmic Rays modulate the low cloud cover, and total cloud cover includes the high clouds as well, which have an overall warming impact, and less high clouds would mean an overall cooling impact, the radiative forcing from a decrease in Low Clouds should be even more than the cited 0.8-1.7 w/m^2 in the study I cited above.

You are also confusing Local Weather with Global Climate in your post. Sure, a cloud passing overhead or an overcast day would mean that there would be less shortwave radiation reaching the surface of the Earth, but a GLOBAL decrease in Cloud Cover should result in a GLOBAL increase in surface temperatures, since globally, there are fewer low Clouds than before, and more shortwave radiation is reaching the Earth's surface than before.

Cosmic Rays do not create higher concentrations of water vapor, what they do is change the nucleation rate of water vapor particles in the atmosphere, and aerosols. They also change the number of CCNs formed in the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, Cloud data is extremely limited, and we don't even have great Cloud data today. Cloud data only started becoming available at around 1983, which is not even 30 years ago. We have a generally good idea that Clouds have probably decreased in the late-20th Century, allowing for more solar radiation to be reaching Earth's Surface, since increased radiation reaching Earth's Surface has been measured by both ground based stations and by satellites (Pinker et. al 2005)(Wild et. al 2005). If we had better cloud data that extended back in the past for a longer timeframe, a lot of mysteries would be solved, but the fact of the matter, is that we don't know what Cloud Cover has done for the last 100-150 years. We do know that Cosmic Rays have decreased quite sharply over the last 150 years which is associated with a large increase in Solar Activity during this timeframe (Carslaw et. al 2002).
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting robodave:

That depends. If enough people agree that his work was addressed sufficiently and can be safely dismissed then it doesn't matter what he thinks. He might be the author, but he's not the only judge of what's right and true.


This is true, but I would give the author's opinion as the highest ranking opinion, since he knows his own methodologies better than most people do.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:
Daisyworld, the author clarified that his own 2007 paper was not addressed in the Benestad and Schmidt paper.

Wouldn't you rely on the author to determine if their OWN paper was discussed in another paper?

I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.
That depends. If enough people agree that his work was addressed sufficiently and can be safely dismissed then it doesn't matter what he thinks. He might be the author, but he's not the only judge of what's right and true. It's about consensus. In a free society this is really how we get things right. Of course, this means peer review and many distinguished people agreeing. Has this happened yet? I have read that most climate scientists have stopped looking at the sun as a source of explanation for AGW. I recall reading about a study where they had confidently eliminated it as a significant factor in AGW. Their conclusion was that humans were the best explanation. So maybe it has?

A quick google yielded this:
Link
'At face value, the data seem incredibly important,' Michael Lockwood, a space physicist at the University of Reading, told Nature.com.

'If solar activity is out of phase with solar radiative forcing, it could change our understanding of how processes in the troposphere and stratosphere act to modulate Earth's climate.'

'The findings could prove very significant when it comes to understanding, and quantifying, natural climate fluctuations,' he added.

'But no matter how you look at it, the Sun's influence on current climate change is at best a small natural add-on to man-made greenhouse warming.'

'All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic. It might be that the solar part isn't quite working the way we thought it would, but it is certainly not a seismic rupture of the science.'
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
The U.S. Military and CC/GW...

Anyone here have any thoughts on why the Military, in spite of it's high percentage of conservative-minded members and incestual relationship with big business ("the military-industrial complex") has accepted the reality of GW/CC and peak-oil/liquid fuel energy problems? Apparently, much money and effort is being spent in response to these problems, in spite of the fact that the corporations in the "complex" spend tens of millions of dollars to deny that CC/GW or peak oil exist!!

Yet I see the military, especially in light of our unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afganistan wars, as a huge waster of fossil fuels and contributor to CO2 emissions and other pollution.

Is there some serious institutional cognitive dissonance going on here, or is it all part of a big strategy aimed at some goal that I can't quite figure out?



I think I'm going to leave Snowlover123 alone for the rest of this blog entry. Mischief managed, and all. What you fellows are discussing is much more interesting.

Xulonn, did you by chance see the whole "Earth: The Operators Manual" yet? They had a clip in there about how the US military is already addressing climate change.

I think what we're seeing here is a slowly-shifting general attitude throughout the government and corporations to address AGW. From what I can see in my general observations is that it's an attempt to change course so slowly, that the public as a whole won't notice. Exxon-Mobile and Chevron have already toned down their anti-AGW rhetoric (NPR's Fresh Air had a fascinating interview with the author of "Private Empire" that addresses some of that).

I see this change in my workplace too. A PhD-level employee is a fervent climate change denier, but I recently overhead him stating that green technologies and fuel conservation are good concepts to adopt, even if climate change isn't happening. What I think it is, is a face-saving tactic. They refuse admit wrongdoing, but will start to slowly go along with the green revolution because overall, "it's the right thing to do." For corporations like Exxon, I think they're trying to avoid a tobacco-like class-action lawsuit by acting like they've been going along with climate change remedies the whole time. Whether this works or not is anyone's guess. I suppose it depends on whether there is a "smoking gun" memo, like the tobacco companies "doubt is our product" campaign.

As for the military, I think most of the attitude reflects the changes occurring in the government and industry. They know that fuel costs are going up in the face of shrinking budgets, and any way to lower fuel costs (which is reflected in transportation of troops and supplies in addition to combat vehicles) is considered an asset. In logistical planning for future conflicts, this all makes sense in the grand scheme of things, and if there's anything I know about military planning, is that the planners are pragmatic.

Overall, I think the shift to climate change remediation will occur without consensus. The deniers will never concede, but they can always use hindsight to cover their tracks. At the far fringe, there will always be a few conspiracy naysayers tucked away somewhere, spinning their yarns on how the scientists were trying to destroy the economy once long ago.

All of this is my opinion, of course.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Daisyworld, the author clarified that his own 2007 paper's methodologies were not addressed in the Benestad and Schmidt paper. Only his 2006 and 2005 paper's methodologies were addressed in the paper, which is irrelevant, since I have not posted either of those papers the Schmidt and Benestad paper allegedly refuted.

Wouldn't you rely on the author to determine if their OWN methodologies were discussed correctly in another paper?

I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

Alright, alright. I was just having some fun getting him off script to see how he performed. He performed about the same as any other anti-science crank, using the same tactics. Disappointing.

I'll put him on ignore, but reserve the right to respond to him if someone quotes him. If no one quotes him, I won't know what he's posted.

I have one more very brief post to make to him, though.


I am not on script... I do not make the same assumptions about yourself because of a mere disagreement. It kind of shows which one of us is the better person here.

I'm glad that you finally admit that the whole thing about a paper refuting Scafetta and West 2007 was pure fantasy, since you said that "you were having fun."

Now that you've admitted that you are dishonest with your claims, why should any of the lurkers believe any of your claims in the future?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

I'm floored by your serial laziness and general lack of regard for the truth and facts. If you weren't so lazy, you would have checked the previous thread where we had this discussion. I did. I provided a link and a cite in that thread...just as I said.

You and I are sort of dominating (and derailing) discussion of the actual blog topic. I have a hard time not playing with trolls, but since you aren't likely to post anything of substance or scientific, I'm putting you on ignore for the good of the blog. See ya! Not.


This coming from the person who relies on other people to back up their own claims...

You can also put me on ignore if you can not stand having to listen to ideas that disagree with your own. I have no problem with that.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting spbloom:
Re #360: Scafetta will no doubt go to his grave saying that. It's a long tradition in science. As Max Planck said (paraphrase):

"New scientific ideas can only take hold when the older generation that refuses to accept them dies off."

Scafetta is just in denial. As are you.



What is Scafetta in denial about? That he says that Benestad and Schmidt didn't address anything from his 2007 paper?

I disagree.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Xandra:


That has about as much science as the rest of your other posts.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


2012s Historic Arctic Ice Melt

Where we've been:
2012 dipped below 1980s average minimum on July 21st.
2012 dipped below 1990s average minimum on July 30th.
2012 dipped below 2000s average minimum on August 8th.

Where we are:
About 14 days ahead of 2008
About 9 days ahead of 2011
About 4 days ahead of 2007

Where are we going this year?
Conditions appear very favorable to set another record low SIE this year:
- Remaining ice is very thin
- SSTs remain anomalously high
- GHG levels continue to rise
- Current weather forecast is favorable for more melting

The weather is the big factor from here on out, of course. It sure looks like we'll have a record year, possibly by a large margin, but it's not a certainty. It's been fascinating to watch, in a Stephen King sort of way.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Where has the paper you claim as being refuted, been refuted in the scientific literature???

I am absolutely floored here, Birthmark. It is not that hard to provide one link to support your claims.

I'm floored by your serial laziness and general lack of regard for the truth and facts. If you weren't so lazy, you would have checked the previous thread where we had this discussion. I did. I provided a link and a cite in that thread...just as I said.

You and I are sort of dominating (and derailing) discussion of the actual blog topic. I have a hard time not playing with trolls, but since you aren't likely to post anything of substance or scientific, I'm putting you on ignore for the good of the blog. See ya! Not.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:
How much longer are you folks going to play with this obviously reality-challenged individual?

Alright, alright. I was just having some fun getting him off script to see how he performed. He performed about the same as any other anti-science crank, using the same tactics. Disappointing.

I'll put him on ignore, but reserve the right to respond to him if someone quotes him. If no one quotes him, I won't know what he's posted.

I have one more very brief post to make to him, though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Re #360: Scafetta will no doubt go to his grave saying that. It's a long tradition in science. As Max Planck said (paraphrase):

"New scientific ideas can only take hold when the older generation that refuses to accept them dies off."

Scafetta is just in denial. As are you.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1221

Viewing: 413 - 363

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.