tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22195665261485037942024-02-18T20:32:47.406-08:00Climate ConsensarianRandom notes on climate change from the perspective of one who trusts the scientific consensus.Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-28303662482078265722018-06-11T20:27:00.001-07:002018-06-11T20:27:20.524-07:00The Oceans Ate My Global Warming is not Ad Hockery<h4>
Preramble</h4>
<div>
As I was knocking about Twitter, I stumbled upon this little bit of a conversation we've had a bazillion times:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
It's an ad hoc hypothesis then. The models that utilized the hypothesis that increased atmospheric CO2 should result in swiftly rising temperatures on earth were mostly wrong. Then modelers post hoc change the models, rerun the data, and proclaim that the models are spot on. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AGW?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AGW</a> <a href="https://t.co/wzYOfM3pTu">pic.twitter.com/wzYOfM3pTu</a></div>
— On the North Coast (@usanorthcoast) <a href="https://twitter.com/usanorthcoast/status/1006280423901712389?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
</div>
<div>
I thought it might be fun to go snorkeling on teh Goggle Scholar for dusty old papers from the '70s and '80s discussing the ocean's role in interannual and interdecadal climate variability.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><h4>
The Evidence</h4>
<div>
1st volley:</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
1984:<a href="https://t.co/KUJOASpt9y">https://t.co/KUJOASpt9y</a><br />
<br />
1986:<a href="https://t.co/6QQBOpNVZ5">https://t.co/6QQBOpNVZ5</a><a href="https://t.co/U5lf0qZOQN">https://t.co/U5lf0qZOQN</a><br />
<br />
Shall I continue?</div>
— Brandon R. Gates (@brandonrgates) <a href="https://twitter.com/brandonrgates/status/1006288295012196356?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2nd batch:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
I guess I need to continue.<br /><br />1978:<a href="https://t.co/HYXTI9v2YO">https://t.co/HYXTI9v2YO</a><br /><br />1983:<a href="https://t.co/Dn0jLYNRQM">https://t.co/Dn0jLYNRQM</a><br /><br />1989:<a href="https://t.co/ZJh0dZldA5">https://t.co/ZJh0dZldA5</a><br /><br />I can keep going if required.</div>
— Brandon R. Gates (@brandonrgates) <a href="https://twitter.com/brandonrgates/status/1006365860078841856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
That's all for now ... possible updates if they happen.<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
</div>
</div>
Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-8992772119820999412016-09-21T17:02:00.001-07:002016-09-25T16:25:33.994-07:00Common Era Temperature Reconstructions vs. Solar and Volcanic Forcing... because wiggle matching is so much fun.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
The original inspiration for doing these plots goes back a bit, but have recently become topical at Judith Curry's by way of a guest post, <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/" target="_blank">Impact of the ~ 2400 yr solar cycle on climate and human societies</a>, written by a fellow called Javier. It's a lengthy post, and I'm not going to attempt to dig into it here.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Instead I'll simply throw out ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
Some Plots</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7MX7BeiH4vMyKAVMNObmDZ3_t6PIOVCj6gyXpTwPRVIZwf1KWhnHjPhyzvc81WCDahR_VTJlqRp9AaoQPEP6mG_TmssCZ9g4gbLcqx9YIbGtkPlpkY8wgWflo9YMJO3Db83rLNMdZyiw/s1600/Mann+2008+NH+0-2050.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7MX7BeiH4vMyKAVMNObmDZ3_t6PIOVCj6gyXpTwPRVIZwf1KWhnHjPhyzvc81WCDahR_VTJlqRp9AaoQPEP6mG_TmssCZ9g4gbLcqx9YIbGtkPlpkY8wgWflo9YMJO3Db83rLNMdZyiw/s640/Mann+2008+NH+0-2050.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjifPjSFHXDoQCxkj_jgAahzQ_XRRmge1Yy_kqgZ0WwTeI9ANUOKh5ZEws-9mGggjfPIuGlEV7RYF0xTeozwjozwK7dLCVAP6KH6KOclupr0NXowbIEI0mfXNugJK1gjXrqGbto3XPJB7M/s1600/Moberg+2005+0-2050.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjifPjSFHXDoQCxkj_jgAahzQ_XRRmge1Yy_kqgZ0WwTeI9ANUOKh5ZEws-9mGggjfPIuGlEV7RYF0xTeozwjozwK7dLCVAP6KH6KOclupr0NXowbIEI0mfXNugJK1gjXrqGbto3XPJB7M/s640/Moberg+2005+0-2050.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu-h5awe9oa3nTYieKxA8QUWqIIstBndfR8MMOGWUqRh4KuHccx3BUdC76Lvx9KmCg5t1OSGdLkOEzKJDcN9zkBDds4bx4ca9TEA6yF-pc1JX5EGBE8bHocyfO4T5epcgK1IydZ3_j0LU/s1600/Oppo+2009+0-2050.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu-h5awe9oa3nTYieKxA8QUWqIIstBndfR8MMOGWUqRh4KuHccx3BUdC76Lvx9KmCg5t1OSGdLkOEzKJDcN9zkBDds4bx4ca9TEA6yF-pc1JX5EGBE8bHocyfO4T5epcgK1IydZ3_j0LU/s640/Oppo+2009+0-2050.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The method to this madness:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Regress CO2 and Berger 65N summertime insolation over 500 CE-present, where present is the latest year available in the given temperature reconstruction.</li>
<li>Compute a residual.</li>
<li>Regress the residual over 1600 CE-present.</li>
<li>Combine both regressions into a single "prediction" with simple addition.</li>
</ol>
<div>
As should be obvious from the legends in each plot, I did some fiddling with moving averages and lead/lags to obtain better fits. I've previously done more aggressive manipulations, particularly with 65N summertime insolation to make things fit better. This time I didn't touch insolation or CO2 at all, just left them as is and tweaked TSI and volcanic aerosols.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The attentive reader may be asking why I didn't regress TSI and volcanic aerosols back to 500 CE as I did for CO2 and 65N summertime insolation. The answer is because it doesn't work at all for Oppo 2009, and I wanted to be more consistent about my regression intervals than less.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What can we glean from this exercise? My main takeaway is that paleo reconstructions such as these are difficult and fraught with uncertainty. That said, the plots above are ranked in order of how much sense they make to me, with Mann 2008 making the most sense from an orbital forcing perspective, although Oppo 2009 doesn't do so badly in that respect either.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Mann and Moberg have the better fidelity to TSI and volcanoes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That Moberg and Oppo broadly agree on trends during the Medieval Warming Period (for purposes of this post, let's call it between 800-1300 CE) is certainly an argument for something funkadelic going on which cannot be explained by orbital forcing, TSI, CO2 or volcanoes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What none of these plots diminish is the importance of CO2 from 1800 CE-present, though somewhat ironically, Mann's Hockey Stick returns the lowest CO2 sensitivity of the bunch. I wouldn't read too much into that particular result, however, because ... well because calling this kind of amateur twiddling an "analysis" is probably being overly-generous.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update 9/25/2015</h4>
</div>
<div>
There's been <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/#comment-813393" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">some discussion</a> about Liu et al. (2014), <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/34/E3501.full" target="_blank">The Holocene temperature conundrum</a>. So I ginned up two more plots as a response:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUK9zmTd3gnfZpvz2rdF5CsZ47afsEmKigG8Hne0ZHQN0NYPowKOYnM57g5iP6kCjQ6csnGfg_mxGijVVCNnBmXTrttKUdvi9H0E6KzLyUqXA6z1VgKu5sOEunGZChybV43GcL6xZSgp4/s1600/Marcott+and+Shakun+common+era+65NJul+offset+3800.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUK9zmTd3gnfZpvz2rdF5CsZ47afsEmKigG8Hne0ZHQN0NYPowKOYnM57g5iP6kCjQ6csnGfg_mxGijVVCNnBmXTrttKUdvi9H0E6KzLyUqXA6z1VgKu5sOEunGZChybV43GcL6xZSgp4/s640/Marcott+and+Shakun+common+era+65NJul+offset+3800.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU5hA7u218GAUiOuyoOjVJhEe_-6qo1bNGuhA6brjLreAUL2VAQWbcPdLCW3Wlp811XI4_smPTV-1UtmEfFR54AalddPnc8SJdzNHMeLhixBvbJGlXpf2x_Stgl_VltpU5cqkuJ2u94zk/s1600/Marcott+and+Shakun+all+years+65NJul+offset+3800.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU5hA7u218GAUiOuyoOjVJhEe_-6qo1bNGuhA6brjLreAUL2VAQWbcPdLCW3Wlp811XI4_smPTV-1UtmEfFR54AalddPnc8SJdzNHMeLhixBvbJGlXpf2x_Stgl_VltpU5cqkuJ2u94zk/s640/Marcott+and+Shakun+all+years+65NJul+offset+3800.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I shouldn't have to write much else, these plots more or less speak for themselves.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One note is appropriate: CO2EQ is a calculated composite of CO2, CH4 and N2O data taken from Antarctica. Gaps between the ends of those records and the present were filled in using the mixing ratios used in AR5 for the CMIP5 historical runs.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Calculation of the composite is as follows:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Take the natural log of CO2 (ppmv) and the square root of CH4 and N2O (ppbv).</li>
<li>Multiply by 5.3525, 0.0315 and 0.1131 respectively, which gives the radiative forcing for each species in W/m^2.</li>
<li>Sum the forcings and divide by 5.3525, which gives the equivalent of ln(CO2). This is the value I used in the regression.</li>
<li>If desired, raising e to the power of the result of (3) gives CO2EQ in ppmv.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-23638726694350792462016-07-02T22:49:00.001-07:002016-07-02T22:49:53.107-07:00CFCs and Ozone... yes, some people still have trouble accepting the inverse relationship they have.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Background</h3>
<div>
I was invited to respond to this comment:</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<cite class="fn" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a class="url" href="http://climatereason.wordpress.com/" rel="external nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">climatereason</a></cite> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, "Nimbus Sans L", sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">| <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/01/week-in-review-science-edition-47/#comment-793391" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-stretch: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">July 1, 2016 at 4:37 pm</a> | <a class="comment-reply-link" href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/01/week-in-review-science-edition-47/?replytocom=793391#respond" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-stretch: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Reply</a></span><br />Bit bemused by the ozone hole story. 2015 was the fourth largest ozone hole since the satellite record began. The peak size is generally reached in October as the sunlight and cold reach their maximum.<br /><a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php</a><br />Can somebody explain on what basis this claim has been made?</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<a name='more'></a>And so I did:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<blockquote>
The NYT article links to Solomon et al. (2016):<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
Abstract<br />Industrial chlorofluorocarbons that cause ozone depletion have been phased out under the Montreal Protocol. A chemically-driven increase in polar ozone (or “healing”) is expected in response to this historic agreement. Observations and model calculations taken together indicate that the onset of healing of Antarctic ozone loss has now emerged in September. Fingerprints of September healing since 2000 are identified through (i) increases in ozone column amounts, (ii) changes in the vertical profile of ozone concentration, and (iii) decreases in the areal extent of the ozone hole. Along with chemistry, dynamical and temperature changes contribute to the healing, but could represent feedbacks to chemistry. Volcanic eruptions episodically interfere with healing, particularly during 2015 (when a record October ozone hole occurred following the Calbuco eruption).</blockquote>
Your reference NASA’s Earth Observatory website reads:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
This series of images shows the size and shape of the ozone hole each year from 1979 through 2015 (no data are available for 1995).<br />[…]<br />As the images show, the word hole isn’t literal; no place is empty of ozone. Scientists use the word hole as a metaphor for the area in which ozone concentrations drop below the historical threshold of 220 Dobson Units.<br />[…]<br />The series begins in 1979. The maximum depth of the hole that year was 194 Dobson Units (DU)—not far below the historical low. For several years, the minimum concentrations stayed in the 190s, but beginning in 1983, the minimums got deeper rapidly: 173 DU in 1982, 154 in 1983, 124 in 1985. In 1991, a new threshold was passed; ozone concentration fell below 100 DU for the first time. Since then, concentrations below 100 have been common. The deepest ozone hole occurred in 1994, when concentrations fell to just 73 DU on September 30.<br />Records in depth and size haven’t occurred during the same years (the largest ozone hole occurred in 2006), but the long-term trend in both characteristics is consistent: from 1980 through the early 1990s, the hole rapidly grew in size and depth. Since the mid-1990s, area and depth have roughly stabilized (see the Ozone Hole Watch website for annual averages). Year-to-year variations in area and depth are caused by variations in stratospheric temperature and circulation. Colder conditions result in a larger area and lower ozone values in the center of the hole.<br />[…]<br />Scientists estimate that about 80 percent of the chlorine (and bromine, which has a similar ozone-depleting effect) in the stratosphere over Antarctica today is from human, not natural, sources. Models suggest that the concentration of chlorine and other ozone-depleting substances in the stratosphere will not return to pre-1980 levels until the middle decades of this century. These same models predict that the Antarctic ozone layer will recover around 2040. On the other hand, because of the impact of greenhouse gas warming, the ozone layer over the tropics and mid-southern latitudes may not recover for more than a century, and perhaps not ever.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<h4>
It Just Goes Downhill from There</h4>
Witness:<br />
<br />
<div class="comment-author vcard" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0.85em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<cite class="fn" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a class="url" href="http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/" rel="external nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Wagathon</a></cite> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, "Nimbus Sans L", sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">| <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/01/week-in-review-science-edition-47/#comment-793398" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-stretch: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">July 1, 2016 at 5:02 pm</a> | </span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 23.8px;">The basis of the claim is crappy models and a willful obliviousness to the simple fact that the Sun’s ultraviolet output naturally varies so the ozone layer naturally varies. “Over Washington, D.C., ozone varies annually by 25 percent, some 80 times greater than the stated anthropogenic decline.” ~Sallie Baliunas</span><br />
<br />
<div class="comment-author vcard" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0.85em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<cite class="fn" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a class="url" href="http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/" rel="external nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Wagathon</a></cite> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, "Nimbus Sans L", sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">| <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/01/week-in-review-science-edition-47/#comment-793738" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-stretch: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">July 2, 2016 at 9:32 pm</a> |</span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 23.8px;">“…ozone is produced by ultraviolet radiation: If there were no solar UV, there would be no ozone. Since solar UV rises and falls with the 11-year cycle of sunspots, ozone concentration should do likewise. Indeed it does.” ~Sallie Baliunas</span><br />
<br />
Yup, atmospheric scientists don't know nuffin'. I wish I were making this up but I'm not. The first quote comes from this <a href="https://archive.org/stream/scientificintegr00unit/scientificintegr00unit_djvu.txt" target="_blank">1995 House Committee hearing</a>, and the second from a <a href="http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Baliunas94_ozone.pdf" target="_blank">whitepaper published by the George C. Marshall Institute in 1994</a>.<br />
<br />
Here's my response to Wagathon's first quote, citing the same House hearing testimony:<br />
<br />
<div class="comment-author vcard" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0.85em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<cite class="fn" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a class="url" href="http://climateconsensarian.wordpress.com/" rel="external nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">brandonrgates</a></cite> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, "Nimbus Sans L", sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">| <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/01/week-in-review-science-edition-47/#comment-793692" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-stretch: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">July 2, 2016 at 6:46 pm</a> |</span></div>
<div class="comment-body" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
More for Wagathon:</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<i><a href="https://archive.org/stream/scientificintegr00unit/scientificintegr00unit_djvu.txt" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT T. WATSON</a>, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, DC</i></div>
<i><div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
[…]<br />Since the late 1970s, ground-based, balloon and satellite data have documented significant decreases in column content of ozone over Antarctica, about 60 percent, as shown in one of my figures in my testimony, and drastic changes in the vertical distribution, close to 100 percent loss of ozone at certain altitudes.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The Antarctic ozone holes in 1990, 1992, 1993, and 1994, were the most severe on record.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
As we speak today, and as expected, satellite, balloon, and ground-based data show that the Antarctic ozone hole is once again developing in the fashion similar to the last few years.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
There is absolutely no doubt that the springtime Antarctic ozone hole is due to the increasing concentrations of anthropogenic chlorine and bromine. This conclusion is based on combining extensive ground, aircraft, balloon and satellite data with laboratory data and theoretical modeling.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
[…]</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
With respect to global ozone, the observational data, as I’ve shown in figure 4 of my testimony, provides conclusive evidence that ozone depletion is occurring at all latitudes, except the tropics, and in all seasons.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Analysis of extensive ground-based Dobson and TOMS data through 1994 has shown that column ozone has decreased by 5 to 6 percent in summer in the northern hemisphere, 9 to 11 percent in winter/spring in the northern hemisphere, 8 to 9 percent in southern mid-latitudes on a year-round basis.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Figure 5 in my testimony also shows the seasonal and latitudinal trends, illustrating the very significant trends at middle and high latitudes.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<b>In each case, the natural periodic and episodic fluctuations are taken into account — ***SOLAR CYCLE***, season and volcanic activities.</b></div>
</i><div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<i>The weight of scientific evidence strongly suggests that the observed mid-latitude ozone trends are due in large part to anthropogenic chlorine and bromine.</i></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Yup, looks like “willful obliviousness to the simple fact that the Sun’s ultraviolet output naturally varies” to me.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Not. Trot out more claptrap about what atmospheric scientists allegedly don’t understand again, and you and I can have a nice little chat about whether or not your ignorance is willful or not, hey?</div>
</div>
And there's MOAR, this time from Dr. Daniel Albritton, then of NOAA and co-chair of the UN Ozone Science Assessment Panel:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The second chart shows how the ozone levels have changed over the past 30 years of observations from the ground-based network. The top box gives the raw data that these instruments take and in that you can see the very clear, reproducible, year-by-year annual cycle of ozone simply because, like much of the planet, ozone depends in part on solar activity. The lower panel shows the data after this well-known annual cycle and other variations of natural causes like solar activity and dynamics have been taken out.</blockquote>
Amusingly, another Denizen took exception to my dated reference:<br />
<br />
<div class="comment-author vcard" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0.85em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<cite class="fn" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a class="url" href="http://redneckphysics.wordpress.com/" rel="external nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3</a></cite> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, "Nimbus Sans L", sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">| <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/01/week-in-review-science-edition-47/#comment-793707" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-stretch: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">July 2, 2016 at 7:38 pm</a> |</span></div>
<div class="comment-body" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
brgates, 1995? In 2015 they were still trying to figure out how the BD circulation dynamics caused twice as much NH mid-latitude O3 than in the SH.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063052/full" rel="nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063052/full</a></div>
</div>
<div class="comment-author vcard" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0.85em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<cite class="fn" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a class="url" href="http://redneckphysics.wordpress.com/" rel="external nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3</a></cite> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, "Nimbus Sans L", sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">| <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/01/week-in-review-science-edition-47/#comment-793749" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-stretch: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">July 2, 2016 at 9:55 pm</a> |</span></div>
<div class="comment-body" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 66px 0px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="background-color: white; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 23.8px; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
brgates, my comment was on your choice of an outdated source.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 23.8px; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<a href="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/io3col_0-360E_-50--90N_n_a.png" style="border: 0px; color: #df0000; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><img height="158" scale="2" src="https://i1.wp.com/climexp.knmi.nl/data/io3col_0-360E_-50--90N_n_a.png" srcset="https://i1.wp.com/climexp.knmi.nl/data/io3col_0-360E_-50--90N_n_a.png?zoom=2 2x" style="border: 0px; max-width: 100%;" width="398" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 23.8px; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
I don’t see this as convincing evidence of a strong recovery of Antarctic ozone.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 23.8px; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<a href="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/io3col_0-360E_50-90N_n_a.png" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><img height="158" scale="2" src="https://i0.wp.com/climexp.knmi.nl/data/io3col_0-360E_50-90N_n_a.png" srcset="https://i0.wp.com/climexp.knmi.nl/data/io3col_0-360E_50-90N_n_a.png?zoom=2 2x" style="border: 0px; max-width: 100%;" width="398" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 23.8px; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
I don’t find this impressive either. So news of the resurrection of the polar ozone might be a bit premature, IMHO</div>
<h4>
Ok, What do the Data Really Say?</h4>
... because that doesn't look like solar cycles to me:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/isolarradioflux.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="252" src="https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/isolarradioflux.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
So we've got Antarctic ozone data from <a href="https://legacy.bas.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/" target="_blank">here</a>, and CFC mixing ratios from <a href="http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/pub/cfchist/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Regress them, and we get these pretty pictures:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyOWWVu-JYfcgqkCxZotJ-6aaYnx_7KEpPGpP_-yAjn9I3tLYV5tVkUohQZHHRmRY_zd0-jtwZ2Dbqv5LJbPFYBYZNdyUBCoDqqO2HSM26Bzqwj745mFmQtJqGZd_r866iFR-Ie_UPZoo/s1600/Ozone+and+CCL4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyOWWVu-JYfcgqkCxZotJ-6aaYnx_7KEpPGpP_-yAjn9I3tLYV5tVkUohQZHHRmRY_zd0-jtwZ2Dbqv5LJbPFYBYZNdyUBCoDqqO2HSM26Bzqwj745mFmQtJqGZd_r866iFR-Ie_UPZoo/s640/Ozone+and+CCL4.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBKT9YemACgR0rEbKrIzglp0u2zSFRwD-nMNse_crfWuTKqYbthpirZv5ZteDoyvgzzpq8QcqGiJQg82WM7O7cATT82eEHVkLkkJwh4Fs4pKh2OrkmsqQ0BTpuJtTjszV9uRiEnJ3Coyg/s1600/Ozone+and+CFC+Total.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBKT9YemACgR0rEbKrIzglp0u2zSFRwD-nMNse_crfWuTKqYbthpirZv5ZteDoyvgzzpq8QcqGiJQg82WM7O7cATT82eEHVkLkkJwh4Fs4pKh2OrkmsqQ0BTpuJtTjszV9uRiEnJ3Coyg/s640/Ozone+and+CFC+Total.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGc3Sp2d_3IVmF7aR1hq54ReNil8D1KXtks-uwIHfaNE4g6Sq-2FGWqaewMj6zI0kK5J765q5Gvue3XIXf2bA6TS7CN6Jfm_VQcgikyUkkOdJr-copWzA4xkArcHDyezw61w7FvhQIavI/s1600/Ozone+and+CFC-11.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGc3Sp2d_3IVmF7aR1hq54ReNil8D1KXtks-uwIHfaNE4g6Sq-2FGWqaewMj6zI0kK5J765q5Gvue3XIXf2bA6TS7CN6Jfm_VQcgikyUkkOdJr-copWzA4xkArcHDyezw61w7FvhQIavI/s640/Ozone+and+CFC-11.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY-q7VzAqcXsUQKwxMk3z3LKYX69tOhpqWGYCfMdEI3Bx4pIlzxLvtH256Y1YJWSjRanrT1ueVBUOHGjCqcPAJdISU68dYD5JKYd-RcN04PdtyGoB86_YsNVic96UNkrv6-y0hfsJDrvg/s1600/Ozone+and+CFC-12.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY-q7VzAqcXsUQKwxMk3z3LKYX69tOhpqWGYCfMdEI3Bx4pIlzxLvtH256Y1YJWSjRanrT1ueVBUOHGjCqcPAJdISU68dYD5JKYd-RcN04PdtyGoB86_YsNVic96UNkrv6-y0hfsJDrvg/s640/Ozone+and+CFC-12.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheAtlbpkD2FDwdJXm7LeCYsCsVJ-wMYJFFPnHnmJQY3bxs_7YSbPr1QMbXCQwyVd16IeqXWFgSJm1gXqpAUFZtExwJ77Ien4WmpZtQaAcTTVw3q-k0wzgKTRa1xyJPBEF8D6HLKq5qmkU/s1600/Ozone+and+CFC-113.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheAtlbpkD2FDwdJXm7LeCYsCsVJ-wMYJFFPnHnmJQY3bxs_7YSbPr1QMbXCQwyVd16IeqXWFgSJm1gXqpAUFZtExwJ77Ien4WmpZtQaAcTTVw3q-k0wzgKTRa1xyJPBEF8D6HLKq5qmkU/s640/Ozone+and+CFC-113.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixo5q8-XZP2D9niCTY3euvOXyfs6Kj7Nt-O_7CKRdC8gGDxGe29vqd86qErfZ87HfaUigAPHNYbkIOvroQC5TN0_n18CbR3uoXRKLtWfTKX-YHH9z1OoiTrGoOhWVRKZO7ZgnxRBxiF58/s1600/Ozone+Residual+and+Sunspots.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixo5q8-XZP2D9niCTY3euvOXyfs6Kj7Nt-O_7CKRdC8gGDxGe29vqd86qErfZ87HfaUigAPHNYbkIOvroQC5TN0_n18CbR3uoXRKLtWfTKX-YHH9z1OoiTrGoOhWVRKZO7ZgnxRBxiF58/s640/Ozone+Residual+and+Sunspots.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
So yeah, when I take the residual of what total CFC concentration would predict for ozone and regress it against against solar activity, we do see a relationship. Which isn't surprising or controversial. Nor is it surprising to me that CFCs are the better predictor of the long-term trend.<br />
<br />
That's really all I should have to say, but some people like manufacturing controversy.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-54254512068811227922016-06-26T14:36:00.001-07:002016-06-26T17:59:58.311-07:00Comparing Individual CMIP5 Models To Observations... because it just never gets old.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
<div>
One of the Denizens at Judy's writes in response to my question of Mike Flynn:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
---------------------</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="comment-author vcard" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0.85em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<cite class="fn" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">PA</cite> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , "nimbus sans l" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">| <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/20/how-dr-frankenstein-is-making-research-sick/#comment-791679" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-stretch: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">June 24, 2016 at 11:05 am</a> | <a class="comment-reply-link" href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/20/how-dr-frankenstein-is-making-research-sick/?replytocom=791679#respond" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-stretch: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Reply</a></span></div>
<div class="comment-body" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<i>Again: Where is your CMIP5-compatible model which beats the present state of the art at its own game?</i></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The Russian INMCM4 is arguably the most accurate or one of the most accurate in terms of predictive trend</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The INMCM4 model predicts little future warming.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Question asked and answered.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
---------------------</div>
<div>
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To which I reply:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
---------------------</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="comment-author vcard" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0.85em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<cite class="fn" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a class="url" href="http://climateconsensarian.wordpress.com/" rel="external nofollow" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">brandonrgates</a></cite> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , "nimbus sans l" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">| <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/20/how-dr-frankenstein-is-making-research-sick/#comment-791964" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-stretch: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">June 25, 2016 at 9:42 pm</a> |</span></div>
<div class="comment-body" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
PA,</div>
<blockquote style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: italic; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px 30px 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; quotes: "" ""; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The Russian INMCM4 is arguably the most accurate or one of the most accurate in terms of predictive trend. The INMCM4 model predicts little future warming.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Comparing to HADCRUT4 annual means over 1880-2005:</div>
<pre style="background: rgb(244, 244, 244); border: 0px; font-family: "Courier 10 Pitch", Courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.7; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0.85em 1.7em; vertical-align: baseline;">Model RMSE GMST 2100 2.0 C Year
------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
CESM1-CAM5 0.0093 5.10 2043
CNRM-CM5 0.0104 4.52 2047
inmcm4 0.0121 3.60 2057
GISS-E2-H 0.0123 3.95 2043
MIROC-ESM-CHEM 0.0126 6.36 2030
Model Slope Dev GMST 2100 2.0 C Year
------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
MIROC-ESM-CHEM 0.0036 6.36 2030
inmcm4 0.0070 3.60 2057
FGOALS-g2 0.0222 4.15 2046
CNRM-CM5 0.0299 4.52 2047
GFDL-ESM2M 0.0463 3.54 2051</pre>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“Slope Dev” is the absolute deviation of the model vs. observed change in C/century. Projections are from RCP8.0 for all models using a “pre-industrial” temperature baseline of 1861-1890. There is practically zero correlation between implied future sensitivity and either hindcast trend or hindcast skill as judged by root mean squared error.</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: italic; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 30px 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; quotes: "" ""; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Question asked and answered.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Not really. According to Mike, ECS shouldn’t just be low — it should be zero.</div>
</div>
<div>
---------------------</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The response misses the point and includes the often seen shonky plots from Spencer and Christy:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
---------------------</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="comment-author vcard" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0.85em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<cite class="fn" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">PA</cite> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , "nimbus sans l" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">| <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/20/how-dr-frankenstein-is-making-research-sick/#comment-792011" style="border: 0px; color: #888888; font-stretch: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">June 26, 2016 at 1:16 am</a> |</span></div>
<div class="comment-body" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.8px; margin: 0px 66px 0px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<i>brandonrgates | June 25, 2016 at 9:42 pm |<br />inmcm4 1.68 3.60 2057</i></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Really?</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><img height="298" scale="2" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png" srcset="https://i0.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png?zoom=2 2x" style="border: 0px; max-width: 100%;" width="398" /></a></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<a href="https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_models_reality_nov_2015.png" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><img originalw="500" scale="2" src-orig="https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_models_reality_nov_2015.png?w=500" src="https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_models_reality_nov_2015.png?w=796" style="border: 0px; max-width: 100%;" /></a></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Most plots show INMCM4 at the bottom of the pack. I notice you don’t link to support your clams.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
---------------------</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Much has been written elsewhere about the issues with these plots. The main problem is that the combination of 5-year running means converging to zero on 1979 exaggerates the divergence. Plus, nobody's really sure which balloon datasets were used or how they were averaged -- balloon datasets typically contain temperature trends for multiple pressure levels, and since various levels of the atmosphere are changing temperature at different rates, it's essential to report which levels were used and how they were weighted in putting together the observational mean.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
There's a Better Way</h4>
<div>
It's much simpler and less fraught to simply compare teh modulz to global surface temperature. I'll use HadCRUT4 for this post, at annual resolution. GISTemp only really makes a difference prior to 1950, and even then not much.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
First, let's look at the rankings like I provided for PA for all the models in RCP8.5:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-bottom: thick solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>Model</b></td>
<td align="left" style="border-bottom: thick solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>RMSE</b></td>
<td align="left" style="border-bottom: thick solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>Slope Dev</b></td>
<td align="left" style="border-bottom: thick solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>GMST 2100</b></td>
<td align="left" colspan="2" style="border-bottom: thick solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>2.0 C Year</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">GFDL-ESM2M</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0162</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0463</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.54</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2051</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">inmcm4</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0121</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0070</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.60</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2057</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">GFDL-ESM2G</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0187</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0995</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.64</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2056</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">GISS-E2-R</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0133</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0492</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.69</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2048</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">GISS-E2-H</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0123</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1233</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.95</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2043</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">NorESM1-M</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0127</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1042</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.13</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2049</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">FGOALS-g2</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0133</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0222</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.15</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2046</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">MIROC5</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0146</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1013</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.22</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2043</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">NorESM1-ME</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0135</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0807</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.39</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2044</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">bcc-csm1-1</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0275</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2211</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.44</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2046</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">MRI-CGCM3</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0212</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1594</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.46</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2048</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CNRM-CM5</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0104</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0299</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.52</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2047</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CCSM4</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0261</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.3219</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.56</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2043</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">IPSL-CM5B-LR</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0180</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2216</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.56</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2044</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CESM1-BGC</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0252</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2807</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.57</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2039</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">EC-EARTH</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0178</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2365</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.59</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2044</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">FIO-ESM</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0178</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1302</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.59</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2050</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">MPI-ESM-MR</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0212</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2356</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.62</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2044</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">MPI-ESM-LR</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0203</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2472</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.74</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2041</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">ACCESS1-3</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0191</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2176</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.10</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2040</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CESM1-CAM5</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0093</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0509</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.10</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2043</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">ACCESS1-0</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0152</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0609</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.19</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2040</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">HadGEM2-AO</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0144</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0927</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.23</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2043</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CSIRO-Mk3-6-0</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0180</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1736</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.23</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2041</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CMCC-CM</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0142</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1252</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.46</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2038</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">IPSL-CM5A-LR</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0272</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.3228</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.54</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2036</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CMCC-CMS</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0200</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2725</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.59</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2036</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">BNU-ESM</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0345</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.4550</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.60</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2031</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">IPSL-CM5A-MR</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0169</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1566</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.62</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2036</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CanESM2</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0173</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0699</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.71</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2031</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">HadGEM2-ES</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0183</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2228</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.75</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2034</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">GFDL-CM3</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0203</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2392</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.84</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2029</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">HadGEM2-CC</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0201</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.3349</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5.85</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2031</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">MIROC-ESM</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0131</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0901</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">6.05</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2033</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-bottom: thin solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">MIROC-ESM-CHEM</td>
<td align="right" style="border-bottom: thin solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0126</td>
<td align="right" style="border-bottom: thin solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0036</td>
<td align="right" style="border-bottom: thin solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">6.36</td>
<td align="right" style="border-bottom: thin solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2030</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The spread by 2100 is about 2.8 degrees C, and INMCM4 is indeed near the bottom of the pack. Here's a plot:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7EaDcAjwxuQobRHlKc1rHrzbug4yZoO7R2zW1Ha0vGic9Hm1JLFIyDtW0L2213GID98A3_xPF_ViGqKBNx6vKoXqg-CFu-6mfFC-vexe7qyCplmUajTuQmHgcsOl2Z_rCsl2AeFuc6Ws/s1600/HADCRUT4+vs+CMIP5+RCP8.5+five+coolest+models.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7EaDcAjwxuQobRHlKc1rHrzbug4yZoO7R2zW1Ha0vGic9Hm1JLFIyDtW0L2213GID98A3_xPF_ViGqKBNx6vKoXqg-CFu-6mfFC-vexe7qyCplmUajTuQmHgcsOl2Z_rCsl2AeFuc6Ws/s640/HADCRUT4+vs+CMIP5+RCP8.5+five+coolest+models.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now for RCP4.5, first the rankings (9999 means the model never hits the 2.0 C threshold):</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-bottom: thick solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>Model</b></td>
<td align="left" style="border-bottom: thick solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>RMSE</b></td>
<td align="left" style="border-bottom: thick solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>Slope Dev</b></td>
<td align="left" style="border-bottom: thick solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>GMST 2100</b></td>
<td align="left" colspan="2" style="border-bottom: thick solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>2.0 C Year</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">GFDL-ESM2G</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0187</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0995</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1.57</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">9999</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">GFDL-ESM2M</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0162</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0463</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1.63</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2073</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">FIO-ESM</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0178</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1302</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1.69</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">9999</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">inmcm4</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0121</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0070</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1.81</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">9999</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">GISS-E2-R-CC</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0120</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0166</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1.88</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">9999</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">GISS-E2-H-CC</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0216</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.3068</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1.94</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2084</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">FGOALS-g2</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0133</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0222</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1.95</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2102</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">GISS-E2-R</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0109</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0175</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.09</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2086</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">bcc-csm1-1-m</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0230</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1697</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.10</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2066</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">bcc-csm1-1</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0275</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2211</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.14</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2066</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CESM1-BGC</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0252</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2807</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.26</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2051</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">NorESM1-M</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0127</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1042</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.26</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2066</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">MPI-ESM-MR</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0193</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2239</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.27</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2056</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">GISS-E2-H</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0119</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1349</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.29</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2060</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">IPSL-CM5B-LR</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0180</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2216</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.32</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2060</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CCSM4</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0261</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.3219</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.34</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2060</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">MIROC5</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0146</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1013</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.37</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2054</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">MPI-ESM-LR</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0203</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2472</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.47</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2052</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">NorESM1-ME</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0135</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0807</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.51</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2051</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">EC-EARTH</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0178</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2365</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.54</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2057</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CNRM-CM5</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0154</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0938</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.55</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2055</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">MRI-CGCM3</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0212</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1594</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.59</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2072</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">BNU-ESM</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0345</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.4550</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.67</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2034</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CMCC-CM</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0142</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1252</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.80</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2049</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CMCC-CMS</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0200</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2725</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.83</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2043</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">IPSL-CM5A-LR</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0272</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.3228</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.84</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2046</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">ACCESS1-0</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0152</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0609</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.87</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2049</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">IPSL-CM5A-MR</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0169</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1566</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.89</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2043</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">ACCESS1-3</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0191</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2176</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.90</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2047</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CSIRO-Mk3-6-0</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0180</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1736</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.99</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2046</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">HadGEM2-CC</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0201</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.3349</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.01</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2039</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">HadGEM2-ES</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0183</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2227</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.01</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2040</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CanESM2</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0173</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0699</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.02</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2036</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">HadGEM2-AO</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0144</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0927</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.08</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2043</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">CESM1-CAM5</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0093</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0509</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.13</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2046</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">MIROC-ESM</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0131</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0901</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.14</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2034</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">MIROC-ESM-CHEM</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0126</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0036</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.29</td>
<td align="right" style="border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2038</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="border-bottom: thin solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">GFDL-CM3</td>
<td align="right" style="border-bottom: thin solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0203</td>
<td align="right" style="border-bottom: thin solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2392</td>
<td align="right" style="border-bottom: thin solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.51</td>
<td align="right" style="border-bottom: thin solid #000000; border-left: thin solid #000000; border-right: thin solid #000000; border-top: thin solid #000000; font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2027</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And the plot:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv-nagp-yLjCmPdVLkiYX3q_XBuYN_ehO1qqmVkyrTCv7eUsAzkO2MEOzBqPGL95tI0SC5o3497_EM0hYgBP2Bhnoto7uxjBw7mKXd3Zhs1Ht4xe4x8pmXn7Q4cc-VjmKxBuPtpM9W1NA/s1600/HADCRUT4+vs+CMIP5+RCP4.5+five+coolest+models.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv-nagp-yLjCmPdVLkiYX3q_XBuYN_ehO1qqmVkyrTCv7eUsAzkO2MEOzBqPGL95tI0SC5o3497_EM0hYgBP2Bhnoto7uxjBw7mKXd3Zhs1Ht4xe4x8pmXn7Q4cc-VjmKxBuPtpM9W1NA/s640/HADCRUT4+vs+CMIP5+RCP4.5+five+coolest+models.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Unsurprisingly INMCM4 is again amongst the coolest of the bunch.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To be continued ... I want to post this so as to be able to use the images in my response to PA.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Other Interesting Stuff</h4>
</div>
<div>
The following two plots show that there's little correlation between trend over the hindcast portion and trends over the centennial projection:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8zVNR4n5xMw1CUJ-JRNKby0cm7ku3pyPkGa7wdo4vJAu7SzQ0CaolIZW3lLID000-MduvNdw1_itXilznIs5pITGX5KR0LTgprDuQ1Yub1btzdptPCofGP1KTi5fbxvzE_A5abKXgWtI/s1600/CMIP5+RCP8.5+Models+ranked+by+trend+over+1861-2005.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8zVNR4n5xMw1CUJ-JRNKby0cm7ku3pyPkGa7wdo4vJAu7SzQ0CaolIZW3lLID000-MduvNdw1_itXilznIs5pITGX5KR0LTgprDuQ1Yub1btzdptPCofGP1KTi5fbxvzE_A5abKXgWtI/s640/CMIP5+RCP8.5+Models+ranked+by+trend+over+1861-2005.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC_LMrkqo6KneFLZMOHLRWZgP0X9p7xRJZ3naXF07H4T_7oW53YXtIbto4oAvq0NPOKtvD9WyhSNNNpD0Y3Q_ciDxQf_qI9E_ZnLDX1c0bh_sCAl_2cZa66jNLlYUzLmMRE5-CpFV8KXk/s1600/CMIP5+RCP8.5+Models+Ranked+by+Projected+Temperature+in+2100.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC_LMrkqo6KneFLZMOHLRWZgP0X9p7xRJZ3naXF07H4T_7oW53YXtIbto4oAvq0NPOKtvD9WyhSNNNpD0Y3Q_ciDxQf_qI9E_ZnLDX1c0bh_sCAl_2cZa66jNLlYUzLmMRE5-CpFV8KXk/s640/CMIP5+RCP8.5+Models+Ranked+by+Projected+Temperature+in+2100.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is interesting that there are three distinct groups in the forward-looking projections. I've no idea what this means, but I can suppose it has something to do with the fact that various models use common codes and methods between -- i.e., they're not all entirely built from scratch.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-89107220104043322382016-06-17T04:23:00.001-07:002016-06-17T04:23:20.726-07:00US Economic Indicators by Presidential Party... or even more election year fodder for partisan sniping.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
I hate arguing politics on the Innert00bs, but sometimes I just can't resist:<br />
<br />
<div id="comment-790227">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<cite class="fn"><a class="url" href="https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/10206815404318549/" rel="external nofollow">Glenn Stehle</a></cite>
<span class="comment-meta commentmetadata">
|
<a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/15/u-s-presidential-election-part-xi/#comment-790227">
June 15, 2016 at 9:25 pm</a>
|
</span>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="comment-body">
<blockquote>
Ron Graf said:<br />
<blockquote>
Since then the Democrats have been perpetually promising a
“New Deal,” always financed by the children of the future, catering
compassionately to Dem voters.</blockquote>
Did you miss the part back in 1971 when Nixon proclaimed, “We’re all Keynesians now?”
<a href="http://piggington.com/files/images/2012%20US%20Deficit%20by%20president%202.preview.jpg"><img height="270" src="https://i1.wp.com/piggington.com/files/images/2012%20US%20Deficit%20by%20president%202.preview.jpg" style="max-width: 100%;" width="397" /></a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
My oh so polite reply:<br />
<br />
<div id="comment-790272">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<cite class="fn"><a class="url" href="http://climateconsensarian.wordpress.com/" rel="external nofollow">brandonrgates</a></cite>
<span class="comment-meta commentmetadata">
|
<a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/15/u-s-presidential-election-part-xi/#comment-790272">
June 16, 2016 at 12:52 am</a>
|
</span>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="comment-body">
<blockquote>
Glenn Stehle,<br />
<blockquote>
Did you miss the part back in 1971 when Nixon proclaimed, “We’re all Keynesians now?”</blockquote>
ROFL, did you miss the part where every Democrat President since Nixon ran a lower deficit than his Republican predecessor?</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br />
Not strictly true in Obama's case as we will see, but in his first year in office he did still manage to somewhat eat into the shitburger that he inherited from W. Bush. But before we get into a more detailed and representative look at things, two charming replies to my little note:<br />
<br />
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-peterlang11 even depth-3 highlander-comment" id="li-comment-790278">
<div id="comment-790278">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<cite class="fn">Peter Lang</cite>
<span class="comment-meta commentmetadata">
|
<a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/15/u-s-presidential-election-part-xi/#comment-790278">
June 16, 2016 at 2:30 am</a>
|
</span>
</div>
<div class="comment-body">
Brandonrgates,<br />
<blockquote>
every Democrat President since Nixon ran a lower deficit than his Republican predecessor?</blockquote>
Would that be because the Republican Presidents had to fix the mess left by the Democrats?<br />
How is Obama doing?<br />
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
</li>
<li class="comment odd alt depth-3 highlander-comment" id="li-comment-790282"><blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div id="comment-790282">
<blockquote>
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<cite class="fn"><a class="url" href="https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/10206815404318549/" rel="external nofollow">Glenn Stehle</a></cite>
<span class="comment-meta commentmetadata">
|
<a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/15/u-s-presidential-election-part-xi/#comment-790282">
June 16, 2016 at 6:37 am</a>
|
</span>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="comment-body">
<blockquote>
Peter Lang,<br />
Here’s how Obama is doing.<br />
<a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/05/20120503_FedBudgDebt4.png"><img height="319" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/05/20120503_FedBudgDebt4.png" style="max-width: 100%;" width="397" /></a><br />
You’ll have to excuse brandonrgates.<br />
I think we know from his hisory of comments on this forum that he
lives in a fact-free world, being completely blinded to factual reality
by his partisanship and other biases.</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<br />
Well good old Glenn got one thing right this time, he posted a plot showing the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP. What he fouled up is that the 8.3% deficit is how Obama WAS doing ... in his first term. It also includes the 9.8% deficit that Dubya rang up in the FY 2009 budget. I'm not going to go through the brain damage of tagging Bush with his own tax cuts, which were on the books even as Obama was doing the FY 2010 budget.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Nitty-Gritty </h4>
<br />
What I did do in the interest of parity to Glenn's plot is trot over to the White House Office of Management and Budget website for the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals" target="_blank">current and historical numbers</a>, which go all the way back to 1930 in some cases. Here's how Obama looks through FY 2016 compared to his predecessors all the way back to Herbert Hoover:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaR6KQmV9GPta9dgqkrL0tML3c8-JTjWx1O2mHp3VshGq658OWrwlJt_s8XbmDGe_pW6fvIbJf9wSoly8KLRk1zx5XGlFxGu4ZLKn4Vy50oIUA7ii6l6nxyKU5E35NpX7gFPqiev2j1Ew/s1600/Deficit+Surplus+pct+GDP.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaR6KQmV9GPta9dgqkrL0tML3c8-JTjWx1O2mHp3VshGq658OWrwlJt_s8XbmDGe_pW6fvIbJf9wSoly8KLRk1zx5XGlFxGu4ZLKn4Vy50oIUA7ii6l6nxyKU5E35NpX7gFPqiev2j1Ew/s400/Deficit+Surplus+pct+GDP.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1 - Budget Deficit/(Surplus) by year and President as a percentage of GDP through FY 2016, including both on and off budget items. Fiscal years are offset by one year to better reflect when the budget was written, and by whom. Source: White House Office of Management and Budget <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist01z2.xls" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Table 1.2</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
For the record, through FY 2016, Obama has run an average budget deficit of 5.2% of GDP. If we include FY 2017, that year's deficit is an estimated 2.6% of GDP (which hopefully Hillary, not Donald will inherit), bringing his average down to 4.9%.<br />
<br />
Yes, both figures are the highest on record since FDR. Like FDR, he inherited an economy that went pear-shaped on his Republican predecessor's watch. Like FDR, he had two wars going on during his time in office. Unlike FDR, he wasn't in office when either of those wars started.<br />
<br />
Unlike W. Bush, FDR went to war with a true international coalition of our allies to actually preserve our freedoms. But I digress.<br />
<br />
Point is, I think we can forgive Obama for running up the tab a bit given what he's had to deal with.<br />
<br />
More noteworthy, if we look at the post-FDR track record of presidents by political party -- <b>including</b> Obama -- Democrats have averaged budget deficits of 1.6% GDP whereas the Republican tally sits at 2.6%.<br />
<br />
Some will of course insist that we must blame FDR for the monstrosity of an entitlement program that is Social Security. My answer to them is that Republicans have had 80 years since 1935 to unload it, but haven't. Old people vote too, and the AARP is not an organization most politicians want to piss off. And besides, taking care of their elderly is something responsible adults do. But again I digress.<br />
<br />
I noticed something else staring at that plot for a while: with the exception of Reagan, it looks like every Republican since and including Hoover has increased the budget deficit during their time in office, whilst Dems look to either decrease it or hold it steady. To better visualize that, I ginned up this plot from the same data:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6F4_sQnkqKiYx8ICsX7V5i92kMc3jv9CHdhyphenhyphenqAvgsu_UiTTxgVW8-0QA2n5rypBl9foXbtoBeG_5Pkpoemps22MoAD39zXLGrATLDWbVFJPctXkNPjzuAUWe-5Y02bHQkvwXw6KmDYXY/s1600/Chg+Deficit+Surplus+pct+GDP.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6F4_sQnkqKiYx8ICsX7V5i92kMc3jv9CHdhyphenhyphenqAvgsu_UiTTxgVW8-0QA2n5rypBl9foXbtoBeG_5Pkpoemps22MoAD39zXLGrATLDWbVFJPctXkNPjzuAUWe-5Y02bHQkvwXw6KmDYXY/s400/Chg+Deficit+Surplus+pct+GDP.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 2 - Budget Deficit/(Surplus) year over year change by President as a
percentage of GDP through FY 2016, including both on and off budget
items. Fiscal years are offset by one year to better reflect when the
budget was written, and by whom. Source: White House Office of
Management and Budget <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist01z2.xls" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Table 1.2</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Yup, you're reading that correctly -- JFK is the only Democrat since FDR to increase the deficit during his time in office. Carter and Reagan broke even, and Ike reduced the deficit during his two terms. Every other Republican president increased the deficit during his term in office. We might give Nixon and Ford a pass for having to clean up JFK and Johnson's Vietnam debacle. <br />
<br />
That leaves the father-son team of H. W. "read my lips" Bush and W. "Saddam tried to kill my Daddy" Bush. I maintain that history will remain kinder to Bush the Elder.<br />
<br />
But the main point here is, yeah, Obama ran up record post-FDR deficits; however, he knocked them down every year until FY 2016. But even that bump up is on par in absolute terms with Reagan and the two Bushes.<br />
<br />
"Welllll ..." says my cost-conscious friends across the great partisan divide, "Democraps have lower deficits because they tax the hell out of everyone." Ok, let's take a look at that:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSEyJXNQvn4-V4P12BUYXZVZH3Qo2-hl7QN2iem80TgELjlc-dnxYNTC2cWrf_JDhuUuXRSWb2RFEWVw8RwKb-47l3VED2faXHsCA9DKAjuAWEZWYzLGHs9SDVPWkMAWeO9Bpvq4anaWQ/s1600/Receipts+pct+GDP.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSEyJXNQvn4-V4P12BUYXZVZH3Qo2-hl7QN2iem80TgELjlc-dnxYNTC2cWrf_JDhuUuXRSWb2RFEWVw8RwKb-47l3VED2faXHsCA9DKAjuAWEZWYzLGHs9SDVPWkMAWeO9Bpvq4anaWQ/s400/Receipts+pct+GDP.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 3 - Budget Receipts by year and President as a
percentage of GDP through FY 2016, including both on and off budget
items. Fiscal years are offset by one year to better reflect when the
budget was written, and by whom. Source: White House Office of
Management and Budget <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist01z2.xls" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Table 1.2</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In absolute terms between the parties, it's about a dead heat, with post-FDR Dems edging out Repubs in terms of dipping into our wallets. Bush II and Obama are also tied, with one clear difference: GWB slashed taxes whilst BHO undid the cuts. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say he managed to get the Congrisscritters to let them expire -- my memory on this is hazy and I'm too tired and lazy to look it up.<br />
<br />
There's another clear pattern, Dems tend to raise taxes in office, Repubs tend to undo them and hold them steady or decrease them. There's a plot for that:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbuDGY3wSxuZ_7HM87BGbLcCD-wQbkQlClJPNyaVEBOKtiRhBD8F0CVjDyh9i6Muld8W71vgjLw-W1d7cB7P_B2lkex0NO9GEGDsSMRv3TvO-TRd0BbzhIyHC0mxxFFm6PuOEsA3OqRqU/s1600/Chg+Receipts+pct+GDP.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbuDGY3wSxuZ_7HM87BGbLcCD-wQbkQlClJPNyaVEBOKtiRhBD8F0CVjDyh9i6Muld8W71vgjLw-W1d7cB7P_B2lkex0NO9GEGDsSMRv3TvO-TRd0BbzhIyHC0mxxFFm6PuOEsA3OqRqU/s400/Chg+Receipts+pct+GDP.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 4 - Budget Receipts year over year change by President as a
percentage of GDP through FY 2016, including both on and off budget
items. Fiscal years are offset by one year to better reflect when the
budget was written, and by whom. Source: White House Office of
Management and Budget <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist01z2.xls" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Table 1.2</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Pretty unambiguous difference. So that's the tax part of Tax and Spend. So let's look at spend:<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirkooPKu4-TZ33h7eCdZXR9N9Kn3YXBFPeQMNjf-Wd2m4fKelQu-Iy92uOf3yV3k0KqQ8xYP7E7Un-dRemtGAgw70jfZ7npYejrcwQljemDFUOi2QXWqRgl56jusdj-WrncrN9JOP35g4/s1600/Outlays+pct+GDP.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirkooPKu4-TZ33h7eCdZXR9N9Kn3YXBFPeQMNjf-Wd2m4fKelQu-Iy92uOf3yV3k0KqQ8xYP7E7Un-dRemtGAgw70jfZ7npYejrcwQljemDFUOi2QXWqRgl56jusdj-WrncrN9JOP35g4/s400/Outlays+pct+GDP.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 5 - Budget Outlays by year and President as a
percentage of GDP through FY 2016, including both on and off budget
items. Fiscal years are offset by one year to better reflect when the
budget was written, and by whom. Source: White House Office of
Management and Budget <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist01z2.xls" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Table 1.2</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
King Hussein Obama just slightly edges out Saint Reagan for being the most spendy. However, post-FDR Democrats have been thriftier than Republicans. And there's something else ... is it just me, or do Democrats look to have a habit of decreasing, NOT increasing, spending while in office? Let's look:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfsrWPQHMLUbasBXUWRGCPDo-sjowI5aCE62IMcOzEZS8o-ltD4hzLZotNMOp-4Tctg2-7zn5ww4fmR7mp0PrJDZWPpTZmv29zTfgXhLFITLc23eiT8ch71s2utmk6yUSvFK1-hf-QwZU/s1600/Chg+Outlays+pct+GDP.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfsrWPQHMLUbasBXUWRGCPDo-sjowI5aCE62IMcOzEZS8o-ltD4hzLZotNMOp-4Tctg2-7zn5ww4fmR7mp0PrJDZWPpTZmv29zTfgXhLFITLc23eiT8ch71s2utmk6yUSvFK1-hf-QwZU/s400/Chg+Outlays+pct+GDP.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 6 - Budget Outlays year over year change by President as a
percentage of GDP through FY 2016, including both on and off budget
items. Fiscal years are offset by one year to better reflect when the
budget was written, and by whom. Source: White House Office of
Management and Budget <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist01z2.xls" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Table 1.2</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Because of the wild fluctuations during the Great Depression/WWII years the scaling makes it more difficult to see, but <b>even including FDR</b>, Democrats don't tend to ramp spending as much as Republicans do. Bonkers, I know. Ford and Bush II are the main offenders in the post-FDR era. But the real story of this plot for me is that both B. Clinton and B. Obama <b>reduced</b> spending while in office.<br />
<br />
And as we have seen in Figure 2, both most recent Democratic presidents also reduced the deficit while in office. Clinton managed to run a surplus, which obviously Obama has not ... however, Obama on average did about half as much more deficit reduction than Clinton.<br />
<br />
Funny how climate contrarians fixate on absolutes when rate of change tells an equally, if not more, important story -- even when doing partisan economics. Color me shocked.<br />
<br />
If I've learned anything from this exercise, it's these two things:<br />
<ol>
<li>Republican presidents like spending as much as Democrats.</li>
<li>Democrats try to fund their programs, Republicans not so much.</li>
</ol>
I'm probably just a moronic, biased, reality-impaired lefty liberal anti free market socialist nincompoop for saying this: it seems to me that Tax 'n Spend is more fiscally responsible than Not-Tax and Still Spend.<br />
<br />
<h4>
But Wait ... There's MOAR</h4>
... for I have not yet begun to fight -- however, I'll endeavor to keep it short:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlbKG3wQCGrDqau_RTlZLFl-mrhywxqotNTU_mCEpvNxvSNV-xjso9-BbZx5YHQNNaoROty6rDuSl0ApfDMnHW5w9sAim5fW-ZQW5CPZhWI9TYkc7AcwwcP1Jw3OrS_qdjc6JC99NlKjs/s1600/Real+GDP+Growth+Rate.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlbKG3wQCGrDqau_RTlZLFl-mrhywxqotNTU_mCEpvNxvSNV-xjso9-BbZx5YHQNNaoROty6rDuSl0ApfDMnHW5w9sAim5fW-ZQW5CPZhWI9TYkc7AcwwcP1Jw3OrS_qdjc6JC99NlKjs/s400/Real+GDP+Growth+Rate.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 7 - Real GDP year over year growth rate by President as a
percentage of GDP through FY 2016. Fiscal years are offset by one year to better reflect when fiscal policies were set, and by whom. Source: White House Office of
Management and Budget <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist10z1.xls" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Table 10.1</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Obama's performance is toward the bottom, he's also at the tail-end of a long-term decline in GDP growth rate since the end of the Great Depression, and the economic boom that happened during and following WWII. Post-FDR, Dems edge out Repubs on average for year-on-year GDP growth. Including FDR (and Hoover), it's no contest. Apparently Tax 'n Spend is not the Economy Killer it's chalked up to be. And just as apparently Trickle Down Tax Cut and Still Spend is not all that and a bag of chips either.<br />
<br />
Let's look at how that translates to unemployment rate:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOp2RI6sgW_HfTJ_rAzTAuB8ueGO0CzM-WxSUFSe37e5EYajRmBQnRnwtuko38x6Xvt0XsRT9QUiG2YsWLTjFt1xSdQ24N53jjp5zR3gNbaVjO4velur7qv-bX23DAf4qFMKa-KRN98ms/s1600/Unemployment+Rate.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOp2RI6sgW_HfTJ_rAzTAuB8ueGO0CzM-WxSUFSe37e5EYajRmBQnRnwtuko38x6Xvt0XsRT9QUiG2YsWLTjFt1xSdQ24N53jjp5zR3gNbaVjO4velur7qv-bX23DAf4qFMKa-KRN98ms/s400/Unemployment+Rate.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 8 - Unemployment rate by President through FY 2016. Fiscal years are offset by one year
to better reflect when fiscal policies were set, and by whom. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
It's a dead heat when including Hoover and FDR during the Great Depression era. Post-New Deal, Dems edge out Repubs. And there's another pattern; it appears that Democrats tend to reduce unemployment while in office, whereas for Republicans it's a mixed bag. So here's the change plot:<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9NfrnYrc4VVed8Bzho7UDdJfPBg-JBPMDqna8BrfJj1-x4nMfljP3I-_Q84wT8qB0WdIP98lHgndaMDsffTq3Q42n4pcEhH35wHhWrt4xxaT25m6cd_ewF2Yvi9nTCiXY-w-EkVOdY54/s1600/Chg+Unemployment+Rate.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9NfrnYrc4VVed8Bzho7UDdJfPBg-JBPMDqna8BrfJj1-x4nMfljP3I-_Q84wT8qB0WdIP98lHgndaMDsffTq3Q42n4pcEhH35wHhWrt4xxaT25m6cd_ewF2Yvi9nTCiXY-w-EkVOdY54/s400/Chg+Unemployment+Rate.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 9 - Unemployment rate year over year change by President through FY 2016. Fiscal years are offset by one year
to better reflect when fiscal policies were set, and by whom. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Pre- or post-FDR, it doesn't matter. It's not even close. It's downright embarrassing -- Reagan is the ONLY Republican president to reduce unemployment while he was in office. Truman is the ONLY Democratic president to have sat during an increase in unemployment, but at less than half the rate of the "best" performing non-Reagan Republican.<br />
<br />
And look at what Truman had to deal with -- a labor market which had transitioned during wartime into a more gender-equal workforce suddenly flooded by returning GIs and meeting up with many women who rightfully were loath to go back to letting men be the sole breadwinners.<br />
<br />
We might give Ike a similar pass, especially given that toward the end of his tenure the Baby Boomers were getting old enough to work, and thus old enough to be counted in the unemployment stats -- thus representing another sort of glut in labor. Don't take my word for it, I'm guessing ... and again I'm too tired and lazy to look it up.<br />
<br />
What's another easy economic indicator. Oh, here's one near and dear to my heart -- home ownership:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxcrYdm1KXVbO8IktjX7-lRC241wAF6I6htTXhB_pcz8hQrHbyv3A5BZORW8bkPI25BFy4TgOn3RfPPBTs5YjUEJ82KWol1FskVq2bHonJ3_7dQjWq7AEzS6arVOG6JlbbzMjkqIiAoGU/s1600/Home+Ownership+Rate.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxcrYdm1KXVbO8IktjX7-lRC241wAF6I6htTXhB_pcz8hQrHbyv3A5BZORW8bkPI25BFy4TgOn3RfPPBTs5YjUEJ82KWol1FskVq2bHonJ3_7dQjWq7AEzS6arVOG6JlbbzMjkqIiAoGU/s400/Home+Ownership+Rate.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 10 - Home ownership rate by President through FY 2016. Fiscal years are offset by one year
to better reflect when fiscal policies were set, and by whom. Source: I forgot where I grabbed this, but it looked legit -- I'll do an update when I'm awake enough to trace it back down. Pre-1960 were estimates made before better records were kept.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Oh noes! Dems lose. For Obama, well, we can blame Dubya for letting the subprime mortgage business get out of hand, exacerbated by Greenspan et al. for not sooner waking up to the fact that buying risky debt from loan originators and securitizing it to "spread the risk" is a double plus ungood idea. It would be asking a bit much of the real estate market to walk off that bubble burst in less than a decade.<br />
<br />
See that dip in the 1980s? You're not imagining it; the housing market -- especially the new homes market -- was shitty then too, albeit for different reasons. High interest rates is a big one.<br />
<br />
But again, looking at absolutes may be deceiving. Let's check out the year-on-year change in home ownership rate:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDdCO2STY3vmQ83UDEP-0jhdgZyi6cULcaAhnJlaRdYCQGf6XXBmWunXChIg5maCvHEIvXcBXEuK8zVMFC0n90pJHzIZ8ypCwHDSL9B8kYJsYvjO7TC6yNAzuI4R9hnqzctUR6zCjAQGM/s1600/Chg+Home+Ownership+Rate.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDdCO2STY3vmQ83UDEP-0jhdgZyi6cULcaAhnJlaRdYCQGf6XXBmWunXChIg5maCvHEIvXcBXEuK8zVMFC0n90pJHzIZ8ypCwHDSL9B8kYJsYvjO7TC6yNAzuI4R9hnqzctUR6zCjAQGM/s400/Chg+Home+Ownership+Rate.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 11 - Home ownership rate year over year change by President through FY 2016. Fiscal
years are offset by one year
to better reflect when fiscal policies were set, and by whom. Source: I
forgot where I grabbed this, but it looked legit -- I'll do an update
when I'm awake enough to trace it back down. Pre-1960 were estimates made before better records were kept.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
With FDR literally in the house and Hoover sucking the rug, Republicans get seal-clubbed. Post-FDR it's almost a contest, but there again Dems look to increase home ownership at double the rate of Republicans. Obama takes one for the team on this metric.<br />
<br />
Yabbut, "everyone" knows the housing market is cyclical, right? Any hard-core free-markets-can-do-no-wrong types reading this far are likely saying that the Dems have just gotten lucky. After all the other (un)popular myths about economy-killing Democrats I've just crapped on in this post, I couldn't say I can blame them much for being a tad grouchy.<br />
<br />
I have more, but am seriously too hashed to write another word. So I'll end here, and maybe do a Part 2 with whatever other data I can cherry pick in the finest tradition of partisan stats bashing.<br />
<br />
Until then, remember: Friends don't let friends vote for Trump.<br />
<br />
Goodnight, and good luck.Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-28093602336861230182016-05-07T16:53:00.000-07:002016-05-07T16:53:22.179-07:00The Proposition that Rising CO2 Cools Central Antarctica... no, I haven't lost my mind.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
I've written about this topic previously, I think in conversations with Chic Bowdrie. Rather than try to dig that up again, I give the present inspiration for writing this note dedicated to the concept. From Dr. Curry's Climate Etc. blog, we read these two comments:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3 | <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/07/week-in-review-science-edition-40/#comment-783252" target="_blank">May 7, 2016 at 3:13 pm</a> |<br /><br />[Steven Mosher] “C02 does it’s work ABOVE the ERL.”<br /><br />What’s the effective temperature of that effective radiant layer again?<br /><br />---------------------<br /><br />captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3 | <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/07/week-in-review-science-edition-40/#comment-783287" target="_blank">May 7, 2016 at 5:26 pm</a> |<br /><br />RiHo08, “Is this the battle ground where CO2 and Ozone duke it out; one for cooling and the other warming?”<br /><br />All of the greenhouse gases have temperature and pressure “sweet spots” where they are most effective at doing the greenhouse thing. Below that sweet spot they become less and less effective as noted in the Antarctic where increasing CO2 likely increases cooling.</blockquote>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h4>
Facepalm</h4>
Here is my initial response:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
brandonrgates | <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/07/week-in-review-science-edition-40/#comment-783310" target="_blank">May 7, 2016 at 7:07 pm</a> |<br /><br />captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What’s the effective temperature of that effective radiant layer again?</blockquote>
<a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y" target="_blank">Benestad (2016)</a> puts it at 254 K and an altitude of 6.5 km: <br /><br />That’s a global average for cloudy/cloud-free regions, and represents the temperature and altitude at which bulk heat loss = bulk heat gain as the net of all radiative transfers, including solar SW. It is of course not constant due to local weather conditions, and long-term climatically-relevant means are also sensitive to latitude — ERL tends to be greater at low latitudes than at higher latitudes. Which brings us to …<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All of the greenhouse gases have temperature and pressure “sweet spots” where they are most effective at doing the greenhouse thing. Below that sweet spot they become less and less effective as noted in the Antarctic where increasing CO2 likely increases cooling.</blockquote>
You’re correct that rising CO2 may indeed cool central Antarctica, but the mechanism you invoke is … not even wrong. It’s true that any LW-active species’ spectral properties are sensitive to temperature and pressure. How I understand it — with the caveat that I’m doing some synthesis here — whether increased concentrations result in a heating or cooling trend as a result is a function of vertical position relative to what I call the “local ERL” for any given layer. The temperature/pressure sensitivity determine a given species’ efficacy in doing either, NOT whether they have a net heating/cooling effect.<br /><br />With that in mind, the central highlands of Antarctica are an unusual (and interesting) case because its mean surface temperature is cooler than the stratosphere above it. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full" target="_blank">Schmithüsen et al. (2015)</a> explain: <br /><br /><i>Abstract<br /><br />CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.</i><br /><br />They don’t explicitly state it in the body of the paper (it’s open access, and well worth a read), but the way I interpret their argument is that the central plateau of Antarctica is above the “local ERL” for significant portions of the year, sufficient enough that CO2 has a “negative greenhouse” effect at the surface in terms of the annual average.<br /><br />Fascinating work; however, not confirmed by observation so far as I can tell from reading the paper (it’s a model study). </blockquote>
I further comment here: it's a pity that captaindallas mucks up such an interesting conclusion with bad physics. Hopefully I haven't committed the same sin by explaining it in terms of my coinage "local ERL", but I think my understanding has the better fidelity with literature.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Picture Worth 1,000 Words</h4>
Schmithüsen et al. (2015) Figure 2 tells a compelling story:<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOzXXgxu83fpsQU44LZ3N1OHEBReTO3h0eUX3OFvPyOvbX662cRdqiIiyo0NhSvVFyF4onW3HSV7C67NKKUV46H6Q_VzbEj1CHlqqoxHFledVTTKuGkQfQhlhrGkdfzfrzMgh_sxuKVYM/s1600/Schmithusen+2015+Figure+2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOzXXgxu83fpsQU44LZ3N1OHEBReTO3h0eUX3OFvPyOvbX662cRdqiIiyo0NhSvVFyF4onW3HSV7C67NKKUV46H6Q_VzbEj1CHlqqoxHFledVTTKuGkQfQhlhrGkdfzfrzMgh_sxuKVYM/s640/Schmithusen+2015+Figure+2.png" width="548" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1 - Extraterrestrial emission spectra calculated with ALFIP, using temperature profiles shown in Figure 1. The simulated South Pole spectrum for c = 380 ppm replicates the intensity maximum in the CO2 band around 15 µm, which corresponds to the negative greenhouse effect of CO2 as observed by satellite over Antarctica (Figure 4). [Original caption from source Figure 2]</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
This might be easier to visualize if calculated Stefan-Boltzmann curves were shown for relevant absolute temperatures. However, we can still derive the correct interpretation. In the top figure representing a satellite view of spectral radiance, we see that the 15 micron wave band is below other spectral bands, indicating that the CO2 "notch" has been emitted at a lower temperature corresponding to a higher atmospheric layer. IOW, significant portions of the spectrum were emitted from ground level, or close to it.<br />
<br />
In the lower plot, we see the inverse, which is consistent with a cooler ground and surface layer, with photons emitted by CO2 occurring by the warmer stratosphere above Antarctica's central plateau in March as described in the paper.<br />
<br />
I will be updating this note with further details from both papers I reference. For now, I will publish so I can use the above image for a postscript to captaindallas over at Dr. Curry's.<br />
<br />Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-72452909279033596272016-05-06T16:40:00.005-07:002016-05-06T18:01:07.914-07:00Fort McMurray Wildfire and Climate Change... another example of the uneasy interface between policy politics and science.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
CTV in Calgary has what appears to be the <a href="http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/wildfire-near-fort-mcmurray-grows-to-over-100-000-hectares-1.2890553" target="_blank">grabbiest headline</a> as well as some sobering numbers:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Wildfire near Fort McMurray grows to over 100,000 hectares</b><br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<br />
Thousands of people who became trapped after fleeing the fires in and around Fort McMurray earlier this week are being moved out of the area to safety by RCMP and air transport.<br />
<br />
An evacuation order was issued for Fort McMurray and surrounding communities earlier this week and more than 80,000 people left the area.<br />
<br />
About 25,000 evacuees headed north to oilsands camps and some became stranded after several roads in the area were closed. Approximately 7000 were air lifted out on Thursday by WestJet and other carriers.</blockquote>
Converting hectares to more familiar units, we get 386 square miles. For comparison, the US State of Rhode Island weighs in at 1,212 square miles, so this fire has burnt an area equal to nearly 1/3 the size. Including the endzones, that works out to 186,824 American Football fields. I don't think I need to convert to Olympic-sized swimming pools; you get the point.<br />
<br />
There have been larger wildfires; the main issue with this one is that it's threatening a sizable population center, prompting a large evacuation requiring airlifts due to road closures.<br />
<br />
Well that, and the inevitable controversy when climate scientists go on record in the mainstream press saying climate change is a factor.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<h4>
What the Scientists are Saying</h4>
I'll use local Canadian news sources again for some money quotes. Here's one from MacLeans using the tried-and-true method of question-as-headline, <i><a href="http://www.macleans.ca/society/science/did-climate-change-contribute-to-the-fort-mcmurray-fire/" target="_blank">Did climate change contribute to the Fort McMurray fire?</a>: </i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[...] Marc-André Parisien, a research scientist with the Canadian Forest Service in Edmonton, says Alberta can expect even more intense fires in the coming years.<br />
<br />
“We know from looking at weather records from the last 100 years that the fire season is lengthening, and intense fires like this are increasingly common,” says Parisien.<br />
<br />
Parisien says last year’s drought (so extreme the Alberta government officially classified it as a disaster) and El Niño conditions, which caused much of Canada to experience a mild winter, made the vegetation and soil extremely dry—and therefore prime fuel for fire.<br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<br />
Mike Flannigan, a professor at the University of Alberta and the director of the Western Partnership for Wildland Fire Science, is a leading expert on forest fires. “The area burned in Canada has increased over the past 40 to 50 years. This is due to human-caused climate change,” says Flannigan.<br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<br />
Flannigan says that rising temperatures in Canada lead to drying soil and vegetation, increased lightning strikes, and longer fire seasons. After the 2011 Slave Lake area wildfires, Alberta pushed the beginning of fire season from April 1 to March 1.<br />
<br />
A 2014 study published in Science found that climate change led to an increase in lightning strikes—one of the common ways wildfires get started.<br />
<br />
Stephen Johnston, chair of the earth and atmospheric sciences department at the University of Alberta, echoes Flannigan’s concerns. “Climate change makes extreme weather events more common. From that perspective, you could say this is more of the extreme types of weather that you’d expect.”<br />
<br />
A 2013 <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/32/13055.abstract" target="_blank">study</a> published in the <i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</i> showed that boreal forests—the type of forest currently burning in Fort McMurray—haven’t burned so frequently in at least 10,000 years.<br />
<br />
In Canada, there’s also evidence that more forest is burning than ever before. A January 2016 <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1521-0" target="_blank">study</a> in <i>Climatic Change</i> co-authored by Flannigan, said that 8,000 fires burned over two million hectares on average per year, over the past decade. According to Flannigan, previous decades saw an average of about one million hectares burn per year.</blockquote>
Links in the original. This is good reporting, beginning with the appropriate qualifier in the headline that climate change is a <b>contributing</b> factor in the McMurray fire, not the (sole) <b>cause</b> of it. It gives historical context, discusses frequency of occurrence and duration of the fire season, invokes mechanisms driving both changes, and cites peer-reviewed primary literature.<br />
<br />
What's not to love?<br />
<br />
<h4>
Political Pushback</h4>
From the same article:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
While the experts agree, politicians do not. When Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said the Fort McMurray fire is likely a symptom of climate change, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said linking any specific natural disasters to climate change is not helpful—and it’s better to map whether the frequency and intensity of disasters is increasing.</blockquote>
Eric Holthaus over at Slate puts a finer point on it, links in original:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Many people have expressed outrage at the fact that climate change is being mentioned as a contributing cause to this fire. It is “insensitive” to the victims to bring up something so political at a time like this, <a href="https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/on-forest-fires-climate-activist-arent-just-insensitive-they-are-also-wrong/" target="_blank">they argue</a>.<br />
<br />
I want to be clear: Talking about climate change during an ongoing disaster like Fort McMurray is absolutely necessary. There is a sensitive way to do it, one that acknowledges what the victims are going through and does not blame them for these difficulties. But adding scientific context helps inform our response and helps us figure out how something so horrific <a href="https://twitter.com/smithjosephy/status/727623711537299456" target="_blank">could have happened</a>.</blockquote>
Ok, so there's some weaseling going on with the bit about "many people", but he does give a citation to a blog article with some examples. I'm not so enamored of the link to Twitter, but that's just because I have early-onset cranky old guy syndrome. [Update 5/6/2016 6:00 PM: in my haste, I missed it that the blog entry Holhaus cites IS a protest, not just some examples of them.]<br />
<br />
I have my own anecdotes of what I not so respectfully think of as faux moral outrage over how (C)AGW/CC is being used to "scare people" for purely political ends. This recent exchange from Lucia Liljegren's blog, The Blackboard is not atypical in my experience:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Andrew_KY (Comment #<a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2016/banning-bing-this-is-a-test/#comment-146029" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">146029</a>)<br />
April 18th, 2016 at 7:43 am<br />
<br />
“[James Hansen] is, in fact, my hero on that one.”<br />
<br />
Brandon G,<br />
<br />
I know you are using the term loosely, but dude has done nothing heroic. Unless you think trying to scare a lot of people is heroic (you may, if you are an end justifies the means kind of guy).<br />
<br />
---------------------<br />
<br />
Brandon R. Gates (Comment #<a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2016/banning-bing-this-is-a-test/#comment-146043" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">146043</a>)<br />
April 18th, 2016 at 1:21 pm<br />
<br />
At least you recognize I used the term “hero” loosely. Granted, firefighters, police and members of the military are arguable heroic simply by virtue of putting their lives on the line (and often losing them or being very badly injured). Hansen has done more science in his life than I ever have or will, for that alone he has my deepest respect.<br />
<br />
We’ve talked about this scary stuff before. If your threshold for saying something scary is simply pointing out a credible potential threat in the future which is avoidable if we act now to prevent it then I am guilty as charged of being a fear-monger. In the hypothetical case of that being a capital offense, I would hang by my neck in good conscience, wishing my executioners the very best of luck until I expire. You’re just not going to be able to shame me with this “ends justifies the means” crap — the potential consequences justify a stern, if not often strident, warning.</blockquote>
An irony here is that I explicitly stated Dr. Hansen is my hero for the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html" target="_blank">open letter he penned</a> with several colleagues in 2013 on fission power being a significant and essential component of the variety of solutions proposed to reduce emissions. To that point, practically everyone else in that thread had been amenable to discussing nukes with me. However, Andrew_KY is somewhat of an outlier in that forum, and apparently simply mentioning the name of the Arch-<strike>Warmist</strike>Alarmist himself is a trigger.<br />
<br />
I microaggressed him, and for that I'm an ends justifies the means kind of guy.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Herein Lies the Problem</h4>
Ideally, the ushers in a crowded theater would quietly evacuate the patrons row by row to the nearest exit at the first sign of smoke. However, herds are not easily induced to move with organized purpose when alacrity is called for. And the sad fact of the matter is that a major portion of the US population doesn't see the same urgency I do:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjT3MezlfwlmZ5d_aUmvpqYXhlQf79V_dE2rqGbFrLZOYhUE0VB8QHUT2oRLIC6pRMbcL9-s8rhrbRGVDb9PmFKN1PpNL6XpJlr_4herREfLwUgLXgvtHRqzZJjAHuZ4FvKMkbxxkf_ie0/s1600/Gallup+Poll+climate+change+AGW+ranked+last.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="404" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjT3MezlfwlmZ5d_aUmvpqYXhlQf79V_dE2rqGbFrLZOYhUE0VB8QHUT2oRLIC6pRMbcL9-s8rhrbRGVDb9PmFKN1PpNL6XpJlr_4herREfLwUgLXgvtHRqzZJjAHuZ4FvKMkbxxkf_ie0/s640/Gallup+Poll+climate+change+AGW+ranked+last.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1 - a climate contrarian favorite; even amongst Americans concerned about the environment, we say "meh" to (C)AGW/CC. Source: <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/168236/americans-show-low-levels-concern-global-warming.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles" target="_blank">Gallup</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Other similar polls including other issues such as terrorism, jobs, the general economy, etc., show human-driven climate change toward the bottom of primary <b>immediate</b> concerns. It's worth pointing out that this is not because a minority of the US population disregards AGW as politically-motivated pseudo-science banking on Al Gore's documentary:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCfRSFMgq30iH2GvSsED6iDQF7HlwbjRXZc4aLyMxGhfp6jow28SZSC2_LJFGc-QQucwMMc-wsYHlH9JfOY1jr4dGXXKz0_Qjdu1kH36sWW31IEOZw7Mp4RxXrliQYFkY5I2NnhStwM4k/s1600/Gallup+Poll+climate+change+AGW+cause.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="390" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCfRSFMgq30iH2GvSsED6iDQF7HlwbjRXZc4aLyMxGhfp6jow28SZSC2_LJFGc-QQucwMMc-wsYHlH9JfOY1jr4dGXXKz0_Qjdu1kH36sWW31IEOZw7Mp4RxXrliQYFkY5I2NnhStwM4k/s640/Gallup+Poll+climate+change+AGW+cause.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 2 - The US "Consensus Gap" is closing. Source: <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles" target="_blank">Gallup</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Even though <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-difference-beteween-fraud-and-farce.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">I'm not the biggest fan</a> of <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024" target="_blank">Cook et al. (2013)</a>, it's arguable that consensus messaging of that sort is working. [1] A good number of folks appear to be familiar with some aspects of climate science itself:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHBIJkr3E1eUe356ocpi3OO2H2HEVb2Nu__Pb0TMoMgw_zy79-Fy9SVowDnQhhnXIit_Urnd_3wm48-v16BlEac9dm-rpBZM8iILgKCTa7CzYptWo9xtxlADGVuV88XeobEZ74FPdry08/s1600/Gallup+Poll+climate+change+AGW+belief+when+will+occur.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="406" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHBIJkr3E1eUe356ocpi3OO2H2HEVb2Nu__Pb0TMoMgw_zy79-Fy9SVowDnQhhnXIit_Urnd_3wm48-v16BlEac9dm-rpBZM8iILgKCTa7CzYptWo9xtxlADGVuV88XeobEZ74FPdry08/s640/Gallup+Poll+climate+change+AGW+belief+when+will+occur.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 3 - 90% of US citizens polled believe that AGW is already upon us, or will happen in their lifetime. Source: <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles" target="_blank">Gallup</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Here's a lesson in being able to get desired answers when one asks arguably leading questions: this is what happens when Americans are asked about AGW concerns in isolation of other issues:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirATW3h6wPEAhOLq8rXXWFNj7IgBuauKM15Umg3n2nQGWhc9GtpgNnWB7D6jHtFdVG0YsLmF8E5qEcwkxY0S3EpMHTAVYB_EtxHdAdZcuweXGp47zXgEwPJQYlnhAJiJuoLkVJ6k9-Izk/s1600/Gallup+Poll+climate+change+AGW+concern.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="406" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirATW3h6wPEAhOLq8rXXWFNj7IgBuauKM15Umg3n2nQGWhc9GtpgNnWB7D6jHtFdVG0YsLmF8E5qEcwkxY0S3EpMHTAVYB_EtxHdAdZcuweXGp47zXgEwPJQYlnhAJiJuoLkVJ6k9-Izk/s640/Gallup+Poll+climate+change+AGW+concern.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 4 - When asked in isolation about their concerns, Americans who worry about it a great deal or fair amount somewhat tracks over time with the belief AGW is already happening. Source: <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles" target="_blank">Gallup</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
64% is nothing to sneeze at. But as we see from Figure 1 above, it is potentially misleading in the context of our nation's collective priorities.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Psychology of Urgency and the Politics of Fear</h4>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam Hussein] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.</i><br />
<br />
~Condie, stumping for what is now known to have been dubious intelligence <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/">in response to cross-examination</a> by Wolf Blitzer</blockquote>
It's worth noting that the Neocons aren't the only one who know how to <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2016/banning-bing-this-is-a-test/#comment-146700" target="_blank">run that game</a> (emphasis added <i>post hoc</i>):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>I have an even more logical, reliable version of your risk protocol. It is 100% accurate and precise, costs nothing up front, and nobody can question its assumptions, bias or validity. Best part of all, it has one and only one step: <b>let the risks be realized</b>.<br /><br />At the opposite far less absurd extreme; probability of today’s climate being non-catastrophic: 1.</i><br />
<br />
~me, getting testy with a <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2016/banning-bing-this-is-a-test/#comment-146685" target="_blank">luckwarmer attempt</a> to appear more reasonable and rational about Uncertainty Monsters</blockquote>
I was subsequently told that I wouldn't get anywhere being "obnoxious" and that I'd do well to continue campaigning for nuclear if I hoped to get anywhere. But even amongst folk who aren't doing everything within their power to estimate ECS < 3 K/2xCO2 by using "unbiased" Bayesian priors [2].<br />
<br />
Why? The answer is hardly novel or surprising, we're smelling the smoke and can even see it at times, but it blends in with the background noise. "Look, this is nothing unusual," is a mantra at WUWT. Yep, any <b>single</b> x weather phenomenon or related natural disaster -- or even human-caused disaster -- is not without precedent in our cultural memory, if not non-anecdotal quantified history.<br />
<br />
Shit happens, in other words. From a <a href="https://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.pdf" target="_blank">full 230 typeset pages</a> of the psychology behind our mostly token efforts to mitigate the present and future risks and impacts of AGW, a far more learned and less colorfully colloquial view (pp. 33-34, 36):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Climate is a statistical and thus technical concept and is described by the distributions of such variables as temperature and precipitation in a region, collected over time. The average person is rarely concerned about the climate in her region, <span style="background-color: yellow;">but thinks a lot about the weather</span>. However, climate information is sometimes used for planning and decision making, as for example, when a farmer decides which crop variety to plant or a student considers average March temperatures in different regions of the world to determine where to go for spring break.<br />
<br />
While a region’s climate and changes in its climate obviously determine its weather patterns, <span style="background-color: yellow;">weather events—even extreme ones—are not necessarily diagnostic of changes in the climate</span>. Climate change is a trend in averages and extremes of temperature, precipitation, and other parameters that are <span style="background-color: yellow;">embedded in a lot of variability, making it very difficult to identify from personal experience</span>. <b><span style="background-color: yellow;">People often falsely attribute unique events to climate change and also fail to detect changes in climate.</span></b><br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<br />
Because climate change is so hard to detect from personal experience, it makes sense to leave this task to climate scientists. This makes climate change a phenomenon where people have to rely on scientific models and expert judgment, and/or on reports in the mass media, and where <span style="background-color: yellow;">their own personal experience does not provide a trustworthy way to confirm the reports</span>. For most people, their exposure to and experience of “climate change” has been almost entirely indirect and virtual, mediated by news coverage and film documentaries of events in distant regions (such as melting glaciers in Greenland) that describe these events in relation to climate change.<br />
<br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;">For most people in the United States, perceptions of the risks of climate change that rely on personal experience will lead to the judgment that the risks are low</span>. The likelihood of seriously and noticeably adverse events as the result global warming is bound to be small for the foreseeable future for many regions of the world. <span style="background-color: yellow;">Even individuals whose economic livelihood depends on weather and climate events (e.g., farmers or fishers) might not receive sufficient feedback from their daily or yearly personal experience to be alarmed about global warming</span>, though recent surveys conducted in Alaska and Florida (two states in which residents in some regions have increasingly been experiencing climate-change driven changes personally) show that such exposure greatly increases their concern and willingness to take action (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 2004; Leiserowitz & Broad, 2008). <span style="background-color: yellow;">Climate scientists have experience-based reactions to the risks of climate change.</span> However, by virtue of their education and training, they can also be expected to place greater reliance than members of the general population on their analytical processing system, and <span style="background-color: yellow;">their consideration of statistical descriptions and model outputs will thus make them more likely to consider global climate change to be a more serious risk than typical nonscientists</span>. </blockquote>
AGW is just not a viscerally threatening phenomenon. It's abstract and subtle. It's taken on the order of a third of my 46 years for it to become unambiguously apparent in instrumental data. I myself find myself asking whether it's really that big a deal. Sea level rise is a few millimeters a year, we can adapt to that, right?<br />
<br />
Sure, at great expense -- but only in some places, only where there is wealth enough to do it, which wealth will likely be diminished simply by virtue of enough of smart money heading for the theater exits when there's NO doubt whatsoever the thing is on fire. When real-estate bubbles pop, they do a lot of damage all on their own.<br />
<br />
So of course my message sounds "alarmist" to some ears -- I sound like Chicken Little to myself at times. That's because I'm not out in the field watching the WAIS break up in front of my own eyes. I don't have the decades of personal fieldwork or coursework experience to believe at a gut-level in combination with trained expertise that something unprecedented in modern history is happening, or that it's ominous.<br />
<br />
As ever, my argument rests on the notion that it's almost always more rational to trust what the majority of domain experts are saying in primary literature. Then listen to what they have to say in mainstream press -- that's where one can best at least hope to feel their personal dread.<br />
<br />
We should listen to it, and try to best understand from whence it springs.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Summary and Conclusions</h4>
<ol>
<li>It can be difficult to determine the combined factors contributing to a single disastrous event like the McMurray fire, and especially difficult to attribute the portion due to (C)AGW/CC.</li>
<li>A single event is NEVER solely attributable to climate change. A more proper perspective is that the frequency, duration, and severity of weather events, or weather-sensitive events, are expected to increase globally as the planet continues to retain ever more solar energy.</li>
<li>There is no way to not yell FIRE in the crowded theater of our planet ... at least not in the eyes and ears of ideologically-motivated doubters and disbelievers. No matter how "reasonable" the "tone", some ears are just going to interpret irrational panic.</li>
<li>It's fully appropriate to "use" disasters to give context to the threats we're facing. Mind the above points and you're ok in my book.</li>
<li>Sounding an alarm is not "alarmism". Again, see the above points -- it's not enough in my book to simply say one smells smoke. Much better to point out where it is, and in context with the past. Only then does describing what it may portend for the future make any sense and/or have credibility.</li>
</ol>
<h4>
Footnotes</h4>
[1] Dan Kahan <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2016/4/19/new-strongest-evidence-yet-on-consensus-messaging.html" target="_blank">disagrees</a>. His blog contains other articles where he more strongly argues the point.<br />
<br />
[2] Nic Lewis <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/" target="_blank">shows how it's done</a> when he's free of the editorial constraints of <a href="https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/lewiscurry_ar5-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity_clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf" target="_blank">peer-reviewed literature</a>.<br />
<br />Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-62454216310702968452016-05-04T15:04:00.002-07:002016-05-04T15:04:26.326-07:00May the Fourth Be With YouNumber 1138 on the list of things in Star Wars that is just not fair are not real:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixICToG_0PQuGCTLCujbW0Cl4q5RC3ABDgtC9775WhyphenhyphensK_1HwUw99XenJLCet1Kh9QT-nWSbXiYeFlMt-FQlPF8panFRFLzzKvlJFWSF-mSrMtRxJPMqb9d4h6R9ofM7E5qv1VPz7cT54/s1600/Force+Choke+Ultimate+Do+Not+Want.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="430" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixICToG_0PQuGCTLCujbW0Cl4q5RC3ABDgtC9775WhyphenhyphensK_1HwUw99XenJLCet1Kh9QT-nWSbXiYeFlMt-FQlPF8panFRFLzzKvlJFWSF-mSrMtRxJPMqb9d4h6R9ofM7E5qv1VPz7cT54/s640/Force+Choke+Ultimate+Do+Not+Want.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1 - Probably not the best way to ... dialog ... with a climate contrarian, but let it not be said I haven't sometimes wished it.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-41367927216484039292016-05-03T02:40:00.000-07:002016-05-03T02:40:14.364-07:00Confessions of a Warmist Propaganda Artist... or letting it all hang out for the sake of humanity's collective future.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Prologue</h4>
After long threatening to do so, I've finally waded into the fray over at Dr. Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog. After a year of slaying incognito Sky Dragon Slayers at WUWT and two weeks trying to be "nice" and failing at Lucia Liljegren's lukewarmist The Blackboard, I have apparently reached the fuckit bucket tipping point of my blogging career: I'm a climate propagandist towing the IPCC Consensus party line, Comrades. Not even going to pretend to be otherwise, it's too much damn work.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />What undid me was this post by a fellow name of Lawrence Ferlinghetti who goes by the online handle RiHo08 at Curry's joint:<br />
<br />
--------------------- <br />
<br />
<div id="comment-782346">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<cite class="fn">RiHo08</cite>
<span class="comment-meta commentmetadata">
|
<a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/29/week-in-review-science-edition-39/#comment-782346">
May 2, 2016 at 1:59 pm</a>
|
<a class="comment-reply-link" href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/29/week-in-review-science-edition-39/?replytocom=782346#respond">Reply</a></span></div>
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<span class="comment-meta commentmetadata"> </span>
</div>
<div class="comment-body">
I have been enthusiastically following
the exchange between Mike Flynn and brandonrgates, particularly, both
invoking original sources like Arrhenius and Tyndall emphasizing
particular passages of each source to make their points.<br />
After this particular post, I have decided that I am definitely on
the side of: undecided. I have also decided that it is better not to be a
soldier in this war. I remain a gawker.<br />
<br />
Better yet, I would like to be a general, like say General Eisenhower
on the eve of the invasion of the European Continent: D-Day. He held
two pieces of paper in his hand, both directed at the media and the
public at large. On one piece of paper, declaring the success of the
invasion and a thanks for all the sacrifice entailed. The second piece
of paper, acknowledging the failure of the invasion, again acknowledging
the sacrifice entailed. Further, in the face of victory, he gave credit
to the soldiers who won the day; and, if there were a defeat, he
accepted the blame for the failure of the invasion.<br />
<br />
It seems to me, and brandonrgates acknowledged, that there is no new
physics that would change the course of the dialogue. Each proponent,
using what physics there is, to further their argument. Here I am the
gawker. <br />
The silly statement by Al Gore, our POTUS and other Governmental
officials that “the science is settled” seems in part correct; i.e.,
there does not appear to be any new physics that can be applied to CAGW
that might influence the direction of the contest: yea or nay.<br />
<br />
It appears to me that the science armada has been launched and we
await the outcome of the projections. After all, it is the outcomes, as
evidenced by observations that will determine the win or loss of the
climate debate. Like General Eisenhower, I hold two pieces of paper in
my hand, and, I Am Waiting:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/i-am-waiting/" rel="nofollow">http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/i-am-waiting/</a><br />
<br />
It will be interesting for me to observe if those who espouse
catastrophe (a rapidly warming world with all its declared cascading
events) are believable, or, in the face of an adverse outcome to their
cause (all natural variation), are singularly willing to acknowledge
that they were wrong; i.e. the losers.<br />
I wonder why I don’t expect to see some evangelists coming forward in a decade or two?<br />
<br />
---------------------<br />
<br />
By way of response ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
A Climate Consensarian's (sort of) Manifesto </h4>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div id="comment-782374">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<cite class="fn"><a class="url" href="http://climateconsensarian.wordpress.com/" rel="external nofollow">brandonrgates</a></cite>
<span class="comment-meta commentmetadata">
|
<a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/29/week-in-review-science-edition-39/#comment-782374">
May 2, 2016 at 5:53 pm</a>
|
<a class="comment-reply-link" href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/29/week-in-review-science-edition-39/?replytocom=782374#respond">Reply</a> </span>
</div>
<div class="comment-body">
<blockquote>
After this particular post, I have decided that I am definitely on the side of: undecided.</blockquote>
It takes a strong will and a good rational mind to remain neutral
when one feels that evidence of a thing is lacking, RiHo08. I commend
you for your wilful suspension of belief. If I may offer a hint that
you very likely may not need: when evidence seems to be lacking, look
for logical inconsistency.<br />
<br />
Presuming your enthusiasm in following this conversation is at least
in part due to my end of it, I thank you for the compliment. I’ve had
this one on the order of a hundred times online over the years, it is
always a challenge to keep it fresh for me. Again, I’m somewhat
gratified that at least one third party to this exchange is getting
something useful out of it because, in truth, it’s a bit of a slog for
me to have what I consider this <i>pro forma</i> and academic exchange with Mr Flynn.<br />
<br />
One point of order: only Mr Flynn has been quoting select passages. I
have simply spammed the links to papers and asserted that they support
my position. Some may consider this bad form, and it’s an arguable
point. My justification is that, in my eyes, Mr Flynn has already acted
in bad faith by contorting my words and arguing by repeated and
unsupported assertion. Thus he does not deserve a better faith effort
on my part. One might even say that I’m toying with him, which is
admittedly trollish; however I maintain that his is the more ill
behaviour. As well, in my readings of his conversations with others, he
has a well-established pattern of doing the same.<br />
<blockquote>
On one piece of paper [held by Ike on the eve of D-Day],
declaring the success of the invasion and a thanks for all the sacrifice
entailed.</blockquote>
I have not drafted a concession speech <i>per se</i> but I have drafted and previously published what it would take for me to concede my position. It goes like this:<br />
Build a CMIP5-capable and -compatible climate model which is more
skillful at GMST hindcasting than the extant ensemble, but which
minimally invokes (or entirely excludes) the radiative effects of
LW-active atmospheric species and you will earn my close attention.
Replication of those results and widespread adoption of like models will
earn my beliefs.<br />
<br />
This being Stadium Wave territory [1], such phenomena should be
emergent properties of such a model, not input parameters. I.e., no
curve-fitting functions to observation whose terms cannot be related to
some set of distinct physical first principles.<br />
<blockquote>
It will be interesting for me to observe if those who
espouse catastrophe (a rapidly warming world with all its declared
cascading events) are believable, or, in the face of an adverse outcome
to their cause (all natural variation), are singularly willing to
acknowledge that they were wrong; i.e. the losers.</blockquote>
The idea is, of course, to not find out empirically. I think for the
most part that the “we must have observational evidence” crowd probably
understand the folly of such an experimental protocol, but instead rest
their case that such a scenario is implausible, or IF it turns out to
be true that human ingenuity will allow adaptation with minimal
disruption. My stock response to the latter is to wonder out loud why
we must insult our present-day ingenuity. That observation is often a
conversation-ender or simply gets glossed over, which amuses me.<br />
<br />
I have also previously humorously observed that my opponents
great-grandchildren might someday copiously reaffirm their belief that
it’s all just natural variability on whatever future standing there is
for blogs and the Internet whilst observing water taxis plying the
ex-streets of downtown Miami — aptly renamed New Venice of course. Some
zombie memes appear difficult to defeat, even with rhetorical
metaphoric decapitation. Lop off one head and two more appear in its
stead. It’s like fighting ISIS, or whatever it is they call themselves
these days. Whatever the case, Freedom Fighters engaged in asymmetrical
warfare against collective societal self-preservation can be annoyingly
resilient even as their numbers dwindle and cornucopian in the creative
ways by which they perpetually defy sound reason, logic and prudence.<br />
<blockquote>
I wonder why I don’t expect to see some evangelists coming forward in a decade or two?</blockquote>
I think you may have meant more evangelists. I certainly would
expect more end-comethers to appear when the end is more clearly in
sight. I am not yet so consistently gloomy, I believe there is still
time to avoid the worst of the IPCC nightmare scenarios without undue
panic and/or crash cart programs cobbled together in a last-ditch effort
to control the bleeding. The IPCC is considered far too conservative
by some prophets, and while I’m dubious of many of those utterances I
find it difficult to rule out that my more optimistic belief is nought
but forlorn hope.<br />
<br />
I try to play more the role of an encouraging PR flack, or
propagandist [2] if the euphemism doesn’t convince (which it shouldn’t).
As you observe, not all the science is settled and there is yet much
to learn. The basics are fairly static, and as such the policy fight is
decidedly engaged by all sides via the use of continually layered
posters stapled to public billboards and utility poles. Out of sheer
frustration, my darker nature tends to get the best of me and I often
demonize. My scribbles above are full of just that. Trench warfare is
hell, especially when the front lines don’t move.<br />
<br />
If I were you, I’d be on the lookout for the mechanized cavalry. I reckon the twenty state attorneys general <s>pogrom</s>
counter-offensive against Exxon is but one harbinger of a much higher
intensity and more mobile conflict. Who first reinvents the <i>blitzkrieg</i> will be interesting to see. Of course, nobody will agree on who was first so it’s somewhat of a moot point.<br />
<br />
Your poem was poignant and appreciated. I am always glad to speak
with a fellow citizen who like me loves his own people and also like me
is wary of hyper-nationalistic pride of the sort which may lead to dark
hubris. However, we might quibble about the role of taxes.<br />
<br />
I should like to request your permission to copy it in full (with
proper attribution) to my own blog along with the above note; I’m long
past due for an article … writer’s block is a bitch.<br />
<br />
Best regards my fellow traveller.<br />
<br />
———————<br />
<br />
[1] I am perhaps making this comparison unfairly, having noticed
that Curry and Wyatt are at least proposing specific measurable physical
phenomena which may explain the signal they’ve sussed out of the
observational data. Someone will now surely bring up treemometers, etc.<br />
<br />
[2] It’s worth pointing out here that the original sense of the word
“propaganda” was not necessarily disparaging, much in the same way that
mental retardation lost way to the less descriptive, but … kinder … term
“developmentally challenged”. [3]<br />
<br />
[3] I’ve no idea what congenital idiocy is called these days; I fear
that “non-cognitively enhanced” or some other double plus ungood
concoction is not far off the horizon. [4]<br />
<br />
[4] My footnotes sometimes have footnotes. Call it a recursive affectation.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Epilogue </h4>
</div>
</div>
Lawrence Ferlinghetti: <a href="http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/i-am-waiting/" target="_blank">I Am Waiting 1956</a><br /><br />I am waiting for my case to come up<br />and I am waiting<br />for a rebirth of wonder<br />and I am waiting<br />for someone to really discover America<br />and wail<br />and I am waiting<br />for the discovery<br />of a new symbolic western frontier<br />and I am waiting<br />for the American Eagle<br />to really spread its wings<br />and straighten up and fly right<br />and I am waiting<br />for the Age of Anxiety<br />to drop dead<br />and I am waiting<br />for the war to be fought<br />which will make the world safe<br />for anarchy<br />and I am waiting<br />for the final withering away<br />of all governments<br />and I am perpetually awaiting<br />a rebirth of wonder<br /><br />I am waiting for the Second Coming<br />and I am waiting<br />for a religious revival<br />to sweep through the state of Arizona<br />and I am waiting<br />for the Grapes of Wrath to be stored<br />and I am waiting<br />for them to prove<br />that God is really American<br />and I am waiting<br />to see God on television<br />piped’ onto church altars<br />if only they can find<br />the right channel<br />to tune in on<br />and I am waiting<br />for the Last Supper to be served again<br />with a strange new appetizer<br />and I am perpetually awaiting<br />a rebirth of wonder<br /><br />I am waiting for my number to be called<br />and I am waiting<br />for the Salvation Army to take over<br />and I am waiting<br />for the meek to be blessed<br />and inherit the earth<br />without taxes and I am waiting<br />for forests and animals<br />to reclaim the earth as theirs<br />and I am waiting<br />for a way to be devised<br />to destroy all nationalisms<br />without killing anybody<br />and I am waiting<br />for linnets and planets to fall like rain<br />and I am waiting for lovers and weepers<br />to lie down together again<br />in a new rebirth of wonder<br /><br />I am waiting for the Great Divide to ‘be crossed<br />and I am anxiously waiting<br />for the secret of eternal life to be discovered<br />by an obscure general practitioner<br />and I am waiting<br />for the storms of life<br />to be over<br />and I am waiting<br />to set sail for happiness<br />and I am waiting<br />for a reconstructed Mayflower<br />to reach America<br />with its picture story and tv rights<br />sold in advance to the natives<br />and I am waiting<br />for the lost music to sound again<br />in the Lost Continent<br />in a new rebirth of wonder<br /><br />I am waiting for the day<br />that maketh all things clear<br />and I am awaiting retribution<br />for what America did<br />to Tom Sawyer<br />and I am waiting<br />for the American Boy<br />to take off Beauty’s clothes<br />and get on top of her<br />and I am waiting<br />for Alice in Wonderland<br />to retransmit to me<br />her total dream of innocence<br />and I am waiting<br />for Childe Roland to come<br />to the final darkest tower<br />and I am waiting<br />for Aphrodite<br />to grow live arms<br />at a final disarmament conference<br />in a new rebirth of wonder<br /><br />I am waiting<br />to get some intimations<br />of immortality<br />by recollecting my early childhood<br />and I am waiting<br />for the green mornings to come again<br />youth’s dumb green fields come back again<br />and I am waiting<br />for some strains of unpremeditated art<br />to shake my typewriter<br />and I am waiting to write<br />the great indelible poem<br />and I am waiting<br />for the last long careless rapture<br />and I am perpetually waiting<br />for the fleeing lovers on the Grecian Urn<br />to catch each other up at last<br />and embrace<br />and I am waiting<br />perpetually and forever<br />a renaissance of wonderBrandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-64858072075851059162016-04-12T17:18:00.000-07:002016-04-15T19:42:16.877-07:00A Simple Sea Level Rise Model... because curve-fitting is so much fun.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
Mark Bofill <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2016/happy-spring-new-comment-thread/#comment-145709" target="_blank">raises an interesting question</a> over at Lucia's:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
SLR is evidence warming is occurring. It doesn’t put the A in AGW though, FWIW. It’s always seemed to me that sea level rise started a trifle <i>early</i> for CO2 increase to be the original cause. </blockquote>
There being a number of SLR reconstructions floating about, I asked which one(s) he's been looking at. He proposed I we have a look at <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.178.7972&rep=rep1&type=pdf" target="_blank">Jevrejeva et al. (2008)</a>, <i>Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Abstract:</b> We present a reconstruction of global sea level (GSL) since 1700 calculated from tide gauge records and analyse the evolution of global sea level acceleration during the past 300 years. We provide observational evidence that sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr 2 and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century. Superimposed on the long-term acceleration are quasi-periodic fluctuations with a period of about 60 years. If the conditions that established the acceleration continue, then sea level will rise 34 cm over the 21st century. Long time constants in oceanic heat content and increased ice sheet melting imply that the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of sea level are probably too low.</blockquote>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h4>
A Quick Discussion of the Paper</h4>
I typically look at the pretty pictures first, here is the first one most relevant to this discussion:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnzTInnrapaZaaokGj5nAnQ_Qhy40Igk9MuKsl674JOrC-abTTN_MuVlm13qrJ4fjbJktTYFa-8IUYk2nKA4cF4_UtNlXR-M9lg62ZLgiHgqaEreqQv0bpL0ZSvfCWN1tOlacvqV9tfGk/s1600/Jevrejeva+Fig+1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="338" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnzTInnrapaZaaokGj5nAnQ_Qhy40Igk9MuKsl674JOrC-abTTN_MuVlm13qrJ4fjbJktTYFa-8IUYk2nKA4cF4_UtNlXR-M9lg62ZLgiHgqaEreqQv0bpL0ZSvfCWN1tOlacvqV9tfGk/s400/Jevrejeva+Fig+1.gif" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
There are other versions out there without the polynomial fit, which is what I'm used to seeing. And indeed, the link Mark provided for me didn't have the trend line either. Here's what I had to say as an initial response:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
… the trend looks to start going up around 1780, is wiggly until about 1850, and basically linear from that point on. That about right?</blockquote>
That worked for him. Here's one more figure from the paper itself:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb44g7vQAj4vlUlHWzeHWjNonkv5mgMSIRJXq2NWaFJdBcx_o6njytj4vG8D5wTjhHDCMsquPvESiuFGIiAuCJH-DwDxg4rQ5_GfEQ_cMgipZDAvBuZH4qIpA_ol4f5l6tw1xWeZbDAQg/s1600/Jevrejeva+Fig+3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb44g7vQAj4vlUlHWzeHWjNonkv5mgMSIRJXq2NWaFJdBcx_o6njytj4vG8D5wTjhHDCMsquPvESiuFGIiAuCJH-DwDxg4rQ5_GfEQ_cMgipZDAvBuZH4qIpA_ol4f5l6tw1xWeZbDAQg/s400/Jevrejeva+Fig+3.gif" width="350" /></a></div>
I like this better than a simple polynomial fit. The 30 year trend windows does bring out the 60 year quasi-periodic rate fluctuation mentioned in the abstract. And finally, the upward-sloping rate plot indicates an accelerating trend.<br />
<br />
A 60-year cycle smells like AMO to me. I may not be too far off; from the paper:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A global pattern of 60-year variability is supported by comparison of the GSL and North East Atlantic variability (Figure 3), where a similar pattern of variability is seen, though with differences in amplitude and timing of prior to 1950, which are suggestive of an Atlantic driving mechanism. This may be related to an underlying variability in the thermohaline circulation [Delworth and Mann, 2000], perhaps through advection of density anomalies or combinations of gyre and overturning advection [Dijkstra and Ghil, 2005]. However, direct observational evidence on these long cycles in thermohaline circulation is very limited and modelling using coupled Global Circulation Models (GCMs) show rather ill-defined power on these timescales [Knight et al., 2005].</blockquote>
Mann (2009) presents an AMO reconstruction going back to 500 CE. Had it already been published it would have been interesting to see what Jevrejeva & Co. might have done with it, if anything. My first instinct was to not use Mann's reconstruction because it's not de-trended, and we're more interested in CO2's putative influence on SLR than what might be manifest in Atlantic SSTs. That didn't mean I wished to ignore other plausible mechanisms which might have contributed to the "early" SLR and/or some of the wiggles.<br />
<br />
<h4>
A Dirt-simple Multiple Regression Model</h4>
Total solar irradiance (TSI) is one obvious candidate. The paper mentions volcanic activity -- I myself was already thinking Tambora in 1815, and Krakatau in 1883. But I only have volcanic aerosol data back to 1850 my fingertips.<br />
<br />
There is one not so obvious candidate; length of day anomaly (LOD), data for which I have all the way back to 1623 CE.<br />
<br />
CO2 data are of course easy to find going back hundreds of thousands of years.<br />
<br />
So, without further ado, here's the quite elementary multiple linear regression model of SLR I managed to kluge together:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSxJNCAfwOrVRA-KTSNfphib0b2CCs43QHrXdSOPhVStPCzn8ieoIocxp8EIDTLd8CHYjFkL8fjCaz7dPGkR8wJdXxUwKJtpnPBzLVBnimNtVnpoP5tcuqaaRh4Mwom0BRtZFTDmcHfe0/s1600/Jevrejeva+2008+SLR+Model+CO2+TSI+LOD+1701-2002+01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSxJNCAfwOrVRA-KTSNfphib0b2CCs43QHrXdSOPhVStPCzn8ieoIocxp8EIDTLd8CHYjFkL8fjCaz7dPGkR8wJdXxUwKJtpnPBzLVBnimNtVnpoP5tcuqaaRh4Mwom0BRtZFTDmcHfe0/s640/Jevrejeva+2008+SLR+Model+CO2+TSI+LOD+1701-2002+01.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1 - SLR regression model. 120-month trailing means for all data series except TSI (132-months). CO2 and TSI are lagged 360 months.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The fit is actually fairly good for CO2 only, but the TSI and LOD combine to slight rise starting around 1790, the flat trend from 1820-1880, and the seemingly early upward trend beginning around the turn of the 20th century.<br />
<br />
I have some other interesting tidbits to add from work done by peer-reviewed professionals, which I plan to add to this note as updates. For now, I'm going to rush this to press so Mark and others can have a looksee.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update 4/15/2016</h4>
In comments, Mark Bofill refers us to a <a href="http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ace/presentations/trenberth1.pdf" target="_blank">slide presentation</a> by Dr. Trenberth. The text of slide 12 reads:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Where does energy go?</b><br />
• An imbalance at TOA of 1 W m-2 is 3.2x10 7 J/yr m-2 = 1.6x10 22 J/yr globally<br />
• To melt 10 6 km 2 ice 1 m thick (2007) to 10 C = 0.8x10 20 J<br />
• To produce 1 mm rise in sea level requires melting 360 Gt ice or 1.2x10 20 J Plus 12.5% to warm melted waters to ambient 1.35x10 20 J<br />
• To produce 1 mm rise in sea level by warming the ocean (thermosteric) <span style="background-color: yellow;">depends greatly on where energy is placed</span><br />
• Fresh water has a maximum in density at 4 C, but not so for sea water.<br />
• Coefficient of expansion varies with temperature and pressure by factor of 6 from 0 C to 20 C<br />
• For warming over top 700 m to give 1 mm can take from 50 to 75x10 20 J, or below 700 m 110x10 20 J<br />
• Hence <span style="background-color: yellow;">melting ice vs warming ocean is a factor of about 40 to 70 more effective in raising sea level (if in top 700m) or 90 (if below 700 m)</span><br />
• <b><span style="background-color: yellow;">1 W m-2 gives sea level rise of 93 mm (melting ice) vs 3 to 1.5 mm (thermal expansion)</span></b><br />
• Need to distinguish eustatic vs thermosteric sea level rise wrt energy</blockquote>
From these figures, <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-simple-sea-level-rise-model.html?showComment=1460513342352#c8853975676120640654" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Mark argues</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. It's much cheaper energy-wise to get SLR from melting ice than thermal expansion of sea water.<br />
2. Even so, Dr. T gets only 93 mm for each W/m^2 forcing increase,<br />
3. Which means about 372 mm for a doubling of CO2 I think? 4 W/m^2?<br />
<br />
So the problem is that the model, although it fits bee-a-utifuly, doesn't appear to be physically correct. There's not enough energy for that much SLR for that much CO2 increase.</blockquote>
Which is a nice way of saying my simple linear regression model above is busted. If it's not immediately apparent why, note carefully the title of my Figure 1 above, which puts CO2's contribution to SLR at 1.23 <b>meters</b> for a doubling of CO2. The canonical radiative forcing calculation for CO2 doubling is:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">5.35 W/m^2 * ln(2) = 3.71 W/m^2</span></blockquote>
Multiplying by 93 mm m^2/W gives 344 mm of SLR per CO2 doubling. This implies that my regression model is magnifying CO2's effect on SLR by a factor of 3.6.<br />
<br />
Not so fast. CO2 is the dominant anthropogenic forcing since at least 1950, but it is not the <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/" target="_blank">only one</a> (note that there are some negative ones as well).<br />
<br />
And then there are feedbacks. The Met Office provides <a href="http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/feedbacks" target="_blank">an enumeration</a> with short descriptions, though no numbers.<br />
<br />
The dominant positive feedback is water vapor. Trying to track it down in AR5 is a pain, but to my knowledge <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html" target="_blank">the AR4 estimate</a> is still valid (plus it's in handy HTML format instead of the abhorrently bulky slow-loading .pdf documents of AR5):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the stratosphere, there are potentially important radiative impacts
due to anthropogenic sources of water vapour, such as from methane
oxidation (see <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3-7.html" title="Stratospheric Water Vapour">Section 2.3.7</a>).
In the troposphere, the radiative forcing due to direct anthropogenic
sources of water vapour (mainly from irrigation) is negligible (see <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-5-6.html" title="Tropospheric Water Vapour from Anthropogenic Sources">Section 2.5.6</a>).
<span style="background-color: yellow;">Rather, it is the response of tropospheric water vapour to warming
itself – the water vapour feedback – that matters for climate change.</span> In
GCMs, water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback
(see <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html" title="What Explains the Current Spread in Models’ Climate Sensitivity Estimates?">Section 8.6.2.3</a>):
alone, <span style="background-color: yellow;">it <b>roughly doubles</b> the warming in response to forcing (such as
from greenhouse gas increases)</span>. There are also possible stratospheric
water vapour feedback effects due to tropical tropopause temperature
changes and/or changes in deep convection (see Sections <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2.html" title="Water Vapour">3.4.2</a> and <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html#8-6-3-1-1" title="Evaluation of water vapour/lapse rate feedback processes in models">8.6.3.1.1</a>).</blockquote>
See Footnote [1] for why this confuses me. Ignoring my confusion; taking the above paragraph as written, water vapor amplifies 3.71 W/m^2 forcing per CO2 doubling by a factor of 2 to 7.42 W/m^2, implying 688 mm of SLR in that scenario.<br />
<br />
There are of course other feedbacks. Rather than try to look them all up and net them out as a function CO2 change, I will "cheat" by simply grabbing some LW flux variables from the CMIP5 RCP6.0 model ensemble. Since Dr. Trenberth is talking about radiative imbalance at TOA, one's first instinct might be to grab outbound LW flux at TOA from the models. It does not make sense to do so for my simple linear regression model approach:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlT0VPRESJvldf7VyFieMxhvcdyDGuJUJ7I1jlBHnPhAXq3RB_PUS2lb-2IlGwLRxxr0_hIYYZAKc34ShF10rXl3nyWrJfy5V44U4O5xUA1NLQn_Cv3VsY5B7pHSS6IHtFyUtDI7y4chI/s1600/icmip5_rlut_Amon_modmean_rcp60_0-360E_-90-90N_n_%252B%252B%252B_mean1_anom.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlT0VPRESJvldf7VyFieMxhvcdyDGuJUJ7I1jlBHnPhAXq3RB_PUS2lb-2IlGwLRxxr0_hIYYZAKc34ShF10rXl3nyWrJfy5V44U4O5xUA1NLQn_Cv3VsY5B7pHSS6IHtFyUtDI7y4chI/s640/icmip5_rlut_Amon_modmean_rcp60_0-360E_-90-90N_n_%252B%252B%252B_mean1_anom.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 2 - Modelled outbound LW at TOA from CMIP5 historical/RCP6.0 ensemble. Source: <a href="http://climexp.knmi.nl/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">KNMI Climate Explorer</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
For this exercise, I thought it made more sense to go after either the up or down LW flux variable, here's what downwelling LW flux at the surface looks like:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPSbFjqE2nHplKtUADdnQztzsVjOtHb6Pfmp6dRcopb-8j-yLnYxe8jK3zJ_Y9NKtiZF6ZGrBtk4BHN2P20KWRb7P1x7LK5csoWMXmJPBD_6TKysJIGx08xovjfVc1SveAK_rSmsl3jXM/s1600/icmip5_rlds_Amon_modmean_rcp60_0-360E_-90-90N_n_%252B%252B%252B_mean1_anom.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPSbFjqE2nHplKtUADdnQztzsVjOtHb6Pfmp6dRcopb-8j-yLnYxe8jK3zJ_Y9NKtiZF6ZGrBtk4BHN2P20KWRb7P1x7LK5csoWMXmJPBD_6TKysJIGx08xovjfVc1SveAK_rSmsl3jXM/s640/icmip5_rlds_Amon_modmean_rcp60_0-360E_-90-90N_n_%252B%252B%252B_mean1_anom.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 3 - Modelled inbound LW at surface from CMIP5 historical/RCP6.0 ensemble. Source: <a href="http://climexp.knmi.nl/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">KNMI Climate Explorer</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
That makes more sense. Regressing that against the RCP6.0 CO2 scenario over the entire 1861-2100 interval gives 17.44 W/m^2/2xCO2. Divide by 3.71, and we get a factor of 4.7 over the expected forcing of a CO2 doubling alone. This seems promising. However ...<br />
<br />
<b>Don't quote that figure.</b> Reason being, it's inclusive of other GHG increases, changes to aerosols and land use, as well as all as the net of all feedbacks. I only use it here to allow CO2, being the dominant driver of AGW, as kind of a proxy for roughly guesstimating what SLR might look like under the RCP6.0 CO2 emissions scenario:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjc4bmB7x_n_0UD8RgeVT0ki6LCgd1SnbXYK7dl5Cy3nu6G36ckZz6E3fdHvYLlnkFcG3reHfTsDtQN5vzLE9ILuInxVW3V0M0uu8jUIPNgSCoOyM7QhE5YOIiaJz6-xEjTWYC1v0Pd8s/s1600/Jevrejeva+2008+SLR+Model+RLDS+1701-2100+01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjc4bmB7x_n_0UD8RgeVT0ki6LCgd1SnbXYK7dl5Cy3nu6G36ckZz6E3fdHvYLlnkFcG3reHfTsDtQN5vzLE9ILuInxVW3V0M0uu8jUIPNgSCoOyM7QhE5YOIiaJz6-xEjTWYC1v0Pd8s/s640/Jevrejeva+2008+SLR+Model+RLDS+1701-2100+01.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 4 - Projected SLR using RCP6.0 Surface Downwelling LW only. All series trailing 120 month means, no lags.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
This model gives 45 mm SLR for every 1 W/m^2, Trenberth is calculating 93. So by all rights, I should be projecting on the order of 1.4 m of SLR by 2100. As well, over the first part of the 21st Century, I'm projecting GMSL well higher than present observational estimates, on the order of 20 cm. Why?<br />
<br />
As BBD points out in <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-simple-sea-level-rise-model.html?showComment=1460618260081#c2558090064176217738" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">comments below</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hot off the presses at Nature Climate Change we have <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2991.html" rel="nofollow">Slangen et al. (2016)</a> <b>Anthropogenic forcing dominates global mean sea-level rise since 1970</b>.</blockquote>
Going to the paper, we read:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Under CMIP5 control run forcing, most contributions show little variability, and no significant trend on a centennial timescale (Fig. 1a). However, if the glacier model is initiated to its 1850 state and then forced with control run variability, there is a contribution of 30 ± 13 mm for 1900–2005 (cyan) as a result of the continued retreat of glaciers to higher altitudes after the Little Ice Age (LIA relaxation) 5,11, as <span style="background-color: yellow;">glaciers typically take decades to centuries to establish a new equilibrium after climate changes</span>. </blockquote>
In my first model, Figure 1 above, I used a 30-year lag for CO2 and solar forcing. If in the Figure 4 model, we mentally slide the projected curve forward 30 years, the 2100 projection works out to about 50 cm of SLR over the 1986-2005 baseline mean for RCP6.0. Let's see what the IPCC actually projected:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBhMLDgBXPu72SzySNeK5Tdqa1BSYzo07AzxBJjqIPYDAJOmbI2TE-9a6gESCLcEPSNHKkLlw3A1yFyRcLiMdaN_2p5JuZ0Ke5H_J-nKJnI6CGiVGB-5Y2xZCtIXhZ_pcR_EQAa1t6bEc/s1600/fig.spm9.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="574" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBhMLDgBXPu72SzySNeK5Tdqa1BSYzo07AzxBJjqIPYDAJOmbI2TE-9a6gESCLcEPSNHKkLlw3A1yFyRcLiMdaN_2p5JuZ0Ke5H_J-nKJnI6CGiVGB-5Y2xZCtIXhZ_pcR_EQAa1t6bEc/s640/fig.spm9.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 5 - GMSL projections for all RCPs. After AR5 SPM Figure 9, credit: <a href="http://www.glaciology.net/Home/Miscellaneous-Debris/ar5sealevelriseuncertaintycommunicationfailure" target="_blank">Aslak Grinsted</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
For RCP6.0, the central estimate for the 2081-2100 mean is ... 50 cm, about where my model would put it if I laid in a 30-year lag in forcing.<br />
<br />
Damn I'm good. Or maybe just lucky.<br />
<br />
This doesn't really answer Mark Bofill's original question, at least not directly. At the very least I better understand the arguments for the IPCC SLR projections being conservative ... here I make it by about half. Exploring that would be interesting, and I will perhaps dig into that in a future article.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Footnotes</h4>
[1] If we first consider Table 3 from <a href="http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Kiehl_Trenberth_Radiative_Balance_BAMS_1997.pdf" target="_blank">Kiehl and Trenberth (1997)</a>, water vapor accounts for about 75 W/m^2 and CO2 about 32 W/m^2 of the "greenhouse effect" in clear sky conditions, 51 and 24 W/m^2 respectively under cloudy conditions. That gives a water:CO2 ratio of about 2.2:1.<br />
<br />
For sake of argument, it seems reasonable to assume a linear relationship for a CO2 doubling: 1 + 2.2 = 3.2. We are looking to explain an apparent discrepancy in my simple model of a factor of 3.6, so invoking water vapor feedback gets us pretty close, with other net feedbacks making up the difference. Yet AR4 tells us to only expect an amplification factor of 2.<br />
<br />
So I'm confused. Perhaps some literati out there can help a buddy out here. Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com81tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-82182826900090608252016-04-11T02:54:00.000-07:002016-04-11T02:54:28.972-07:00Red Team Blue Team... old team new team. Or: why I would support publicly funding research into "legitimate, alternative hypotheses" to explain observation.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
Back in February of this year, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy" target="_blank">Dr. John Christy</a> of <a href="http://www.uah.edu/" target="_blank">UAH</a> -- and guru of <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKZ-DxH-llaA4ovZxVranNQVzuZll4gmZuT7Y4lQMTLGwVREOdsh30lzset62Y56FUQpxK8SET3Nos3UYFOwSpQJiAujG4I8yH_-hRT4SLrZxJ4UFaiBN4DzPgDeG1kJ1Y0rQT4VKKUWA/s1600/xht86.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">retrieval algorithms</a> for estimating <a href="http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/" target="_blank">bulk upper atmosphere temperatures</a> from orbit -- went to Washington. In his <a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf" target="_blank">prepared testimony</a>, tucked away near the end of his standard fare, he wrote something not so novel in terms of concept, but in the fact that he actually put some numbers to it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We know from Climategate emails and many other sources that the IPCC has had problems with those who take different positions on climate change than what the IPCC promotes. There is another way to deal with this however. Since the IPCC activity and climate research in general is funded by U.S.taxpayers, then <span style="background-color: yellow;">I propose that five to ten percent of the funds be allocated to a group of well-credentialed scientists to produce an assessment that expresses legitimate, alternative hypotheses</span> that have been (in their view) marginalized, misrepresented or ignored in previous IPCC reports (and thus the EPA Endangerment Finding and National Climate Assessments).<br /><br /><span style="background-color: yellow;">Such activities are often called “Red Team” reports and are widely used in government and industry. Decisions regarding funding for “Red Teams” should not be placed in the hands of the current “establishment” but in panels populated by credentialed scientists who have experience in examining these issues.</span> Some efforts along this line have arisen from the private sector (i.e. The Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change at http://nipccreport.org/ and Michaels (2012) ADDENDUM:Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States). <span style="background-color: yellow;">I believe policymakers, with the public’s purse, should actively support the assembling all of the information that is vital to addressing this murky and wicked science, since the public will ultimately pay the cost of any legislation alleged to deal with climate.</span> </blockquote>
Setting aside the editorializing (which is NOT easy for me to do -- "wicked and murky science" -- really?) and extracting the the essence of his proposal from his polemic, I'm very much open to putting my tax monies where his mouth is.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h4>
First Some Quantifiable Perspective</h4>
Before shelling out 5-10% of the climate research budget, we should probably quantify the budget itself. The GAO <a href="http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary" target="_blank">provides a handy summary</a>, current through FY 2014:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. As shown in figure 1, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reported federal climate change funding in three main categories since 1993:<br /><br />- technology to reduce emissions,<br />- science to better understand climate change, and<br />- international assistance for developing countries.</blockquote>
The pretty picture is not to be missed:<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuk4weAN3a6FMz0G-aNIEOiTWlASl6i0I5ydXNJzqIf59QcSgaS4BWtgtQU3LGmkugsQGUEuwUTeQBnu0i3T0UHxnG4_BeHXAM_okfAWSdqSAL0YTFU9cwxmn1vTr-WE9Q8GIvPHEXLg0/s1600/GAO+Climate+Budget+Timeseries+FY2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuk4weAN3a6FMz0G-aNIEOiTWlASl6i0I5ydXNJzqIf59QcSgaS4BWtgtQU3LGmkugsQGUEuwUTeQBnu0i3T0UHxnG4_BeHXAM_okfAWSdqSAL0YTFU9cwxmn1vTr-WE9Q8GIvPHEXLg0/s640/GAO+Climate+Budget+Timeseries+FY2014.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1 - US Federal climate spending FY1993-2014 in constant 2014 USD</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I'm pleased to see that technology is getting the bulk of increase. At the very least, science is keeping pace with inflation, to the tune of ... oh ... let's call it an even two bill per year.<br />
<br />
So Christy is proposing 5-10% of that for his Red Team which works out to between 100 and 200 megabucks ...<br />
<br />
... to write an "assessment report". It's not clear from his testimony if this is a one-off deal, or if he's asking for an ongoing budget item to fund such activities.<br />
<br />
It matters not. How can I put this charitably? Let's see. How about:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Any of our esteemed Gentlepersons from whatever (dis)United State of Americants present in the House chamber who didn't at least raise an eyebrow when Dr. Christy delivered that whopper is FIRED.</blockquote>
... if not first taken out back of the woodshed for a tuneup and forthwith summarily barred from public service for the rest of their natural lives.<br />
<br />
I did say it was hard for me to set aside editorializing, didn't I? Yes, yes I did. Let's call this one a mulligan.<br />
<br />
Back on course, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics tells me that 119.3 million people work an average of 35 or more hours per week. I'll assume they all pay Federal tax on their wages, so Dr. Christy is asking for $0.84-1.68 per taxypayer for credentialed experts outside "the establishment" ... <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... to produce an assessment that expresses legitimate, alternative hypotheses that have been (in their view) marginalized, misrepresented or ignored in previous IPCC reports ...</blockquote>
... and all importantly ...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... thus [ignored in] the EPA Endangerment Finding and National Climate Assessments ...</blockquote>
Look, I know the man is only asking me for between a 1/4-1/2 the <a href="http://coffeemakersusa.com/pricing-breakdown-cup-coffee/" target="_blank">price of a Starbucks Grande Cappuccino</a> here. But as he himself references in his prepared testimony, the NIPCC has already been <a href="http://climatechangereconsidered.org/" target="_blank">more or less doing this</a> annually going back to at least 2009. If I wanted more of the same, I would have long since rummaged under my sofa cushions and donated the proceeds.<br />
<br />
Sorry, but endless literature reviews providing little if any new knowledge are not science by my definition of the word. No sale.<br />
<br />
I would be willing to fund Team Red to do some ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
Real Science™ </h4>
What does it mean?<br />
<br />
Dr. Christy and I agree on the first step, forming a "legitimate, alternative hypothesis". Legitimate is a slippery word, but the Gold Standard for a viable hypothesis is that it needs to be falsifiable and testable. Whole books have been written about this. In the interest of brevity I'll leave it at that.<br />
<br />
Real Science™ is NOT paying credentialed guns-for-hire to write 1,000 page tomes about how the vast majority of the rest of their colleagues are doing Fake Science. Neither is publishing such stuff outside the primary scientific literature without so much as a whiff of rigorous peer review.<br />
<br />
Hypotheses are a dime a dozen. There are plenty of alternatives already floating around, I don't think it's worth even $1 million of public funds for a Red Team to compile them in a report. I want formalized testing, and peer-reviewed published science for my money, not regurgitated talking points we've already been hearing for decades. <br />
<br />
I really shouldn't have to write more in this section, but I get a feeling that I'm being too hopeful.<br />
<br />
<h4>
A Counter-proposal</h4>
Instead of diverting a 5-10% chunk away from "establishment" climate research per annum, let's increase the budget by some healthy percentage for Team Red to do some Real Science™ as described above. One quality of a scientific theory in this context is that it can be used to make useful predictions.<br />
<br />
That means building a model. Whatever else Red Team does, one of their requirements is to build one, and it should be compatible with and as capable as whatever the IPCC are using at the time. A good present candidate is the CMIP5 specification, though CMIP6 is currently on the drawing board.<br />
<br />
They could probably save themselves a lot of time and funds working with one of the numerous open-source AOGCMs already in use, and under constant development. However, for various reasons it's likely they would want to roll their own. So two questions are; how much would that cost, and how long would it take them to do it?<br />
<br />
It's not an easy thing to figure out, because writing a climate simulation code isn't just a matter of writing tens of thousands of lines of FORTRAN. Someone has to feed the coders some data and maths, or they need to come up with those things in the course of their own research. Which is how it already works in the real world. Since another real-world problem is time and resource accounting, it can be difficult to figure out what your average AOGCM actually costs to develop, test, maintain and execute.<br />
<br />
When I Googled it, <a href="http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2010/09/whats-the-pricetag-on-a-global-climate-model/" target="_blank">one of the top hits</a> comes from Steve Easterbrook (not to be confused with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook" target="_blank">Don Easterbrook</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Easterbrook" target="_blank">this guy</a>), and his bottom line all up cost for making an AOGCM from scratch, "worst case" scenario is: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Grand total: $1.4 billion.</blockquote>
He makes some estimates for the scientific and support team (about 200 people), and about 20 years of development time. He then documents some discussions he had with people actually doing this stuff, slashed some estimates in half or quarters and winds up concluding:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Where does that leave us? It’s really a complete guess, but I would suggest a team of 10 people (half of them scientists, half scientific programmers) could re-implement the old model from scratch (including all the testing and validation) in around 5 years. Unfortunately, climate science is a fast moving field. What we’d get at the end of 5 years is a model that, scientifically speaking, is 5 years out of date. Unless of course we also paid for a large research effort to bring the latest science into the model while we were constructing it, but then we’re back where we started. I think this means you can’t replace a state-of-the-art climate model for much less than the original development costs.<br /><br />What’s the conclusion? The bottom line is that the development cost of a climate model is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.</blockquote>
Right. So a quarter of $1.4 billion is $350 million. We'll call those the high and low estimates respectively. Neglecting inflation (I'm lazy), amortized across 20 years that's $17.5-70 million/yr, or 0.9-3.5% of the total $2 billion/yr US climate science budget.<br />
<br />
So, with ModelRed (patent pending) being Team Red's main deliverable, and the estimates above including research moneys and the science staff to do them, it seems more than fair to counter Dr. Christy's presumed one-time request for $100-200 million for an assessment report with:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
$100 million/year in constant 2016 dollars, guaranteed for 20 years.</blockquote>
Which is simply 20 years of the low end 5% science budget he floated to the House.<br />
<br />
Yes, I said <b>guaranteed</b>. He'd be crazy to not take it ... I've just sweetened his maximum proposed deal by a factor of five. Bbbbuttt ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
Have I Gone Bonkers?!</h4>
When I first cooked up this seemingly crazy scheme I did think it was possible that I'd gone 'round the bend. Among the objections I myself raised were:<br />
<ol>
<li>How do we make sure they spend our money doing something useful?</li>
<li>At what point do we end the charade and cut them off?</li>
<li>Won't this legitimize "junk science" on the taxpayer dime? </li>
<li>What if this is akin to pulling our finger out of the dyke, and they ask for and get more?</li>
</ol>
Not exactly the least obvious of questions -- after all, contarians have been asking the same ones of Team Green for decades. Sometimes though, it's fun to put the shoe on the other foot.<br />
<br />
I tried to handle (1) by thinking about all sorts of performance metrics: journal articles published per year, software model milestones, etc. I handled (2) by requiring ModelRed to meet or exceed some skill metric vs. the CMIP5 ensemble. I'm still thinking there have to be some basic requirements, but as a naive lay outsider, I don't really have a clue what those would be.<br />
<br />
That leaves (3) and (4).<br />
<br />
For (3), with the exception of the UAH satellite team, most of the credentialed contrarians aren't doing science at all, they're just making noise on blogs or in the form of whitepapers and a smattering of studies which pass muster and find their way into primary literature. I can't think of a better way to stop the endless whining that nobody's taking them seriously than to shove wads of my cash into their mouths and tell them to <a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Mermin" target="_blank">shut up and calculate</a>. Take the full 20 years before uttering another peep if they'd like. But it's not required. It wouldn't be possible, nor would it be fair.<br />
<br />
My answer to (4) was there from the start, and still is. They get their guaranteed funds for as long as they like, so long as it is tied to matching funds to be applied toward actual CO2 mitigation. That could be a one for one matching, my initial thoughts were that the mitigation portion would be some greater multiple of one, certainly no less.<br />
<br />
So basically, I'm proposing a trade. Team Red gets guaranteed funds with one main requirement to build a model, Team Green guaranteed funds to do ... something ... about CO2 mitigation. Team Red wants more money in the future? Fine, that's <b>always</b> going to be tied to a roughly equivalent match for Team Green.<br />
<br />
<h4>
What To Do With the Matching Funds?</h4>
Anyone who's been reading me recently knows I'm big on replacing coal-fired power plants with fission reactors. With the estimated cost of new nuke plants now reaching into the tens of billions of dollars by some estimates (albeit, by some <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power#.VwtfKSZZwQE" target="_blank">who are arguably opposed</a> to building said plants), at best, $100 million/yr isn't going to make much of a splash. As R&D for next-generation plants, it might make a difference. Same for viable biofuel research. Etc.<br />
<br />
In reality, the matching funds would be pooled with the entire US climate research budgets, and better-informed policy wonks than I would decide how to allocate it.<br />
<br />
It also occurs to me that, while $100 mil (x2 for the minimum matching) is a drop in the bucket as far as the US Federal budget is concerned, the cost-conscious among us would surely gripe about exacerbating the deficit.<br />
<br />
So I propose to make it a self-balancing budget line item by offsetting it with ... a carbon tax. Perhaps that could be as simple as fixed tax per gallon of gasoline sold at the pump.<br />
<br />
I don't drive much, and my 4-cyl Honda gets rather good mileage. On the other hand, the monster truck/SUV/muscle car crowd, who seem to be the most vocal opponents to raising the cost of their already conspicuous consumption might gain some satisfaction from knowing that a tiny percentage of the fuel in their 50 gallon tank is going toward "proving" that it's ok to continue burning the stuff with reckless abandon.<br />
<br />
Yes, this pleases me greatly.<br />
<br />
The EIA tells me that the US consumed 140.43 billion gallons of petrol in 2015. Divided by $100 million/yr gives $0.0007 per gallon of fuel, or 3.5 cents per 50 gallon tank.<br />
<br />
Cheap!<br />
<br />
<h4>
Wrap-up</h4>
Am I really serious about this? Well yes, mostly. Surely any Democrat taking this proposal seriously would want bigger concessions. A 7/100th of a cent surcharge on a gallon of gas isn't much of a deterrent from using the stuff, and using to fund climate contrarians might seem like political suicide.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, I am making somewhat of a rhetorical point out of all this (no, really?) -- I'm tired of contrarians howling about how wrong mainstream climate scientists are doing it. I'm tired of hearing about how the IPCC is not taking them seriously. I'm tired of explaining to them that the reason their ... views ... aren't being better represented is that most of what they're doing isn't science. It's generous to even call it skepticism.<br />
<br />
Thus, it seems fair to me that I should be willing to encourage "their side" to do some science by granting them public funds to do it. I can see things playing out one of several ways:<br />
<ol>
<li>Team Red will try to do real science and fail spectacularly.</li>
<li>Team Red will do real science well and find that Team Green wasn't so far wrong after all. They may even contribute useful stuff, which is how science is supposed to work.</li>
<li>Team Red will do real science well, and against all my expectations come up with a model that better explains the observed warming, gets the thing published in Nature, earns their own collective Nobel Prize, and becomes the tip of the spear of the New Consensus.</li>
</ol>
Ranked in order of guesstimated probability of occurrence. If you have to ask me whether that's ascending or descending order, you either don't know me well or haven't read much of the article.<br />
<br />
Item (2) might have a better chance of happening than my snark would indicate. After all, we've already seen <a href="http://berkeleyearth.org/" target="_blank">a vaguely similar precedent</a>.<br />
<br />
At the very least, this article serves as me raising Dr. Christy's bluff and calling. And I must say, it was fun doing it.Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com71tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-1614430766432167622016-04-09T00:12:00.001-07:002016-04-09T00:12:22.680-07:00Poor Air Quality is Almost Certainly Unhealthy... the question is one of quantity.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
This post comes out of one point I raised in the <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/partisan-snark.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Partisan Snark</a> blurb, which further evolved in discussion over at Lucia's in the <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2016/happy-spring-new-comment-thread/" target="_blank">current open thread</a>. My leading argument was my usual: nuclear fission has been historically less hazardous than coal-fired electricity generation. Using statistics I've bookmarked at the ready, the worldwide mortality rate is fully two orders of magnitude different. That's using the worst-case mortality estimate from nuclear against the best-case coal statistic.<br />
<br />
Side note: Brandon Shollenberger finds that the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#6b7bc9b49d22" target="_blank">Forbes article</a> I so often cite has been <a href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/04/a-peculiar-change/" target="_blank">silently changing the stats</a> over time. Not kewl.<br />
<br />
My arguments have long rested on noting that while there's certainly slop in both estimates, a two-order of magnitude of difference leaves a room for a lot of slop. A 95% confidence interval is 1.96 standard deviations under a Gaussian normal distribution. Must I really do a significance test when the lower bound of the higher risk factor is 100 times larger than the upper bound of the smaller risk factor?<br />
<br />
Maybe I do.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<h4>
Conclusions First</h4>
In <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/creatively-interpreting-exxon-dox.html?showComment=1460050636515#c5533882778493134330" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">comments here</a>, Joshua turned me on to <a href="http://www.chgeharvard.org/sites/default/files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf" target="_blank">an interesting paper</a>, Epstein et al. (2011), <i>Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal</i>. One passage gives a good overview of the issues I've been recently discussing:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Epidemiology of air pollution.</b><br /><br />Estimates of nonfatal health endpoints from coal-related pollutants vary, but are substantial—including 2,800 from lung cancer, 38,200 nonfatal heart attacks and tens of thousands of emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and lost work days. 85 A review 83 of the epidemiology of airborne particles documented that exposure to PM 2.5 is linked with all-cause premature mortality, cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary mortality, as well as respiratory illnesses, hospitalizations, respiratory and lung function symptoms, and school absences. Those exposed to a higher concentration of PM 2.5 were at higher risk. 86 Particulates are a cause of lung and heart disease, and premature death, 83 and increase hospitalization costs. Diabetes mellitus enhances the health impacts of particulates 87 and has been implicated in sudden infant death syndrome. 88 Pollution from two older coal-fired power plants in the U.S. Northeast was linked to approximately 70 deaths, tens of thousands of asthma attacks, and hundreds of thousands of episodes of upper respiratory illnesses annually. 89<br /><br />A reanalysis of a large U.S. cohort study on the health effects of air pollution, the Harvard Six Cities Study, by Schwartz et al. 90 used year-to-year changes in PM 2.5 concentrations instead of assigning each city a constant PM 2.5 concentration. To construct one composite estimate for mortality risk from PM 2.5 , the reanalysis also allowed for yearly lags in mortality effects from exposure to PM 2.5 , and revealed that the relative risk of mortality increases by 1.1 per 10 μg/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 the year of death, but just 1.025 per 10 μg/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 the year before death. This indicates that most of the increase in risk of mortality from PM 2.5 exposure occurs in the same year as the exposure. The reanalysis also found little evidence for a threshold, meaning that there may be no “safe” levels of PM 2.5 and that all levels of PM 2.5 pose a risk to human health. 91<br /><br /><span style="background-color: yellow;">Thus, prevention strategies should be focused on continuous reduction of PM 2.5 rather than on peak days, and that air quality improvements will have effect almost immediately upon implementation.</span> The U.S. EPA annual particulate concentration standard is set at 15.0 μg/m 3, arguing that there is no evidence for harm below this level. 92 The results of the Schwartz et al. 90 study directly contradict this line of reasoning.</blockquote>
I don't have the reference for the Schwartz Harvard Six Cities study handy, however I have been referencing a follow-up study, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662950/" target="_blank">Laden et al. (2006)</a>, <i>Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality</i>, of which Schwartz is a co-author.<br />
<br />
The yellow highlight perfectly fits what I have already been arguing: that reduction will have almost immediate benefits. The detail of continuous reduction vs. peak days is a new one for me, filed for future reference. That Schwartz finds evidence of harm below the EPA concentration standard is a very interesting finding, very much filed for future reference.<br />
<br />
The balance of this article is a bit of a ramble, more notes of my travels and readings. I don't find what I'm looking for, a probability distribution of estimated all-cause mortality from PM pollution, either due to coal specifically or all sources. The reason I'm looking for one is to be able to provide a less uncertain range of US mortality rates due to particulates than what I've been using (10,000 - 36,000 premature deaths/yr in the US due to coal particulates).<br />
<br />
Should any reader know where I can find such a thing, I would appreciate the reference.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Some Standard Objections </h4>
It seems obvious to me that breathing combustion products in "large" concentrations for extended periods of time is not conducive to healthy living. Start talking about that in a forum frequented by climate contarians, and it's often not clear that we agree on what's obvious. I paraphrase some comments from the thread at Lucia's: <br />
<ol>
<li>Suspicions that studies have used models to extrapolate small, unrepresentative samples as part of a political/ideological campaign against the coal industry.</li>
<li>Researchers don't understand the models they're using, producing unreliable results which are then leveraged to scare the public into falsely believing that burning coal is dangerous.</li>
<li>Models haven't been ground-truthed, implication being that researchers are careless and/or trying to hoodwink the public over a phantom menace.</li>
<li>Models are required for obtaining reliable results. They're also required for obtaining unreliable results.</li>
<li>Any data will yield up any answer one desires if one looks for it hard enough.</li>
</ol>
(2) and (3) weren't so explicitly stated, but that's how I read them. I leave them as examples of more explicit arguments I've read elsewhere. They all have reasonable basis in fact -- there is precedent for all of these things having been seen in scientific literature, in any number of different disciplines. Hard and soft sciences both.<br />
<br />
They're cause for healthy skepticism, to be sure. But lacking substantive evidence, easily dismissed. Or to put it another way, unless evidence that a specific study is somehow flawed or tainted, I've no duty to "prove" otherwise. Most of the crew at Lucia's seemed to agree with that when challenged.<br />
<br />
<h4>
An Argument With Some Legs</h4>
... courtesy of Brandon Shollenberger. In <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2016/happy-spring-new-comment-thread/#comment-145533" target="_blank">his own words</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[...I]f the individual studies being used don’t come close to capturing the actual uncertainty, then it is difficult to justify trusting any range one might come up with. To a lay reader who hasn’t studied the issue, seeing one study give a result of 400,000 +/- 50,000 and another study give a result of 1,600,000 +/- 100,000 doesn’t make me think the actual range should be considered 400,000 – 1,600,000 (or 350,000 – 1,700,000 if you prefer).<br /><br /><span style="background-color: yellow;">If a collection of studies don’t come remotely close to giving similar results, there’s no particular reason to think they’ve hit the high and low ends of the actual range. When you get very disparate results, it is quite possible the true value is lower (or higher) than any of them.</span><br /><br />[...] I don’t think there’s any doubt nuclear electricity generation causes fewer deaths than the use of coal. I just don’t have any confidence in the numbers given for coal. <span style="background-color: yellow;">The qualitative comparison seems safe to me, but any quantitative one seems quite shaky.</span></blockquote>
This was his second reply to me. My first one took the knee-jerk, "c'mon, enough with the standard objections" tack because a) it's Shollenberger and b) I'd already been getting similar pushback from others on the thread.<br />
<br />
The second highlight is the thing which got through to me, causing me to consider having a closer look at his reservations. It also inspired the title and subtitle of this article. The first highlight is a reasonable point, and I expand on it <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2016/happy-spring-new-comment-thread/#comment-145574" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">in my response</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Agreed, especially if only two data points establish the range. In this case, the upper and lower bounds I cite differ by nearly a factor of four, so it’s tempting to see those as the “true” min/max. OTOH, that large a difference is cause to question reliability. Ideally we’d like to have multiple points clustering around some mean value, and use a PDF on the distribution to establish a CI for the range. Ye olde meta-analysis. (Cue the cautionary tales of publication bias, etc.)<br /><br />I’ve no idea if such a thing has been done for coal specific studies. More likely it’s been done for particulates from any source. Onus probably on me to scratch around for one since this topic is more or less my baby. </blockquote>
Before delving into it, I had two questions of relevance for Brandon:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1) What would tighter estimates for coal allow us to do that we can’t get from the current estimates?<br />2) Based on the present state of the coal estimates, what course of action would you recommend?</blockquote>
I have my own own answers to those questions, which part of why I'm writing this post. Unfortunately, I'm not finding them. But I did come up with some useful background and other tidbits of interest. I'll leave answering to the above question for another time, perhaps as a footnote or an update if not a full article.<br />
<br />
<h4>
What's So Terrible About Particulates?</h4>
... and don't you know that coal isn't their only source?<br />
<br />
Yes, yes I do.<br />
<br />
The US EPA provides some answers to the first question in this <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/airnow/health-prof/common-air-pollutants-2011-lo.pdf" target="_blank">handy reference card</a>. To sum up, the primary risks of premature deaths from particulate pollution are:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• Asthma<br />• Bronchitis (acute or chronic)<br />• Emphysema<br />• Pneumonia<br />• Premature aging of the lungs<br />• Coronary artery disease<br />• Abnormal heart rhythms<br />• Congestive heart failure<br />• Stroke</blockquote>
What? No cancer? <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/315983-saliva-causes-cancer-but-only-if-swallowed-in-small-amounts" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Doesn't everything cause cancer?</a><br />
<br />
Wikipedia has an article on particulates, with a section devoted to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates#Health_effects" target="_blank">health effects</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Health problems</b><br /><br />The effects of inhaling particulate matter that have been widely studied in humans and animals include asthma, <span style="background-color: yellow;">lung cancer</span>, cardiovascular disease, respiratory diseases, premature delivery, birth defects, and premature death.<br /><br />Increased levels of fine particles in the air as a result of anthropogenic particulate air pollution "is consistently and independently related to the most serious effects, including lung cancer[8] and other cardiopulmonary mortality."[53] The large number of deaths[54] and other health problems associated with particulate pollution was first demonstrated in the early 1970s[55] and has been reproduced many times since. PM pollution is estimated to cause <span style="background-color: yellow;">22,000–52,000</span> deaths per year in the United States (from 2000)[56] contributed to <span style="background-color: yellow;">~370,000</span> premature deaths in Europe during 2005.[57] and <span style="background-color: yellow;">3.22 million</span> deaths globally in 2010 per the global burden of disease collaboration.[58]</blockquote>
So there's your cancer. Happy now? Good, so am I.<br />
<br />
Note the estimated range for US deaths/yr for all PM pollution, vs. what I've been citing for coal: 10,000-36,000 for coal, vs. 22,000-52,000 total. I make two comparisons:<br />
<ol>
<li>Comparing lower to lower bounds and upper to upper, the estimate would be that coal causes 45-70% of all PM mortality.</li>
<li>The high estimate for coal differs from the low estimate of same by a factor of 3.6. For all PM mortality, the high/low ratio is 2.4.</li>
</ol>
(2) suggests that the uncertainty might be higher in the coal deaths estimates. I would actually expect that to be the case anyway -- typically the more one attempts to drill down to specific causes/effects, the greater the uncertainty introduced.<br />
<br />
To provide more perspective, from the US <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm" target="_blank">National Center for Health Statistics</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Number of deaths: 2,596,993<br />Death rate: 821.5 deaths per 100,000 population<br />Life expectancy: 78.8 years<br />Infant Mortality rate: 5.96 deaths per 1,000 live births</span></blockquote>
So in terms of percentages of all deaths, we get 0.39-1.39% for coal and 0.85-2.00% for PM pollution from all sources.<br />
<br />
While I'm there, I may as well show this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><b>Number of deaths for leading causes of death:</b><br />Heart disease: 611,105<br />Cancer: 584,881<br />Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205<br />Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557<br />Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978<br />Alzheimer's disease: 84,767<br />Diabetes: 75,578<br />Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979<br />Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112<br />Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149</span> </blockquote>
That's not 100%, but close. Yet, here's what grabs <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm" target="_blank">most of the news</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><b>All homicides</b><br />Number of deaths: 16,121<br />Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.1<br /><b><br />Firearm homicides</b><br />Number of deaths: 11,208<br />Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5</span></blockquote>
So switching to nuclear power from coal would save about as many lives as banning guns <strike>would</strike> might, if not over three times as many lives.<br />
<br />
This pisses me off. Perhaps the less said, the better.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the number of potential years of life lost due to gun violence (or any murder for that matter) is probably much higher on a per death basis than potential years lost due to air pollution. That key point often gets shuffled under in these conversations because mortality rates are most commonly given as deaths per unit time or per capita. (h/t Steven Mosher for <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2016/happy-spring-new-comment-thread/#comment-145546" target="_blank">noting this technical point</a> at Lucia's.)<br />
<br />
<h4>
Particulate Matter Mortality Meta Analysis</h4>
Say that ten times real fast. Or do what I did, Google it, and use Search Tools to narrow down the hits to results posted within the past year. Down the hitlist (the first several are too specific) is a bingo:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12421/full" target="_blank">Hwashin et al. (2015)</a>, <i>Meta-Analysis Methods to Estimate the Shape and Uncertainty in the Association Between Long-Term Exposure to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter and Cause-Specific Mortality Over the Global Concentration Range</i><br />
<br />
As a bonus, it's open access. The abstract lays out a problem:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Estimates of excess mortality associated with exposure to ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter have been obtained from either a single cohort study or pooling information from a small number of studies. However, standard frequentist methods of pooling are known to underestimate statistical uncertainty in the true risk distribution when the number of studies pooled is small. Alternatively, Bayesian pooling methods using noninformative priors yield unrealistically large amounts of uncertainty in this case.</blockquote>
Don't ask me to explain that in detail with any kind of authority. It's also a methods paper, quite interesting, but not what I'm looking for. Here's another one, also open access:<br />
<a href="https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-2725-6" target="_blank"><br /></a>
<a href="https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-2725-6" target="_blank">Fengying et al. (2016)</a>, <i>Spatiotemporal patterns of particulate matter (PM) and associations between PM and mortality in Shenzhen, China</i><br />
<br />
Still not what I'm looking for, but the body text has some interesting stuff:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Background</b><br /><br />Airborne particulate matter (PM) consistently associated with adverse health effects at current levels of exposure in urban populations [1–4]. Air pollution has serious direct and indirect effects on public health in China [2, 5–8]. PM with aerodynamic diameters less than 2.5 μm (PM2.5) has become the <span style="background-color: yellow;">fourth prominent threat to the health of Chinese people</span> [9].<br /><br />The range of adverse health effects of air pollution is broad [2, 10, 11]. Susceptibility to pollution may vary depending on overall health condition and age [5, 6, 12–14]. Risk of various effects has been <span style="background-color: yellow;">shown to increase with exposure</span>, but there is <span style="background-color: yellow;">little evidence to suggest a threshold below which no adverse health effects can be anticipated</span> [15, 16]. The lowest concentration at which such effects begin to manifest is not much greater than the background concentration, which has been estimated at 3–5 μg/m3 for PM2.5 in the United States and western Europe [15]. Most studies on air pollution exposure and its effects on human health in China have focused on heavily polluted cities or mega-cities [8, 17–19], whereas <span style="background-color: yellow;">studies on cities with relatively low air pollutant concentrations are rare</span>.</blockquote>
Adverse effects increasing with exposure is a no-brainer, but of course we want to quantify it. Not surprising that a low-end threshold hasn't been established, nor that low-pollution areas in China (if not most everywhere) have not been studied.<br />
<br />
It seems reasonable to question whether global PM mortality rates have thus been overstated due to under-sampling in more rural areas, and the fact that it's likely inherently difficult to establish a lower exposure threshold.<br />
<br />
About here is where I ran out of gas in the Google search. And as there's already more than enough to chew on in this note, I'll end here. Whatever else I find will need to be taken up another time.Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-50926177782408542942016-03-30T05:04:00.000-07:002016-04-05T12:53:16.559-07:00Creatively Interpreting the Exxon Dox... or the ethics of letting your readers (if not yourself) know when you're doing it.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
This is a follow-up of sorts on my previous post, <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/exxon-and-agu-funding.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Exxon and AGU Funding</a>, to which Shollenberger <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-difference-beteween-fraud-and-farce.html?showComment=1459157189110#c8442357821338389670" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">took exception in comments</a> on my article throwing <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Cook et al. (2013) </a>under the bus:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I actually think the latest post here on the oil companies is incredibly wrong, and I think blaming "industry liars" for anything is a foolish move that shows a very poor understanding of why the public doesn't call for any strong action to combat global warming.</blockquote>
I agree that the public's attitude toward CO2 mitigation is not simply explained by saying nothing more than "the oil companies diddit". But arguing that they have not been influential is dubious. Arguing that fossil fuel interests haven't been actively attempting to influence public opinion would be flat out bonkers.<br />
<br />
I clearly don't have a ton of nice things to say about Shollenberger, but batshit crazy hasn't been on the list of taunts. <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-difference-beteween-fraud-and-farce.html?showComment=1459203593043#c3469297401314588193" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">So I asked</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I would be pleased if you'd trot over to the post itself and describe in comments there which part of it is wrong. Whether it's "incredibly" wrong or right will have to be left to the individual to decide.</blockquote>
He wrote an article <a href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/nefariousness-unproven/" target="_blank">on his own blog</a>. Let's have a peek ...<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<h4>
Beginning at the End</h4>
Shollenberger concludes his post by writing:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The only way to portray these documents as proving Exxon lied is to ignore the vast majority of what the documents say and rely on a handful of short quotations taken out context. You won't find a single quotation in these documents that, in context, shows Exxon endorsed any "consensus" on global warming. You won't even find that they acknowledged humans had already caused the planet to warm.<br />
<br />
But according to Gates and other people who are certain groups like Exxon are filled with nefarious intent, these documents prove Exxon lied. In light of that and the sort-of challenge Gates included to me in his post, I offer a simple and direct challenge to Brandon Gates:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;">Show a single quotation from any Exxon document prior to 1996 in which Exxon accepted humans had already caused warming or that there would (not just might) be dangerous warming in the future. If you cannot, admit you were wrong.</span><br />
<br />
Again!</blockquote>
Whhaat? Move my own goalposts much? And ... remind me to ask what's so special about 1996 ... it's covered in the interval in point 2 below from my original article:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Summary and Conclusions</b><br />
<br />
Based on the above documentation, I think it is fair to conclude that:<br />
<br />
1. Exxon was made aware by way of research that was self-funded and internally executed and distributed that global warming is a real phenomenon, human CO2 emissions are the main driver of it, and that it presented not only a risk to all of humanity but their own operations if not curtailed.<br />
<br />
2. Between Dr. Hansen's 1988 congressional testimony and the runup to Kyoto in 1998, they internally decided that CO2 mitigation was the greater risk to their own profitability than continued warming.<br />
<br />
3. On the basis of (2), they embarked on their own media campaign to undermine the scientific consensus they already acknowledged exists, and which their own prior research supported, and knowingly funded the GCC and GCS to do the same on their own behalf and other industry partners/competitors.</blockquote>
Does not the word "risk" typically entail some degree of uncertainty about future events? He writes a bit further up in his article:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As for the quote saying "there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered," it is part of a discussion of how Exxon viewed the probability of various outcomes and what sort of damages of such events might have. In other words, Exxon knew there were potential issues to consider.</blockquote>
I think it's fair to conclude he understand what "risk" means. Thus far it seems he and I have been reading the same <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">1982 Exxon primer on AGW</a> from whence these quotes were taken. We're clearly not reading them the same way. Witness what he wrote just above that last text block:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The "greenhouse effect" <span style="background-color: yellow;">is not likely</span> to cause substantial climatic changes until the average global temperature rises at least 1C above today's levels. This <span style="background-color: yellow;">could</span> occur in the second to third quarter of the next century.</blockquote>
According to Exxon's stated position in this document, no substantial climatic changes <span style="background-color: yellow;">would</span> occur until at least 2050.</blockquote>
Notice how statements of uncertainty ("is not likely to cause", "could occur") have been parlayed into a statement of certainty ("would occur").<br />
<br />
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
But Mom, It's OK to Cuss if I'm Just Quoting Someone!</h4>
Let me now deal with, "This is not a statement of position by Exxon or the people writing the
document. It's a statement of what some people believed at that time. [...] In other words, Exxon knew there were potential issues to consider." Ok sure. Here's a Sept. 2, 1982 memo from Roger W. Cohen, then director of Exxon's Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory to A. M. Natkin, then of Exxon's Office of Science and Technology:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Although the increase of atmospheric CO2 is well documented it has not yet resulted in a measurable change in the earth's climate. The concerns surrounding the possible effects of increased CO2, have been based on the predictions of models which simulate the earth's climate. These models vary widely in the level of detail in which climate processes are treated and in the approximations used to describe the complexities of these processes. Consequently the quantitative predictions derived from the various models show considerable variation. However, over the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged regarding the expected climatic effects of increased atmospheric CO2. The consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of <span style="background-color: yellow;">(3.0 +/- 1.5)°C</span>. The uncertainty in this figure is a result of the inability of even the most elaborate models to simulate climate in a totally realistic manner. The temperature rise is predicted to be distributed non-uniformly over the earth, with above-average temperature elevations in the polar regions and relatively small increases near the equator. There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth's climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.<br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<br />
In summary, the results of our research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2, on climate. Our research appears to reconcile Newell's observations and proposed mechanism with the consensus opinion. We are now ready to present our research to the scientific community through the usual mechanisms of conference presentations and publications in appropriate journals. I have enclosed a detailed plan for presenting our results.</blockquote>
Not only was Exxon not just distributing copypasta internally from the consensus literature of the time, they were actually contributing to it. It's really difficult to argue that the above memo doesn't represent a "statement of position" by Exxon. And Cohen's reasoning for wanting to publish their own results in primary literature for public consumption?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As we discussed in the August 24 meeting, there is the potential for our research to attract the attention of the popular news media because of the connection between Exxon's major business and the role of fossil fuel combustion in contributing to the increase of atmospheric CO2. Despite the fact that our results are in accord with those of most researchers in the field and are subject to the same uncertainties, it was recognized that it is possible for these results to be distorted or blown out of proportion. Nevertheless the consensus position was that Exxon should continue to conduct scientific research in this area because of its potential importance in affecting future energy scenarios and to provide Exxon with the credentials required to speak with authority in this area. Furthermore our ethical responsibility is to permit the publication of our research in the scientific literature; indeed to do otherwise would be a breach of Exxon's public position and ethical credo on honesty and integrity.</blockquote>
It's too bad there weren't more oilmen like Cohen in the ranks. By essentially reversing course around 1989 in the face of detectible global temperature change, they set themselves up to lose an awful lot of public trust.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Back to the Middle</h4>
After writing "... Exxon knew there were potential issues to consider," Shollenberger writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But so what? Back in 1982, Exxon knew global warming might become a
problem. It had a good grasp of what the scientific community thought
about the subject, and it reported it accurately. So what's the beef?
Above we saw it given as:<br />
<blockquote>
Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate
Coalition, an alliance of some of the world's largest companies seeking
to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the
American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign
contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate
science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions.</blockquote>
But so what? That position is exactly what Exxon had said in the
1982 document. In addition to what I've quoted above, consider:<br />
<blockquote>
Making significant changes in energy consumption patterns
now to deal with this potential problem amid all the scientific
uncertainties would be premature in view of the severe impact such moves
could have on the world's economies and societies.</blockquote>
So in 1982, Exxon said there was too much uncertainty over global
warming to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions. They then helped
create a group which said the same thing and used lobbying to push the
narrative there was too much uncertaintty over global warming to
necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions. Whether or not one agrees
they were right about the amount of uncertainty at any given time, their
position was consistent. Gates tries to portray it as otherwise:</blockquote>
Well, so what? At least they were consistent! Yeah, about one thing: uncertainty. For the record, 3.0 +/- 1.5 °C is STILL the IPCC's best guesstimate of climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling. Hooray for consistency!<br />
<br />
I can't write this often enough, apparently -- Hey idiots:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If you're uncertain about what the system will do, why are you actively lobbying against efforts to mitigate those changes?!</blockquote>
Shollenberger gives some hints as to how he might answer that question:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Here is a great quotation from the 1982 document Brandon Gates uses as his basis for this claim:<br />
<blockquote>
There is currently no unambiguous scientific evidence that the earth is warming.</blockquote>
Yes, Exxon "very bluntly stated that the debate was already settled"
when it said there isn't even unambiguous evidence that the earth is
warming. I know when I tell people the global warming debate is already
settled, I make sure to inform them we don't even know if the planet is
warming. <span style="background-color: yellow;">Because things are so settled about global warming we don't
even know if it's happening!</span></blockquote>
<h4>
Update 4/5/2016 </h4>
So I goofed up and read the highlighted statement literally when it was <a href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/nefariousness-unproven/#comment-9558" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">intended to be "sarcastic mockery"</a> (March 30, 2016 at 7:38 pm):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[Brandon S.] I'd say you have to be "batshit crazy" to think my sarcastic mockery was a statement of my personal belief.<br /><br />[Me] Or simple fatigue combined with prejudice. I get the crack now, thanks for putting me straight.</blockquote>
Note that it's been over 4 days since I acknowledged my error on Shollenberger's and corrected this post. The strikethrough below is of course moot because it is specific to him. Everything after that stands as a commentary on the general case against others who DO make the argument that the planet is not warming.<br />
<br />
<strike>Yer stuck in the '80s, mate. Can't say I blame you much ... I mainly miss the hair bands myself. Alas, my ability to read a chart also exceeds your ability to keep the words "could" and "should" straight:</strike><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilcuqP7vpeKmhNkxGmXt_-Ehe20qyCWPRKI69DIwKOWGddVkakH0tTP9Qkk3vlmPYzcnHOza2dDvtcIfm6xPUVXo7QZugGZySwh5UGh8rmnYWreOKpCf13b33yuf706z98ZnXstD90y14/s1600/image_n_grl29030-fig-0001+OHC+2000m+pentadal.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="418" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilcuqP7vpeKmhNkxGmXt_-Ehe20qyCWPRKI69DIwKOWGddVkakH0tTP9Qkk3vlmPYzcnHOza2dDvtcIfm6xPUVXo7QZugGZySwh5UGh8rmnYWreOKpCf13b33yuf706z98ZnXstD90y14/s640/image_n_grl29030-fig-0001+OHC+2000m+pentadal.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1 - No detectible warming here, no sirree. Credit <a href="https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">NOAA/NODC</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Not good enough? Never is, is it. But I'm a determined mo-fo:<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4oVdZXJ0aiqDgzvP4TrAmxrhMavbnlX9VZtD9VgIxNw4VBfuk2h5Sb-AZoJ5nGyRxnEARf3mYch2bkzQ8encXwkxmnCSItMuFP5aHAQQw0HKAwF9NXOoMNGHULnnKJBZ3b0f8WK3XKPk/s1600/HADCRUT4+12+mo+MA+Forcings+w+Trendlines.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4oVdZXJ0aiqDgzvP4TrAmxrhMavbnlX9VZtD9VgIxNw4VBfuk2h5Sb-AZoJ5nGyRxnEARf3mYch2bkzQ8encXwkxmnCSItMuFP5aHAQQw0HKAwF9NXOoMNGHULnnKJBZ3b0f8WK3XKPk/s640/HADCRUT4+12+mo+MA+Forcings+w+Trendlines.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 2 - "Testing mechanics in a lab doesn't mean your results will be the same in the real world though." Presumes, of course, that we agree on what the Real World looks like. Keep in mind that Exxon called the ball in 1982 ... and GOT IT MOSTLY RIGHT according to this version of reality -- which I might add is NOT an outlier.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
What else is there? Oh, ah:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPvSiXTq1d1ilJg3vwftZ9-aMYYIGLze5fnE6P3MLWjIn5lh47mJFqDb9Nw-EXTieoYwFO4eE8uhhbflALrUsM0AuNCJPucFyyQp62ItEFuAHXyJbeYVP7e4ZSppoDFZSd4GeAsHMcdjo/s1600/xhspg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="295" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPvSiXTq1d1ilJg3vwftZ9-aMYYIGLze5fnE6P3MLWjIn5lh47mJFqDb9Nw-EXTieoYwFO4eE8uhhbflALrUsM0AuNCJPucFyyQp62ItEFuAHXyJbeYVP7e4ZSppoDFZSd4GeAsHMcdjo/s400/xhspg.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I mean, who knows really. It's difficult for me to take the "we STILL can't tell if it's really warming" crowd seriously. If I'm feeling particularly masochistic tomorrow, I may attempt to wade through more of Shollenberger's re-parsings of my arguments and see if there's any room for me to tighten up some stuff. More what I think will happen is that I'll just find even more of Exxon's post-1988 internal and external doublespeak. Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-72733808535243144292016-03-28T17:17:00.001-07:002016-03-28T17:34:24.367-07:00Partisan Snark... can be amusing:<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwfsvbfAgT9aA-QImh9VrlTxAEJ-2B3N4WGCGOrN388W5lGhYZYgvK1GDrZfIxzDvTqzpo8nAzHA90prC2NMWFQkURjxeQQXmSHpulMVSGq02A5d9M5kqWGibPfYy72KCZTdyNkTTAb8U/s1600/climate+change+republicans+titanic.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="446" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwfsvbfAgT9aA-QImh9VrlTxAEJ-2B3N4WGCGOrN388W5lGhYZYgvK1GDrZfIxzDvTqzpo8nAzHA90prC2NMWFQkURjxeQQXmSHpulMVSGq02A5d9M5kqWGibPfYy72KCZTdyNkTTAb8U/s640/climate+change+republicans+titanic.jpeg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1: Attributed to <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/" target="_blank">Daily Kos</a>, but I can't find it on their website. (h/t "Uncle Z")</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
If you squint hard enough, you might see folks on my side of the argument <a href="http://www.cop21paris.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">doing their level best to rearrange the deck chairs</a>.<br />
<br />
I'm still getting a good chuckle out of this one:<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgj4SZLOnRNZagsINApRk_qaGHRqTV1xiPthXvqPzieJ8A0lnu4cH13YLvrTzPAYxasPruCy-ytCwX2MCILs1xYW-hy1Id2Zt6aIHTob8-WBRaIEDAqXtOmCseNke98GAkS-Or_1_Yxxw4/s1600/mckee-gw-snow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="420" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgj4SZLOnRNZagsINApRk_qaGHRqTV1xiPthXvqPzieJ8A0lnu4cH13YLvrTzPAYxasPruCy-ytCwX2MCILs1xYW-hy1Id2Zt6aIHTob8-WBRaIEDAqXtOmCseNke98GAkS-Or_1_Yxxw4/s640/mckee-gw-snow.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 2: Credit R. McKee, <a href="http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/cartoons" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Augusta Chronicle</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Unrealistically bizarre as that might seem, I think this not-pretend argument <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/" target="_blank">is even loopier</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>End the nuclear age</b><br />
Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.</blockquote>
Apparently, someone didn't <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#59d39dbd49d2" target="_blank">get the memo</a>:<br />
<br />
---------------<br />
<br />
How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources<br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Coal – global average 100,000 (50% global electricity)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Coal – U.S. 10,000 (44% U.S. electricity)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Hydro – U.S. 0.01 (7% U.S. electricity)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace; font-size: x-small;">Nuclear – U.S. 0.01 (19% U.S. electricity)</span><br />
<br />
It is notable that the U.S. death rates for coal are so much lower than for China, strictly a result of regulation and the Clean Air Act (Scott et al., 2005). It is also notable that the Clean Air Act is one of the most life-saving pieces of legislation ever adopted by any country in history. Still, about 10,000 die from coal use in the U.S. each year, and another thousand from natural gas.<br />
<br />
---------------<br />
<br />
Immediate disqualification due to it appearing in Forbes, perhaps? I once vetted the figures, particularly the coal death numbers and they look legit having derived from sources like the WHO and NIH.<br />
<br />
One way or the other, I think rigidly line-in-the-sand ideologies are humanity's biggest existential threat. Laughing at it seems the only medicine.<br />
<br />
OTOH, at least more of the US public seems to be getting the right idea:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI6uQLKHOMlYiAgvqqCEIeK-murqm4SxDwjgSWjDpnK_ssju0CFKWoAbFaUeoCLg-lxik7yY34EfKXOIb59lNyM88YcW3Y1v4F56m8gI6pcUYjEfk82H0q0AcK7DwuhJKdRIj8Wa0jzpk/s1600/gallup+public+opinon+AGW+cause.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="390" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI6uQLKHOMlYiAgvqqCEIeK-murqm4SxDwjgSWjDpnK_ssju0CFKWoAbFaUeoCLg-lxik7yY34EfKXOIb59lNyM88YcW3Y1v4F56m8gI6pcUYjEfk82H0q0AcK7DwuhJKdRIj8Wa0jzpk/s640/gallup+public+opinon+AGW+cause.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 3 - US public opinion of the cause of observed warming over time. Credit: <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx" target="_blank">Gallup</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com35tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-20346055059880621802016-03-23T22:52:00.000-07:002016-04-02T03:56:59.608-07:00The Difference Beteween Fraud and Farce, Reflux... because I must reverse <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-difference-between-fraud-and-farce.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">my previously stated positions</a> on <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Cook et al. (2013)</a> (hereinafter, C13). I realize that I can no longer in good conscience defend its design, nor its conclusions as stated.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Summary</h4>
Following are some issues that I have previously discounted, but which I now consider serious flaws. Detailed discussion of each, along with suggestions for improvements/alternatives, are in sections below the break:<br />
<ol>
<li>AGW is inconsistently and therefore ambiguously defined across the eight endorsement categories. As well, it is vaguely defined in several endorsement categories.</li>
<li>The paper reports results in the abstract and body by combining dissimilar AGW definitions into consolidated endorsement buckets, and nowhere reports statistics at the higher detail level of the original eight endorsement categories.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<h4>
Update 3/27/2016</h4>
<div>
Brandon Shollenberger has published a reaction to this post <a href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/a-critic-changes-his-mind/" target="_blank">here</a>. The punchline:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So Gates, you know that part where you made a huge fool of yourself by
twisting into a pretzel to criticize me on points I was completely
correct about? Yeah, suck it</blockquote>
Which hearkens back to a comment in <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/exxon-and-agu-funding.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this article</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
No consensus? Confused about what "consensus" means? <a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/">Suck it Shollenberger</a>. At least one oil company grokked it in the early 1980s. Wake up.</blockquote>
<div>
Nothing about this ... episode ... doesn't suck for me. Hence "reflux" not "redux" in the title of this article. Like slightly bad fish for dinner, it keeps coming back up. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEAXOCmgE74" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue</a>.</div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h4>
AGW is ambiguously and/or vaguely defined</h4>
The body of the paper under section 1, Introduction, states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW). </blockquote>
This is consistent with findings presented by the IPCC in AR5, WGI, <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Chapter 10, Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional</a> (p. 869, p. 3 of the .pdf):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Atmospheric Temperatures<br />
<br />
More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is very likely1 due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.</blockquote>
Even though C13's statement "human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)" is specific about the amount of warming due to human activities, it is not specific about trend time periods and does not explicitly define "warming" itself.<br />
<br />
The IPCC statement is a superior operational definition because warming is defined as global mean surface temperature (GMST) and includes an unambiguous time period (1951-2010).<br />
<br />
Both formulations use the term "very likely", which the IPCC defines as "90-100% probability" for AR5. It seems reasonable to assume C13 uses "very likely" the same way, but it would have been best (and not difficult) to have given a quantified definition. <br />
<br />
That C13 more broadly considers any human activity as a putative causal mechanism whereas the AR5 definition limits it to human-caused increased GHG concentrations is not something I consider an inappropriate choice. My argument here is only that operational definitions should be internally consistent and precise as possible, not that they should conform to some ostensibly authoritative definition given by an organization such as the IPCC.<br />
<br />
Moving down in the body of C13, we find:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Table 2. Definitions of each level of endorsement of AGW.<br />
<br />
Level of endorsement<br />
Description<br />
Example<br />
<br />
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification<br />
Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming<br />
'The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s'<br />
<br />
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification<br />
Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact<br />
'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change'<br />
<br />
(3) Implicit endorsement<br />
Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause<br />
'...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change'<br />
<br />
(4a) No position<br />
Does not address or mention the cause of global warming<br />
<br />
(4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined<br />
'While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive...'<br />
<br />
(5) Implicit rejection<br />
Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming '...anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results'<br />
<br />
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification<br />
Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming<br />
'...the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect'<br />
<br />
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification<br />
Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming <br />
'The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission'</blockquote>
Here, category 1 uses the phrase, "humans are the <b>primary</b> cause of recent global warming", which is qualitatively different from C13's previous formulation, "human activity is very likely causing <b>most</b> of the current GW".<br />
<br />
While it is arguable that the word "primary" often implies "most", in a complex system with multiple (often confounding) causal mechanisms, any single identifiable and quantifiable causal mechanism whose net percentage effect is greater than all others could be considered the primary causal mechanism.<br />
<br />
As one point of contention in literature, which C13 attempts to address, is that human activity is not a dominant factor and/or accounts for <50% of observed warming trends over multi-decadal time periods, qualifiers such as "most" or quantified qualifiers, e.g. ">x%" seem more appropriate.<br />
<br />
<br />
Endorsement categories 2 and 3 use the phrase "humans are causing global warming" which is even more vague than any previous definition of AGW. Category 2 further muddies the AGW definition with the phrase, "refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact", which is circular.<br />
<br />
Categories 5-7 appear intended to be the mirror opposites of 3-1 (reverse order intended). However, as worded they are not the exact semantic opposites of their counterparts. Not only do these nuanced differences give more "wiggle room" for subjective interpretation by reviewers and the intended audience, it is inherently confusing due to the additional complexity.<br />
<br />
Strictly interpreted, category 3 is not mutually exclusive with its counterpart 5. Were I to write, as in 3, "humans are causing global warming", it would be entirely valid for me to later argue that what actually intended to convey is that "humans are causing <b>some</b> global warming", or more specifically that "humans are causing <50% of global warming".<br />
<br />
Noting that category 5 uses the phrase, "humans have had a minimal impact", and category 6, "minimizes or rejects that humans are causing", compounds the dissimilar definitions of AGW, these categories raise the question, "minimal compared to <b>what</b>?"<br />
<br />
Ultimately, the definition of AGW used in C13 resolves to a confusing and self-contradictory circular non-definition, which is not satisfactory.<br />
<br />
While such ambiguities and exclusions are normal in everyday communication, a scientific study should attempt to be more rigorous if it is to produce reliable results which inspire confidence in its findings.<br />
<br />
I argue that a design such as the following is better for its precision, consistency and simplicity relative to C13:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the past 30 years is very likely (90-100%) due to human activity.<br />
<br />
Level of agreement with the above statement:<br />
<ol>
<li>Explicit endorsement with quantification </li>
<li>Explicit endorsement without quantification</li>
<li>Implicit endorsement without quantification</li>
<li>a) no position, b) too uncertain to determine</li>
<li>Implicit rejection without quantification</li>
<li>Explicit rejection without quantification</li>
<li>Explicit rejection with quantification</li>
<li>Not applicable (n/a) to this study </li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
Note that the above example does not explicitly define the term AGW itself. This is intentional because "climate literature" includes multiple human climatic AND other environmental impacts not exclusive to GMST. As well, some individual studies cover more than one type of impact, often in one or more differing climate/environmental domains.<br />
<br />
E.g., numerous papers are limited to regional scope, or discuss other metrics like sea surface temperature, vertically averaged ocean temperature/heat content, ocean pH, global or continental landed ice mass change, bulk upper air temperature trends, etc. Thus reviewers were often required to make subjective decisions about which impact category the paper MOST represented.<br />
<br />
Such conflicts could easily have been avoided by making each impact category self-contained with its own precise definition, thus allowing any given paper to be evaluated by its endorsement of any single or multiple impact categories as appropriate.<br />
<br />
While such a scheme might seem to be more complex and unwieldy to administer and analyze, I argue that the additional complexity is at the benefit of more flexibility which allows for more robust results with richer and more complete descriptions of the state of climate literature over time.<br />
<br />
One problem with the endorsement categories I propose above is that the list is not exhaustive of all possibilities. For example, a common argument in the popular debate about human impacts on the environment/climate system is that warming is NOT happening. Arguments range from lack of statistical observational significance, sparse data, poor analysis, models programmed to produce warming as a function of some or several dubious or physically impossible anthropogenic mechanisms, outright fraudulent data manipulation or some combination.<br />
<br />
This could be handled by adding additional categories such as, "effect is not occurring" or "the opposite effect is occurring", etc. Another mutually inclusive way to approach exhaustion would be to pose additional questions, e.g.:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Warming surface
temperature (GMST) trends over the past 30 years are very likely (90-100%) overstated in land-based observational time series.</blockquote>
or:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Nearly all (95-100%) increased atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1850 is virtually certain (99-100%) to be due to human activity.</blockquote>
It is beyond the intended scope of this note to attempt recommending a more exhaustive study design, I only give examples to illustrate how future such studies might improve over C13.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Dissimilar AGW definitions reported as consolidated statistics</h4>
The C13 abstract reads in full:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.</blockquote>
The given definition for AGW is vague: "humans are causing global warming". In the body of the paper, under section 2, Methodology we read:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations). </blockquote>
Only the first endorsement category is obviously compatible with "humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming", and yet category 1 does not use the same wording when it very easily could have. However, this is trivial critique compared to what we read about how the statistics as reported in the abstract were obtained:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7).</blockquote>
While I understand that reporting data in consolidated form tends to make for easier comprehension, I consider it actually more "difficult" to do consolidated statistical reporting than not. In the case of the data gathered for C13, I consider doing either rather trivial.<br />
<br />
However, in the case of how C13 inconsistently defined AGW, I consider it inappropriate for the endorsement categories to have been consolidated at all. And more inappropriate that nowhere does C13 report statistics at the most granular level of the eight total endorsement categories.<br />
<br />
I would consider the detailed reporting requirement even if the AGW definitions had been consistent because of the distinct qualitative difference between quantified and unquantified effects and explicit vs. implicit human causality.<br />
<br />
Here I allow myself to note an irony -- were I to rate this paper's endorsement level solely on the content of the abstract, it would be:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification<br />
Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact </blockquote>
I could however just as easily rate C13 by its own definitions as ...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain/<b>undefined</b></blockquote>
... because the abstract ONLY says ...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.</blockquote>
... which does not clearly define what AGW means. Why I would choose 2 over 4b has much to do with my own beliefs, NOT necessarily about what the C13 abstract actually SAYS. I argue that how C13 was designed and executed may very well say more about what people like me already believed about AGW before reading the paper than it says about the state of what's written in climate literature itself.<br />
<br />
As well, the C13 authors are known champions and defenders of "pro-AGW" climate literature who (rightfully so, in my opinion) advocate for policies designed to wean the world away from fossil fuels and toward less carbon-intensive alternatives. However, I think a compelling argument can be made that it appears the way C13 was designed and executed was to quantify the authors' own opinions about what literature says rather than be a dispassionate review of literature findings.<br />
<br />
Or more simply, that C13 was designed -- deliberately or subconsciously -- to conform to some preconceived and too-broadly defined notion of there being a literature consensus that the letter "A" should precede "GW".<br />
<br />
Setting aside for a moment that C13 ambiguously and inconsistently defines AGW, let us return to the section of the abstract which discusses the results of the author self-ratings of their own papers:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers
expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing
a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.</blockquote>
In tabular form, those statistics resolve to:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"> 62.7% support AGW</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"> 35.5% no position</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"> 1.8% reject AGW</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">------</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">100.0% total</span></blockquote>
Yet, when one visits The Consensus Project web page hosted by Skeptical Science, the "among self-rated papers expression a position on AGW" qualifier gets dropped, viz.:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust</a><br />
<a href="http://skepticalscience.com/ASCK.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Why the 97 per cent consensus on climate change still gets challenged</a><br />
<a href="http://skepticalscience.com/why-we-care-about-97-percent-consensus.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming</a><br />
<a href="http://skepticalscience.com/climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus</a><br />
<a href="http://skepticalscience.com/how_97.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming</a><br />
<a href="http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature</a> </blockquote>
I realize that, "97% of peer-reviewed climate papers taking a position (63% of all papers) endorse what we think most people mean by AGW", is rather wordy and awkward. However, I think it represents a more honest portrayal of C13's findings.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Conclusions</h4>
I think C13 is a flawed and should not have been published in its present form. While I would personally like to rely upon its results, I find that I cannot. Nor can I continue to defend its methods or findings as I have done in the recent and more distant past.<br />
<br />
Since I am effectively calling C13 a bad paper, this raises the obvious question about whether I think the journal (IOPScience, <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1748-9326" target="_blank">Environmental Research Letters</a>) should retract it. The facile answer to that question is that many "bad" papers are published and never retracted -- conventional wisdom holds that they simply don't get cited and fade into obscurity. However, according to ERL's own statistics, C13 has already been cited 32 times, though at least two of those citations are in later works by one or more of C13's listed authors.<br />
<br />
Given the impact on subsequent literature C13 has already achieved, I would be personally satisfied if the authors were to publish a corrigendum which did at least the following:<br />
<ol>
<li>Explicitly defined AGW and consistently used that definition across all endorsement categories.</li>
<li>Contained data obtained by all-new ratings of papers using the modified and consistent AGW definition. Here I include author self-ratings.</li>
<li>Published statistics at the most granular endorsement categories in addition to whatever consolidation scheme desired by the authors.</li>
<li>Compares the old results with the new results, again at the most granular level of endorsement level.</li>
</ol>
I would also suggest that the authors themselves do not participate in the rating process, and by extension, that none of the volunteers who previously rated abstracts for the original C13 publication be involved. Same suggestion for author self-ratings, though perhaps not feasible due to limited response rate.<br />
<br />
Re-rating all ~12,000 paper would be a significant amount of work, and may not be a necessary check. Something on the order of a quarter (3,000) papers, randomly selected, seems reasonable. It might be nearly as suitable if the re-rating process were limited to only author self-ratings, thus spreading out the workload. Assuming a similar response rate, this would yield just over 2,000 papers.<br />
<br />
One inherent problem with defining AGW as, say, ">x% of since y date at z% confidence level" is that C13 results already suggest that relatively few climate paper are attribution studies -- i.e., they do not explicitly quantify any human influence on any metric of climate change. Two things may ameliorate this issue;<br />
<ol>
<li>Endorsement level of some >x% proposition could be inferred from cited references.</li>
<li>An additional question in the author self-rating survey instrument could be to ask them whether, based on their own personal knowledge of literature, they conclude that some >x% of observed warming is due to anthropogenic causes.</li>
</ol>
The first one obviously involves some subjectivity, but I argue that it is less subjective than the original protocol which called for abstract-only ratings. As well, it is obvious to me that the function of primary research literature is to not to "prove" a given proposition from first principles in each paper. Hence it is to be expected that the vast majority of papers "<br />
<br />
[Edit 3/28/2016: Incomplete thought above. On the basis of how primary literature in any field typically works, it is to be expected that the vast majority climate of papers don't build a case for/against AGW from first principles, and certainly don't attempt to quantify the portion of observed warming due to putative anthropogenic influence. The TL;DR here is that literature review designed to show a majority of papers endorsing an AGW position of >x% warming due to humankind since y date is therefore rather doomed to fail because it will likely need to prevail on the concept of implicit endorsement ... which is extremely subjective, fuzzy and therefore ripe for abuse by the biases of the authors and ultimate consumers.]<br />
<br />
The second item was specifically excluded in the <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291suppdata.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">original C13 survey instrument</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Note: we are not asking about your personal opinion but whether each specific paper endorses or rejects (whether explicitly or implicitly) that humans cause global warming: </blockquote>
I understand the import of making that constraint explicit. On the other hand, I don't consider it an inappropriate question to ask. Not only do I think it's interesting in its own right, it might also serve as a check for bias on the part of climate researchers themselves by, say, comparing self-ratings to independent ratings by others. I further note that C13 tabulated results by author and thus have already somewhat "backed into" a statistic of author opinion. I again refer to this link found on the SkS website to further this argument:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://skepticalscience.com/why-we-care-about-97-percent-consensus.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming</a> </blockquote>
It makes sense to me to make this a formal question on the revised survey instrument for author self-ratings since it's conceivable, if not probable, that not all of an authors' papers fit into any one given endorsement category.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Endnote</h4>
I have publicly stated many times that I am not a formally trained scientist of any stripe and have no professional expertise in any of the topics I write about on this blog or elsewhere. In particular, I have only very general knowledge of how to do scientific surveys, based mostly on undergraduate courses in basic statistics and business (specifically, marketing survey design). Thus everything I have written above must be considered from the standpoint that they are the lay opinions of an avidly interested, but still an amateur pundit and blog author. As such, I stand open to corrections and rebuttals by those with superior knowledge of how these things are supposed to work. Those would be best received if accompanied by literature citations.<br />
<br />
I also wish to make it clear that I my own anecdotal experience suggests that C13 is substantively correct to conclude that the majority of climate literature does indeed -- at least implicitly -- consider >50% of GMST increase since 1950 due to human causes (mostly in the form of CO2 emissions) to be essentially factual, if not a cause for concern with an appropriate call for reducing CO2 emissions by any and all reasonable means.<br />
<br />
My main argument here rests on the principle that ALL science should ALWAYS be as dispassionately, rigorously and defensibly executed as possible. Given how important a topic AGW is for me due to its potential to harm present and future generations of humanity -- and due to C13's high profile in the public debate -- exceptional scrutiny is something to be expected.<br />
<br />
My hope is that Cook et al. will improve their present and future works on the basis of arguments from their critics and detractors. I now think some points of their criticism have significant merit.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Addendum (3/23/2016 11:06 PM PDT)</h4>
I would be remiss to leave out that Brandon Shollenberger's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01CEZLAM0/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B01CEZLAM0&linkCode=as2&tag=hiiz-20&linkId=7FH6DDCMQ7IGRANQ" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">latest e-book</a>, and my subsequent discussions with him on his blog have been influential. My <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-difference-between-fraud-and-farce.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">review of the book</a> was hasty and and too-dismissive, which I regret. That said, I still cannot quite bring myself to endorse it either.<br />
<br />
I think it also necessary to note how many of his arguments I have deliberately left out of my above critique of C13. Many of his arguments use materials and communications obtained from SkS servers which the C13 authors clearly would not have wanted published. I have read much of it, and it informs many of my above opinions even though I don't speak to them directly.<br />
<br />
One reason why I left it out was because it's not clear to me that any or all of it was legally obtained, and I don't want the exposure. Another reason is that some of it may be considered personally and professionally embarrassing to the authors, something which I have no desire to do.<br />
<br />
For those reasons, I have chosen to write this note as best I could from the standpoint of someone who had no other information to go on but that which is published in C13 and the supplemental materials themselves. Such is surely an impossibility, nevertheless it was my intent to try.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Addendum (3/25/2016 4:00 PDT)</h4>
<a href="https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/reblog-on-hansen-et-al/" target="_blank">ATTP re-posts</a> a <a href="http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/on-hansen-et-al.html" target="_blank">blog article by Peter Thorne</a>, who was one the referees who contributed peer-review for <a href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016-discussion.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Hansen et al. (2016)</a>, which has <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-title-is-neither-wine-nor-sausage.html" target="_blank">been poorly received</a> by other <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/03/13/le-hansen-noveau-est-arrive/" target="_blank">AGW consensus bloggers</a>. Thorne writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: yellow;">This deliberate publicity surrounding a discussion paper (which to my knowledge is unique) led to unprecedented interest in the paper.</span> By the time the comment period was closed there were over three times as many reviews as to the next most commented discussion paper in the journal’s history. This included many off-topic comments including a long thread on the existence of the greenhouse effect. Ironically, this was one of the better responded to comments by the authors (more later …).<br />
<br />
Amongst the greenhouse effect deniers and other off-topic comments were unsolicited reviews from a large number of very well respected scientists expert in many fields pertinent to the paper including several colleagues who were (Coordinating) Lead Authors in the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC or who have contributed to major works such as the annual state of the climate series. <span style="background-color: yellow;">These reviews highlighted very many salient issues that the official reviewers failed to spot, and hence added substantial value.</span><br />
<br />
In my view the responses from the paper author team to very many of the comments they received were inappropriate. Scientific peer review has a set of norms that you respond to the issues raised in a calm and measured manner including point-by-point responses that detail whether changes were made, what these were, and why. <span style="background-color: yellow;">Instead, the authors chose to respond in many cases by writing discursive policy pieces that were too often non-responsive and often verged on playing the man and not the ball.</span></blockquote>
The parallels with C13 are not exact, but they are similar enough so as to be relevant and comparable. Thorne continues:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It is beholden upon senior members of the community to set an exemplar of expected behaviour. They are role models and they righy or wrongly set or modify expectations of cultural norms, be that in climate science or elsewhere. <span style="background-color: yellow;">My view is that the authors treated many of the reviews as a nuisance and did not provide the response that was justified to them that allowed the reviewers to fully understand how each of their review comments was dealt with.</span> This included the public version response to my own invited review. <span style="background-color: yellow;">It was not the behviour I would expect from such senior colleagues.</span></blockquote>
In comments at ATTP's, <a href="https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/reblog-on-hansen-et-al/#comment-74956" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Willard responds</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I’ve read the word “nuisance” elsewhere, but where? Ah, yes, here:<br />
<blockquote>
The publicity was successful in drawing attention to issues that the
paper highlights, notably the threat of large sea level rise. Criticism
that it got too much attention seems clearly wrong. Would it have been
better to keep the process and issues hidden from the public while they
were being worked out? The only argument presented for that conclusion
is that the publicity resulted in some irrational (bad science) comments
from climate change “deniers”. Is there harm in that? On the contrary,
it shows a disinterested judge or observer that all opinions are given a
hearing. Yes, a few may be of low scientific quality and thus a <strong>nuisance</strong>, <span style="background-color: yellow;">but the public probably wants all to be heard</span>. When an editor cuts off such discussion after it becomes an excessive <strong>nuisance</strong>, <span style="background-color: yellow;">a judge can readily verify that fact and affirm that all parties had a fair opportunity</span>.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/C8226/2015/acpd-15-C8226-2015-supplement.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/C8226/2015/acpd-15-C8226-2015-supplement.pdf</a></blockquote>
Emphasis in Willard's original, yellow highlights mine.<br />
<br />
Apropos to C13, it's not clear to me that all parties were given a fair opportunity to be heard. Of course, the SkS public discussion fora are qualitatively different than a public journal discussion forum.<br />
<br />
That a judge can factually verify that parties have been given a fair opportunity to be heard, it cannot be factually determined by <b>anyone</b> whether critiqued parties have been <b>appropriately responsive</b>.<br />
<br />
That seems the salient commonality between Thorne's critique of Hansen's public behaviour and my critique of same against the authors of C13.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update 4/2/2016</h4>
RobH, who was one of the more active members of the SkS abstract rating team <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-difference-beteween-fraud-and-farce.html?showComment=1459424957312#c622655640294388956" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">writes in comments below</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When we applied the exact same rules for SkS ratings (1, 2, & 3's vs 5, 6 & 7's) to the author self-ratings we got almost identical results.</blockquote>
Perhaps I misunderstand his statement. From the publicly available data files on the SkS website, I summarized the differences in ratings applied by the SkS team vs. the author self-ratings ...<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">Underrate</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1,035</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">48.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">Correct</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">832</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">39.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">Overrate</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">269</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">12.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>Total</b></td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2,136</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">100.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
... where "underrate" means the SkS team's abstract rating understated the AGW endorsement level vs. the author self-rating of the entire paper. From those calculations I conclude that the results are not almost identical, and that the SkS abstract rating team tended to be conservative in their ratings, i.e., they were biased against AGW endorsement relative to the authors themselves. This to me speaks well of the SkS team.<br />
<br />
By far the largest "error" the SkS team made in the abstract rating phase was ranking papers as category 4 (no position/uncertain) which the authors placed in an endorsement category (1-3). This happened on 721/2,136 papers, or 33.8% of the time. 12% of the time they rated category 3 (implicit endorsement) compared to author self-ratings of explicit endorsement (categories 1 and 2).<br />
<br />
By contrast, the largest "overrate" frequency was for category 3 (implicit endorsement) which the authors self-rated category 4 (no position/uncertain). That accounts for 144/2,136 papers, or 6.7%.<br />
<br />
Following is a detailed breakdown in tabular form. The "change" column shows the SkS rating as the first numeral, and the author self-rating as the second:<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>Chg</b></td>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>Count</b></td>
<td align="left" colspan="2" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>Pct of All</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2>1</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">54</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.5%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3>1</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">86</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.0%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3>2</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">170</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">8.0%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br /></td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">256</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">12.0%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4>1</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">75</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3.5%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4>2</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">297</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">13.9%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4>3</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">349</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">16.3%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">721</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">33.8%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5>1</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5>3</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">6>5</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>Chg</b></td>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>Count</b></td>
<td align="left" colspan="2" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>Pct of All</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1>2</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1>3</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1>4</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1>7</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">10</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.5%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2>3</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">48</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2.2%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2>4</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">34</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1.6%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2>5</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2>7</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">85</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4.0%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3>4</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">144</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">6.7%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3>5</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.2%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3>6</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3>7</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.0%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">152</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">7.1%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4>5</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">14</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.7%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4>6</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">4>7</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">3</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">20</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.9%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">5>7</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">2</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.1%</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com287tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-10443489383380185272016-03-18T22:56:00.000-07:002016-04-12T21:11:54.097-07:00Exxon and AGU Funding... forgive us Father IF we have sinned?<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
This note prompted by <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2016/03/exxon-and-agu.html" target="_blank">today's post by Prof. Rabett</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="tr_bq">
Contrary to the wisdom of many, continents do shift slowly with time,
and learned societies do listen to the membership. Recently a number of
members (some very prominent, others not) wrote to the American
Geophysical Union asking that the AGU divorce itself from Exxon
sponsorship.</div>
<br />
This was motivated by a <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">series of articles</a>
which exposed Exxon's sponsorship of crank tanks opposing action on
climate change, indeed, rejecting the idea that humans are driving
climate change in ways that are not so good for the inhabitants, people
and other critters.</blockquote>
Eli then quotes part of a letter he received from the Executive Director of the AGU:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In addition to comments on the post itself, over the past three weeks we
have received more than 100 emails, letters and phone calls, and
countless tweets and comments on Facebook. And the <a href="http://thenaturalhistorymuseum.org/scientists-to-agu-drop-exxon-sponsorship/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">letter</a>
referenced in the post, which calls for AGU to sever our relationship
with Exxon, has since received additional signatures, growing from 71
AGU members and 33 non-members, to 136 members and 81 non-members (as of
15 March).<br />
<br />
This feedback, from AGU members and others in our community and beyond,
expressed a wide variety of views, ranging from requests to completely
sever the relationship immediately to suggestions for how the
relationship could be expanded and made more productive to the view that
severing the relationship would violate our scientific integrity. While
the social media posts and public comments have tended to be one-sided,
the emails received directly from members have been more nuanced and
diverse in views expressed. A major theme that emerged is a strong
desire among our members to see this issue is treated thoughtfully and
with integrity, and to ensure that our discussions be representative of
all sides of AGU’s community.</blockquote>
All links in original.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
I have been following this debate with some interest, and prior to reading the above, I have been of the opinion that the AGU should NOT be accepting funds from Exxon, or indeed any other fossil fuel interest. Bad optics.<br />
<br />
Something I didn't know is that the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) also receives Exxon monies to support their efforts. Eli quotes part of <a href="http://fromtheprow.agu.org/exxon-agu-and-corporate-support/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">their February 21, 2016 newsletter</a> which states in part:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Because we take such concerns seriously, the Board conducted its own
research and discussed the issue at great length during the September
2015 meeting. At that time, we decided that ExxonMobil’s current public
statements and activities were not inconsistent with AGU’s positions and
the scientific consensus.<br />
<br />
It cannot be said that Exxon’s past positions and actions regarding
climate change were in keeping with our policy or with the company’s
current public positions, and we will be monitoring the results of the
investigations by the Attorneys General of New York and California into
those past actions. Yet our research did not find any information that
demonstrates that they are currently involved in such activities.
</blockquote>
I left a short note in response, which represents a change in my above-stated, previously held opinion:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Yet our research did not find any information that demonstrates that they are currently involved in such activities.</i><br />
<br />
Well obviously they're just hiding it better.<br />
<br />
/sarc<br />
<br />
I'm
not a fan of the genetic fallacy, but I have noted that a number of
outspoken climate contrarians are. What I would ask the AGU to do is
only continue to accept funding if Exxon publicly stated that their
current position is in line with the consensus that observed CO2 rise is
anthropogenic and is the major cause of observed warming since 1950.<br />
<br />
Due to pending litigation, I think it would be too much to ask Exxon to admit fault for past activities and disavow them. </blockquote>
I think it appropriate to expand on my reasoning, which necessarily starts by detailing ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
What Exactly are Exxon's Alleged Sins?</h4>
<a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=exxon+climate+change+deception" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Google it</a>, and oddly enough, the third hit is <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.VuytESZZw50" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Climate Deception Dossiers (2015)</a> by none other than UCS itself. The introduction reads:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change.<br />
<br />
Their deceptive tactics are now highlighted in this set of seven "deception dossiers"—collections of internal company and trade association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests.<br />
<br />
Each collection provides an illuminating inside look at this coordinated campaign of deception, an effort underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of the fossil fuel industry.</blockquote>
ExxonMobil, their own benefactor, stands specifically accused. As I <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-difference-between-fraud-and-farce.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">have recently remarked</a>, the politics of global warming does indeed make for strange bedfellows at times. Scrolling down the page to <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#sources" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Source documents (PDF)</a>, the very first document listed is Email from Former Exxon Employee Lenny Bernstein. It's a rather longish document, and the supposedly most damaging bits are <span style="background-color: yellow;">highlighted in yellow</span>. What first caught my eye in Bernstein's e-mail was not highlighted:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: yellow;">Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981</span> because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia. This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2. That CO2 would have to be separated to make the natural gas usable. Natural gas often contains CO2 and the technology for removing CO2 is well known. In 1981 (and now) the usual practice was to vent the CO2 to the atmosphere. When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I'm sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions. <br />
<br />
The alternative to venting CO2 to the atmosphere is to inject it into ground. This technology was also well known, since the oil industry had been injecting limited quantities of CO2 to enhance oil recovery. There were many questions about whether the CO2 would remain in the ground, some of which have been answered by Statoil's now almost 20 years of experience injecting CO2 in the North Sea. Statoil did this because the Norwegian government placed a tax on vented CO2. <span style="background-color: yellow;">It was cheaper for Statoil to inject CO2 than pay the tax. Of course, Statoil has touted how much CO2 it has prevented from being emitted.</span> <br />
<br />
In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. <span style="background-color: yellow;">Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue.</span> Natural resource companies ‐ oil, coal, minerals ‐ have to make investments that have lifetimes of 50‐100 years. Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations. <span style="background-color: yellow;">Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question ‐ legitimately, in my opinion ‐ the validity of some of the science.</span></blockquote>
My <span style="background-color: yellow;">yellow</span> emphasis added. I consider this compelling evidence of the charge that <b>Exxon knew</b>, and that they knew -- or at least suspected -- even before Dr. Hansen went to Washington in 1988.<br />
<br />
The dig against Statoil for playing up their environmental concern when it was simply cheaper to sequester than pay the regulatory tax was a nice touch.<br />
<br />
Some might argue, certainly not an Exxon defence lawyer, that the above is circumstantial, hearsay, etc., "There's no proof that Exxon actually acknowledged any environmental impacts due to putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere."<br />
<br />
Referring back to links provided by Eli, oh, <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming" target="_blank">but they did</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Exxon's research laid the groundwork for a 1<a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf">982 corporate primer</a>
on carbon dioxide and climate change prepared by its environmental
affairs office. Marked "not to be distributed externally," it contained
information that "has been given wide circulation to Exxon management."
In it, the company recognized, despite the many lingering unknowns, that
heading off global warming "would require major reductions in fossil
fuel combustion."<br />
<br />
Unless that happened, "there are some potentially catastrophic events
that must be considered," the primer said, citing independent experts.
"Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible."</blockquote>
Link in original. Ooops. It gets better:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The Certainty of Uncertainty</b><br />
<br />
Like others in the scientific community, Exxon researchers
acknowledged the uncertainties surrounding many aspects of climate
science, especially in the area of forecasting models. But they saw
those uncertainties as questions they wanted to address, not an excuse
to dismiss what was increasingly understood.<br />
<br />
"Models are controversial," <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/roger-cohen">Roger Cohen</a>,
head of theoretical sciences at Exxon Corporate Research Laboratories,
and his colleague, Richard Werthamer, senior technology advisor at Exxon
Corporation, wrote in a May 1980 status report on Exxon's climate
modeling program. <span style="background-color: yellow;">"Therefore, there are research opportunities for us."</span><br />
<br />
When Exxon's researchers confirmed information the company might find troubling, they did not sweep it under the rug.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;">"Over the past several years a clear scientific consensus has
emerged,"</span> Cohen wrote in September 1982, reporting on Exxon's own
analysis of climate models. It was that <span style="background-color: yellow;">a doubling of the carbon dioxide
blanket in the atmosphere would produce average global warming of 3
degrees Celsius, plus or minus 1.5 degrees C</span> (equal to 5 degrees
Fahrenheit plus or minus 1.7 degrees F).<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;">"There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a
temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant
changes in the earth's climate," he wrote, "including rainfall
distribution and alterations in the biosphere."</span></blockquote>
Links in original, my emphasis. No consensus? Confused about what "consensus" means? <a href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/" target="_blank">Suck it Shollenberger</a>. At least one oil company grokked it in the early 1980s. Wake up.<br />
<br />
The Inside Climate News piece continues:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Our "ethical responsibility is to permit the publication of our
research in the scientific literature," Cohen wrote. "Indeed, to do
otherwise would be a breach of Exxon's public position and ethical credo
on honesty and integrity."<br />
<br />
Exxon followed his advice. Between 1983 and 1984, its researchers
published their results in at least three peer-reviewed papers in <i>Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences</i> and an American Geophysical Union monograph.<br />
<br />
<i><b></b></i><br />
David, the head of Exxon Research, <a href="http://sites.agu.org/publications/files/2015/09/ch1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">told a global warming conference</a> financed
by Exxon in October 1982 that "few people doubt that the world has
entered an energy transition away from dependence upon fossil fuels and
toward some mix of renewable resources that will not pose problems of CO<sub>2 </sub>accumulation." The only question, he said, was how fast this would happen.</blockquote>
Link in the original.<br />
<br />
<h4>
So They Knew and Even Published ... What's the Beef?</h4>
Because starting with James Hansen's 1988 congressional testimony, the worm began to turn. The very next year, Exxon began what would ultimately be a public swing in the exact opposite direction as a founding member of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an
alliance of some of the world's largest companies seeking to halt
government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the
American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign
contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate
science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions.<br />
<br />
As the international community moved in 1997 to take a first step in
curbing emissions with the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon's chairman and CEO <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/lee-raymond">Lee Raymond</a> argued to stop it.</blockquote>
As a reminder, here's some perspective on what global surface temperatures were doing by 1997:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRH7i2nMhIkUEg_t9X3_Ao1tJRy7D7r2il7I3mcW614s9TfGEKleUQhlZi_havZG4yt6jCvKmOL6NngpszakpeaiZq03XigeSc-T00gyY4V6jk7SHSc33EhvuW-fGN0ZdlFTDK9__I4wk/s1600/hadcrut4+hiatuses.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRH7i2nMhIkUEg_t9X3_Ao1tJRy7D7r2il7I3mcW614s9TfGEKleUQhlZi_havZG4yt6jCvKmOL6NngpszakpeaiZq03XigeSc-T00gyY4V6jk7SHSc33EhvuW-fGN0ZdlFTDK9__I4wk/s400/hadcrut4+hiatuses.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1 - HADCRUT4 Global Mean Temperature Anomaly, 12-month running means. Note the two prior cooling events. Further note how the slopes of all three "hiatuses" consecutively decrease, and how each one begins at a higher temperature than the previous event began. First person to mention "step functions" will be mercilessly ridiculed.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZOgY8uMsNY47XKEDbuELC1eGYinOcBtElHK7A8NXc8H6gh-dvGrNWJ0fsFpHiJJO22SzDOcXwyB75w-yNvIFbMOCGN1iovyYUH3MfHpGOLIShaJkRUmUiryu56WxXzmcslX40QxHXb8g/s1600/RATPAC-A+vs+CO2+monthly+2015-12.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZOgY8uMsNY47XKEDbuELC1eGYinOcBtElHK7A8NXc8H6gh-dvGrNWJ0fsFpHiJJO22SzDOcXwyB75w-yNvIFbMOCGN1iovyYUH3MfHpGOLIShaJkRUmUiryu56WxXzmcslX40QxHXb8g/s400/RATPAC-A+vs+CO2+monthly+2015-12.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 2 - RATPAC-A global upper air temperature anomaly regressed against ENSO, AMO, TSI, volcanic aerosol optical depth (AOD) and length-of-day (LOD) anomaly (yellow curve). Blue curve is the natural log of CO2. Purely natural forcings don't explain the secular trend, CO2 does so quite neatly. And for good, sound, well-established physical principles.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Wikipedia <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">has some notes</a> about the GCC and their activities:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The <b>Global Climate Coalition</b> (GCC) (1989–2001) was an international <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying" title="Lobbying">lobbyist</a> group of businesses <span style="background-color: yellow;">opposing action to reduce <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas" title="Greenhouse gas">greenhouse gas</a>
emissions</span>. The GCC was the largest industry group active in climate
policy and the most prominent industry advocate in international climate
negotiations. T<span style="background-color: yellow;">he GCC was involved in opposition to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol" title="Kyoto Protocol">Kyoto Protocol</a>,
and played a role in blocking ratification by the United States.</span> The
GCC dissolved in 2001 after membership declines in the face of public
criticism.<br />
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Founding">Founding</span></h2>
The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was formed in 1989 as a project under the auspices of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Manufacturers" title="National Association of Manufacturers">National Association of Manufacturers</a>.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-levyrothenberg_2-0"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-levyrothenberg-2">[2]</a></sup> The GCC was formed to represent the interests of the major producers and users of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel" title="Fossil fuel">fossil fuels</a>,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-3"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-3">[3]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-4">[4]</a></sup> to oppose regulation to mitigate global warming.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-rahm_5-0"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-rahm-5">[5]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-6"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-6">[6]</a></sup> and to challenge the science behind <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming" title="Global warming">global warming</a>.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-7"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-7">[7]</a></sup> Context for the founding of the GCC from 1988 included the establishment of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change" title="Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> (IPCC)<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-8"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-8">[8]</a></sup> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA" title="NASA">NASA</a> climatologist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen" title="James Hansen">James Hansen</a>'s congressional testimony that climate change was occurring.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-9"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-9">[9]</a></sup> <span style="background-color: yellow;">The government affairs offices of several corporations recognized that they had been inadequately organized for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol" title="Montreal Protocol">Montreal Protocol</a>, the international treaty that phased out <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone" title="Ozone">ozone</a> depleting <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon" title="Chlorofluorocarbon">chlorofluorocarbons</a>, and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_%28United_States%29" title="Clean Air Act (United States)">Clean Air Act</a> in the United States, and recognized that fossil fuels would be targeted for regulation.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-10"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-10">[10]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-11"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-11">[11]</a></sup></span><br />
<br />
According to GCC's mission statement on the home page of its website,
GCC was established: "to coordinate business participation in the
international policy debate on the issue of global climate change and
global warming."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-12"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-12">[12]</a></sup>
<span style="background-color: yellow;">According to GCC's executive director in a 1993 press release, GCC was
organized: "as the leading voice for industry on the global climate
change issue."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-13"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-13">[13]</a></sup></span><br />
<br />
GCC reorganized independently in 1992.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-levyrothenberg_2-1"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-levyrothenberg-2">[2]</a></sup> GCC’s first chairman of the board of directors was the director of government relations for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Petroleum_Company" title="Phillips Petroleum Company">Phillips Petroleum Company</a>.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-14"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-14">[14]</a></sup> <span style="background-color: yellow;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon" title="Exxon">Exxon</a> was a founding member, and a founding member of the GCC's board of directors.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-15"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-15">[15]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-16"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-16">[16]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-17"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-17">[17]</a></sup> Exxon, and later <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil" title="ExxonMobil">ExxonMobil</a>, had a leadership role in GCC.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-18"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-18">[18]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-vidal_19-0"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-vidal-19">[19]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-20"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-20">[20]</a></sup></span> The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Petroleum_Institute" title="American Petroleum Institute">American Petroleum Institute</a> (API) was a leading member of the GCC.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-21"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-21">[21]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-22"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-22">[22]</a></sup> API's executive vice president was a chairman of the board of directors of GCC.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-23"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-23">[23]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-24"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-24">[24]</a></sup> Other GCC founding members included the <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coal_Association" title="National Coal Association">National Coal Association</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Commerce" title="United States Chamber of Commerce">United States Chamber of Commerce</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Forest_%26_Paper_Association" title="American Forest & Paper Association">American Forest & Paper Association</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison_Electric_Institute" title="Edison Electric Institute">Edison Electric Institute</a>. GCC's executive director John Shleas was previously the director of government relations at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison_Electric_Institute" title="Edison Electric Institute">Edison Electric Institute</a>.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-25"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-25">[25]</a></sup> GCC was run by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruder_Finn" title="Ruder Finn">Ruder Finn</a>, a public relations firm.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-26"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-26">[26]</a></sup><br />
<br />
GCC was the largest industry group active in climate policy.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-27"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-27">[27]</a></sup> About 40 companies and industry associations were GCC members.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-28"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-28">[28]</a></sup> Considering member corporations, member <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_association" title="Trade association">trade associations</a>,
and business represented by member trade associations, GCC represented
over 230,000 businesses. Industry sectors represented included:
aluminium, paper, transportation, power generation, petroleum, chemical,
and small businesses.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-29"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-29">[29]</a></sup> <span style="background-color: yellow;">All the major oil companies were members.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-30"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-30">[30]</a></sup></span> GCC members were from industries that would have been adversely effected by limitations on fossil fuel consumption.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-31"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-31">[31]</a></sup> GCC was funded by membership dues.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-32"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-32">[32]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-33"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-33">[33]</a></sup></blockquote>
Clear agenda with a plausible profit motive. I'm not saying that businesses should not organize to lobby governments about proposed regulatory statutes affecting their industries. I will say that they should not be able to keep pols in their back pockets by dint of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">being able to make unlimited campaign contributions</a>, but that's a rant for another time.<br />
<br />
Most importantly, lobby groups should not stretch the truth. Or outright lie. Will never happen of course, but one can always hope ...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In December, 1992 GCC's executive director wrote in a letter to <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times" title="The New York Times">The New York Times</a></i>:
<span style="background-color: yellow;">"...there is considerable debate on whether or not man-made greenhouse
gases (produced primarily by burning fossil fuels) are triggering a
dangerous 'global warming' trend."</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-42"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-42">[42]</a></sup> GCC distributed a half-hour video entitled <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greening_of_Planet_Earth" title="The Greening of Planet Earth">The Greening of Planet Earth</a></i>,
to hundreds of journalists, the White House, and several Middle Eastern
oil-producing countries, which suggested that increasing atmospheric
carbon dioxide could boost crop yields and solve world hunger.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-43"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-43">[43]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-44"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-44">[44]</a></sup></blockquote>
... or not. More like "considerable <b>manufactured</b> debate", and they were a leading voice in concocting the <i>faux</i> narrative. As in they ginned it up from nothing. Conjured it literally out of thin air. You doubt me?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Predicting_Future_Climate_Change:_A_Primer"><i>Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer</i></span></h3>
In 1995, GCC assembled an advisory committee of scientific and
technical experts to compile an <span style="background-color: yellow;">internal-only</span>, 17-page report on climate
science entitled <i>Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer</i>,
which said: <span style="background-color: yellow;">“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the
potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on
climate is <b>well established and cannot be denied</b>.”</span> In early 1996, GCC's
operating committee asked the advisory committee to <span style="background-color: yellow;">redact the sections
that rebutted contrarian arguments</span>, and accepted the report and
distributed it to members. The draft document was disclosed as part of a
2007 lawsuit.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-59"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-59">[59]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-60"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-60">[60]</a></sup><br />
<br />
According to <i>The New York Times</i>, the primer demonstrated that
<span style="background-color: yellow;">"even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and
technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of
greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted."</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-61"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-61">[61]</a></sup> According to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists" title="Union of Concerned Scientists">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>
in 2015, the primer was: "remarkable for indisputably showing that,
<span style="background-color: yellow;">while some fossil fuel companies’ deception about climate science has
continued to the present day, at least two decades ago the companies’
own scientific experts were internally alerting them about the realities
and implications of climate change.</span>"<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-62"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition#cite_note-62">[62]</a></sup></blockquote>
Saying one thing internally and the complete opposite in public is what honest folk call lying. Perhaps even worse than knowingly dispensing information they internally admitted was false, they redacted the rebuttals to the own arguments they were promoting.<br />
<br />
Which is called self-deception. Goes to show that piles of money are no salve for a guilty conscience I suppose. That, and, a cardinal rule of running a large campaign of deception is that the fewer people who know how much it stinks, the better. I'm a little surprised the internal circular went as far as it did. Let's not just take Wikipedia's word for it, but see what else the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-7_GCC-Climate-Primer.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">source document (from the same UCS website as above) actually says</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This primer addresses the following questions concerning climate change: I) Can human activities affect climate? <span style="background-color: yellow;">The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.</span> 2) Can future climate be accurately predicted?</blockquote>
So that checks out. But there's MOAR:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases, predominantly water vapor, account for 95-97% of the current Greenhouse Effect. They raise the average temperature of Earth's surface by about 30°C. Without this natural Greenhouse Effect, the Earth would probably be uninhabitable. <span style="background-color: yellow;">The science of the Greenhouse Effect is well established and can be demonstrated in the laboratory.</span> Human activities can affect the energy balance at the Earth's surface in three ways:<br />
<br />
• combustion, agriculture and other human activities emit greenhouse gases and can raise their concentration in the atmosphere, which would directionally lead to warming;<br />
• combustion emits particulates, and gases such as sulfur dioxide which form particulate matter in the atmosphere, which would directionally lead to cooling; and<br />
• changes in land-use, such as removing forests, can change the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth's surface, the rate of water evaporation, and other parameters involved in the climate system, which could result in either warming or cooling.<br />
<br />
These three factors create the potential for a human impact on climate. <span style="background-color: yellow;">The potential for a human impact on climate is based on well-established scientific fact, and should not be denied.</span><br />
<br />
While, in theory, human activities have the potential to result in net cooling, a concern about 25 years ago, <span style="background-color: yellow;">the current balance between greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions of particulates and particulate-formers is such that essentially all of today's concern is about net warming.</span><br />
<br />
However, as will be discussed below, it is still not possible to accurately predict the magnitude (if any), timing or impact of climate change as a result of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Also, because of the complex, possibly chaotic, nature of the climate system, it may never be possible to accurately predict future climate or to estimate the impact of increased greenhouse gas concentrations. </blockquote>
Demonstrated in the lab. Consensus defined as "essentially all of today's concern is about net warming." Not only "cannot be denied" but "<b>should</b> not be denied".<br />
<br />
Note the beginnings of the the Uncertainty Monster meme in the final paragraph. Hey idiots:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If you're uncertain about what the system will do, why are you actively lobbying against efforts to mitigate those changes?!</blockquote>
I have one possible answer -- it's the modern-day equivalent of, "Let them eat cake." But I digress. <br />
<br />
I think it of note that the document contains some awareness that challenging the well-established consensus of the day would not lead to credibility. Thus they advocated an overall strategy of focusing on the uncertainties inherent in making future predictions. After all, who in their right mind wants to make <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">rash decisions with potentially dire consequences on the basis of inconclusive evidence</a>?<br />
<br />
<h4>
Fighting Science with "Science"</h4>
From another Inside Climate News article:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Then, in 1998 Exxon also helped create the Global Climate Science
Team, an effort involving Randy Randol, the company's top lobbyist, and
Joe Walker, a public relations representative for API.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Their memo</a>,
leaked to The New York Times, asserted that it is "not known for sure
whether (a) climate change actually is occurring, or (b) if it is,
whether humans really have any influence on it." Opponents of the Kyoto
treaty, it complained, "have done little to build a case against
precipitous action on climate change based on the scientific
uncertainty."<br />
<br />
The memo declared: "Victory will be achieved when average citizens
'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate science," and when
"recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom.'"<br />
<br />
Exxon wholeheartedly embraced that theme. For example, an
advertisement called "Unsettled Science" that ran in major papers in the
spring of 2000, prompted one scientist to complain that it had
distorted his work by suggesting it supported the notion that global
warming was just a natural cycle. "It's a shame," Lloyd Keigwin later
told the Wall Street Journal. "The implication is that these data show
that we don't need to worry about global warming."</blockquote>
UCS has fax copy of the original document. The link above goes to a transcribed version which is much easier to read ... and for me to copy-paste some other bits, starting with the "victory will be achieved" quote with additional surrounding context:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<dl><b><span style="color: #000040;">Project Goal</span></b><br />
<br />
<dt><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">A majority of the American public, including industry
leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science, and
therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on
global climate change. </span></span></dt>
</dl>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Progress will be measured toward the goal. A measurement
of the public's perspective on climate science will be taken before the plan is launched,
and the same measurement will be taken at one or more as-yet-to-be-determined intervals as
the plan is implemented, </span></span><br />
<h3 align="center">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Victory Will Be Achieved When</span></span></h3>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Average citizens "understand" (recognize)
uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the
"conventional wisdom" </span></span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: yellow;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties
in climate science </span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: yellow;">Media coverage reflects balance</span> on climate science and
recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional
wisdom" </span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in
climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy </span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent
science <span style="background-color: yellow;">appears to be out of touch with reality.</span></span></span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Working backward through my highlights:<br />
<ol>
<li>Not demonstrate that current consensus is out of touch with reality, only that promoters of Kyoto <b>appear</b> to be out of touch with reality.</li>
<li>Media coverage reflects (false) balance on the "validity" of viewpoints which challenge conventional wisdom.</li>
<li>Media "understands" (but not really) by (recognizing) [in parenthesis] that we're full of shit, but air our views anyway because everyone knows it's the media's job to tell all sides of the story.</li>
</ol>
You think I'm being too cynical? Read on:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<dl><h3 align="center">
<span style="font-size: small;">Strategies and Tactics</span></h3>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>I. National Media Relations Program: </b> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Develop
and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties
in climate science; to <span style="background-color: yellow;">generate national, regional and local media coverage</span> on the
scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, <span style="background-color: yellow;">stimulating them to
raise questions</span> with policy makers. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>Tactics:</b> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">These tactics will be undertaken
between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and
will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the
plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations
counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully
integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National
Climate Science Data Center). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: yellow;">Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent
scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a
long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this
team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists
who already are vocal.</span> </span></dl>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Develop a global climate science information kit for
media including peer-reviewed papers that <span style="background-color: yellow;">undercut the "conventional wisdom" </span>on
climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including
simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and
public can understand. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Conduct briefings by<span style="background-color: yellow;"> media-trained scientists</span> for science
writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the
information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief
reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists
nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science
information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to
newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored
by scientists. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Convince one of the major news national TV journalists
(e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the
Kyoto treaty. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots
organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most
important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in
select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as
appropriate. </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Allow me to translate:<br />
<ol>
<li>generate national, regional and local media coverage = manufacture enough noise to get noticed </li>
<li>stimulating them to raise questions = generate dissonance to confuse them</li>
<li>independent scientists = guns for hire</li>
<li>new faces = non-domain experts and/or mediocre researchers who realize that tenure is not in their future</li>
<li>undercut the "conventional wisdom" = deny that there is a consensus and/or sow doubt that it is valid</li>
<li>media-trained scientists = an oxymoronic euphemism for "credentialed PR flack"</li>
</ol>
Next time a climate contrarian gets on their high horse and starts babbling about scientific integrity, feel very free to send them to this article, or any of the many other excellent references and documents I've linked to. The authors of the bulk of their talking points and various nonsensical memes were authored by people who could care less about determining reality by way of the scientific method, and everything to do with short-term financial gain at the very probable expense of future generations.<br />
<br />
In short, these masters of deception don't care about your children's children. They only, maybe, care about their own. I can only presume they figure that their own grandkids will be fine come what may by virtue of being filthy rich.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Summary and Conclusions</h4>
Based on the above documentation, I think it is fair to conclude that:<br />
<ol>
<li>Exxon was made aware by way of research that was self-funded and internally executed and distributed that global warming is a real phenomenon, human CO2 emissions are the main driver of it, and that it presented not only a risk to all of humanity but their own operations if not curtailed.</li>
<li>Between Dr. Hansen's 1988 congressional testimony and the runup to Kyoto in 1998, they internally decided that CO2 mitigation was the greater risk to their own profitability than continued warming.</li>
<li>On the basis of (2), they embarked on their own media campaign to undermine the scientific consensus they already acknowledged exists, and which their own prior research supported, and knowingly funded the GCC and GCS to do the same on their own behalf and other industry partners/competitors.</li>
</ol>
On the basis of all of the above, I consider Exxon (and later ExxonMobil and other oil industry giants) culpable for future damages which arise from the delay of mitigation policies they directly supported financially, or indirectly supported by condoning similar efforts.<br />
<br />
While it might be morally satisfying for any punitive damages be such that it forces them into bankruptcy and liquidation, I think actual damages (to the extent that they can be reasonably determined) are sufficient and most prudent -- putting major corporations out of business disrupts the economy and punishes rank and file employees who should not have to pay for the sins of their bosses.<br />
<br />
If Exxon funding the AGW or UCS could be considered part of a voluntary restitution on their part, so much the better. Dirty money spent on a worthy cause seems a fair trade in the murky, morally gray, world of policy and politics. <br />
<br />
<h4>
Postscript</h4>
Though not directly related to Exxon, no discussion about undermining the scientific consensus of AGW would be complete without mention of the <a href="https://www2.bc.edu/~plater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House, 2002</a>. A most-relevant excerpt from the strategy document:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
WINNING THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE – AN OVERVIEW <br />
<br />
Please keep in mind the following communication recommendations as you address global warming in general, particularly as Democrats and opinion leaders attack President Bush over Kyoto.<br />
<br />
1. The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. <span style="background-color: yellow;">Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. </span>Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field. </blockquote>
<strike>No Mr. Luntz, as early as 1980, Exxon -- whose interests you are perhaps unwittingly trying to protect -- very bluntly stated that the debate was already settled, and that it was just a matter of projecting to the best of our abilities what the future costs of non-mitigation would be.</strike><br />
<br />
<b>Update 4/12/2016 9:00 PM PDT:</b> Shollenberger correctly points out that I don't have evidence to support the above paragraph. I <a href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/nefariousness-unproven/#comment-9645" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">write in comments</a> on his blog:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The "as early as 1980" is too early, it should be 1995. And the
document is not Exxon's but the GCC's climate primer, which states, "The
scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of
human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is <b>well established and cannot be denied.</b>"<br />
<br />
Reasonable on strength of statement, wrong year, wrong attribution.
That Exxon co-founded and funded the GCC is a link, but I probably
should not say something about Exxon that they did not themselves
directly write.</blockquote>
The following paragraph still stands. /update <br />
<br />
Congratulations. Taking your own words at face value, the circle is complete -- you have apparently come to believe your own bullshit.Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-37137324148147947392016-03-17T00:17:00.001-07:002016-03-19T14:30:47.464-07:00Gas in a Closed System Part 1... does it maintain a temperature gradient after it comes to rest?<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
As an extension of the conversation on the <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Competing Mechanism</a> thread, Chic and I have been swapping e-mails behind the scenes. Over the course of the exchanges, some thought experiments have been proposed which I think warrant an article of their own, and Chic has given me permission to publish whatever portions of our private communications as grist for that mill.<br />
<br />
As some of these thought experiments get quite long, this will be a multi-part series. First thought experiment is an actual experiment ...<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><h4>
<strike>Centrifuge Tubes Full of Water</strike></h4>
<h4>
Test Tubes Full of Water</h4>
[Update 3/19/2015: Chic notes in comments that I erred thinking that Graeff's protocol involved spinning his tubes in a centrifuge, thus allaying some of my confusion below about his theoretical derivation.]<br />
<br />
Chic brings up a fellow called Roderich W. Graeff who penned a note in 2006 entitled, <a href="http://firstgravitymachine.com/descript_B372_V_5.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Measuring the Temperature Distribution in Columns of Liquids</a>. I have not yet read it, so let's take a look.<br />
<br />
His main finding appears to be: <b> </b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Vertical temperature gradients:</b><br />
<br />
The most important result is the temperature gradient value 1 of the inner axis of the glass tube 1, filled with water and glass powder, as shown as the lowest blue curve in GRAPH 2. It is quite stable around a value of about -0.034 K/meter, the minus sign indicating a lower temperature at the top than on the bottom. This value is close to the theoretical value of -.04 K/m as discussed below.</blockquote>
I'll skip over the derivation and discussion to give the final form:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">TGr = -g x H / (c/n)</span></blockquote>
He doesn't give units, so I assume them:<br />
<ul>
<li>g is acceleration due to gravity in m s-2</li>
<li>H is vertical distance (height) in m</li>
<li>c is specific heat in m2 s-2 K-1</li>
<li>n is number of degrees of freedom (unitless), which for water he gives as 18</li>
</ul>
He gives the theoretical answer for water as -0.04 K m-1, so plugging in values and solving for g we get:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"> -0.04 K/m = -g m s-2 / 4186 m2 s-2 K-1 * 18<br /> g m s-2 = 0.04 K/m * 4186 m2 s-2 K-1 / 18<br /> = 9.3 m s-2</span></blockquote>
Eh? He's saying the experimental rate under centrifugal acceleration (which he does not specify) is the same as the rate under (roughly) Earth standard gravity? Did I miss something?<br />
<br />
[Update 3/19/2015: yes I did, he did NOT spin his tubes in a centrifuge, so Graeff really is saying -0.04 K/m under 1 gee acceleration. As my next calculation demonstrates, this is a wildly implausible result.] <br />
<br />
For some real-world perspective, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_Deep" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Challenger Deep </a>in the Mariana Trench is between 10,898 and 10,916 m deep. I'll average the range as 10,907 m. Thus:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">10,907 m * 0.04 K/m = 436.28 K</span></blockquote>
One of us has goofed somewhere. I'll drill into the note some more, starting with the ...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Abstract</b><br />
<br />
Measurements of the temperature distribution in vertical tubes filled with water under equilibrium conditions are being reported. They show a negative temperature gradient, cold at the top and warm at the bottom within an environment showing a positive gradient. This is explainable by the influence of gravity. The measured effect comes close to a theoretical estimation. The temperature difference so created can be used to produce work out of a heat bath. These surprising results, if confirmed, necessitate a rewording of many statements of the Second Law reflecting the influence of force fields. </blockquote>
So he confirms that this idea does not conform to how the Second Law is formulated. Clearly, simply appealing to it as presently stated isn't going to work for Chic as Graeff is saying he thinks it needs to be rewritten. Let's see if I can figure out why:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>INTRODUCTION</b><br />
<br />
Late in the 19th century J. Loschmidt believed that a vertical column of gas or of solids in an isolated system would show a temperature gradient under the influence of gravity, cold at the top and warm at the bottom. L.Boltzmann and J.C. Maxwell disagreed. Their theories tried to prove an equal temperature over height. The temperature distribution in liquids was not discussed. The historical discussion between J.Loschmidt, L. Boltzmann and J.C. Maxwell is covered in [1], [2], and [3]. A. Trupp gives a good summary in [4]. The author reported for the first time in [5] and [8] about actual measurements of the temperature gradient in gas columns in isolated systems. They are critically discussed by Sheehan [10]. They seem to strengthen the position of Loschmidt.</blockquote>
The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Josef_Loschmidt" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Wikipedia article on Loschmidt</a> has this to say:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Loschmidt and his younger university colleague <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Ludwig Boltzmann">Ludwig Boltzmann</a> became good friends. His critique of Boltzmann's attempt to derive the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Second law of thermodynamics">second law of thermodynamics</a> from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinematics" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Kinematics">kinetic theory</a> became famous as the "<a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversibility_paradox" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Reversibility paradox">reversibility paradox</a>". It led Boltzmann to his statistical concept of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy" title="Entropy">entropy</a> as a logarithmic tally of the number of <a class="new" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microscopic_state&action=edit&redlink=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Microscopic state (page does not exist)">microscopic states</a> corresponding to a given <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_state" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Thermodynamic state">thermodynamic state</a>. </blockquote>
The article does not go on to say whether Loschmidt came to agree with Boltzmann's statistical concept of entropy or not. However, Chic <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/11/quote-of-the-week-personal-energy-and-a-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-2165144" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">in comments at WUWT</a> quotes Dr. Roy Spencer (my emphasis added):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The most celebrated gravitational second law challenge revolves around an unresolved dispute between Josef Loschmidt and the two thermodynamic giants, Maxwell and Boltzmann. Loschmidt claimed that the equilibrium temperature of a gas column subject to gravity should be lower at the top of the column and higher at its base. Presumably, one could drive a heat engine with this temperature gradient, thus violating the second law. <b>This debate has remained unresolved for over a century.</b></blockquote>
I'm dubious. Whenever a climate contrarian like Spencer says something remains unresolved, fair or not, I translate it as, "I'm not convinced that prevailing wisdom is correct".<br />
<br />
Back to Graeff's note. Skipping over the experimental setup and to the results:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Vertical temperature gradients:</b><br />
<br />
The most important result is the temperature gradient value 1 of the inner axis of the glass tube 1, filled with water and glass powder, as shown as the lowest blue curve in GRAPH 2. It is quite stable around a value of about -0.034 K/meter, the minus sign indicating a lower temperature at the top than on the bottom. This value is close to the theoretical value of -.04 K/m as discussed below. Going from the inner axis radially to the outside, the value 3 of the enclosing PVC tube – black curve PVC tube 1 - shows a slightly less pronounced gradient, but still being colder at the top than on the bottom.</blockquote>
A good scientist will always try to account for any confounding effects in an experimental apparatus. Graeff thinks of several, and rules them all out:<br />
<ol>
<li>Exothermic reactions between the water and glass beads.</li>
<li>Evaporation of water from the top of the tubes.</li>
<li>Convection currents creating an adiabatic gradient.</li>
<li>Measurement error.</li>
<li>(Local) equilibrium conditions never being met.</li>
</ol>
In the very unlikely event I had peer-reviewed this note (and it hasn't been formally done so far as I know), I can think of some other possibilities that might keep Graeff from an otherwise well-deserved Nobel Prize in Physics:<br />
<br />
[Update 3/19/2015: none of the following reasoning applies due to my error in thinking he used a centrifuge in his experiments.]<br />
<ol>
<li>The bottom of a centrifuge tube moves faster under rotation than the top. Nothing in the description of the experimental apparatus indicates that the runs were performed in near-vacuum conditions. Hence it is conceivable that greater airflows near the bottom of the tubes caused some additional heating which did not occur near the slower moving upper portions of the tubes.</li>
<li>Even though centrifuges are constructed to rotate smoothly and without vibration, there is always a bit of wobble due to the drive, bearings, or masses in the tubes being out of balance. Typically it gets worse as RPM increases, but not always depending on any harmonic resonances. Such vibrations, however slight, might be expected to cause mechanical action (compression and rubbing) in the tubes. It is easy to conceive how such actions would be amplified in the bottoms of the tubes where centripetal acceleration, and therefore pressures, are greater.</li>
<li>Water is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_polarity" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">polar molecule</a>, meaning that it has an electric dipole moment. Move water in a circular motion through a magnetic field (like that of the Earth's), and the motions will set up a slight electrical current. Faster the motion through the magnetic field, the more current generated. This is the theory behind how electromagnetic <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">induction heating</a> works, but instead of moving the mass to be heated through a magnetic field, the field itself is pulsed. The result is that electrical eddy currents set up, excite the molecules of the target object, and it warms up.</li>
</ol>
Like a lot of other <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">perpetual motion machines</a> such as magnetic motors or gravity wheels, if you're down to having to spin water at thousands of RPM to get the effect you're looking for, chances are the energy being "generated" is coming from the 220V wall outlet into which the centrifuge is attached, even if it's not immediately obvious how. Implication being, you're going to put more into it than you get out.<br />
<br />
<br />
Graeff himself doesn't consider this a viable form of "free energy" ...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>4. Consequences of the measured temperature gradients for the Second Law. </b><br />
<br />
The brown curve 5 shows the temperature differences at the top of tube 1 and tube 2 with an absolute average value of about .01 K. This temperature difference could be used to create work i.e. by creating electric power through a thermocouple, as it is actually continuously taken place during the test. The amount of energy so produced is, of course extremely small. It does not affect the equilibrium condition of the experiment as this small amount of energy taken out of the system is easily replenished from the heat bath of the environment.<br />
<br />
But the fact that heat flows under the influence of gravity from a cold reservoir to one with a higher temperature contradicts today’s understanding and present day’s statement of the Second Law. It has to be restated addressing the influence of force fields like gravity. </blockquote>
... yet he considers his results significant enough to call for overturning the Second Law. I think he needs to revisit his logic. Very next paragraph:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>5. Theoretical Value for temperature gradient TGr</b><br />
<br />
No published treatise of calculating the vertical temperature gradient TGr in solids or liquids under the influence of gravity is known to the author. But the value of TGr can be calculated by equating the potential energy of the molecules with the increase of their speed on their downward path. Their speed represents their temperature. When bouncing off the bottom wall or from another water molecule, their kinetic energy is zero at the moment of impact. Though their loss of potential energy in their downward movement is totally converted to an increase of their average “temperature”. A heat transfer takes place between water molecule and the upper and lower wall of the tube until the wall temperatures equal the “temperature” of the impinging water molecules and equilibrium has been reached.</blockquote>
Yeeessssss ... however for every molecule moving down is one being displaced upward. Unless the water is always falling in the tube, the net effect of molecules moving around in the gravity well and trading potential energy for kinetic <b>and vice versa</b> is going to be goose eggs.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Conclusions</h4>
If I've done the math above correctly, and am not grossly misunderstanding Graeff's calculations and other arguments, I'm gonna call this one done.<br />
<br />
[Update 3/19/2015: I did grossly misunderstand that this was a 1 gee experiment, not a several hundred gee experiment. If you'll pardon the pun, the gravity of the disconnect between experiment and real world observation far outweighs my key misunderstanding of his protocol. This one is not just sunk, it was dead on arrival.] <br />
<br />
<h4>
Postscript -- Where There's Actually Something To This </h4>
I mentioned earlier that this notion of temperature increasing due to gravitational force works if the gas is, on balance, "constantly falling". Hang around this discussion long enough, and someone is sure to bring up <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Mass_and_size" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Jupiter</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Although Jupiter would need to be about 75 times as massive to <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fusion" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Hydrogen fusion">fuse hydrogen</a> and become a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Star">star</a>, the smallest <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Red dwarf">red dwarf</a> is only about 30 percent larger in radius than Jupiter.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-32"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#cite_note-32" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[30]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-33"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#cite_note-33" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[31]</a></sup>
Despite this, Jupiter still radiates more heat than it receives from
the Sun; the amount of heat produced inside it is similar to the total <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Solar radiation">solar radiation</a> it receives.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-elkins-tanton_34-0"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#cite_note-elkins-tanton-34" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[32]</a></sup> This additional heat is generated by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin%E2%80%93Helmholtz_mechanism" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism">Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism</a> through contraction. This process causes Jupiter to shrink by about 2 cm each year.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-guillot04_35-0"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#cite_note-guillot04-35" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[33]</a></sup> When it was first formed, Jupiter was much hotter and was about twice its current diameter.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-36"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#cite_note-36" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[34]</a></sup></blockquote>
Shrinking by 2 cm/yr takes this out of the realm of a constant volume problem. The constant shrinkage can be seen as Jupiter's atmosphere constantly falling on balance ... in other words, being compressed and leading to heating such that it radiates out more energy than it absorbs from the Sun.<br />
<br />
Details. <br />
<br />
Note however that this does NOT mean that this process is the only thing which accounts for Jupiter radiating more than it absorbs.Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com94tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-81833800259905277762016-03-14T20:03:00.002-07:002016-03-17T02:10:22.595-07:00PG&E's Solar Choice Program... does it make sense?<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Gas_and_Electric_Company" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">I'll let Wikipedia</a> do the first part of the intro for me:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company, commonly known as PG&E, is an investor-owned utility that provides natural gas and electricity to most of the northern two-thirds of California, from Bakersfield almost to the Oregon border. It is the leading subsidiary of the PG&E Corporation.<br />
<br />
PG&E was founded in 1905 and is currently headquartered in the Pacific Gas & Electric Building in San Francisco.</blockquote>
It's major "competitors" are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_California_Edison" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Southern California Edison</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Gas_%26_Electric" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">San Diego Gas & Electric</a>. Scare quotes because, like many public utilities, PG&E and its cohorts have had virtual monopolies in the regions they serve. Being investor-owned (publicly traded on the NYSE, ticker = <a href="https://www.nyse.com/quote/XNYS:PCG" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">PGE</a>) and not publicly owned, it not surprisingly has a history of dubiously taking advantage of California's ballot initiative system to maximize shareholder value at the expense of its customers' choices and pocketbooks.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
One of the more recent and contentious was the attractively-named <a href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i812_initiative_09-0015.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Taxpayers Right to Vote Act</a>, which went to the June 8, 2010 ballot as <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Supermajority_Vote_Required_to_Create_a_Community_Choice_Aggregator_%28June_2010%29" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">California Proposition 16, Supermajority Vote Required to Create a Community Choice</a>, whereupon it was defeated. And for good reason:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If Proposition 16 had been approved by voters, it would have henceforward taken a two-thirds vote of the electorate before a public agency could enter the retail power business. This would have made it more difficult than it is currently for local entities to form either municipal utilities, or community wide clean electricity districts called Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs). Forming a local municipal utility or a CCA, if Proposition 16 had been approved, would have required the approval, through election, of 2/3rds of the voters who live in the area of the would-be local municipal utility or CCA.[1]<br />
<br />
Pacific Gas & Electric was the primary financial sponsor of the initiative, having contributed $46.1 million. That made PG&E the Goliath in a David-v-Goliath battle, since Prop 16's opponents had access to less than $100,000.</blockquote>
In short, the thing was not about giving voters (consumers) more choice, it was about creating barriers to entry for local utilities with administrative red tape, albeit in the unusual form of requiring public elections. <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/28/business/la-fi-hiltzik28-2009dec28" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">A late-2009 op-ed in the LA Times</a> has some further details.<br />
<br />
More recently, PG&E and the aforementioned other two of the Big Three California utilities have been trying to make it difficult for customers with grid-connected solar PV installations to <a href="http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breaking-the-logjam-on-10mw-of-california-solar-storage-projects" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">augment their system with storage batteries</a>. I don't know much about this one, but on the face of it, the utilities' concern seems reasonable:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Since this spring, those utilities have been requiring any net-metered solar power projects that include batteries to go through a lengthy and expensive process to prove their batteries aren’t feeding stored grid power back to the utility, while getting credited for delivering green, solar-generated electrons.</blockquote>
I could dig into it more to drive home the point. However, I think it should be obvious that for-profit utilities aren't going to like incentives for renewables to their customers unless they themselves can get a <a href="http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/csi/index.php" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">kickback from public funds as well</a>.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, smart business folk recognize a growing market ...<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2015.03.24/chart2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2015.03.24/chart2.png" height="202" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
... when they see one. And in a largely "green" state like California that also gets a lot of sun in places, it should be no surprise that the Big Three utilities have made <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20492" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">California first state to generate more than 5% of electricity from utility-scale solar</a>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2015.03.24/main.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2015.03.24/main.png" height="193" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Go Golden State, go!<br />
<br />
With all the above in mind ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
PG&E Does Something New</h4>
... well not exactly, but apparently new for them. They're calling the the initiative, <a href="http://www.pge.com/en/b2b/energysupply/wholesaleelectricsuppliersolicitation/RFO/CommunitySolarChoice.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_communitysolarchoice" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">PG&E's Solar Choice Program (PG&E's Green Tariff Shared Renewables Program)</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
PG&E's Solar Choice program, known as the Green Tariff Shared Renewables Program (GTSR) under Senate Bill (SB) 43, was established by the CPUC in <a href="http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M146/K250/146250314.PDF" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Decision 15-01-051</a> on February 2, 2015. This program was established to expand access to renewable energy resources, and to create a mechanism by which institutional customers, commercial customers and individuals can meet their electrical needs with generation from renewable energy resources.<br />
<br />
The decision requires that the IOUs begin advanced procurement for the program under the sixth Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM 6). PG&E filed and received approval on modification to the existing RAM Program Protocol and Appendices which included components specific to PG&E's Solar Choice program.<br />
<br />
Additionally, D.15-01-051 requires that PG&E's Solar Choice program seek Green-e Energy certification from the Center for Resource Solutions. Green-e Energy is a leading independent certification and verification program for renewable energy that provides assurances to customers and businesses that they are reducing the environmental impact of their electricity use. For more details on Green-e, please visit their website: <a href="http://www.green-e.org/">http://www.green-e.org</a>.</blockquote>
Links in original. Hitting the "choice" note again, though "tariff" is a potentially off-putting word. On the other hand, the attractive thing is that it's a voluntary program by which consumers can choose to pay higher rates per unit power with statutory assurance that the additional revenues actually go into expanding the supply of renewable energy on the grid.<br />
<br />
What's not to love?<br />
<br />
<h4>
Leave it to a Rabble-Rouser to "Find" Something</h4>
It sometimes amazes me how much potentially good news I read with the exact opposite spin <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/14/ridiculous-offer-from-pge-asks-if-i-want-to-pay-more-for-electricity-to-demonstrate-my-commitment-to-sustainability/comment-page-1/#comment-2166132" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">over at WUWT</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Ridiculous offer from PG&E asks if I want to pay MORE for electricity to ‘demonstrate my commitment to sustainability’</b><br />
<br />
Anthony Watts / March 14, 2016 <br />
<br />
From the Department of Retarded Economics and the Pacific Gas and Electric company comes this unbelievable offer that asks if I want to pay more for electricity to be part of the “in” green sustainability crowd. No, really. I thought this was an early April Fools joke, but instead, it’s an actual solicitation to fools.<br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<br />
I’m currently paying about 14 cents per kWh, so with this new plan to help me be sustainable and part of the cool kids crowd, I can pay up to 17.1 cents per kilowatt hour, so that I can ease my conscience that the electricity I use is from “clean California sunshine”. Good luck sorting out those clean from dirty electrons as they flow through the grid to my office.<br />
<br />
I’m just speechless. There’s a term used in science: “Not even wrong” its not only that, but weapons grade stupidity.</blockquote>
Regardless of whether the PG&E program ends up working as planned, this is yet another example of Anthony's widely-known, well-established, weapons-grade Dunning-Kruger. I couldn't help but bring out the pointy stick and poke at the hornets:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Anthony,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Good luck sorting out those clean from dirty electrons as they flow through the grid to my office.</blockquote>
Whoosh!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There’s a term used in science: “Not even wrong” its not only that, but weapons grade stupidity.</blockquote>
Yeah, because free market solutions which give consumer choice to invest in alternatives is SO much dumber than gummint imposed taxation.<br />
<br />
Wake up.</blockquote>
Posted over an hour ago, now being 7:00 PDT, and it hasn't come out of moderation. Wonder if mod will even bother to let it surface as a [snipped] comment.<br />
<br />
Talking points established, his grumpy horde of roused-rabble take it up with a will:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Bob Greene<br />
March 14, 2016 at 4:21 pm<br />
<br />
All the utilities have been offering the opportunity to purchase “green” energy at an additional price for years. You can buy certified green energy (Green-E certified). The cute part is the electricity you buy can be generated anywhere. Anthony’s green electrons could be generated east of the Appalachians. The renewable energy generators market their electricity. They sell it to anyone who wants to be green: colleges, utilities, companies. The purchaser is quite unlikely to get any of the green electrons, but he will feel just so much better. How else, other than scams like this, can the green energy companies survive making electricity that costs more than the typical market price of dirty electricity.<br />
<br />
Marcus<br />
March 14, 2016 at 4:40 pm<br />
<br />
…Wagen, above, believes you can separate ” GREEN ” electrons from ” DIRTY ” electrons …unfortunately, he has not figured out what electrons are yet !</blockquote>
Bob makes a fair point that this isn't exactly a novel scheme. But no, you insufferable twits, the point is not to ensure that one only uses "green electrons" but rather to voluntarily facilitate increasing the percentage of them on the entire grid. <i>Oi vey</i>. Hey dummies, let two of your own 'splain it for me:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
benofhouston<br />
March 14, 2016 at 3:41 pm<br />
<br />
You know, I’m actually going to defend this. <b>Asking people to pay extra for supporting a political belief is how it’s supposed to work.</b><br />
<br />
Yes it’s all pipeline, The energy you get is from the nearest source. You are simply paying more to buy more solar panels for that power company.<br />
<br />
<b>However, that’s the point. You are paying them to build more solar panels. Optionally. Without force or coercion. </b>It’s not an optimum solution because they are idiots, but at least it’s honest folly.<br />
<br />
billw1984<br />
March 14, 2016 at 4:20 pm<br />
<br />
I’m going to agree with Ben from Houston above. <b>I see this as honest and possibly a way for the utility to let its customers know that “green” costs more money</b> all while seeming to go along with the smart kids. It may have a huge effect in a way that greens might not anticipate. </blockquote>
Emphasis added. Bravo guys. If I may be permitted a quibble, there's nothing necessarily dishonest about taxation but I understand the legitimate concern that they're not always above-board either. Certainly, a "greenie" advocating taxes is ALSO nominally putting themselves on the line to pay them.<br />
<br />
That said, I'd certainly prefer a more free-market, consumer choice mechanism to legislation. Unfortunately, markets are notoriously bad at properly pricing external costs. I'm fairly sure we're gonna need gummint intervention.<br />
<br />
And to be absolutely clear, thinking of this in terms of, "it's either free-market solutions or legislated taxes, tariffs, subsidies and incentives" is a fallacious dichotomy. There's NO reason why both cannot or should not be done in concert with each other.<br />
<br />
Thus far, PG&E's proposal makes sense.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Yabbut, Isn't Solar PV Supposed to Save Me Money?</h4>
Cue Anthony:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Full disclosure, I already have <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/23/an-update-on-my-solar-power-project-results-show-why-i-got-solar-power-for-my-home-hint-climate-change-is-not-a-reason/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">solar on my home</a>. It’s my third solar project, and not a one of them had anything to do with sustainability, but trying to keep escalating power costs under control.</blockquote>
Link in original.<br />
<br />
What a putz.<br />
<br />
No, not because he did an environmentally-responsible thing, but because a good portion of his cost savings surely came from taking advantage of the publicly subsidized incentives and rebates afforded him by the aforementioned <a href="http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/csi/index.php" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The California Solar Initiative (CSI</a>). And as the webpage notes (formatting in original):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h3>
Do I qualify?</h3>
<div style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">
Rebates for PG&E customers have been exhausted and the program is closed.</div>
<div style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">
Rebates for residential customers of SDG&E and for SCE have been exhausted and the program is closed.</div>
</blockquote>
... is no longer available to the majority of California electrical consumers.<br />
<br />
This is the exact sort of thing his readers object to because it amounts to him ...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>GETTING A FISCAL BREAK ON THE PUBLIC DIME FROM WHICH NOT ALL TAXPAYERS DIRECTLY BENEFIT</b></blockquote>
... or so they think because, you know, AGW is a fraudulent hoax. Contrast the PG&E proposal by which consumers voluntarily pay extra for something they think will eventually benefit <b>EVERYONE ON THE PLANET</b>, US taxpayer or no.<br />
<br />
Fornicate me running, the man is such a dunder-headed, obliviously inconsistent nitwit sometimes.<br />
<br />
I'll stop shouting now. Had to be done.<br />
<br />
<h4>
No, Reali ... WHUTTabbout Cost?</h4>
Depending on your location in California (or without as the case may be), it could be more cost-effective to have an installation on your own property. I also suppose it's possible to do that in conjunction with the new PG&E program and have an offset. Maybe even break-even or come out a bit ahead.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, you'll still need to lay out some capital either as a down payment on a loan or, if you're well-heeled, a full payment to cover the equipment, permits and installation.<br />
<br />
Then there's maintenance.<br />
<br />
And did I mention location? I did. Where your property is located not only determines the mix of subsidies and incentives available, it determines how much Sun you get and how much space you have to take advantage of it ... or not.<br />
<br />
My small patch of dirt isn't optimal. Slopes of my roof face East-West when what's best is South. Lotsa trees in the way. Located directly downwind of San Francisco's famously fog-enshrouded Golden Gate.<br />
<br />
So I can't answer the cost/benefit/feasibility questions of doing your own installation. I can say that if environment is more the concern than personal finance, the new PG&E program looks worth looking into.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Does That Mean You're Going to Do It?</h4>
Put my money where my mouth is? Are you crazy? I'm a hypocritical let-everyone-else-pay-for-it-but-me wingnut liberal AGW alarmist. Get real!<br />
<br />
I kid, I kid. I'm thinking about it. Stay tuned.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update 3/15/2016</h4>
Sou at HotWhopper <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/03/denier-weirdness-with-greenpower-offer.html" target="_blank">has posted her take on Anthony's idoicy</a>.<br />
<br />
None of my comments at WUWT have been released from moderation, not even my complimentary reply to billw1984 for agreeing with benofhouston on their sensible consistency advocating a more free market approach to expanding renewable electricity generation.<br />
<br />
One commentator at WUWT wrote something worth checking out:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
marque2<br />
March 15, 2016 at 11:40 am<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, PG&E probably doesn’t want to do this either. I would seriously guess it has something to do with the California Public Utility Commission forcing the utilities hand. I know Iowa has a similar situation, where these programs are coerced.</blockquote>
He may be correct in the sense that PG&E might not have done this had not <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the CPUC been bound by state law</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Timeline of California's Renewables Portfolio Standard</b><br />
<ul>
<li>2002: Senate Bill 1078 establishes the RPS program, requiring 20% of retail sales from renewable energy by 2017.</li>
<li>2003: Energy Action Plan I accelerated the 20% deadline to 2010.</li>
<li>2005: Energy Action Plan II recommends a further goal of 33% by 2020.</li>
<li>2006: Senate Bill 107 codified the accelerated 20% by 2010 deadline into law.</li>
<li>2008: Governor Schwarzenegger issues Executive Order S-14-08 requiring 33% renewables by 2020.</li>
<li>2009: Governor Schwarzenegger issues Executive Order S-21-09 directing the California Air Resources Board, under its AB 32 authority, to adopt regulations by July 31, 2010, consistent with the 33% renewable energy target established in Executive Order S-14-08.</li>
<li>2011: Senate Bill X1-2, signed by Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., codifies 33% by 2020 RPS.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
The California Energy Commission has also published a short <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/history.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">history of renewable energy programs</a> in the state. Some excerpts (links and formatting from original):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h2>
Renewable Energy Program Funding 1998-2001</h2>
<a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/documents/ab1890_billtext.html">Assembly Bill 1890</a>
AB 1890 - Statutes of 1996, Chapter 854, Brulte) was the initial
electricity industry deregulation legislation and was signed into law by
Governor Pete Wilson in September 1996. It required California's three
major investor-owned utilities (Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas
and Electric Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric) to collect 540
million from their ratepayers via a "public goods surcharge" on
electricity use.<br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<h2>
Renewable Energy Program Funding 2002 to 2006</h2>
In September 2000, the legislature adopted the Reliable Electric Service Investments Act as the result of legislation:
<a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/documents/ab995_bill_20000930_chap.html">Assembly Bill 995</a> (AB 995, Statutes of 2000, Chapter 1051, Wright) and
<a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/documents/sb1194_bill_20000930_chap.html">Senate Bill 1194</a>
(SB 1194, Statutes of 2000, Chapter 1050, Sher). These two pieces of
legislation mandated the three major investor-owned utilities to collect
135 million annually for 10 years beginning in 2002 to support the
Renewable Energy Program. </blockquote>
Surely giving consumers the voluntary option to pay a higher rate is less draconian than "coercing" utilities into collecting funds from all ratepayers by way of mandatory surcharges.<br />
<br />
As I said previously, I'd prefer the voluntary way over the legislated route. That some of my Luddite friends across the aisle can't even get behind a consumer option program because the oh-so-benevolent and struggling utility companies must have been held at gunpoint to do it speaks volumes about their insular, cloistered, self-centred, anti-social and just plain backward attitude about how liberal democratic republics were designed to work.Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-21771601544470111852016-03-13T22:32:00.000-07:002016-03-24T02:27:40.379-07:00The Difference Between Fraud and Farce... because apparently some people don't recognize the difference.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update 3/24/2016 </h4>
Since writing this post, I have reversed my position on the reliablilty of Cook (2013). The short version is that I no longer stand by its methods and don't have high confidence in its conclusions. The long version <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-difference-beteween-fraud-and-farce.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">may be found here</a>.<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
Much has already been written about <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Cook et al. (2013), <i>Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature</i></a>, so a brief summary should suffice. Taken directly from the abstract, the salient findings are:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Abstract<br />
<br />
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. <b>In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.</b> For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.</blockquote>
My bold added, because it's the source of much consternation. Unpacking those particular statistics gives this expanded tally:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"> 62.7% support AGW</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"> 35.5% no position</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"> 1.8% reject AGW</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">------</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">100.0% total</span></blockquote>
<br />
<a name='more'></a>So one argument goes that only 62.7% of self-rated papers support the consensus position. Other commentators have gone further, noting that the data were actually assigned into 8 different categories, here excerpted from Table 2 of the paper:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification <br />
Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause<br />
<br />
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification<br />
Explicitly states humans are causing global<br />
<br />
(3) Implicit endorsement<br />
Implies humans are causing global warming.<br />
<br />
(4a) No position<br />
Does not address or mention the cause of global warming<br />
<br />
(4b) Uncertain<br />
Expresses position that human’s role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined<br />
<br />
(5) Implicit rejection<br />
Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly<br />
<br />
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification<br />
Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming<br />
<br />
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification<br />
Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming</blockquote>
However, in the body of the paper the authors write:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7).</blockquote>
Somewhat confusingly, Table 3 which reports on these consolidated buckets contains a fourth category, "Uncertain on AGW", which I gather was done because the original category 4 (no position) warranted being split in two after the review process was already underway. That wrinkle aside, Table 3 does indeed report the results in the consolidated format described just above ...<br />
<br />
... however, the body of the paper does not report at the level of the original seven, <i>cum</i> eight, more specific categories, thus leaving room for all sorts of mischief. The latest in a long line of such efforts is the topic of this post.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend</h4>
I stumbled on this latest iteration of the manufactured consensus controversy as I often do, reading a WUWT post:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The Cook ‘97% consensus’ paper, exposed by new book for the fraud that it really is</b><br />
<br />
Anthony Watts / 1 day ago March 12, 2016 <br />
<br />
I don’t like to use the word “fraud”, and I can’t recall if I’ve ever used it in a title. In this case it is warranted. Brandon Shollenberger writes of a new book, <u>The Climate Wars: How the Consensus is Enforced</u>, that proves without a doubt that John Cook and his “Skeptical Science” team are nothing but a gang of “say anything” activists, and that the much repeated “97% consensus” is indeed nothing more than a manufactured outcome.</blockquote>
I don't know much about Shollenberger other than we have the same given name. I can't be arsed right now to properly research his background or prior writings, and as it's not relevant to what he has written in his book, I won't dwell on it much. Suffice it to say, my impressions from over the past two years are that he's a "lukewarmer" who does not dispute CO2's radiative effect on climate on physical principle, but holds the view that climate sensitivity to CO2 is lower than IPCC-published estimates of same. A cursory review of his comments on various "sceptical" blogs indicates that he's quick to brand the IPCC and its consensus supporters as liars. He really doesn't like the SkS crew, which was behind Cook et al. (2013), and his self-published book being promoted by Watts is not the first time he's been <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/28/on-the-97-percenters-you-must-admit-they-were-careful/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">given space on WUWT</a> to air out similar views.<br />
<br />
Oddly, or perhaps not so much as I dig into it, there's some bad blood between he and Anthony for comments Shollenberger made about WUWT <a href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/02/please-go-die-in-a-fire/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">on his own blog</a> (h/t WUWT comment MikeN March 12, 2016 at 10:40 am):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There are not words to express the level of contempt I feel for Anthony Watts and the things he has either done himself, actively encouraged others to do or tacitly encouraged by happily tolerating them even as he knew they were wrong and/or dishonest. At this point I can only say Watts is either a deranged sociopath with no sense of morality who derives sexual pleasure by spreading lies to the greatest number of people possible or is an idiot savant whose one field of mastery is deluding himself into believing whatever idiotic things he finds most convenient at any given moment.</blockquote>
The final phrase, "whose one field of mastery is deluding himself into believing whatever
idiotic things he finds most convenient at any given moment", is about the only thing I wholeheartedly agree with Shollenberger on. Having an orgasm spreading FUD I deem over the top -- if we MUST impute motive, I think the man just doesn't want to pay taxes on CO2 emissions.<br />
<br />
Never one to let personal feelings get in the way of disseminating lies about "lies", Anthony himself weighs in on why he's promoting Shollenberger's new book:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Anthony Watts<br />
March 12, 2016 at 7:31 pm<br />
<br />
I’m not at all happy with Brandon’s choice of words, but in this case, getting the word out on this superseded my disgust with his labeling.<br />
<br />
I’ve been called worse. Once some fool claimed I have sex with farm animals.</blockquote>
In keeping with the theme, climate contrarianism does make for strange bedfellows at times. Any port in a storm, as they say.<br />
<br />
With the stage set, and my <i>schadenfreude</i> fed, I'll get on with it.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Book</h4>
It's available as an e-book for the low price of $0.99 on Amazon. With some credit due, Shollenberger also <a href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Enforcing-the-Consensus.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">hosts it for free on his own blog</a>. So let's have a read. Top of pg. 4:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Enforcement Tactics<br />
<br />
There is a 97% consensus on global warming. If you don't agree, you will be mocked and ridiculed. If you disagree, you'll be labeled a conspiracy nut. If you try to find the data proving this consensus, you'll be labeled a criminal, threatened with lawsuits and told you're going to be reported to the police.</blockquote>
There's also a consensus that the Earth orbits the Sun, that both are spherical bodies, that the Moon is NOT made of cheese (we know this because <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_astronauts" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">12 human beings actually set foot on it</a> and brought back, you know, actual rocks as evidence), that all these celestial bodies orbit each other as described by Newtonian laws of motion (later amended by Einstein who fine-tuned gravity's function in the mix). As well, it's long been established that humans did indeed evolve from common ape ancestors, that we're not the only species to have derived from prior forms due to Natural Selection and/or selective breeding.<br />
<br />
You will also be mocked and ridiculed for not agreeing with those long-established tenets of scientific knowledge. Lawsuits? Probably not, but much depends on how much a pain in the arse you make yourself.<br />
<br />
Dredging around someone's web server looking for unprotected directories that a <i>reasonable person</i> would clearly understand was meant to contain private information is one way to be a large pain in the arse. Bottom of pg. 4:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[... ] take a look at the sort of things I <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">happened to find</a> when poking around in publicly accessible portions of Cook's websites. Here is an image of him, created by him or one of his Skeptical Science group members and posted to his website:</blockquote>
Link in the original. Top of pg. 5 in the book shows one of the images, John Cook's face photoshopped into a vintage portrait of an Nazi SS officer, with the insignia replaced with various Skeptical Science logos. Skeptical Science. SS. Get it? Poking fun at their detractors who in seriousness compare the SkS team to murderously xenophobic nationalistic fascists.<br />
<br />
There aren't enough irony meters in the world. It gets better. Going back to Shollenberger's <a href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/02/please-go-die-in-a-fire/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Please Go Die in a Fire</a> post on his own blog:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Anthony Watts, this is shameful. You’ve just promoted an article in which a man is smeared for things like, having had a divorce and supposedly being brain damaged That much might just be disreputable, but <b>what reaches the levels of truly disgusting is promoting this article when it smears a person for his father having fought in the German army in WWII to make a Nazi smear.</b><br />
<br />
There’s far more to say, but given how dishonorable and disgusting this is, I don’t think there’s any point. Anyone who thinks this piece is acceptable, much less deserving of promotion and support, is a vile, wretched soul who shut up and go away. <b>And that’s the nicest thing I can say about this obscene hit piece.</b> </blockquote>
My bold, to emphasize the distinct lack of self-awareness. And yes, this is me at my most diplomatic, giving-the-benefit-of-the-doubt, self.<br />
<br />
After a number of pages devoted to not-Nazis, musing about when hacking isn't and other irrelevancies, he gets to his central point:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
They came up with their categories so they could examine both ideas. In fact, Nuccitell specifically said:<br />
<br />
<i>The way I see the final paper is that we’ll conclude ‘There’s an x% consensus supporting the AGW theory, and y% explicitly put the human contribution at >50%’.</i><br />
<br />
If we plug in the numbers from their study into Nuccitelli's proposal for how to publish their conclusions, we get:<br />
<i><br />There’s a 97% consensus supporting the AGW theory, and 1.6% put the human contribution at >50%.</i></blockquote>
I gather that Nuccitelli's comment was lifted from some of the files Shollenberger obtained from SkS servers. And from this, that the cardinal sin committed by Cook et al. (2013) is that they didn't stick with how Nuccitelli "originally" envisioned the results.<br />
<br />
Seriously, that's it. He expects what researchers say in private when putting together a study to stand, set in concrete, until the thing is complete, peer-reviewed and published.<br />
<br />
For shit's sake. We'd still be using stone hammers if that's how scientific enquiry actually worked, if that.<br />
<br />
The balance of the book goes on to, yet again, rehash "flawed" methodology. Beating a dead horse might describe it if the horse were actually dead. More, this is another example of me (and others) dragging an almost dead horse to water and not being terribly surprised that it doesn't drink out of sheer stubborn stupidity.<br />
<br />
<h4>
A More Detailed Rebuttal</h4>
Shollenberger engaged me directly on the WUWT thread. And I responded (Shollenberger's text in <b>bold</b>):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/the-cook-97-consensus-paper-exposed-by-new-book-for-the-fraud-that-it-really-is/#comment-2165528" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><i>Brandon Gates March 13, 2016 at 4:29 pm</i></a><br />
<br />
Brandon Shollenberger,<br />
<br />
<b>The reality is Cook et al didn’t do this.</b><br />
<br />
It wouldn't be the first time someone in this forum struggled to recognize reality.<br />
<br />
<b>One of the central points I’ve made is the descriptions they gave of their methodology were false, as well as how they described the results generated by that methodology.</b><br />
<br />
I get it that you disagree with their methodology. That does not make it necessarily false.<br />
<br />
<b>I went so far as to demonstrate this by quoting the second author of the paper on how to describe their results, a quote you criticized me for posting… even though it was an author of the paper who I was quoting.</b><br />
<br />
No, I didn't criticize you for quoting Nuccitelli's pre-publication comments:<br />
<br />
<i>There’s an x% consensus supporting the AGW theory, and y% explicitly put the human contribution at >50%.</i><br />
<br />
I did err when I stated that you had not apparently read the actual classification used in the published paper:<br />
<br />
<i>Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming</i>.<br />
<br />
What I continue to dispute is that this constitutes being "misleading" or a deliberate "deception", especially since they explicitly described their methods in the body of the paper and supporting supplemental material, including how they binned their own abstract ratings and author surveys.<br />
<br />
<b>I honestly have no idea what you think you’re saying.</b><br />
<br />
I honestly don't know how I could make it any more clear to you. I'm beginning to wonder whether your expressed confusion is deliberate.<br />
<br />
<b>If you think I have said something wrong, I suggest you quote what I said and explain how it is wrong with sufficient detail or reference for people to verify what you say.</b><br />
<br />
Don't be obtuse. Here, again, is the crux of my argument to date:<br />
<br />
<i>Why should your own subjective categorization be any more valid than theirs? Since when is a difference of opinion an a priori example of malfeasance?</i><br />
<br />
They are, of course, rhetorical questions. You are entirely free to answer them literally if you choose. At the very least, you might stop pretending that I haven't made an intelligble point in asking them.<br />
<br />
<b>Until you do so, it will just continue to look like you haven’t even read what you’re criticizing.</b><br />
<br />
Irony.</blockquote>
If you click on the comment link, you'll see what actually appeared:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Brandon Gates March 13, 2016 at 4:29 pm<br />
<br />
[SNIP – come up with a better argument than “you are being obtuse”. Stop wasting everybody’s time – Anthony</blockquote>
Which brings me to a post-script ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
The WHUTTers Don't Like Being Poked With Their Own Schtick</h4>
I didn't even originally set out to address Shollenberger's horseradish, because Anthony's lede sentence gave me a serious case of the giggles:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I don’t like to use the word “fraud”, and I can’t recall if I’ve ever used it in a title.</blockquote>
My first post in the article still stands, and is very much in keeping with Shollenberger's "bbbbbbut you changed your mind!" theme:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Brandon Gates March 12, 2016 at 4:26 pm<br />
<br />
Anthony,<br />
<br />
<b>I don’t like to use the word “fraud”, and I can’t recall if I’ve ever used it in a title.</b><br />
<br />
You have a <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/fraud/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">category for tagging posts “fraud”</a>. Two articles of the five tagged “fraud” contain the word in the title:<br />
<br />
—————<br />
<br />
UK Conference of Science Journalists: ‘institutions unlikely to fairly investigate allegations of fraud made against their own’<br />
Anthony Watts / July 1, 2012<br />
<br />
Guest post by Douglas J. Keenan<br />
<br />
The 2012 UK Conference of Science Journalists was held on June 25th. The programme is available on the UKCSJ web site. The conference is intended for science journalists, as its name says; I attended at the kind invitation of the President of the Association of British Science Writers, Connie St Louis.<br />
<br />
I went to two of the sessions. The first was a session was entitled “What can journalists do to uncover scientific misconduct?”. The second was the plenary at the end. What follows is my perspective on those sessions.<br />
<br />
—————<br />
<br />
Euro Carbon Market Fraud – trade suspended<br />
Anthony Watts / January 20, 2011<br />
<br />
From the Telegraph: European carbon market suspended over fraud fears<br />
<br />
The European carbon market has been thrown into turmoil after the scandal-hit scheme was suspended for a week over suspicions of fraud.<br />
<br />
—————<br />
<br />
I would say you’re not exactly shy about using the word, or allowing guest authors to use it. You’re certainly not shy about alleging that climate scientists are politically motivated to reach laughably wrong conclusions. And you are of course quite vocal when they respond to your vacuous accusations of “mendacity” with “denigration”.<br />
<br />
In short, self-awareness does not appear to be one of your strong points. Your sudden aversion to using the word “fraud” is but another example of it.</blockquote>
The apologia was predictably inept. Here we have dbstealey being his usual logically impaired and content-free self:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/the-cook-97-consensus-paper-exposed-by-new-book-for-the-fraud-that-it-really-is/#comment-2164999" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">dbstealey March 12, 2016 at 5:08 pm</a><br />
<br />
BG says:<br />
<br />
<i>You’re certainly not shy about alleging that climate scientists are politically motivated to reach laughably wrong conclusions.</i><br />
<br />
It waddles like a duck. It has feathers. It quacks like a duck.<br />
<br />
It’s a duck.<br />
<br />
And after posting hundreds of thousands of words expressing your true belief in dangerous manmade global warming, you could easily put together an article of your own, instead of criticizing what other writers say.<br />
<br />
I know why you don’t: your true belief would get cut to ribbons in short order. Because when it comes right down to the nitty gritty, you have no solid measurements, facts, or evidence to support your belief. You just believe. That’s enough for you, but it’s not enough for skeptics of that particular scare. We need the facts and measurements that your side hasn’t been able to produce.</blockquote>
Another one:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/the-cook-97-consensus-paper-exposed-by-new-book-for-the-fraud-that-it-really-is/#comment-2165040" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Chip Javert March 12, 2016 at 6:26 pm</a><br />
<br />
Brandon Gates<br />
<br />
I’m unclear on how comprehensive WUWT’s category for tagging posts “fraud” is, and I don’t know how many posts WUWT has over the review period (>10,000?).<br />
<br />
In some of the material you reference, WUWT appeared to use “fraud” in the title because the attached third party material used the term (i.e.:the term was not initiated by WUWT). Even so 2/10,000 = 0.02%.<br />
<br />
However, finding 2 articles with fraud in the title definitely does not support your judgement & charge of “self-awareness does not appear to be one of [Anthony’s] strong points. Your sudden aversion to using the word “fraud” is but another example of it.”<br />
<br />
Geez. We got some serious nit-picking going on.</blockquote>
So I lowered the boom:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/the-cook-97-consensus-paper-exposed-by-new-book-for-the-fraud-that-it-really-is/#comment-2165120" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Brandon Gates March 12, 2016 at 9:10 pm</a><br />
<br />
[snip – you’re done with this, the point’s been made. there is no need to clutter up the thread with a multi-page comment -mod]</blockquote>
Wellllllll .... I pointed out that Chip was complaining about sample size, justifying a bit of a longish post, and submitted a MUCH a shorter version:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/the-cook-97-consensus-paper-exposed-by-new-book-for-the-fraud-that-it-really-is/#comment-2165135" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Brandon Gates March 12, 2016 at 9:40 pm</a><br />
<br />
mod,<br />
<br />
[snip. –mod]<br />
<br />
[it was a huge amount of text for a comment – all decisions are final -mod] </blockquote>
Note that it initially made it through moderation intact, mod's bottom comment justifying the yuuuuge amount of text as the reason for nixing it. A <b>second</b> moderator subsequently killed the entire response.<br />
<br />
Uncharacteristically for me, words fail.<br />
<br />
MOAR:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/the-cook-97-consensus-paper-exposed-by-new-book-for-the-fraud-that-it-really-is/#comment-2165134" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ric Werme March 12, 2016 at 9:38 pm</a><br />
<br />
Please take the time to read my comments. Especially http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/the-cook-97-consensus-paper-exposed-by-new-book-for-the-fraud-that-it-really-is/#comment-2164766<br />
<br />
Sigh.<br />
<br />
Anthony has often discouraged people from claiming fraud without good supporting evidence. Pretty decent for a “deranged sociopath,” wouldn’t you say? <br />
<br />
Brandon Gates March 12, 2016 at 10:00 pm<br />
<br />
[snip -mod]</blockquote>
A pattern emerges. Side note, "deranged sociopath" is Shollenberger (from his <a href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/02/please-go-die-in-a-fire/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Please Go Die in a Fire</a> post on his own blog), not me. Ric may have confused us, it's happened before.<br />
<br />
A final one, I promise:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/the-cook-97-consensus-paper-exposed-by-new-book-for-the-fraud-that-it-really-is/#comment-2165299" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Alan Robertson March 13, 2016 at 6:19 am</a><br />
<br />
Brandon,<br />
<br />
We are all aware that this site shines a light in some very dark corners, so why do you try to make something of the practice? Are you defending “deliberate scientific malfeasance”, or arguing against its exposure? What?<br />
<br />
Your denigration of our host is not surprising, in light of the company you keep over at that stalker/hate blog, neither is the fact that you come here feigning distaste for use of terms like “fraud”, for the same reason. We have a good picture of you already, but do keep filling in any blanks for new readers.<br />
<br />
Your off- topic thread bombing diversion didn’t work this time, but your self- exposure (again) was almost worth your appearance.</blockquote>
Vintage Robertson: building strawmen, playing dumb, guilt by association, broad-sweeping hand-waving assertion. My response made it through and actually still lives as of this writing (3/13/2016 10:20 PM PDT):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/the-cook-97-consensus-paper-exposed-by-new-book-for-the-fraud-that-it-really-is/#comment-2165542" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Brandon Gates March 13, 2016 at 4:59 pm</a><br />
<br />
Alan Robertson,<br />
<br />
<b>Your denigration of our host is not surprising, in light of the company you keep over at that stalker/hate blog, neither is the fact that you come here feigning distaste for use of terms like “fraud”, for the same reason.</b><br />
<br />
Splash one irony meter. I don’t have any distaste for the word “fraud” itself, and never feigned such. As even my subsequent (shorter) comments have been binned, it’s pretty clear that the length of the original comment in this subthread wasn’t so unwelcome as the content. I find this more than a little amusing.<br />
<b><br />We have a good picture of you already, but do keep filling in any blanks for new readers.</b><br />
<br />
I wouldn’t wish to diminish your ability to think for me better than I can for myself. By all means, carry on with your self-soothing fantasies.</blockquote>
I lied. There is one more. My first reply mentioning Shollenberger also still stands, and is probably worthy of mention for the context of his direct reply to me:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Brandon Gates March 12, 2016 at 5:05 pm<br />
<br />
davidmhoffer,<br />
<br />
<b>As written, this sentence doesn’t make sense. By definition, the human contribution to AGW is 100%.</b><br />
<br />
Indeed. However, as <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">written in AR5</a>, the attribution statement is:<br />
<br />
<i>More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Cook et al (2015)</a> [sic] define the “consensus position” on AGW thus …<br />
<br />
<i>We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).</i><br />
<br />
… which is compatible with the AR5 statement. Anyone who actually reads Cook (2015) and cares to honestly evaluate what it says will find this statement:<br />
<br />
<i>Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.</i><br />
<br />
The close agreement between the two figures suggests that Shollenberger’s accusations of “cheating” on the part of those who rated the abstracts, and “deception” on the part of Cook et al. are unfounded and therefore lacking merit. It’s at least as dubious as pretending the IPCC attribution statement makes the logical error of assigning < 100% of anthropogenic forcings to AGW when it clearly does not.</blockquote>
Links in the original. And it's Cook (2013), dammit, not 2015, a mistake I've made previously and need to stop doing.<br />
<br />
Alright, enough of this self-important bullshit. Main point is, next time one of these gibbering twits trots out a sob story about how they've been "censored" at a consensus AGW blog for raising "inconvenient 'facts'", I now have the perfect anecdotal antidote.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update 3/16/2016 </h4>
Corrected inconsistent misspellings of Brandon Shollenberger's name.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update 3/17/2015</h4>
Following is the continuing discussion I'm having at Shollenberger's blog in its entirety to date:<br />
<ol class="comment-list">
<li class="comment even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9406"><article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9406"><footer class="comment-meta"><div class="comment-author vcard">
<b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9406">
<time datetime="2016-03-16T15:42:30+00:00">
March 16, 2016 at 3:42 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
“The Cook et al consensus paper rated any paper as endorsing the
consensus as long as it at least acknowledged that carbon dioxide is a
greenhouse gas. Seriously, that’s all it took. Acknowledge the
greenhouse gas is real, and the Skeptical Science group would claim
you’re endorsing the ‘consensus.'”<br />
<br />
Happens to be a central point of contention in climate contrarian
circles. Given that not every paper on climate is an attribution study,
inferring level of endorsement from the abstract alone is necessarily
subjective. Hence the, the second phase of the Cook et al. (2013)
study; author self-rated level of endorsement. I get it you don’t agree
with how they put together the final tally, but as they describe
exactly what they did and the data are available for anyone to inspect
and make their own assessment, claims of “cheating” and “deception”
(your words) or “fraud” (Anthony’s) range from ringing hollow to being
over the top respectively. In my <b>personal</b> estimation of course.<br />
<br />
It was careless and is embarrassing that I misspelled your surname
name and didn’t do so consistently. Thank you for pointing it out, I
will correct it post haste.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9407">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9407">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9407">
<time datetime="2016-03-16T19:52:40+00:00">
March 16, 2016 at 7:52 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon Gates, I’m afraid I don’t see how you’ve addressed
anything I’ve said, other than me pointing out the embarrassing
misspellings in your post.<br />
<br />
You don’t dispute my characterization of Cook et al’s results is
accurate. Namely, you don’t dispute that the “consensus” they found on
the idea humans are the main cause of global warming is only 1.6%. You
also don’t dispute that the authors depicted their results as saying the
consensus on the idea humans are the main cause of global warming is
97%. You claim:<br />
<blockquote>
I get it you don’t agree with how they put together the
final tally, but as they describe exactly what they did and the data are
available for anyone to inspect and make their own assessment, claims
of “cheating” and “deception” (your words) or “fraud” (Anthony’s) range
from ringing hollow to being over the top respectively. In my personal
estimation of course.</blockquote>
I’ll leave aside some more minor issues, like the fact the authors
never published any data for 521 of their papers even as they claimed to
have published all relevant data. While I think they are important in
some ways, they do nothing to address the particular issue at hand.
Namely, your only defense against me saying Cook et al actively deceived
people is that they made it possible to see that they actively deceived
people.<br />
<br />
That a person describes what they did does not make what they did
right. It doesn’t make it okay. It doesn’t even make it honest. I can
engage in a deception and describe what I’m doing in a way that is both
accurate and designed to make most people not realize what I’m doing.
In fact, that’s how most deceptions work in studies. You tell people
what you’re doing, but you do so in a way that hides why it is wrong.<br />
<br />
But even if none of that were true, your argument is weird because
you don’t dispute any of the points I made to demonstrate the deception.
Namely, the authors of this paper knew fully well the consensus they
found on the idea humans are the main cause of global warming is only
1.6% yet they depicted it as being 97%.<br />
<br />
I don’t know why you choose to ignore that basic and key issue, but
you cannot claim with any seriousness to rebut my book or views while
ignoring the central issue they repeatedly focus on.</div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9408">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9408">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ec8f201ba255ceb7994c69f80acea0?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9408">
<time datetime="2016-03-16T21:20:52+00:00">
March 16, 2016 at 9:20 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon Shollenberger.,<br />
<i>You don’t dispute my characterization of Cook et al’s results is accurate.</i><br />
It would be inconsistent of me to do so. The results being
“accurate” implies that the analysis is empirically objective, and I
hold that it is not, as stated several time previously. The paper’s
results prevail on how “AGW consensus” is defined, which I consider
completely arbitrary in that it is <b>subject</b> to how you, me, anyone, cares to define it.<br />
<br />
<i>That a person describes what they did does not make what they did
right. It doesn’t make it okay. It doesn’t even make it honest.</i><br />
<br />
Again, here you imply that there is some universally objective definition of “AGW consensus”. From whence does it derive?<br />
<br />
<i>Namely, the authors of this paper knew fully well the consensus
they found on the idea humans are the main cause of global warming is
only 1.6% yet they depicted it as being 97%.</i><br />
<br />
No, they did not depict that. Again, I refer you to the abstract, which you have already several times quoted:<br />
<br />
<i>In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their
own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of
self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). <b>Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.</b></i><br />
<br />
Table 2 of the paper defines 8 categories, and in the body of the paper the authors write:<br />
<br />
<i>To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three
groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in
table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit
and explicit; categories 5–7).</i><br />
<br />
There’s the definition of the consolidated buckets used to compute
the results given in the abstract. Your accusation that they “depicted”
something else is false, as anyone who actually reads the paper should
be able to plainly see.<br />
<br />
If you don’t like their categories, or how they binned them, I
consider you entirely within your rights to do disagree with their
definition and methods of binning the results. So long as you’re clear
on your own definitions and methods for tallying up the stats, I could
not in clear conscience call you a liar for doing so even if I disagreed
with your choices.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9411">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9411">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9411">
<time datetime="2016-03-17T01:21:24+00:00">
March 17, 2016 at 1:21 am </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon Gates, this baffles me:<br />
<blockquote>
It would be inconsistent of me to do so. The results
being “accurate” implies that the analysis is empirically objective, and
I hold that it is not, as stated several time previously. The paper’s
results prevail on how “AGW consensus” is defined, which I consider
completely arbitrary in that it is subject to how you, me, anyone, cares
to define it.</blockquote>
According to you, there is no singular definition for the consensus. Based on this, you say:<br />
<blockquote>
Again, here you imply that there is some universally objective definition of “AGW consensus”. From whence does it derive?</blockquote>
Now I have pointed out, many times, there can be different consensus
positions to which different amounts of people subsecribe. The idea I
imply there is only one position seems to require ignoring basically
everything I’ve ever said, including things I’ve said on this very page.<br />
Leaving that aside though, your repeated claims there is no objective
consensus position, and that any tally of the value must inherently be
subjective because of this, flies in the face of what the authors of
this paper have repeatedly said. When I point out how the authors have
described their results, you say:<br />
<blockquote>
No, they did not depict that. Again, I refer you to the abstract, which you have already several times quoted:</blockquote>
While somehow managing to ignore the fact I have quoted the authors
saying exactly what you say they don’t depict. I quoted the lead author
himself in this post, and The book provides a quote from the full
author list (along with a couple other people) which explicitly states
Categories 1-3 endorse the position humans are responsible for most of
global warming. I could provide many more quotes as well, but…
apparently you’ll just ignore them.<br />
<blockquote>
There’s the definition of the consolidated buckets used
to compute the results given in the abstract. Your accusation that they
“depicted” something else is false, as anyone who actually reads the
paper should be able to plainly see.</blockquote>
Even the paper says what I pointed out. While you keep focusing on the abstract, the first paragraph of the paper states:<br />
<blockquote>
We examined a large sample of the scientific literature
on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the
level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely
causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).</blockquote>
The authors of the paper define the consensus they get by binning
categories 1-3 as being a 97% consensus humans are the main cause of
global warming. Categories 2 and 3 were for papers which did not
quantify the human contribution, and we have the authors’ own words
saying they rated papers as fitting in categories 2 and 3 as long as
those papers at least acknowledged the greenhouse effect.<br />
<br />
Merely acknowledging the greenhouse effect does not endorse the idea
humans are the main cause of global warming. Yet, that’s exactly how
they depicted it. The authors have repeatedly claimed their results
show something they know fully well their results do not show. It is
dishonest, and it is fraud. You simply denying that it happened doesn’t
change that.</div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9413">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9413">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ec8f201ba255ceb7994c69f80acea0?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9413">
<time datetime="2016-03-17T04:47:18+00:00">
March 17, 2016 at 4:47 am </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon S.,<br />
<blockquote>
According to you, there is no singular definition for the consensus.</blockquote>
Correct.<br />
<blockquote>
Now I have pointed out, many times, there can be different consensus positions to which different amounts of people subsecribe.</blockquote>
Thanks for clarifying that.<br />
<blockquote>
While you keep focusing on the abstract, the first paragraph of the paper states:<br />
<i>We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global
CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of
scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of
the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).</i></blockquote>
In my blog post, I focused on more than just the abstract. To wit, I
listed all eight endorsement levels. The top three used in the
consolidated “endorse AGW” bin are:<br />
<br />
<i>1 Explicit Endorsement with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing most of global warming.</i><br />
<i>
2 Explicit Endorsement without Quantification: paper explicitly
states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic
global warming/climate change as a given fact.<br />
</i><i>3 Implicit Endorsement: paper implies humans are causing
global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gases cause warming
without explicitly stating humans are the cause.</i><br />
<br />
I take it your objection is that categories 2 and 3 don’t include the “most” qualifier in front of global warming.<br />
It’s pretty clear to ME what “humans are causing global warming” means without the “most” qualifier.<br />
<blockquote>
It is dishonest, and it is fraud. You simply denying that it happened doesn’t change that.</blockquote>
By the same token, repeating that it’s dishonest and fraud over and over <i>ad nauseam</i>
doesn’t make it so either. To prove fraud in court, I believe you need
to establish intent to deceive. For that, I think you’ll need more
than a photoshopped image of John Cook in doctored <i>Schutzstaffel</i> regalia and an argument that the survey instrument was inconsistently/ambiguously worded.<br />
<br />
As you point out, there may be arguments and evidence I’ve overlooked
which a jury would find more compelling. If you think you’ve got a
solid case, you might consider starting a class action lawsuit. Funding
for it would likely be easy to obtain if class members were duly
impressed with your evidence.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9415">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9415">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9415">
<time datetime="2016-03-17T06:37:44+00:00">
March 17, 2016 at 6:37 am </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon Gates, I don’t understand the point of this comment:<br />
<blockquote>
It’s pretty clear to ME what “humans are causing global warming” means without the “most” qualifier.</blockquote>
Are you saying it’s clear to you “humans are causing global warming”
does not mean the same thing as humans are the main cause of global
warming/ If so, why not say. If not, why not say what it does mean to
you.<br />
<blockquote>
By the same token, repeating that it’s dishonest and fraud over and over ad nauseam doesn’t make it so either. </blockquote>
No. The fact they explicitly defined their rating system to have
categories for papers which endorse the idea of humans contributing to
global warming then turned around and claimed any paper which fell in
such categories (by binning them with the one category that did include
quantification) endorsed the idea humans are the main cause of global
warming is fraudulent.<br />
<br />
The authors knew fully well if you only examine the number of
abstracts that quantified the human component to global warming, the
result was minuscule (1.6%). They chose not to disclose this. Instead,
they binned the category quantifying the human component with the two
that didn’t quantify the human component then claimed the resulting
group all quantified the human component. You don’t seem to be willing
to address this simple point in a clear or direct manner, which baffles
me.<br />
<blockquote>
As you point out, there may be arguments and evidence
I’ve overlooked which a jury would find more compelling. If you think
you’ve got a solid case, you might consider starting a class action
lawsuit. Funding for it would likely be easy to obtain if class members
were duly impressed with your evidence.</blockquote>
Please tell me you are joking. Calling something fraud doesn’t mean
you think a lawsuit should be filed. I can’t even imagine what a member
of the public would sue over for a scientist who lied about his
results. In all the cases I can think of where a scientist did lie or
commit other forms of fraud, the only people capable of taking legal
action were the people responsible for his grants/funding and things
like that. The general public has no standing to sue him.</div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9421">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9421">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ec8f201ba255ceb7994c69f80acea0?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9421">
<time datetime="2016-03-17T17:02:22+00:00">
March 17, 2016 at 5:02 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon S.,<br />
<blockquote>
Are you saying it’s clear to you “humans are causing
global warming” does not mean the same thing as humans are the main
cause of global warming?</blockquote>
No. I’m saying that I interpret both phrasings the same way. It may
be inconsistent, ambiguous and sloppy to drop the qualifier “most”, but
in common usage “humans are causing AGW” means to me that we’re doing
most of it. I assert you’d have to have been living under a rock since
1988 to not understand that is the message.<br />
<blockquote>
No. The fact they explicitly defined their rating system
to have categories for papers which endorse the idea of humans
contributing to global warming then turned around and claimed any paper
which fell in such categories (by binning them with the one category
that did include quantification) endorsed the idea humans are the main
cause of global warming is fraudulent.</blockquote>
Pretty inept “fraud”. The paper itself defines eight buckets, and
explicitly says the final tally was based on consolidation of the first
three bins. They made the classifications available at their most
granular level for anyone to review them.<br />
<blockquote>
Instead, they binned the category quantifying the human
component with the two that didn’t quantify the human component then
claimed the resulting group all quantified the human component.</blockquote>
False. Here again is the actual text of the paper:<br />
<br />
<i>To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three
groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in
table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit
and explicit; categories 5–7).</i><br />
<br />
Please point out where they explicitly say that all the papers in the
category 1-3 bin “quantified the human component”. You cannot, because
it is not there.<br />
<blockquote>
You don’t seem to be willing to address this simple point in a clear or direct manner, which baffles me.</blockquote>
I addressed it directly in the lead section (“Background”) of my blog
post. I don’t agree with your interpretations and accusations on this
point, which is not the same thing as not addressing the point.<br />
<blockquote>
Please tell me you are joking. Calling something fraud doesn’t mean you think a lawsuit should be filed.</blockquote>
Fraud is a serious allegation. If you don’t think what Cook et al.
did in the 2013 paper warrants a lawsuit, I think you weaken the word to
the point that it has lost its meaning. Cry wolf too many times, and
soon people will stop taking you seriously. I’ve been deaf in both eyes
to thinly-evidenced, cavalier accusations of “fraud” against climate
scientists and activists since the E. Anglia crew were cleared of any
serious wrongdoing after the Climategate e-mails were <b>illegally obtained and released to the public</b>.<br />
<blockquote>
I can’t even imagine what a member of the public would sue over for a scientist who lied about his results.</blockquote>
Then you lack imagination. I say this because I seriously doubt that
you don’t recognize the policy ramifications of what the sum total of
climate literature and IPCC assessment reports are telling us: the
planet is warming, we’re doing it, and it’s in future generations’ best
interest for the present generation to begin curtailing CO2 emissions by
any reasonable means.<br />
<blockquote>
In all the cases I can think of where a scientist did lie
or commit other forms of fraud, the only people capable of taking legal
action were the people responsible for his grants/funding and things
like that. The general public has no standing to sue him.</blockquote>
Laws change, sometimes as the result of what once would have been considered dubious cases brought to court.<br />
On the other hand, I can see why you might not wish to <a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202746130750/Subpoenas-Over-Climate-Change-Flout-Constitution?slreturn=20160217163224" rel="nofollow">establish such a precedent</a>:<br />
<br />
<i>Real fraud requires a misrepresentation of objective fact about
the product to induce the payment of money or property to the fraudster.
That is what federal prosecutors accused the tobacco industry of doing —
lying about the health risks of cigarettes, to induce consumers to buy
them. (We represented one of the defendants in that long-running
litigation.) What to do about global warming, by contrast, is not an
issue for those who consume fossil fuels, but for legislators who may
try to regulate it. First Amendment protections, however, must be at
their apex when speech is directed to the state by constituents
exercising their democratic rights to influence policy decisions.</i><br />
<br />
Essentially arguing that corporations must be allowed to misrepresent
medical research under the banner of 1st Amendment protections of free
speech. An aside: one wonders how their client fared in the case the
author’s firm represented … my recollection is that tobacco companies
lost quite a few of the cases brought against them.<br />
<br />
More to the point of citizens’ standing to sue where they <a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://archive.law.fsu.edu/Journals/transnational/vol9_3/hodas.pdf" rel="nofollow">previously would not have been granted it</a>:<br />
<br />
<i>Allowing standing to review governmental decisions and to allow
citizen suit enforcement is a good thing. Enhanced transparency and
accountability leads to improved and more legitimate government
decisions. Promoting citizen participation enhances the democratic
process. In the context of climate change, improved quality control is
essential because of the danger of sham credits, “hot air,” and the
myriad of other ways that emission can be reduced on paper but not in
fact. Because compliance requires the oversight of far flung projects
almost too numerous to count, standing to challenge climate change
decisions is vital. Laidlaw will allow all of us not only to complain,
but do something about the weather.</i><br />
<br />
Some swords are sharp on both edges. I think people who are
convinced that paying taxes on CO2 emissions will utterly ruin the
economy, and thence our modern way of life, are going to become
increasingly willing to litigate. Not just against the government, but
against the researchers who support the government’s case.<br />
<br />
And remember, these days, corporations are people too.<br />
<br />
I am definitely NOT kidding … I think the writing is already on the
wall. I doubt many people who read your book and take it seriously will
see your fraud allegation as I do — rhetorical hyperbole. It’s just a
matter of time before someone (or some entity) puts their money where
your mouth is in court and goes somewhere with it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update 3/18/2016 </h4>
More comment's from Shollenberger's blog (numbering is incorrect, I don't know how to fix it):<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol class="comment-list">
<li class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9423">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9423">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/87288661855a27596cd54b82ad83080d?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">HaroldW</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9423">
<time datetime="2016-03-17T18:49:43+00:00">
March 17, 2016 at 6:49 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon G: “I’m saying that I interpret both phrasings the same
way. It may be inconsistent, ambiguous and sloppy to drop the qualifier
“most”, but in common usage “humans are causing AGW” means to me that
we’re doing most of it. I assert you’d have to have been living under a
rock since 1988 to not understand that is the message.”<br />
<br />
That’s a most interesting take on meaning, considering that a major
question is how much of the observed warming is natural vs.
anthropogenic. I submit that most persons consider that adding “most” in
that context, makes a significant difference in meaning. Even Cook et
al. did; witness the quotation given by Brandon S. above: “There’s an x%
consensus supporting the AGW theory, and y% explicitly put the human
contribution at >50%’.” The first half of the sentence (“x%”)
concerns the proposition that “humans cause [some] global warming”, and
the second half (“y%”) refers to “humans cause most of the global
warming”.<br />
<br />
Let me ask you a further question, since you consider the two forms
(with and without “most”) equivalent. Do you think that those statements
are also equivalent to “climate change is real, man-made and dangerous”
? Is that also common usage? Those of us living under a rock — I favor
granite myself — want to know.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9424">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9424">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9424">
<time datetime="2016-03-17T18:54:19+00:00">
March 17, 2016 at 6:54 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon Gates:<br />
<blockquote>
No. I’m saying that I interpret both phrasings the same
way. It may be inconsistent, ambiguous and sloppy to drop the qualifier
“most”, but in common usage “humans are causing AGW” means to me that
we’re doing most of it. I assert you’d have to have been living under a
rock since 1988 to not understand that is the message.</blockquote>
That’s… an interesting belief. According to this, Categories 1 and 2
must actually mean the same thing because they are identical save the
issue of quantification. If all papers ratered in the non-quantified
category must reflect endorsement of the idea humans are causing 50+% of
the warming, then there is absolutely no difference between the two
categories.<br />
<br />
Nevermind we literally have the authors own words contradicting you,
as they repeatedly stated they were rating papers as being in Category 2
or 3 despite the papers not saying humans are the main cause of global
warming. So, you know, there’s that too. Which when it comes down to
it, is all there is. Because if you were to admit what the authors
themselves said about their ratings, you’d have no way to argue this
paper’s results were presented honestly.<br />
<blockquote>
Please point out where they explicitly say that all the
papers in the category 1-3 bin “quantified the human component”. You
cannot, because it is not there.</blockquote>
I have quoted the authors of this paper doing exactly that multiple
times on this page. I believe the count is three different times that
I’ve quoted them practically saying it, as well as one time where they
explicitly stated it. That you choose to ignore what has been presented
to you then claim I cannot present it to you does not actually mean
it’s never been presented.<br />
<blockquote>
Fraud is a serious allegation. If you don’t think what
Cook et al. did in the 2013 paper warrants a lawsuit, I think you weaken
the word to the point that it has lost its meaning. Cry wolf too many
times, and soon people will stop taking you seriously. I’ve been deaf
in both eyes to thinly-evidenced, cavalier accusations of “fraud”
against climate scientists and activists since the E. Anglia crew were
cleared of any serious wrongdoing after the Climategate e-mails were <b>illegally obtained and released to the public</b>.</blockquote>
Quite frankly, this is idiotic. And I’m stopping here. Claiming the
only time a person should use the word “fraud” is when they think a
lawsuit should be filed is beyond ludicrous, but quite frankly, none of
this matters. I’ve already clearly demonstrated the authors describe
their 97% consensus as being that humans are the main cause of global
warming. We’ve also seen they were fully aware of the fact their data
did not support that, as when the issue of whether or not humans are the
main factor is examined, the actual number is 1.6%.<br />
Moreover, we can confirm the authors rated papers as endorsing the
consensus merely as long as they acknowledged the greenhouse effect by
examining the papers they rated as endorsing the consensus, the comments
they made in their forum or even the comments they made on the papers
as they rated them. All of these confirm papers rated as endorsing the
consensus merely needed to say things like,<br />
<br />
“Methane is a greenhouse
gas.”<br />
<br />
And that’s what matters. You can claim I must be living under a rock
to not agree about how words are used with you, but the ratings used
for this paper were quite clear. So too are the comments the raters
made. They make it abundantly clear most papers rated as endorsing the
consensus did not quantify the human component, meaning they did not
support the claim there is a 97% consensus humans are the main cause of
global warming.<br />
<br />
As for your claim the authors didn’t describe their results that way,
I quoted the paper itself showing they did, another paper by the lead
author showing he did, as well as a document authored by all the authors
of the paper which explicitly did. You haven’t disputed the validity
of any of those quotes, so… if you want to ramble on about how all
“fraud” must warrant a lawsuit to be fraud, you can, but… I’m not going
to get dragged into something so stupid. </div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9426">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9426">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ec8f201ba255ceb7994c69f80acea0?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9426">
<time datetime="2016-03-17T20:00:53+00:00">
March 17, 2016 at 8:00 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
HaroldW,<br />
<blockquote>
That’s a most interesting take on meaning, considering
that a major question is how much of the observed warming is natural vs.
anthropogenic.</blockquote>
Indeed it is, but it’s not the ONLY question literature attempts to answer.<br />
<blockquote>
I submit that most persons consider that adding “most” in that context, makes a significant difference in meaning.</blockquote>
I agree. See again, not every paper attempts to do a quantified attribution.<br />
<blockquote>
Even Cook et al. did; witness the quotation given by
Brandon S. above: “There’s an x% consensus supporting the AGW theory,
and y% explicitly put the human contribution at >50%’.” The first
half of the sentence (“x%”) concerns the proposition that “humans cause
[some] global warming”, and the second half (“y%”) refers to “humans
cause most of the global warming”.</blockquote>
Does the word [some] you introduced into the text necessarily indicate < 50%?<br />
Ambiguity is a two-way street.<br />
<blockquote>
Let me ask you a further question, since you consider the two forms (with and without “most”) equivalent.</blockquote>
They’re not equivalent but that’s how I interpret them. IOW, it’s
what I believe when people whom I think support the “AGW consensus” mean
when they drop the “most” qualifier and say, “humans are causing global
warming”.<br />
<blockquote>
Do you think that those statements are also equivalent to “climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” ?</blockquote>
No.<br />
<blockquote>
Is that also common usage?</blockquote>
In my opinion, based on anecdotal observation, yes.</div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9427">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9427">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ec8f201ba255ceb7994c69f80acea0?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9427">
<time datetime="2016-03-17T20:03:02+00:00">
March 17, 2016 at 8:03 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon S.,<br />
<blockquote>
According to this, Categories 1 and 2 must actually mean
the same thing because they are identical save the issue of
quantification.</blockquote>
Not must. Strictly speaking, categories 2 and 3 are ambiguous as to
whether “most” observed warming is anthropogenic. I am arguing that
under common usage, I personally interpret “humans are causing global
warming” to mean that our activities are the main driver.<br />
<blockquote>
If all papers ratered in the non-quantified category must
reflect endorsement of the idea humans are causing 50+% of the warming,
then there is absolutely no difference between the two categories.</blockquote>
Buh? It’s an explicit recognition that not all climate papers are
attribution studies. Quantified vs. not quantified. “Absolute no
difference” is not compatible with what the text describing those
categories says.<br />
<blockquote>
Because if you were to admit what the authors themselves
said about their ratings, you’d have no way to argue this paper’s
results were presented honestly.</blockquote>
Sorry, but I’ll go ahead and reserve the right to think for myself and form my own opinions. Thanks.<br />
<blockquote>
I have quoted the authors of this paper doing exactly that multiple times on this page.</blockquote>
Then it should be easy to indicate which of your statements above supports it.<br />
<blockquote>
Quite frankly, this is idiotic. And I’m stopping here.</blockquote>
Ok.<br />
<blockquote>
Claiming the only time a person should use the word
“fraud” is when they think a lawsuit should be filed is beyond
ludicrous, but quite frankly, none of this matters.</blockquote>
I thought you said you were stopping. In the spirit of putting
thoughts in others’ heads for them, you are implying that not all cases
of fraud should be prosecuted. Quite the potential loophole.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9430">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9430">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9430">
<time datetime="2016-03-18T00:53:51+00:00">
March 18, 2016 at 12:53 am </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon Gates:<br />
<blockquote>
Not must. Strictly speaking, categories 2 and 3 are
ambiguous as to whether “most” observed warming is anthropogenic. I am
arguing that under common usage, I personally interpret “humans are
causing global warming” to mean that our activities are the main driver.</blockquote>
You can keep saying you interpret it this way, but the authors of the
paper directly contradict you. For instance, Andy Skuce rated the
paper <i>,Is The Extent Of Glaciation Limited By Marine Gas-hydrates</i> (GRL) as falling in Category 3, quoting this portion of the abstract to explain his decision:<br />
<blockquote>
“addition of methane to the atmosphere warms the planet”</blockquote>
That obviously does not quantify any human component. In fact, it
doesn’t even directly state there is a human component. Then you have
papers like <i><a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://eprints.port.ac.uk/5123/" rel="nofollow">Brick And Mortar Treatment By Cream Emulsion For Improved Water Repellence And Thermal Insulation</a></i>,
which Andy Skuce rated as neutral because “Borderline implicit perhaps
but no mention of AGW or carbon emissions.” Dana Nuccitelli rated it as
Category 3 because, “reduced energy consumption addressing GW =
implicit.” John Cook was the tie-breaker, setting the paper as
endorsing the consensus saying, “Mitigation + GW = implicit.”<br />
None of those remarks include a single word suggesting the paper
indicated humans are the driving force of global warming. The paper
itself doesn’t even have anything to do with global warming, merely
tacking it on at the end of its abstract:<br />
<blockquote>
A novel polymer cream was applied to brick and mortar in
an attempt to reduce water absorption and to improve thermal insulation
for household heating energy saving. Tests were carried out on surface
energy, water contact angle, thermal conductivity and sorptivity of
brick and mortar with and without cream treatment. A model house was
built and a heating and monitoring system was developed to
quantitatively evaluate the heating energy consumption in different
conditions before and after cream treatment. It was found out that cream
treatment can successfully impart good water repellence and enhanced
the thermal insulation of the brick and mortar. The results from contact
angle and surface energy measurements showed that the materials became
highly hydrophobic. Experimental results from the model house showed
approximately 9% heating energy consumption reduction in dry conditions
and approximately 50% in wet conditions. In addition, the internal
humidity typically was reduced to almost 1/3 of that of the control. It
has been demonstrated that the novel cream treatment on masonry
buildings can help reduce damp problems and save household heating
energy consumption which can make a significant contribution to
addressing social, environmental, ecological and economic problems
resulting from climate change and global warming.</blockquote>
There are literally hundreds of examples like this. There are also a
multitude of comments from when the project was being designed which
confirm the Skeptical Science “consensus” is not that humans are the
main cause of global warming. I’ve quoted examples of these on many
occasions, including in this book and post. You choosing to believe the
authors meant something they clearly stated they didn’t mean is… well,
wrong. Your argument common usage justifies your interpretation when we
have overwhelming evidence contradicting you which you’ve made no
attempt to invalidate is nonsense.<br />
<blockquote>
Buh? It’s an explicit recognition that not all climate
papers are attribution studies. Quantified vs. not quantified. “Absolute
no difference” is not compatible with what the text describing those
categories says.</blockquote>
No. There is no recognition in the rating system used that not all
climate papers are attribution studies. Many, if not most, of the
papers in Category 1 are not attribution studies either. All they are
are papers whose abstracts said humans are the main cause of global
warming. This includes papers like <i><a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2003/GC/B304825J#%21divAbstract" rel="nofollow">Utilization
Of Carbon Dioxide As Soft Oxidant In The Dehydrogenation Of
Ethylbenzene Over Supported Vanadium-antimony Oxide Catalystst</a></i>. This paper has absolutely nothing to do with global warming, but it was rated as Category 1 because its abstract begins:<br />
<blockquote>
This work shows that carbon dioxide, which is a main
contributor to the global warming effect, could be utilized as a
selective oxidant in the oxidative dehydrogenation of ethylbenzene over
alumina-supported vanadium oxide catalysts. </blockquote>
That is clearly not an attribution study. It is merely a study which
says carbon dioxide “is a main contributor to the global warming
effect.” There is no recognition that not all papers are attribution
studies in this rating system. There certainly isn’t an explicit one.
Papers which are not attribution studies show up in all the categories.<br />
<blockquote>
Then it should be easy to indicate which of your statements above supports it.</blockquote>
And have you ignore them again? Sure, okay. From the post, quoting a paper John Cook co-authored:<br />
<blockquote>
Of the 4,014 abstracts that expressed a position on the
issue of human-induced climate change, Cook et al. (2013) found that
over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human
emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.</blockquote>
From a comment, highlighting what the consensus paper itself said:<br />
<blockquote>
We examined a large sample of the scientific literature
on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the
level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely
causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).</blockquote>
From the book, quoting a document the authors of the paper released to respond to a critic:<br />
<blockquote>
C13 classified abstracts of climate science papers based
on the level of endorsement that most of the recent global warming is
man-made (AGW, Categories 1–3)</blockquote>
All three of these statements say Categories 1-3 quantify the human
contribution as being 50+%. There are many more. They are all false as
Categories 2 and 3 were explicitly designed to capture papers which do
not indicate whether or not humans are the driving force.<br />
<blockquote>
I thought you said you were stopping. In the spirit of
putting thoughts in others’ heads for them, you are implying that not
all cases of fraud should be prosecuted. Quite the potential loophole.</blockquote>
You really ought to try not to assume people are contradicting
themselves when there are much more reasonable interpretations. In this
case, when I said I was stopping there, I was indicating I was going to
stop going through your comment to respond to what you had said.
Having stopped reading any further does nothing to prevent me from
responding to what I had already read.<br />
<br />
And no, I am not “implying that not all cases of fraud should be
prosecuted.” I’m explicitly stating that. Because the word “fraud” is
not inherently a legal term, and there are many types of fraud which
couldn’t possibly be prosecuted. The fact a word can refer to a
criminal activity does not mean every use of that word must refer to
criminal activity.<br />
<br />
But again, that’s a silly diversion. The primary issue at hand is
your claimed interpretation of the Cook et al rating system which holds
Categories 2 and 3 endorsed the idea humans are the main cause of global
warming when we have a multitude of comments from the authors
themselves saying otherwise. I’d really like us to focus on that.</div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9434">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9434">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d58b3a9908b5fe6fce3d479a2e9e5f67?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Mark Bofill</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9434">
<time datetime="2016-03-18T12:25:40+00:00">
March 18, 2016 at 12:25 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon Gates,<br />
Hi. I read your comment<br />
<blockquote>
Happens to be a central point of contention in climate contrarian circles…</blockquote>
and questioned it. But eventually I realized I don’t ‘get out’ much,
maybe I’m simply not aware of the contrarian circles you’re referring
to. What climate contrarian circles dispute this? I’m aware of (ahem)
Principia Scientific and the Sky Dragons, anybody else? In <i>my</i> climate contrarian circles we laugh at the skydragons….<br />
<br />
Thanks in advance for helping me out; I’m always glad to learn something I didn’t know.<br />
<br />
Thanks,</div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9435">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9435">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ec8f201ba255ceb7994c69f80acea0?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9435">
<time datetime="2016-03-18T18:06:17+00:00">
March 18, 2016 at 6:06 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon S.,<br />
<blockquote>
You can keep saying you interpret it this way, but the authors of the paper directly contradict you.</blockquote>
Really? Ok, let’s have a look.<br />
<blockquote>
For instance, Andy Skuce rated the paper ,Is The Extent
Of Glaciation Limited By Marine Gas-hydrates (GRL) as falling in
Category 3, quoting this portion of the abstract to explain his
decision:<br />
“addition of methane to the atmosphere warms the planet”<br />
That obviously does not quantify any human component. In fact, it doesn’t even directly state there is a human component.</blockquote>
It really should be common knowledge that cows emit methane, and that
there wouldn’t be so many cows if we did not breed them for dairy
products and food. It’s also widely discussed in literature that
warming initially triggered by CO2 emissions leads to thawing
permafrost, which releases methane in the process as a feedback
mechanism. Trace the causality chain and you end up with human
activity.<br />
<br />
Release of methane clathrates due to deep ocean warming are a
frequently discussed concern in literature as a consequence of warming.<br />
<br />
I don’t know how Skuce reasoned it since I’m not him, but at the very
least I fail to see any direct contradiction of my argument here.<br />
It has been demonstrated that the novel cream treatment on masonry
buildings can help reduce damp problems and save household heating
energy consumption which can make a significant contribution to
addressing social, environmental, ecological and economic problems
resulting from climate change and global warming.<br />
<blockquote>
Then you have papers like Brick And Mortar Treatment By
Cream Emulsion For Improved Water Repellence And Thermal Insulation,
which Andy Skuce rated as neutral because “Borderline implicit perhaps
but no mention of AGW or carbon emissions.” Dana Nuccitelli rated it as
Category 3 because, “reduced energy consumption addressing GW =
implicit.” John Cook was the tie-breaker, setting the paper as endorsing
the consensus saying, “Mitigation + GW = implicit.”</blockquote>
I agree with that reasoning as I deem it consistent with the final
sentence of the abstract, which you quoted. It’s consistent with my
position previously stated above:<br />
<br />
<i>… the sum total of climate literature and IPCC assessment reports
are telling us: the planet is warming, we’re doing it, and it’s in
future generations’ best interest for the present generation to begin
curtailing CO2 emissions by any reasonable means.</i><br />
<br />
Again, I don’t see how “the authors of the paper directly contradict”
me. Their reasoning on assigning implicit endorsement seems quite
compatible with my own.<br />
<blockquote>
No. There is no recognition in the rating system used that not all climate papers are attribution studies.</blockquote>
Good grief. It’s implicit in how categories 2 and 3 are worded, specifically the common English words “not quantified”.<br />
<br />
As I understand your argument, I could just as easily say that
there’s NO consensus among geologists that the Earth is approximately
4.543 billion years old because not every paper in the field attempts to
estimate it. And by extension, because a significant number of people
think the planet is no older than about 6,000 years that it would be
fraudulent for a geology literature review to conclude that an
overwhelming majority of papers implicitly reject the Young Earth
hypothesis in favor of a much older but not explicitly specified number
of billions of years.<br />
<blockquote>
And have you ignore them again?</blockquote>
Are you reading people’s minds and imputing motive again?<br />
Are you still beating your wife?<br />
<br />
You have made a number of comments and cited a number of statements, I
wanted to make sure we were talking about the same things.<br />
<br />
I have several times allowed that categories 2 and 3 are ambiguous
and inconsistent with other statements in the paper itself. Here I’ll
extend that to comments made by the authors themselves in public and in
private communications to others. Let these statements stand as
evidence that I have read those statements and acknowledge your
arguments based on them.<br />
<br />
My interpretation stands as previously stated. Explicit and implicit
endorsement of the notions that “humans are causing global warming”
(bucket 2) or “greenhouse gases cause warming” (bucket 3) are consistent
with “humans are causing most of global warming” even without the
“most” qualifier, or explicitly recognizing that humans are responsible
for <b>most</b> of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.<br />
<br />
My interpretation may in fact be wrong. You might be correct that
Cook and crew were trying to pull a fast one. Thing is, I’ve read a lot
of climate literature, and the sum total of the message is crystal
clear: the planet is warming, we’re doing most of it, and the prudent
thing is probably not to be doing so.<br />
<br />
What you have not done is demonstrate that the results would be
demonstrably different if the categories were differently worded so as
to be more consistent and less ambiguous. And you’re far from
demonstrating that Cook et al. <b>intended</b> to defraud the public
with they way they constructed their categories and survey instrument.
No amount of believing such a thing, or stridently repeating it over and
over and over again will make it so.<br />
<blockquote>
You really ought to try not to assume people are contradicting themselves when there are much more reasonable interpretations.</blockquote>
Oh irony. When were you planning on extending others the exact same courtesy?<br />
<br />
Here’s another taste of your own bitter medicine: you are apparently
still beating your wife. Just in case there’s any potential
misunderstanding, the previous sentence is metaphorical rhetoric and not
meant to be taken literally.</div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9436">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9436">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ec8f201ba255ceb7994c69f80acea0?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9436">
<time datetime="2016-03-18T18:10:15+00:00">
March 18, 2016 at 6:10 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Mark Bofill,<br />
<blockquote>
What climate contrarian circles dispute this? I’m aware
of (ahem) Principia Scientific and the Sky Dragons, anybody else? In my
climate contrarian circles we laugh at the skydragons….</blockquote>
Even though Dragon Slayers are officially banned at WUWT, I’ve read —
and on numerous occasions been part of defending against — assertions
that “CO2 warming the planet” violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
because “heat flows from warm to cold, not the other way around”.
Another frequent theme is, “how can CO2 warm the oceans when LW
radiation only penetrates water on the order of a few microns?” I’ll
grant that most climate contrarians I talk to there are probably
lukewarmers like Anthony and dbstealey, who do not self-label as such,
but are on record as saying they think the effect is real but “probably
too small to be measured”. Legion are comments like, “how can a trace
gas have such large effect?” and “water vapor is the dominant GHG, so
how can CO2 be the ‘control knob’?” and “CO2 has always lagged
temperature in the geological record, so it cannot therefore be the
cause of warming” and “well duh, we’re coming out of the LIA, it’s just
natural variability” and “it’s not actually warming,
GISS/HADCRU/NOAA/BEST/etc. adjust the surface records to fit the hype”
and finally the trump card, “The Pause falsifies AGW, may it RIP”.<br />
<br />
My original statement might have been more correctly stated, “Happens
to be a common point of contention …”, but I don’t think it was
terribly far out of bounds as originally formulated.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update 3/20/2016</h4>
Continuing discussion from Brandon Shollenberger's blog. If you read anything, be sure to read my post at the very end of the thread.<br />
<br />
<ol class="comment-list">
<li class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9437"><article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9437"><footer class="comment-meta"><div class="comment-author vcard">
<b class="fn">Mark Bofill</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9437">
<time datetime="2016-03-18T20:51:09+00:00">
March 18, 2016 at 8:51 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Actually that’s fair enough Brandon, I think I understand and
certainly do appreciate your response. There are a fair number of
knuckleheads out there who don’t have a clue what they are talking
about, I tend to disregard them without giving it much thought. But
you’re right, it doesn’t mean they don’t exist, just because I tune it
out.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9438">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9438">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9438">
<time datetime="2016-03-18T21:48:51+00:00">
March 18, 2016 at 9:48 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon Gates:<br />
<blockquote>
It really should be common knowledge that cows emit
methane, and that there wouldn’t be so many cows if we did not breed
them for dairy products and food. It’s also widely discussed in
literature that warming initially triggered by CO2 emissions leads to
thawing permafrost, which releases methane in the process as a feedback
mechanism. Trace the causality chain and you end up with human activity.<br />
Release of methane clathrates due to deep ocean warming are a
frequently discussed concern in literature as a consequence of warming.<br />
I don’t know how Skuce reasoned it since I’m not him, but at the very
least I fail to see any direct contradiction of my argument here.</blockquote>
Your claim was Categories 2 and 3 are endorsements of the idea humans
are the main cause of global warming. As the quotes I provided
demonstrate, the authors did not consider whether or not these papers
endorsed the idea humans are the main cause of global warming. Instead,
they merely required papers do things like acknowledge methane is a
greenhouse. A person who thinks humans contribute only 25% of the
observed warming could well acknowledge methane is a greenhouse gas, so
merely acknowledging it is one cannot possibly be an endorsement of the
idea humans are responsible for 50+% of the observed warming.<br />
<blockquote>
As I understand your argument, I could just as easily say
that there’s NO consensus among geologists that the Earth is
approximately 4.543 billion years old because not every paper in the
field attempts to estimate it. And by extension, because a significant
number of people think the planet is no older than about 6,000 years
that it would be fraudulent for a geology literature review to conclude
that an overwhelming majority of papers implicitly reject the Young
Earth hypothesis in favor of a much older but not explicitly specified
number of billions of years.</blockquote>
I have never said anything remotely like this. I don’t know how you
came to “understand [my] argument” like this, but it is not because
anything I have actually written.<br />
<blockquote>
My interpretation stands as previously stated. Explicit
and implicit endorsement of the notions that “humans are causing global
warming” (bucket 2) or “greenhouse gases cause warming” (bucket 3) are
consistent with “humans are causing most of global warming” even without
the “most” qualifier, or explicitly recognizing that humans are
responsible for most of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the
industrial revolution</blockquote>
That papers in Categories 2 and 3 are consistent with the idea humans
are the main cause of global warming does not mean they endorse the
idea humans are the main cause of global warming. It means they don’t
take a position on that topic. Failing to take a position on an issue
does not mean they endorse or reject the idea. It just means they don’t
say one way or another. And because they don’t say one way or another,
it is compeltely wrong to claim they endorse a particular position.<br />
That is exactly why you will never see me saying the papers in
Categories 2 and 3 say humans are responsible for only a little part of
the observed warming. What they say is consistent with that idea just
like what they say is consisten with the idea humans are the main cause
of global warming. You can’t arbitrarily decide them failing to state a
position means they endorse a specific one any more than I can
arbitrarily decide them failing to state a position means they endorse
the opposite one.<br />
<blockquote>
My interpretation may in fact be wrong. You might be
correct that Cook and crew were trying to pull a fast one. Thing is,
I’ve read a lot of climate literature, and the sum total of the message
is crystal clear: the planet is warming, we’re doing most of it, and the
prudent thing is probably not to be doing so.</blockquote>
Whether or not there is a particular consensus is completely
irrelevant to whether or not Cook et al did their work in a good or
honest manner. We can tell things like, they lied about what they did,
even if their results happen to be “right.” After all, it is incredibly
easy to cheat to get an answer you know in advance.<br />
<blockquote>
Oh irony. When were you planning on extending others the exact same courtesy?</blockquote>
Here’s the difference between you and me. I’ve spent a great deal of
time and effort explaining the reasoning for what I say. You make
absurd claims about what my positions are that have no basis in reality.
We see it just above in your absurd “understanding” of my argumentt,
just like we saw it above when you claimed:<br />
<blockquote>
Again, here you imply that there is some universally objective definition of “AGW consensus”. From whence does it derive?</blockquote>
When in fact I have done the exact opposite from day one, with me
literally discussing how there are different consensus positions (with
different levels of support) the day after this paper came out,
explaining how Cook et al’s results hide that. I even wrote a post
discussing how the authors intentionally conflated the different
consensus positions a few days later, quoting the authors themselves
acknowledging that’s what they were doing.<br />
So while you can try to pretend I’m being unreasonable in my
depictions, you’re the only one who consistently decides people believe
things nothing like anything they have ever said or thought.<br />
Oh, and let’s not forget you suggested I was responsible for a
criminal activity I had no involvement with. Because, you know, that’s
sort of a thing.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9439">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9439">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9439">
<time datetime="2016-03-18T21:56:11+00:00">
March 18, 2016 at 9:56 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Just to simplify my last comment, this entire disagreement
appears to stem from Brandon Gates saying any paper which states
something as simple as, “Methane is a greenhouse gas” is an endorsement
of the idea humans are the main cause of global warming. I say that’s
complete nonsense as a paper which places the anthropogenic contribution
to global warming at below 50% could very well acknowledge methane is a
greenhouse gas.<br />
Gates does say simply stating, “Methane is a greenhouse gas” is
consistent with believing humans are the main cause of global warming,
but that’s uninformative as it is consistent with any number of
positions. One cannot simply assume a paper endorses a consensus
because it says something that is consistent with that consensus.<br />
Oh, and Mark Bofill, there is definitely a sizable amount of people
rejecting the greenhouse effect. They also have a meaningful impact,
with their views being quite popular at places like WUWT where noted
Dragon Slayers are allowed to post frequently, advancing Dragon Slayer
voews. I know Brandon Gates says:<br />
<blockquote>
Even though Dragon Slayers are officially banned at WUWT,</blockquote>
But if there is any sort of “official” ban on Dragon Slayers, it’s
not one that is actually enforced. That’s why Tim Ball is still one of
the (if not the?) most frequenter authors at WUWT><br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9440">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9440">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d58b3a9908b5fe6fce3d479a2e9e5f67?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Mark Bofill</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9440">
<time datetime="2016-03-18T22:24:32+00:00">
March 18, 2016 at 10:24 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon,<br />
Somehow as I said I was filtering my list of contrarians to include
only ‘contrarians who don’t have their heads stuck up their @$$e$.’
without realizing it. It’s amazing how that cuts the list down to a
manageable size. <img alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/simple-smile.png" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" /><br />
But I know what you are saying about people rejecting the greenhouse
effect, I’m about ready to rip out my hair right now due to such an
argument. It truly amazes me sometimes, the lengths people will go to
and the tricks they will use to try to stave off the inevitable…<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9441">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9441">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9441">
<time datetime="2016-03-18T23:06:33+00:00">
March 18, 2016 at 11:06 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Isn’t it remarkable how excluding contradictory evidence will tend to make it easy to reach incorrect conclusions:? <br />
<img alt="😛" class="emoji" draggable="false" src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/72x72/1f61b.png" /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9442">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9442">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ec8f201ba255ceb7994c69f80acea0?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9442">
<time datetime="2016-03-19T03:13:06+00:00">
March 19, 2016 at 3:13 am </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon S.,<br />
<blockquote>
Instead, they merely required papers do things like acknowledge methane is a greenhouse.</blockquote>
Read the <a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/91GL00351/abstract" rel="nofollow">first sentence of the abstract</a><br />
<i>Methane may have been released to the atmosphere during the
Quaternary from Arctic shelf gas-hydrates as a result of thermal
decomposition caused by climatic warming and rising sea-level; this
release of methane (a greenhouse gas) may represent a positive feedback
on global warming [Revelle, 1983; Kvenvolden, 1988a; Nisbet, 1990].</i><br />
<br />
Keeping in mind that Nuccitelli rated this abstract as a 3 (implicit
endorsement), ask yourself whether you think that methane clathrates
“care” whether the initial warming triggering the feedback is due to any
other man-made forcing (like CO2) or purely natural mechanisms (such as
the orbital forcings responsible for the timing of ice ages).<br />
<blockquote>
A person who thinks humans contribute only 25% of the
observed warming could well acknowledge methane is a greenhouse gas, so
merely acknowledging it is one cannot possibly be an endorsement of the
idea humans are responsible for 50+% of the observed warming.</blockquote>
Academic. Also noted in the body of Cook (2015):<br />
<br />
<i><b>4.1. Sources of uncertainty</b></i><br />
<i>
</i><i>The process of determining the level of consensus in the
peer-reviewed literature contains several sources of uncertainty,
including the representativeness of the sample, lack of clarity in the
abstracts and subjectivity in rating the abstracts.</i><br />
<blockquote>
I have never said anything remotely like this. I don’t
know how you came to “understand [my] argument” like this, but it is not
because anything I have actually written.</blockquote>
Pot … meet kettle.<br />
<blockquote>
And because they don’t say one way or another, it is completely wrong to claim they endorse a particular position.</blockquote>
Friendly reminder that authors themselves were asked to rate their own entire paper, not just the abstracts.<br />
<blockquote>
That is exactly why you will never see me saying the
papers in Categories 2 and 3 say humans are responsible for only a
little part of the observed warming.</blockquote>
Yeah, that would be pretty ludicrous since categories for “only a little” were among the eight bins:<br />
<br />
<i>(5) Implicit rejection<br />
Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without
saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main
cause of global warming </i><br />
<br />
<i>
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification<br />
Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming<br />
<br />
</i><i>(7) Explicit rejection with quantification<br />
Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming</i><br />
<br />
Note that they are the mirror opposites of categories 1-3.<br />
<blockquote>
What they say is consistent with that idea just like what
they say is consistent with the idea humans are the main cause of
global warming. You can’t arbitrarily decide them failing to state a
position means they endorse a specific one any more than I can
arbitrarily decide them failing to state a position means they endorse
the opposite one.</blockquote>
I can arbitrarily decide whatever I want to … that’s what “arbitrary”
means. Hence, the good practice of soliciting multiple opinions on
these sorts of things.<br />
<br />
Another friendly reminder that authors participated in this process
and classified their own work. It stand to reason if the author thought
their own results supported the conclusion that human activities
supported “only a little” warming or none at all, they would have
selected one of the bins 5-7.<br />
<blockquote>
Whether or not there is a particular consensus is
completely irrelevant to whether or not Cook et al did their work in a
good or honest manner.</blockquote>
If the results are of no consequence, one wonders why you then care whether Cook et al. were honest or not.<br />
Pull my other one.<br />
<blockquote>
Here’s the difference between you and me.</blockquote>
I allow for differing opinions on subjective topics, and don’t
presume that someone is perpetrating fraud just because I don’t agree
with their methods or conclusions.<br />
<blockquote>
I’ve spent a great deal of time and effort explaining the reasoning for what I say.</blockquote>
So have I.<br />
<blockquote>
You make absurd claims about what my positions are that have no basis in reality.</blockquote>
Sauce for the goose.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9443">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9443">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ec8f201ba255ceb7994c69f80acea0?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9443">
<time datetime="2016-03-19T03:26:36+00:00">
March 19, 2016 at 3:26 am </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon S.,<br />
<blockquote>
But if there is any sort of “official” ban on Dragon
Slayers, it’s not one that is actually enforced. That’s why Tim Ball is
still one of the (if not the?) most frequenter authors at WUWT.</blockquote>
Good point. Now that I think about it, the ban applies specifically
the Principia crew and at least one fellow called Konrad who asserts
that CO2 leads to cooling at ALL levels of the atmosphere, not just the
stratosphere. Much hand-waving ensues upon asking him why Venus isn’t
colder than Pluto.<br />
Most everyone else gets through.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9444">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9444">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ec8f201ba255ceb7994c69f80acea0?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9444">
<time datetime="2016-03-19T03:34:27+00:00">
March 19, 2016 at 3:34 am </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Mark Bofill,<br />
<blockquote>
Somehow as I said I was filtering my list of contrarians
to include only ‘contrarians who don’t have their heads stuck up their
@$$e$.’ without realizing it. It’s amazing how that cuts the list down
to a manageable size.</blockquote>
My own (self-known) bias is that I have spent an (inordinate) amount
of time on WUWT over the past year and a half to pretty much the
exclusion of most other contrarian blogs. I check in on Dr. Curry’s
place and Bishop Hill from time to time, but not enough to have a good
sense of how the main objections differ. Impressions are that most
Curry fans are lukewarmers concerned about uncertainty and scientific
integrity. The BH gang seem like the UK version of WUWT.<br />
<blockquote>
It truly amazes me sometimes, the lengths people will go to and the tricks they will use to try to stave off the inevitable…</blockquote>
On that we agree.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9447">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9447">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d58b3a9908b5fe6fce3d479a2e9e5f67?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Mark Bofill</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9447">
<time datetime="2016-03-19T17:42:13+00:00">
March 19, 2016 at 5:42 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Thanks Brandon Gates.<br />
Brandon Shollenberger,<br />
<blockquote>
Isn’t it remarkable how excluding contradictory evidence will tend to make it easy to reach incorrect conclusions:? </blockquote>
LOL. What can I say sir. The really funny part (to me) is that I
honestly wouldn’t have seen it without having someone point it out. <br />
<img alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/simple-smile.png" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9448">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9448">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9448">
<time datetime="2016-03-19T17:54:39+00:00">
March 19, 2016 at 5:54 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon Gates:<br />
<blockquote>
Keeping in mind that Nuccitelli rated this abstract as a 3
(implicit endorsement), ask yourself whether you think that methane
clathrates “care” whether the initial warming triggering the feedback is
due to any other man-made forcing (like CO2) or purely natural
mechanisms (such as the orbital forcings responsible for the timing of
ice ages).</blockquote>
That doesn’t matter. The abstract doesn’t state whether or not the
human contribution to global warming is large or small, so you cannot
state that it does. <br />
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
That is exactly why you will never see me saying
the papers in Categories 2 and 3 say humans are responsible for only a
little part of the observed warming.
Yeah, that would be pretty ludicrous since categories for “only a little” were among the eight bins</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Those are for ones which actually state that the human contribution
is small. Once you decide to arbitrarily interpret categories as
meaning things that aren’t stated anywhere, people can do the same.
Nothing in Categories 2 or 3 state whether the human contribution is
small or large, so if you’re free to interpret it one way, people are
free to interpret it another.<br />
<blockquote>
Another friendly reminder that authors participated in
this process and classified their own work. It stand to reason if the
author thought their own results supported the conclusion that human
activities supported “only a little” warming or none at all, they would
have selected one of the bins 5-7.</blockquote>
Interestingly, if you actually look at the categories objectively,
you find papers could be classified in more than one category. I wrote
an <a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/why-symmetry-is-bad/" rel="nofollow">entire post</a>
about this because the symemtry you highlight in these categories is
actually not symmetry. There’s no particular reason to assume the
authors of the papers would self-rate in any particular way.<br />
<br />
Though really, none of this changes the point. If you can
arbitrarily redefine categories however you want, people can do the same
even if you think their interpretations are “ludicrous.” After all,
they can think the same about your interpretations. That’s why in
science we normally state what things mean and stick to that rather than
just hoping people can guess what we mean. I think that might be done
outside of science too.<br />
<blockquote>
I can arbitrarily decide whatever I want to … that’s what “arbitrary” means. </blockquote>
Fair. I should have said, “With any reasonability.” You can
arbitrarily choose to believe whatever you want, even though it
obviously untrue, if you wish. It’ll just be silly and irrational.<br />
<blockquote>
Pot … meet kettle.<br />
…<br />
So have I.<br />
…<br />
Sauce for the goose.</blockquote>
These are not comments designed to further a discussion. I recommend
you cut the petty attitude from your comments if you want to convince
anybody of anything other than, “I’m rude, arrogant and don’t care what
you have to say.”<br />
It generally helps to directly and clearly address what people have
said. Using attitude and rudeness like this to avoid doing so is a bad
thing.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9449">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9449">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9449">
<time datetime="2016-03-19T18:33:51+00:00">
March 19, 2016 at 6:33 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
For fun, since I think the exchange with Brandon Gates has shown
how fruitless discussion can be, I’m going to post a little material
from the Skeptical Science forum (which he falsely suggests I hacked in a
criminal activity). A couple hours after Dana Nuccitelli said:<br />
<blockquote>
The way I see the final paper is that we’ll conclude
‘There’s an x% consensus supporting the AGW theory, and y% explicitly
put the human contribution at >50%</blockquote>
Which would have been the sensible way to do this project, with the
authors examining the different positions people might take on global
warming and how many people support those positions, he said:<br />
<blockquote>
That’s fine – I think we’ve agreed not to put IPCC endorsements in category #1. I’m okay with that.<br />
Category 2 is “Explicitly endorses but does not quantify (or minimize) AGW.” Thus it doesn’t require an assumption of >50%.</blockquote>
This is the sort of remark I had in mind when I said the authors of
the paper directly contradicted Brandon Gates in their forums. His
suggestion Categories 2 and 3 endorse the idea humans are the main cause
of global warming would fly in the face of an author saying, in a post
titled, “Defining the scientific consensus,” Category 2 “doesn’t require
an assumption of >50%” contribution. In the topic, “Proposed
methodology,” John Cook listed these as qualifications for Category 3:<br />
<blockquote>
Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration<br />
Climate modelling papers that talks about emission scenarios and
subsequent warming or other climate impacts from increased CO2 in the
abstract implicitly endorse that GHGs cause warming<br />
Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change<br />
Papers about climate policy (specifically mitigation of GHG emissions)
unless they restrict their focus to non-GHG issues like CFC emissions in
which case they’re neutral<br />
Modelling of increased CO2 effect on regional temperature – not explicitly saying global warming but implying warming from CO2<br />
Endorsement of IPCC findings is usually an implicit endorsement.
(updated this so it’s more than just reference to IPCC but actual
endorsement of IPCC)</blockquote>
Not a single mention of humans being the main driving force of global
warming. But that’s a boring demonstration. What’s more entertaining
is this one from the previously mentioned post, where Cook says in the
discussion, as I highlighted in a post <a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/climate-science-p0rn/" rel="nofollow">more than two years ago</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
Okay, so we’ve ruled out a definition of AGW being “any
amount of human influence” or “more than 50% human influence”. We’re
basically going with Ari’s p0rno approach (I probably should stop
calling it that <img alt=":-)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/simple-smile.png" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" />
which is AGW = “humans are causing global warming”. Eg – no specific
quantification which is the only way we can do it considering the
breadth of papers we’re surveying.</blockquote>
This was a reference to the famous saying by a court judge where he
said he may not be able to define what pornography is, but he knows it
when he sees it. In other words, while Cook et al were fully aware of
the fact there are multiple consensus positions, as indicated by things
like Nuccitelli saying:<br />
<blockquote>
For the first consensus position, only #1 qualifies as an endorsement, while #6 and 7 are rejections.<br />
For the second consensus position, #1 through 3 are endorsements while only #7 is a rejection.</blockquote>
They decided not to examine both consensus positions. In fact, they
decided not to examine either. Instead, they decided to use a “p0rno
approach” and not even define the “consensus.” they were examining.
Then, after directly stating they had ruled out the definition of their
“consensus” being “”more than 50% human influence,” they went on to
repeatedly claim they had found a 97% consensus humans are the main
cause of global warming.<br />
<br />
Now mind you, they didn’t decide to collapse these categories until
after they collected the data. They discussed the possibility, with
Cook saying things like:<br />
<blockquote>
I’m not a big fan of complicating the endorsement
categories unnecessarily but on the other hand, we can always collapse
it down to a simpler final result and get the best of both worlds. </blockquote>
But at the time they did their ratings, they intentionally left open
the possibility of examining their data by comparing categories in a
non-symmetrical way so they could examine both positions of interest
(humans are contributing to GW; humans are the main cause of GW), saying
they’d collapse the categories later if they wanted. Then, after they
had finished their ratings, they decided to collapse the categories
together to get a singular “consensus” position which they portrayed as
humans are the main cause of global warming, a definition they had
explicitly ruled out prior to beginning the project.<br />
Oh, and for more fun, these ratings were Phase 2 of the project. Phase 1:<br />
<blockquote>
Jim’s paper is “Phase 1” of TCP (see [link no longer
works]. Jim’s paper was submitted to Science but got rejected, it’s now
under consideration at Eos. Currently we’re discussing the methodology
of Phase 2.</blockquote>
During Phase 1:<br />
<blockquote>
However, to me, what had me falling one way or the other
was this. As I was looking through the papers in Phase 1, I noticed a
number of papers that were kick-arse papers that not only endorsed AGW
but also quantified and found evidence for AGW. </blockquote>
So John Cook looked at all these papers prior to designing the rating
system, then he participated in the rating process, contributing a
couple thousand ratings. Because apparently he saw nothing wrong with
that. I like to think pretty much anyone who understands how science
work would.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9450">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9450">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9450">
<time datetime="2016-03-19T18:56:36+00:00">
March 19, 2016 at 6:56 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Mark Bofill:<br />
<blockquote>
LOL. What can I say sir. The really funny part (to me) is
that I honestly wouldn’t have seen it without having someone point it
out. <img alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/simple-smile.png" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" /></blockquote>
No worries. Plenty of people do the same thing, or even worse things, without ever noticing. It’s like how you say:<br />
<blockquote>
It truly amazes me sometimes, the lengths people will go to and the tricks they will use to try to stave off the inevitable…</blockquote>
And I suspect most people would agree with that sentiment. They just won’t agree on who is doing it when.</div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9454">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9454">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ec8f201ba255ceb7994c69f80acea0?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9454">
<time datetime="2016-03-19T22:22:13+00:00">
March 19, 2016 at 10:22 pm </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon S.,<br />
<blockquote>
That doesn’t matter. The abstract doesn’t state whether
or not the human contribution to global warming is large or small, so
you cannot state that it does.</blockquote>
Hence the stated need to solicit author self-reviews of their own <b>entire</b> paper. By my calculations far and away the greatest discrepancy was in category 4 abstracts that should have been rated 1-3:<br />
<br />
Chg n % tot<br />
— — —–<br />
4>1 75 3.5%<br />
4>2 297 13.9%<br />
4>3 349 16.3%<br />
— —–<br />
Total 721 33.8%<br />
<br />
This methane paper you’re using as anecdotal evidence was a category
3. The SkS team overrated 7.1% of those papers compared to the
self-reviews:<br />
<br />
Chg n % tot<br />
— — —–<br />
3>4 144 6.7%<br />
3>5 4 0.2%<br />
3>6 3 0.1%<br />
3>7 1 0.0%<br />
— —–<br />
Total 152 7.1%<br />
<br />
On the other hand, they underrated category 3 papers at a rate 1.7 times greater than they overrated:<br />
<br />
Chg n % tot<br />
— — —–<br />
3>1 86 4.0%<br />
3>2 170 8.0%<br />
— —–<br />
Total 256 12.0%<br />
<br />
I’ll usually go with believing what quantified probability suggests over what mere anecdote suggests is possible.<br />
<blockquote>
Those are for ones which actually state that the human
contribution is small. Once you decide to arbitrarily interpret
categories as meaning things that aren’t stated anywhere, people can do
the same.</blockquote>
Surely you’re not suggesting that a PhD researcher would read all
seven categories and think they weren’t intended to be mutually
exclusive? Or that upon seeing a category which uses the words
“minimal”, “minimize”, “rejects” or “causing less than half” wouldn’t
choose one of THOSE categories?<br />
<blockquote>
Interestingly, if you actually look at the categories
objectively, you find papers could be classified in more than one
category.</blockquote>
… looks like that’s what you ARE suggesting. But of course, because you explicitly state in the Amazon summary of your book …<br />
<br />
<i>The point of this book is not to disprove the “consensus” on
global warming, and it doesn’t attempt to examine whether or not there
is one.</i><br />
<br />
… somehow I doubt that you will be much interested in testing a
hypothesis that climate researchers are too stupid to know how to take a
survey, to lazy to bounce an e-mail to the SkS team for clarification,
or are such myopically naive hair-splitting pedants that they didn’t
immediately grok from context that Cook and friends meant categories 2
and 3 to be the mirror opposites of 6 and 5 respectively.<br />
<blockquote>
That’s why in science we normally state what things mean
and stick to that rather than just hoping people can guess what we mean.</blockquote>
I agree with that.<br />
<blockquote>
I think that might be done outside of science too.</blockquote>
Politics being one exception which springs to mind immediately.<br />
<blockquote>
Fair. I should have said, “With any reasonability.” You
can arbitrarily choose to believe whatever you want, even though it
obviously untrue, if you wish. It’ll just be silly and irrational.</blockquote>
You’re back to implying that subjective definitions can be
objectively true or false. I know you’ve explicitly said otherwise, but
“obviously untrue” does not seem compatible with the concept of a
simplified and arbitrary definition of a very complex subject. 2 + 2 = 5
is “obviously untrue”. It’s objectively false by definitions which are
anything but arbitrary.<br />
<blockquote>
Using attitude and rudeness like this to avoid doing so is a bad thing.</blockquote>
That’s funny. Here’s a challenge for you: write a full blog post
that takes a critical position on something you feel strongly about but
which doesn’t impute motive.</div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9455">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9455">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/72731ded6aa5ea75024ed11fee92ea8d?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Steven Mosher</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9455">
<time datetime="2016-03-20T01:08:25+00:00">
March 20, 2016 at 1:08 am </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
wow I thought arguing with skeptics that C02 is a GHG was tedious, but watching Gates twist and turn is hilarious.<br />
As you probably know Brandon long ago I used to do content
analysis. Cook’s study violated just about every control we would have
used.<br />
<br />
It’s stunningly bad practice. And yes, I think the consensus ( humans
cause more than 50% of the warming) is held by the vast vast majority<br />
of folks published in climate science. Not that it matters. Rotten
content analysis is still rotten content analysis. I don’t see why my
belief in AGW compels me to defend awful work.. oh ya it doesn’t.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9456">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9456">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9456">
<time datetime="2016-03-20T01:51:23+00:00">
March 20, 2016 at 1:51 am </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Brandon Gates:<br />
<blockquote>
Hence the stated need to solicit author self-reviews of
their own entire paper. By my calculations far and away the greatest
discrepancy was in category 4 abstracts that should have been rated 1-3</blockquote>
The authors doing their self-ratings used the same criteria as the
Skeptical Science group, so any issues with the rating system would be
present in both. That the same rating system produces similar results
when applied to different data sets doesn’t indicate the rating system
is fine.<br />
<blockquote>
Surely you’re not suggesting that a PhD researcher would
read all seven categories and think they weren’t intended to be mutually
exclusive? Or that upon seeing a category which uses the words
“minimal”, “minimize”, “rejects” or “causing less than half” wouldn’t
choose one of THOSE categories?</blockquote>
I’m not suggesting anything about what people would do. I’m merely
stating if one allows people to arbitrarily redefine categories, there
is no limit to what can be done. You can consider a particular
redefinition “ludicrous” if you want, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
(Though I’ve shown as defined, the categories are not mutually
exclusive, so it would hardly be surprising if some respondents failed
to view the categories as mutually exclusive.)<br />
<blockquote>
… looks like that’s what you ARE suggesting. But of course, because you explicitly state in the Amazon summary of your book …<br />
“The point of this book is not to disprove the “consensus” on global
warming, and it doesn’t attempt to examine whether or not there is one.”<br />
… somehow I doubt that you will be much interested in testing a
hypothesis that climate researchers are too stupid to know how to take a
survey, to lazy to bounce an e-mail to the SkS team for clarification,
or are such myopically naive hair-splitting pedants that they didn’t
immediately grok from context that Cook and friends meant categories 2
and 3 to be the mirror opposites of 6 and 5 respectively.</blockquote>
You can believe or doubt whatever you want, but I gave a clear and
simple demonstration of how the categories are not mutually exclusive,
as defined by Cook et al. Your use of rhetoric and attitude will do
nothing to contradict what I demonstrated.<br />
<blockquote>
You’re back to implying that subjective definitions can
be objectively true or false. I know you’ve explicitly said otherwise,
but “obviously untrue” does not seem compatible with the concept of a
simplified and arbitrary definition of a very complex subject. 2 + 2 = 5
is “obviously untrue”. It’s objectively false by definitions which are
anything but arbitrary.</blockquote>
I haven’t said, or even suggested, “subjective definitions can be
objectively true or false.” What I’ve said is we can tell which
subjective definitions were applied by using the authors’ words to
determine what standards they applied. This misrepresentation of yours
is rather remarkable given how many words I spent examining which
subjective definitions were used while not stating any were true or
false.<br />
(Also, 2 + 2 does not equal 5 under any non-arbitrary definitions.
All of math is inherently based on arbitrary definitions. That is a
fundamental truth of math which should be recognized by anyone who truly
understands it. I wouldn’t normally stress this point but I happen to
have a love for math and have discussed this very point on this site
before.)<br />
<blockquote>
That’s funny. Here’s a challenge for you: write a full
blog post that takes a critical position on something you feel strongly
about but which doesn’t impute motive.</blockquote>
I would have to first write a blog post that takes a critical
position on something I feel strongly about. I can’t recall having done
that, save for a couple posts in which I clearly indicated I was using a
rhetorical approach. For the most part, I don’t care much about these
topics. I don’t have any strong feelings regarding the Cook et al
paper. There was maybe one or two moments where I did, but mostly, I
just find it an interesting curiosity.<br />
<br />
Beyond that, why would a person need to not impute motive in any blog
post? I criticized your attitude and rudeness. You can impute motive
without using either. In fact, I can explicitly ascribe a motive to a
person without using attitude or rudeness. I’ve done it many times.
Ascribing a motive to a person has almost nothing to do with being rude
or copping an attitude.<br />
Though for the record, all of this comment could be ignored because
nothing in anything you said or I’ve said here has any real bearing on
the central issue, as I have <a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9449" rel="nofollow">laid out here</a>.
You seem determined to avoid discussing the central issue. I don’t
know why. I wouldn’t care to guess. I do, however, think it is
remarkable how much time you’re spending on tangents while ignoring it.<br />
<br /></div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-brandon-shollenberger bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-9457">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9457">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18f94287895afd654d918f9bbcd67735?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn">Brandon Shollenberger</b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9457">
<time datetime="2016-03-20T01:59:21+00:00">
March 20, 2016 at 1:59 am </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Steven Mosher:<br />
<blockquote>
As you probably know Brandon long ago I used to do
content analysis. Cook’s study violated just about every control we
would have used.<br />
It’s stunningly bad practice. And yes, I think the consensus ( humans
cause more than 50% of the warming) is held by the vast vast majority</blockquote>
Interestingly, I have no real opinion on what the actual numerical
value for that consensus position would be. I think if the Skeptical
Science group had used the consensus position of, “Humans are
contributing to global warming to some extent,” they would have found a
99+% consensus. I think if they would have used the consensus position
of, “Humans are the main cause of global warming,” they would have found
a <97% consensus. I think by conflating the two they managed to
achieve a very desirable figure of 97%.<br />
<br />
But I don't think that tells us anything about what any consensus on
global warming might be. I think this paper is complete and utter
dreck. I wouldn't have the slightest idea of how to generate truly
useful information (on how strong any consensus is) from it. And I
don't have any real views on the "consensus" on global warming, other
than to say there have been other bad papers written to reach similar
conclusions.<br />
<br />
I don't even find the idea of there being a consensus interesting
enough to try to reach a conclusion on what any numerical values would
be. I just think when complete and utter dreck is promoted at the
highest of levels it's worth pointing out and discussing. I don't
really care what the "right" answer is. I just don't like the idea of
BS being promoted as sound science to the public and used as a basis for
policy decisions.<br />
<br />
I can't say I've seen a "consensus" study I think was done
appropriately or whose results should be accepted, much less trusted,
but I also don't have any strong views on what such a study would show
if it were properly done.</div>
</article>
</li>
<li class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-9458">
<article class="comment-body" id="div-comment-9458">
<footer class="comment-meta">
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<img alt="" class="avatar avatar-40 photo" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ec8f201ba255ceb7994c69f80acea0?s=40&d=blank&r=pg" height="40" width="40" /> <b class="fn"><a class="url" data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="true" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="true" data-slimstat-type="0" href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Brandon Gates</a></b> </div>
<div class="comment-metadata">
<a data-slimstat-async="false" data-slimstat-callback="false" data-slimstat-clicked="false" data-slimstat-tracking="false" data-slimstat-type="2" href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/03/reactions-to-the-new-ebook/#comment-9458">
<time datetime="2016-03-20T02:06:39+00:00">
March 20, 2016 at 2:06 am </time>
</a>
</div>
</footer>
<div class="comment-content">
Steven,<br />
I’m on record at ATTP’s as saying I’d rather discuss tree rings than Cook (2013). Speaking of ambiguity …<br />
<blockquote>
As you probably know Brandon long ago I used to do
content analysis. Cook’s study violated just about every control we
would have used.</blockquote>
Regardless which one of us you were addressing, I did not know you used to do content analysis. I know nothing of it, however …<br />
<blockquote>
[Shollenberger]: Now mind you, they didn’t decide to
collapse these categories until after they collected the data. They
discussed the possibility, with Cook saying things like:<br />
<blockquote>
I’m not a big fan of complicating the endorsement
categories unnecessarily but on the other hand, we can always collapse
it down to a simpler final result and get the best of both worlds.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
THAT doesn’t smell right.<br />
<br />
Painful as it is to admit, Brandon S., you now have my full attention.</div>
</article></li>
</ol>
<br />
------------<br />
<br />
To be continued. </div>
</article></li>
</ol>
</div>
</article></li>
</ol>
Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-87332539271474953472016-03-06T22:39:00.000-08:002016-03-17T02:11:23.732-07:00Lapse Rate on Venus, Part 2<h4>
Review of Part 1</h4>
In the first post of this series I made two plots which warrant being shown sequentially without any intervening verbosity:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPjOycbRb-YwgfWFdeWRvNRedmXbQPgyi07oNWs8ylMOodGTC4-bOqF8l3DMV0d6pLHPSzBwvEdqsSQtOa3cnYlGpn9XUjZi0v-e0SMBeMrYHsPsctlJKKb9si6luoyLlWwGCghw8XOH4/s1600/Venus+Temperature+Profile+Constrained+Lapse+Rate.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPjOycbRb-YwgfWFdeWRvNRedmXbQPgyi07oNWs8ylMOodGTC4-bOqF8l3DMV0d6pLHPSzBwvEdqsSQtOa3cnYlGpn9XUjZi0v-e0SMBeMrYHsPsctlJKKb9si6luoyLlWwGCghw8XOH4/s640/Venus+Temperature+Profile+Constrained+Lapse+Rate.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1 - Observed and (simplistically) modelled temperature profiles of Venus from the surface to 150 km altitude.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheAvd5HRLFI-hBmIwBJUwk0W1jCJLaA19wLmeBcn071zeihDgC7J6Vh4ijNYkYmUrMhuNv0Aj2B_WvuifqiTChvmzzwjvIsEhFUnvQjklgN0F_jnksOL_11QC5D0tGetNhnFzge1jMiFs/s1600/Venus+Graybody+Flux+Profile+Constrained+Lapse+Rate+Log.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheAvd5HRLFI-hBmIwBJUwk0W1jCJLaA19wLmeBcn071zeihDgC7J6Vh4ijNYkYmUrMhuNv0Aj2B_WvuifqiTChvmzzwjvIsEhFUnvQjklgN0F_jnksOL_11QC5D0tGetNhnFzge1jMiFs/s640/Venus+Graybody+Flux+Profile+Constrained+Lapse+Rate+Log.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 2 - Calculated blackbody radiant fluxes of the temperature curves shown in Figure 1.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
As I see it, some takeaways from Figure 1 are:<br />
<ol>
<li>The dry adiabatic lapse rate as modelled by -g/Cp explains most of the observed temperature profile up to 60 km with reasonable fidelity.</li>
<li>Extending the lapse rate curve much past 80 km altitude results in a physically ridiculous negative absolute temperature prediction and ..</li>
<li>... it's obviously inconsistent with observation above 60 km.</li>
<li>As drawn, the dry adiabatic lapse rate curve intercepting observation at (261 K, 60 km) predicts a surface temperature of 887 K, or 148 K higher than the observed value.</li>
<li>According to <a href="http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS14/14EVM-5.html" target="_blank">some class notes</a> I obtained from a quick Google session, dry adiabatic lapse rate should be less than observed lapse rate in a convective atmospheric regime. <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/lapse-rate-on-venus-part-1.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><b>In Part 1 I goofed</b></a>: the other way of saying this is that when actual absolute temperature is greater than what -g/Cp would predict, the atmosphere is destabilized from below by the relative buoyancy of the warmer air, and convection is the result.</li>
<li>Above 60 km, stuff happens which -g/Cp cannot explain, but neither should it be ignored.</li>
</ol>
Point (5), being an egregious error on my part, needs to be sorted first ...<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<h4>
Revisiting g/Cp Absolute Temperature Predictions on Venus</h4>
So, not only is it physically invalid for lapse rate to predict negative absolute temperatures, it is my present understanding that a lapse rate that predicts a higher absolute temperature throughout a known convective atmospheric regime is also nonsense. There is a graphic in the class notes I've been referencing which makes this clear (unless, like me, one first misinterprets it):<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuMcDaPQSTo9VAcHRne2z89oeMlUVe9_2ak8CIygDyWG_bbRTov_lqAfzKY95JqOdbgwNozrePF7kx0Z3JFAniSx_0SLDp6HiGCGoTgfbckyWWelP0TcuNwzyNH0LPo9kJ3uJO_zsnJAY/s1600/class+notes+lapse+rate+stable+vs+unstable+Fig3-10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="314" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuMcDaPQSTo9VAcHRne2z89oeMlUVe9_2ak8CIygDyWG_bbRTov_lqAfzKY95JqOdbgwNozrePF7kx0Z3JFAniSx_0SLDp6HiGCGoTgfbckyWWelP0TcuNwzyNH0LPo9kJ3uJO_zsnJAY/s640/class+notes+lapse+rate+stable+vs+unstable+Fig3-10.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 3 - stable (non-convective) vs. non-stable (convective) atmospheric conditions. Supporting text from original:<br />
<div align="left">
<i><b>- - - - -</b> = adiabatic lapse rate,
White line = actual lapse rate </i></div>
<i>
</i>
<br />
<div align="left">
<i>- if cools faster than adiabatic - stable (cool air sinks)</i></div>
<i>
</i>
<br />
<div align="left">
<i>- if cools slower than than adiabatic - unstable (warm air rises)</i></div>
<i>
</i>
<br />
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<i>
</i>
<br />
<div align="left">
<i>..... which leads us to circulation patterns - next class.</i></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Where I cocked this up is in shifting the x-axis intercept in my Figure 1 above by forcing the -g/Cp curve to intercept the observed profile at 60 km. It makes for a visually easy way to find the point at which convection stalls and temperature profile <b>above</b> that point ceases to track adiabatic lapse rate.<br />
<br />
The part I got right is that when the slope of the actual temperature profile is greater than adiabatic lapse rate, we expect instability and upward convection. Stability and no convection for the converse.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, my visual convenience lead to making physically untenable (i.e. dead wrong) predictions about what absolute surface temperature "should be" at the surface were it not for convection.<br />
<br />
It's now abundantly clear to me one way in which there is such confusion out there when lapse rate is invoked to explain absolute surface temperature ... quite obviously I am not immune to mucking it up either.<br />
<br />
The above plot takes the surface temperature as the known given, and sets the x-intercept there. And why not: we have many thermometers on the ground, not so many at altitude. And as I keep emphasizing: <b>convection begins as a result of solar SW being absorbed by the surface over land, below the surface over bodies of water</b>.<br />
<br />
This calls for a revised -g/Cp model for Venus, thus:<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho2aIb2VOh21C36feTE9sigcMrog1URHW-pMvgMg4UZTEy4h_fYUaldx-NbnlHsuuulDlG6zAPYGCFZ-UJUd_IjwMFwdSyovC7DHPUlH8Z0-gKieMG70mb42NDhTISNlgXEnMh88bk_JY/s1600/Venus+Temperature+Profile+Constrained+Lapse+Rate+x-intercept+at+obs+surf+temp.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho2aIb2VOh21C36feTE9sigcMrog1URHW-pMvgMg4UZTEy4h_fYUaldx-NbnlHsuuulDlG6zAPYGCFZ-UJUd_IjwMFwdSyovC7DHPUlH8Z0-gKieMG70mb42NDhTISNlgXEnMh88bk_JY/s640/Venus+Temperature+Profile+Constrained+Lapse+Rate+x-intercept+at+obs+surf+temp.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 4 - Venus lapse rate model with same -g/Cp slope used in Figure
1, but with x-intercept set to observed surface temperature.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
This makes much more sense than the way I plotted it originally because now temperatures are warmer at all altitudes than -g/Cp would predict. And why not? It really should be beyond dispute that:<br />
<ol>
<li>The main energy source for pretty much any planet in this system is the Sun.</li>
<li>Unless astrophysicists have missed something major, radiative loss is the main mechanism by which all Solar System bodies dissipate absorbed solar energy back into the dark, quite cold, void of outer space.</li>
<li>It therefore follows that gaseous planetary atmospheres being compressed by gravity cannot reasonably sustain higher temperatures than the sum of radiative gains less radiative losses.</li>
</ol>
Be that as it may, the above IS disputed. This wants examples, but they'll have to wait for next post; I have different fish to fry for today's discussion.<br />
<br />
First one to batter up and hold over the hot oil is that silly light-blue cubic spline curve fit I added in as the -g/Cp ramp runs impossibly toward negative Kelvin territory. Again, I think it looks plausible, but there's no real physics behind it except for the two anchoring points in the middle, which you will note have taken up different residence from where they were placed in Figure 1.<br />
<br />
The rightmost one at (428 K, 30 km) is based on the Wikipedia Article on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Atmosphere of Venus</a>, which includes this visual:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRufPq6VM5DoXNoB96wWQoxX5LMOxjDqP8UmArj5zxcLrZUttvLYTSNcIQsWXRazqnNBkIg9v8Alxm-sBz6_ubp2BxObajxGIgAD0ryKeXcMS3Zj82sQhkzXryxGHCc2pZ6lKfqppXQA8/s1600/Venusatmosphere+layers.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="406" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRufPq6VM5DoXNoB96wWQoxX5LMOxjDqP8UmArj5zxcLrZUttvLYTSNcIQsWXRazqnNBkIg9v8Alxm-sBz6_ubp2BxObajxGIgAD0ryKeXcMS3Zj82sQhkzXryxGHCc2pZ6lKfqppXQA8/s640/Venusatmosphere+layers.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 5 - Schematic of the Venusian atmosphere giving some hints about its vertical composition. It's also gratifying to note I'm not the only one fond of smoothed temperature profiles.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Where the clouds and haze are will be important later. For now, note that the 10 bar layer corresponds to about 30 km, which for now I am calling the equivalent of Earth's tropopause; specifically, the point at which deep convection stalls and radiative transfers come into their own to explain temperature profiles. Annoyingly, lapse rate continues to follow what -g/Cp would suggest right up to about 60 km as shown in my Figures 1 and 4. Hold that thought for now.<br />
<br />
The (184 K, 84 km) anchor point in Figure 4 goes back to a statement from <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Benestad (2016)</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
On average, the net short-wave energy flux (visible light) on earth is roughly 240 W/m2, which must balance an equal upward energy flow for a planet in equilibrium.</blockquote>
For review, 240 W/m2 assumes Earth's solar constant is 1,371 W/m2. Divide by 2 to account for spherical geometry, and by 2 again to account for only half of the planet being sunlit at any given time, which gives 343 W/m^2. Multiply by 0.7 to account for Earth's albedo of 0.3 and we get 240 W/m2, a value which is in line with the <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">TF&K (2009)</a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsoQfX9a94shwJe4VWdIFgQ6k-DRAj9rbLlKEkqkm6QXbZzaN3dbD9uSO19lGuh2wof1H-sxTSCTjnx3jJl2Hb12g4KK_GjkuKfhmywOIHdDgW5qtFA38s8Fk8kRDT5IkmflFRlR6TLL8/s1600/Trenberth+Fasullo+and+Kiehl+2009+Fig1_GheatMap.png" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">energy budget cartoon</a>.<br />
<br />
Down the same page, Benestad continues:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>In the atmosphere, IR light can be absorbed and re-emitted multiple times before its energy reaches the emission level where it is free to escape to space (Pierrehumbert 2011).</b> The process of repeated absorption and re-emission will result in a more diffuse structure for the OLR at the top of the atmosphere. Hence, for an observer viewing the earth from above (e.g., a satellite instrument measuring the OLR), the bulk IR light source is expected to be both more diffuse and located at increasing heights with greater concentrations of GHGs, as the depth to which the observer can see into the atmosphere gets shallower for more opaque air. <b>This altitude is henceforth referred to as the ’equivalent bulk emission level’ and is the 254 K isotherm ZT254 K.</b> It represents the mean height for both cloudy and cloud-free regions.</blockquote>
My emphasis. First one because it's something I find necessary to keep repeating to Chic. Second one because for me, it was a Eureka moment when I read Benestad's summary of the principle in <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/what-is-the-best-description-of-the-greenhouse-effect/" target="_blank">his RealClimate post</a> about the paper:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The depth in the atmosphere from which the earth’s heat loss to space takes place is often referred to as the emission height. For simplicity, we can assume that the emission height is where the temperature is 254K in order for the associated black body radiation to match the incoming flow of energy from the sun.</blockquote>
Which is not to say that emission height is the ONLY altitude at which the Earth loses energy to space. It's the <b>average</b> altitude at which <b>average</b> atmospheric temperature predicts a blackbody flux equal to the <b>average</b> solar energy absorbed by the entire system.<br />
<br />
That groundwork laid, it follows that the same principle holding true on Venus is as good a hypothesis as any. Reviewing information provided in the <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/lapse-rate-on-venus-part-1.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">previous post</a>:<br />
<br />
NASA's <a href="http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">fact sheet</a> has this to say about Venus:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Bond albedo 0.9<br />Visual geometric albedo 0.67<br />Visual magnitude V(1,0) -4.4<br />Solar irradiance (W/m2) 2601.3<br />Black-body temperature (K) 184</span></blockquote>
So, 2601.3 / 4 * (1 - 0.9) = 65 W/m^2.<br />
<br />
Plugging into Stefan-Boltzmann solved for temperature, (65 / 5.670367E-08)^0.25 = 184 K. The lowest altitude where that temperature occurs according to the observed profile is 84 km. Makes sense to me to anchor my spline fit curve to a point theory says should exist. So I did.<br />
<br />
Now. Review what I said about Figure 5 above:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Annoyingly, lapse rate continues to follow what -g/Cp would suggest
right up to about 60 km as shown in my Figures 1 and 4. Hold that
thought for now.</blockquote>
My cubic spline curve fit shows an obvious deviation away from the linear -g/Cp prediction. The Wikipedia author gives no references or justification for the shape of the temperature profile above the troposphere above 30 km. Maybe my eyeballs are playing tricks on me, but my plot appears to show a more pronounced departure from the linear lapse rate curve. Up to 80 km however, Figure 5 does show a decidedly steeper slope; in fact, at 80 km it's just about vertical. As my curve looks more like observation from a credible source I'm content to not quibble any longer and run with it for now.<br />
<br />
The big question now is: does my approximation from 30 km to 84 km make physical sense?<br />
<br />
I think so. Kind of. We'd expect near the point convection stalls that radiative cooling would become more dominant that adiabatic cooling, and hence, for there to be a departure from -g/Cp as the leading predictor of temperature change as a function of pressure and therefore altitude. We do indeed see this in the observed profile for Venus. I previously thought it was happening at 60 km because that's where the slope of the profile starts getting decidedly more vertical, just as happens on Earth at the tropopause:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLCc74HbdJNhVe4jIWQwwZrgqZ9dqsDUbL8RPFxxipd0yb9BiRaMOi-3bu-bHy0ckC54yTQ38iGEls4ayAzzmKrb4aZCq9iTT9g1X5WXrGoupNQnxEOoaUUzyOIMSxS2QKhQt0Mt1VEMo/s1600/earth-mars-venus.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLCc74HbdJNhVe4jIWQwwZrgqZ9dqsDUbL8RPFxxipd0yb9BiRaMOi-3bu-bHy0ckC54yTQ38iGEls4ayAzzmKrb4aZCq9iTT9g1X5WXrGoupNQnxEOoaUUzyOIMSxS2QKhQt0Mt1VEMo/s640/earth-mars-venus.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 5 - Venus, Earth and Mars temperature profile comparisons, redux. Note that Earth's is vertical (essentially isothermal) between 12 and 20 km because there's very little convection in the lower stratosphere.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
On the basis of Earth's isothermal lower stratosphere alone, my naive assumption would actually be that Venus' tropopause was actually around 90 km instead of 30 km as Wikipedia would have me believe.<br />
<br />
There's (at least) one more conundrum here; going back to Benestad (2016):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The temperature drops with height due to convective adjustment (standard atmosphere vertical temperature profile with decreasing temperature with height) and the radiative heating profile (Fleagle and Businger 1980; Houghton 1991; Peixoto and Oort 1992; Hartmann 1994), <b>and equals the emission temperature of 254 K at around 6.5 km above the ground</b> (Fig. S10 in the Supplementary Material).</blockquote>
My bold. Earth's tropopause is about 12 km. Altitude of effective emission (AEE) is <b>below</b> that at 6.5 km.<br />
<br />
Totally the reverse of Venus with tropopause at 30 km and an AEE (as I am calculating it) <b>above</b> that at 84 km. It's like the mother of all inversions. I am perhaps onto something there because, from Figure 5 above, note the sulphuric acid cloud decks living above 80 km.<br />
<br />
More questions that will have to wait for another time because there's one final thing I wanted to get to in this instalment ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
Does Cp Vary with Altitude?</h4>
Chic has <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1457073947480#c5342048764177832957" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">previously commented</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From above: I made a mistake with my calculation of the lapse rate for Venus based on –g/Cp. The 8.86 for g is correct, but Cp is not 1.2 other than at the surface. Cp varies with pressure. At 50 km, Cp for CO2 is only 0.9. At 25 km, the heat capacity of Venus is 1.05 and that makes the theoretically calculated value of the lapse rate, 8.4 K/km, exactly equal to its measured value at the same altitude. Unlike Earth, there isn’t much diurnal temperature variation or water evaporation to cause the lapse rate to deviate much from the theoretical value due to convection.</blockquote>
And today, <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1457300524123#c6733198416644858347" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">he reminded me of same</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You should note that Cp varies with both temperature and pressure, at least according to this website where I got my values: http://www.peacesoftware.de/einigewerte/co2_e.html</blockquote>
So I go to the link above, it's an online calculator. Cool. There are several on the page, first one is called "Calculation of thermodynamic state variables of carbon dioxide" and it takes pressure and temperature as inputs for various units, including bar for pressure and K for temperature. Very cool. So I plug in the following values and among the things it spits out is <i>Specific isobar heat capacity :cp</i> as follows:<br />
<br />
<style type="text/css">
tt {
font-family: courier;
}
td {
font-family: helvetica, sans-serif;
}
caption {
font-family: helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14pt;
text-align: left;
}
</style>
<br />
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>pressure (bar)</b></td>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>temperature (K)</b></td>
<td align="left" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>altitude(km)</b></td>
<td align="left" colspan="2" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom"><b>cp (kJ/(kg K))</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">90</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">739</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1.18444</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">10</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">492</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">30</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1.02193</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">1</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">350</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">50</td>
<td align="right" style="font-size: 10pt;" valign="bottom">0.89895</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I subbed 30 km for 25 as pressure is an even 10 bar at that altitude. Rounded to the nearest tenth, the calculations for cp at the surface and 50 km come back to Chic's numbers on the button.<br />
<strike><br /></strike>
<strike>But ... look at the units: kJ/(kg K). For review, the -g/Cp formula is:</strike><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ5uHFj4RGCftnqFyXqmnKzM-u4-CbLmPgD2MIe9A5rHljADjaF_RurSxRk-MIOTU5BZ5t9nCievCwSlncA4Q2_DavjikOE4CW5xH_SpD-vpgQ8Tl4lotRCX-3rW7IADjWbtBVs8pZwp4/s1600/lapseequat.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ5uHFj4RGCftnqFyXqmnKzM-u4-CbLmPgD2MIe9A5rHljADjaF_RurSxRk-MIOTU5BZ5t9nCievCwSlncA4Q2_DavjikOE4CW5xH_SpD-vpgQ8Tl4lotRCX-3rW7IADjWbtBVs8pZwp4/s1600/lapseequat.gif" /></a></div>
<br />
<strike>As I mentioned previously, Cp in this context is NOT specific heat in the sense of how many Joules it takes to raise a unit mass of some material by 1 K. The implied units are km2/(s2 K), which is difficult to translate into English so it kind of makes sense that it gets shortened to "specific heat". As it turns out, this causes all sorts of mischief:</strike><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4ZnR6XsX4QwZ1nFe57iFQZ2mBIGFSZ-c015KWTKbhoXuugoPnSWSX615eVOQ7T-NgM_yLmOKKPbGGIYx0SJBETYxrwYgjF3q4XbWxEk2zMLkoSHVSME0oZWaVUURacpwqK3lgEUqgDkc/s1600/Venus+Temperature+Profile+Unconstrained+Chics+Lapse+Rate.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4ZnR6XsX4QwZ1nFe57iFQZ2mBIGFSZ-c015KWTKbhoXuugoPnSWSX615eVOQ7T-NgM_yLmOKKPbGGIYx0SJBETYxrwYgjF3q4XbWxEk2zMLkoSHVSME0oZWaVUURacpwqK3lgEUqgDkc/s640/Venus+Temperature+Profile+Unconstrained+Chics+Lapse+Rate.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 6 - Eerie coincidences can happen when plugging in physical constants with the wrong units.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<strike><a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1457140119380#c1510706197805147916" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">So when Chic asked</a> ...</strike><br />
<strike><br /></strike>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strike><span id="bc_0_72b+seedLA2sD" kind="d"><i>Chic:IOW,
you think that the temperature of the surface of Venus results totally
from radiation <b>and the pressure and density just happen to
coincidentally satisfy PV=nRT?</b></i><br /><br />Me: Chicken-egg problem it seems.<br /><br />No I don't think its coincidence because a similar thing happens on Earth. Review <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXeYs4DkMubY9oNdkEDcgsyxiAPuQxeA9-2r2gPSD1XoSbvOtETzPfr4DSjv0ohyphenhyphenq9E78EFEMhNunMNuNy_qELBjdVqHpBDkwaG3wLmafbGoX1Z938JyN16WFCydC43nAI0HwBpoL2Pgk/s1600/MODTRAN+1D+Model+by+Level+Tropical+Clear+Sky+CO2+400+ppmv.png" rel="nofollow">this plot from MODTRAN results</a>
posted above. Note how similar in slope the yellow and light blue
curves are until 12 km when the LW gradient all but disappears and that
lapse rate continues on until 16 km.<br /><br /><b>I submit to you that without
the LW gradient, convection would top out at a much lower altitude.</b> As
well, absolute temperatures would be much lower. </span></strike></blockquote>
<strike>... I really should have said:</strike><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strike>Damn straight it's a coincidence -- the units you've used for Cp are wrong. Further, with the actual temperature profile following the adiabatic lapse rate, there should be little to no convection happening. And if there's little to no convection, there wouldn't be a lapse rate to begin with.</strike></blockquote>
<h4>
Update 3/10/2016:</h4>
Chic reminds me <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/lapse-rate-on-venus-part-2.html?showComment=1457470467990#c3063159878248995981" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">down in the comments</a> ...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>One J is one kg-m2/s2.</b> So if you multiply 850 m2/s2K by 1kg/1000g you
get 0.85 Kg-m2/s2/g-K or J/g-K. So don't throw away that Figure 6 that
you think is just a coincidence.</blockquote>
... my bold ...<br />
<br />
... which means my struck-out conclusions above proceed from the false premise of Cp being given in the "wrong units". Hence the spooky-perfect correlation of observed lapse rate to the -g/Cp prediction for Venus up to 40 km, and good agreement up to 60 km, could be reasonably defensible.<br />
<br />
Part 3 of this series will delve into this further, specifically taking on the notion I've been holding to that convection doesn't happen if the dry adiabat and environmental lapse rate almost exactly coincide -- further readings tell me that it apparently doesn't work that way on this planet.<br />
<h4>
Wrapping Up</h4>
This post got a bit pear-shaped on me, and seems to have raised more questions than it answered. The next obvious step is to convert those isobaric specific heats into values with the proper units and see what happens. It's going to have to wait for Part 3 of this (unexpectedly growing) series because my head hurts, I'm hungry, and the dog wants attention. Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-64701389482091053352016-03-05T22:42:00.001-08:002016-03-17T02:11:39.432-07:00Lapse Rate on Venus, Part 1... does it explain why the surface is so hot?<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
One ... occupational hazard ... of invoking Venus as the Solar System's poster-child example of (runaway) CO2-induced global warming is that some folks (properly) don't take the proposed mechanism of its lead-melting surface temperature lying down. Sometimes, they even raise (annoyingly) good questions. Here's Chic Bowdrie from a <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1456805020624#c7824443133101218972" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">comment in the Competing Mechanisms</a> article:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The surface of Venus is 740K. The temperature is 310K at 53 km. That makes the lapse rate 8.2 K/km. This is pretty close to a value of 7.4 K/km calculated from g/Cp using 8.87 g/sec2 for the gravity on Venus and 1.2 J/g-K for the heat capacity of CO2. Radiative forcing is not required to explain the temperature profile of Venus.</blockquote>
A visual may be of some help:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLCc74HbdJNhVe4jIWQwwZrgqZ9dqsDUbL8RPFxxipd0yb9BiRaMOi-3bu-bHy0ckC54yTQ38iGEls4ayAzzmKrb4aZCq9iTT9g1X5WXrGoupNQnxEOoaUUzyOIMSxS2QKhQt0Mt1VEMo/s1600/earth-mars-venus.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLCc74HbdJNhVe4jIWQwwZrgqZ9dqsDUbL8RPFxxipd0yb9BiRaMOi-3bu-bHy0ckC54yTQ38iGEls4ayAzzmKrb4aZCq9iTT9g1X5WXrGoupNQnxEOoaUUzyOIMSxS2QKhQt0Mt1VEMo/s640/earth-mars-venus.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1 - Temperature profiles for Mars, Earth and Venus taken from <a href="http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s3c.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Astronomy Notes by Nick Strobel</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Yup, damn hot. Eyeballing the thing, the temperatures Chic cited for the surface and 53 km altitude check out. In a <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1457073947480#c5342048764177832957" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">subsequent comment</a>, he amended his lapse rate calculations:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From above: I made a mistake with my calculation of the lapse rate for Venus based on –g/Cp. The 8.86 for g is correct, but Cp is not 1.2 other than at the surface. Cp varies with pressure. At 50 km, Cp for CO2 is only 0.9. At 25 km, the heat capacity of Venus is 1.05 and that makes the theoretically calculated value of the lapse rate, 8.4 K/km, exactly equal to its measured value at the same altitude. Unlike Earth, there isn’t much diurnal temperature variation or water evaporation to cause the lapse rate to deviate much from the theoretical value due to convection.</blockquote>
It's never simple, is it. Sigh.<br />
<br />
Thus far I have not attempted to replicate his calculations, having been more engaged with my MODTRAN experiments. I decided today was the day that I could no longer put this off. So with the table set ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
How to Estimate Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate</h4>
One way is to use a <a href="http://www.shodor.org/os411/courses/_master/tools/calculators/lapserate/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web-based calculator</a>. This one helpfully includes the formula ...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiguCZlPvyU4ob9gdd9IfpVIXAOVkkENX4eZ31uZnvqJnT2Vc1rO7j-ua0-VXUWJRjhBTcur5MSiNGBM2ypOlvgriMFZ0jmEkK99rGi9_FsTcdb9CmIZZzPwuya8Z34NiuqGaRPWjPmZpE/s1600/lapseequat.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiguCZlPvyU4ob9gdd9IfpVIXAOVkkENX4eZ31uZnvqJnT2Vc1rO7j-ua0-VXUWJRjhBTcur5MSiNGBM2ypOlvgriMFZ0jmEkK99rGi9_FsTcdb9CmIZZzPwuya8Z34NiuqGaRPWjPmZpE/s1600/lapseequat.gif" /></a></div>
<br />
... but not much explanation, and no way to vary the g and Cp parameters for planets other than Earth. No biggie, 'tis a simple formula, surely one can look up the proper values and plug them into the slide-rule of choice. Before I do that, calling the Cp term "specific heat" threw me for a loop because the implied units (m2 s-2 K-1) are wrong ... when I read "specific heat", I expect J g-1 K-1 as the units. Maybe this naming is a convention of meteorologists and atmospheric physicists, but I kinda doubt it. Doesn't matter, that calculator gives the "correct" result for Earth. But enough pedantic digression ...<br />
<br />
... <a href="http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS14/14EVM-5.html" target="_blank">this class notes webpage</a> goes through what Cp is, and how to derive it from first principles:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
dT/dz = -g/cp<br />
<br />
g= gravitational acceleration <br />
cp = Specific Heat Capacity at Constant Pressure<br />
<br />
cp = squiggle R / M<br />
<br />
M = mean molecular mass =<amu> 0.001 - e.g. air = 29 x 0.001 kg / mol<br />
<br />
R = gas constant = 8.31 J K-1 mol-1<br />
<br />
squiggle = 5/2 for monoatomic gas, = 7/2 for diatomic gas, = 9/2 for triatomic gas<br />
<br />
UNITS: cp - (kg m2 s-2 K-1 mole-1 )/(kg mole-1) = m2 s-2 K-1<br />
<br />
dT/dz = g/cp - m s-2 /(m2 s-2 K-1) = K m-1</blockquote>
"Squiggle" is a new one, but Imma skip it for now. "Cp" is apparently the abbreviation for constant pressure. Just below that block of text, the page tells us that a reasonable approximation of Cp for Venus is 850 m2 s-2 K-1, or dividing by 1,000, 0.85 km2 s-2 K-1. This compares favourably to the range 0.9-1.2 Chic presented, albeit a bit outside the range on the low end.<br />
<br />
Be that as it may, went ahead and digitized the temperature profile shown above, threw the results into Gnumeric and plugged in the theoretical lapse rate for comparison. Here are the results:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOSpWoFxrdXxQFVQc4tI5niG9OxPdkwm7bRLDUqdgMCH-0dmt47pAvdJpRLvnhnLABTFfvCM6eudrN-NdxEhSEfDgswUe151_8dMU9vD4n4JbZSXmz2QFeee5SUYbQklszgo2cIDUogRo/s1600/Venus+Temperature+Profile+Unconstrained+Lapse+Rate.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOSpWoFxrdXxQFVQc4tI5niG9OxPdkwm7bRLDUqdgMCH-0dmt47pAvdJpRLvnhnLABTFfvCM6eudrN-NdxEhSEfDgswUe151_8dMU9vD4n4JbZSXmz2QFeee5SUYbQklszgo2cIDUogRo/s640/Venus+Temperature+Profile+Unconstrained+Lapse+Rate.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 2 - Ah, Houston, we have a problem ... temperature readings above 90 km are coming back below absolute zero.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I could have set the x-intercept to 740 K, which is the surface temperature (as that seems to be the convention), but there's a method to my madness -- I want the calculated lapse rate curve to go cross the observed temperature profile at the altitude that I think convection from the surface tops out ... which I'm calling 60 km. <strike>Why?</strike> From the class notes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
- if cools faster than adiabatic - stable (cool air sinks)<br />
<br />
- if cools slower than than adiabatic - unstable (warm air rises)</blockquote>
<strike>As you can see by how I helpfully plotted the lapse rate curve, Venus' atmosphere clearly begins cooling faster than the estimated adiabatic rate at 60 km. </strike><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><b>Update 3/6/2016 3:30 PM:</b> On review, I may have the correct conclusion, but for exactly the wrong reason. My current understanding (which may also be wrong) is that the -g/Cp curve should predict a lower temperature than observed in the convective regime, and a higher temperature as a function of altitude in the "stable" non-convective (or less-convective) regime. I am addressing this first thing in Part 2 of this series, which I shall link to here when it's published.</i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Update 3/6/2016 10:45 PM:</b> As promised, <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/lapse-rate-on-venus-part-2.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Part 2 has been published</a> and it addresses my above goof. I'd like to say it solves all the mysteries being explored here, but I'm sorry to report that I may have only deepened them. The main thing to look for is the modified version of Figure 3 below -- the -g/Cp curve now intercepts the x-axis at the actual surface temperature, which makes things slightly more sensible.</i><br />
<br />
Not only is it physically ridiculous for a negative absolute temperature prediction ANYWHERE I choose to put the x-intercept, <b>IF there's no convection, there's no adiabatic lapse rate</b> as a function of a pressure gradient. That bit in bold because I get the sense that this principle isn't well-understood in some circles.<br />
<br />
There could be some convection 60 km above Venus' surface, and there probably is a bit. But here we're interested in what goes on between the surface and the Venusian equivalent of Earth's tropopause. So ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
A More Reasonable Simple Model of Venusian Temperature Profile</h4>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh73BbsIk2lSKCboty1MiTmNtZmJDbfBsuHSGAOvkEjJmzIkOafD5XNqjI4Lcng3HCvlazmVEwh3UWPJJYC4QFCxPpbKo3XPt6s7Bbik_wzGj0AVwl9gtlcG_DOOlgGCeUtLX9H8731my0/s1600/Venus+Temperature+Profile+Constrained+Lapse+Rate.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh73BbsIk2lSKCboty1MiTmNtZmJDbfBsuHSGAOvkEjJmzIkOafD5XNqjI4Lcng3HCvlazmVEwh3UWPJJYC4QFCxPpbKo3XPt6s7Bbik_wzGj0AVwl9gtlcG_DOOlgGCeUtLX9H8731my0/s640/Venus+Temperature+Profile+Constrained+Lapse+Rate.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 3 - Huston here, ahh ... roger your last. We suggest you interpolate.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Speaking of NASA, <a href="http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">their fact sheet</a> has this to say about Venus:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Bond albedo 0.9<br />Visual geometric albedo 0.67<br />Visual magnitude V(1,0) -4.4<br />Solar irradiance (W/m2) 2601.3<br />Black-body temperature (K) 184</span></blockquote>
The calculated blackbody temperature comes from the Stefan-Boltzman law of radiative power ...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg1Wndm4yhke3xM2ZZoLEj3ePe758XYEN6yC-voDMYQavHyhyvQJjl0LbSJ_XOLLZfUNKKxZQrC9ekxI5FLuQgrj-HvuqNjcmg0rb-dmU9V8Dk4tFNf27ADgN1as4zTWDxEgo8bBmN_8k/s1600/stefan-boltzmann.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg1Wndm4yhke3xM2ZZoLEj3ePe758XYEN6yC-voDMYQavHyhyvQJjl0LbSJ_XOLLZfUNKKxZQrC9ekxI5FLuQgrj-HvuqNjcmg0rb-dmU9V8Dk4tFNf27ADgN1as4zTWDxEgo8bBmN_8k/s1600/stefan-boltzmann.png" /></a></div>
<br />
... solved for temperature; where j* is solar irradiance divided by four, ε (emissivity) is unity (any value < 1 is considered a "graybody", with zero being a perfectly reflective "whitebody"), and σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4gXFzmQhQ795Jgd3Dl9D2Ay1oOQa6gAOxugBbt7G_3k8VFpCbotITLYW93aDT5cQjSUwZwdKGKlKbOLvYR50MlwyexMgyZEH03RyTbWzm7gmXk5Ai-_-D5PuAzdJVTVIXVeg7Eo8hypo/s1600/stefan-boltzmann+constant.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="39" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4gXFzmQhQ795Jgd3Dl9D2Ay1oOQa6gAOxugBbt7G_3k8VFpCbotITLYW93aDT5cQjSUwZwdKGKlKbOLvYR50MlwyexMgyZEH03RyTbWzm7gmXk5Ai-_-D5PuAzdJVTVIXVeg7Eo8hypo/s320/stefan-boltzmann+constant.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Upshot is, 184 K is Venus' so-called effective temperature ... or the temperature it would "look like" when viewed externally by a hypothetical broadband radiative sensor. The vertical portion of the yellow dashed line in the plot above is at x = 184 K because it is reasonable to assume that some point of Venus' temperature profile is going to coincide with its theoretical blackbody temperature. And so it does, somewhere between 83 and 84 km above the surface, and again between 184 and 185 km. There's nothing super-significant about those two crossing points. Mainly, the purpose of the vertical portion of the yellow curve is as an easy visual reference that, yes, the S-B approximation does tell us something about reality.<br />
<br />
The dotted light-blue curve is, well, curve-fitting bollocks for the most part. Above 60 km it's a naive guesstimate of what I think the temperature profile might be like if the upper atmosphere were more uniform in composition than it actually is. Mostly, it just looked right to my eyeballs when I set the inflection point at (140 K, 100 km) for the cubic spline interpolation. All other points are actual values. Below 60 km, it follows the linear lapse rate prediction exactly.<br />
<br />
There's a method to this madness. At least I hope there is.<br />
<br />
Noting that the lapse rate prediction of surface temperature, starting from 60 km up, is 887 K -- a full 148 K hotter than observed -- the thing I imagine Chic would say is pretty much what he's already said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Radiative forcing is not required to explain the temperature profile of Venus.</blockquote>
<br />
<h4>
Oh, But I Disagree ...</h4>
... of course. And I have in very broad terms told him why:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1456818491284#c7977329412662150976" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Chic</a>: The ideal gas law applies to ideal gases and predicts temperature as a function of pressure and density.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1456896967512#c6818657843026326854" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Me</a>: No, it predicts change in temperature as a function of change in pressure. When you inflate a tire, its temperature surely rises. When you stop pumping, its temperature returns to ambient over time as the heat imparted by the work done by compressor dissipates.</blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1457140119380#c1510706197805147916" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">He didn't like that</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span id="bc_0_72b+seedLA2sD" kind="d"><i>Chic:What is that supposed to mean? That the temperature of Venus isn’t a result of the pressure and density caused by gravity?</i><br /><br />Me: Just what it says. I defy you to predict the <b>absolute</b>
temperature of a bicycle tyre inflated to 100 psi without knowing
anything about ambient conditions or how much time has elapsed since it
was inflated. You would have much better luck predicting temperature <b>change</b>
as it's being inflated at "normal" rates b/c you could reasonably
assume an adiabatic process. But you still wouldn't know the final
absolute temperature without knowing the initial absolute temperature.<br /><br /><i>Chic:IOW,
you think that the temperature of the surface of Venus results totally
from radiation and the pressure and density just happen to
coincidentally satisfy PV=nRT?</i><br /><br />Me: Chicken-egg problem it seems.<br /><br />No I don't think its coincidence because a similar thing happens on Earth. Review <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXeYs4DkMubY9oNdkEDcgsyxiAPuQxeA9-2r2gPSD1XoSbvOtETzPfr4DSjv0ohyphenhyphenq9E78EFEMhNunMNuNy_qELBjdVqHpBDkwaG3wLmafbGoX1Z938JyN16WFCydC43nAI0HwBpoL2Pgk/s1600/MODTRAN+1D+Model+by+Level+Tropical+Clear+Sky+CO2+400+ppmv.png" rel="nofollow">this plot from MODTRAN results</a>
posted above. Note how similar in slope the yellow and light blue
curves are until 12 km when the LW gradient all but disappears and that
lapse rate continues on until 16 km.<br /><br /><b>I submit to you that without
the LW gradient, convection would top out at a much lower altitude.</b> As
well, absolute temperatures would be much lower. </span></blockquote>
Emphasis in original EXCEPT for that final sentence, because really, <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1457159222107#c7274262125192180447" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this is where the whole ball of wax melts</a> as I see it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Me (to Chic): <span id="bc_0_72b+seedLH64D" kind="d">Your argument, as stated, implies
that the temperature of the surface of Earth, Venus, whatever planet,
would be the same if [they] occupied any orbit from Mercury to [the] Oort Cloud.</span></blockquote>
One final piece <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1457132135066#c6471471944718536244" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">comes from reader BBD</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span id="bc_0_63b+seedLHzJD" kind="d">How about picturing the Earth
looking down from space, viewed in IR. It's a slightly fuzzy ball. Zoom
in and the fuzziness is the altitude of effective emission. Increase the
atmospheric concentration of an IR absorber like CO2 and it gets
fuzzier (more opaque) still. It is impossible for this not to raise the
altitude of effective emission. Yes?<br /><br />But as the altitude of effective emission rises, temperature at altitude falls and <i>this begins to inhibit</i> the radiative transfer of energy to space. Yes? <br /><br />So,
inevitably, an energy imbalance piles up in the climate system until
the troposphere is warm enough for equilibrium with solar flux at TOA to
be restored.</span></blockquote>
Ah yes, my good friend "altitude of effective emission" (AEE). I have previously thought of this as just a curiosity value as, AFAIK, most atmospheric radiative-convective models don't parametrize it. I guess I've mostly thought of it as an emergent property of the real system, and reasonably representative models of it. IOW, "raising the roof" isn't the mechanism, it's the result.<br />
<br />
Because Chic has made some awfully good points which feels like I'm somewhat flailing to answer, and because of <a href="https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/the-greenhouse-effect-an-illustration/" target="_blank">things</a> I've <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/what-is-the-best-description-of-the-greenhouse-effect/" target="_blank">been reading</a> <a href="http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/875/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00704-016-1732-y.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs00704-016-1732-y&token2=exp=1455385844~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F875%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs00704-016-1732-y.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252Fs00704-016-1732-y*~hmac=679628b229c423647dfa64998511f61996c69026c2caf58f5b71a84df016f088" target="_blank">elsewhere</a>, and <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1457134585126#c7965852116196908342" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">things I've written elsewhere</a>, it's clear to me that I have to rethink the concept of AEE as a mechanism, not just an outcome.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Key Is ...</h4>
... I think ... that convection doesn't begin with gas falling from altitude -- it begins with gas being heated from the surface.<br />
<br />
In the interest of starting simple, Cp can be treated as a constant by assuming atmospheric composition is uniform. It's a physical property mainly determined by the specific heat content of its constituent components, after all.<br />
<br />
Therefore, a way to think about lapse rate in this context is that the difference in temperature from the surface to altitude is determined by how high convection from the surface goes until convection "stalls", and a cooled air parcel begins to want to sink instead of rise. Working out how, where, when and why that happens will be the subject of Part 2.<br />
<br />
But for now, the Eureka moment for me is that Cp determining a constant slope, temperature mainly varies as a function of altitude. If convection goes to a higher altitude, the difference in temperature between surface and tropopause MUST be higher that it would be otherwise.<br />
<br />
One troublesome aspect of thinking about it this way is that it implies that one end or the other of the "ramp" described by the lapse rate slope is going to want to be fixed at some absolute temperature or reasonably close to it. In my musings about how to determine which (I of course assert now that it's the point at the surface which is the freer parameter) I kluged together this plot:<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBuW8S1AS5YiANselcW-KXlIzBfyGCyYwPqyo0GBhjSyPuFZ3ulNJXuO-a1aGIO7vT-gG-dPgSqXXwmAHCSHt5fsOVJbvwTd2tEjP-jvQUVjRQAxHxfhNBoODnbzXJ0nBnD-CjTCIVrhc/s1600/Venus+Graybody+Flux+Profile+Constrained+Lapse+Rate+Log.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBuW8S1AS5YiANselcW-KXlIzBfyGCyYwPqyo0GBhjSyPuFZ3ulNJXuO-a1aGIO7vT-gG-dPgSqXXwmAHCSHt5fsOVJbvwTd2tEjP-jvQUVjRQAxHxfhNBoODnbzXJ0nBnD-CjTCIVrhc/s640/Venus+Graybody+Flux+Profile+Constrained+Lapse+Rate+Log.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 4 - Approximate blackbody fluxes derived from the temperature profiles in Figure 3. Note the log scale for the x-axis, and units in kilowatts per square meter -- visual conveniences only.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Assuming the differences in flux between the actual temperature profile and my theoretical profile (the light-blue curve) are reasonably representative of reality, radiative transfers are a prime candidate to explain much of them. It rains on Venus you know, sulfuric acid mainly, but possibly other things we wouldn't normally associate with precipitation. Diffusive transfers by conduction are a possibility as well, but I think they can be ruled out as the relevant gasses are poor thermal conductors.<br />
<br />
That's it for now.Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-29892310916697880902016-03-03T20:56:00.002-08:002016-03-17T02:17:32.503-07:00MODTRAN Radiative Atmospheric Model Part 1<h4>
Introduction</h4>
MODTRAN is a spectral band radiative transfer code first developed in the late 1980s by Spectral Sciences, Inc. in partnership with Air Force Geophysics Laboratories. It was essentially a higher resolution (1.0 cm-1) version of AFGL's LOWTRAN code which integrated radiation transfers over 20 cm-1 wavebands.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.modtran5.com/index.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The most recent version</a>, 5.2, was released in 2009 and is proprietary. A single license runs $1200, technical support and updates are extra. Too rich for this hacker.<br />
<br />
Older versions are in the public domain with the full FORTRAN source code available for anyone to download, compile, and execute on a local machine. Too much hacking for this <i>poseur</i>.<br />
<br />
Some smart folks at U. of Chicago have been kind enough to host a <a href="http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web-enabled copy of MODTRAN3 Version 1.3 12/1/95</a>, which sports a simple and mostly intuitive GUI and outputs some pretty pictures:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUcqD5grt8gz8vaa4JQw2Xtx9y3MeRN_o6TbDnpiBWSsx2E7r9LjhkQ3Q_L4ryI7FTDRvizctETDzpYJyeKgI8QPJ-4-K_ByRJFXEDAOfOynMCM3JBf8bXOnn-jAXaZyeBWyQ5fX3ovCA/s1600/MODTRAN+Default.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="326" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUcqD5grt8gz8vaa4JQw2Xtx9y3MeRN_o6TbDnpiBWSsx2E7r9LjhkQ3Q_L4ryI7FTDRvizctETDzpYJyeKgI8QPJ-4-K_ByRJFXEDAOfOynMCM3JBf8bXOnn-jAXaZyeBWyQ5fX3ovCA/s400/MODTRAN+Default.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1 - The graphical output for a model run with default options set. Isn't it purty?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Updates happen automagically every time an option is changes, and it's wicked quick -- it updates almost faster than I can blink. Even more exciting, the <i>Show Raw Model Output</i> button works as advertized, and pops open a new tab (in Firefox on Ubuntu) with plain ASCII tab-delimited output. Copypasta into a spreadsheet application is then dirt simple -- just the right amount of hackery for this Gnumeric/Excel guru/data junkie.<br />
<br />
It simply begs for experimentation. So I did, repeatedly. The number of different things I have thought to do with it exceeds my ability to cram into a reasonably-sized post -- and likely the attention span of any putative audience -- so this post is to be a short introduction of how I use the thing and how it compares to real-world observation.<br />
<br />
I should probably quit blathering now and get on with it ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
MODTRAN vs. Reality</h4>
The <a href="http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">About this model</a> link contains this pretty picture (caption from original) ...<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYbCgA0F3aw_lFvRt3J-WkdBAtNQI35gpS3ioYk43GsCTZhW4o5z0CuveMTpvp4APX9YmJP6kNxlNr3GMHKEwDWdbXgCZ-iZJmbBwuMS-Xprdc2zKvSgaw_epTYCprLDyeYQtXt6QblGs/s1600/modtran_iris.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="518" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYbCgA0F3aw_lFvRt3J-WkdBAtNQI35gpS3ioYk43GsCTZhW4o5z0CuveMTpvp4APX9YmJP6kNxlNr3GMHKEwDWdbXgCZ-iZJmbBwuMS-Xprdc2zKvSgaw_epTYCprLDyeYQtXt6QblGs/s640/modtran_iris.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 2 - MODTRAN results (red) compared with data (solid black) from the
Nimbus 3 IRIS instrument from Hanel et al., 1972).</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
... which is like, impressively good. The atmospheric window regions from 8-9 and 10-13 microns follow the theoretical blackbody emission curve between 315-320 K, implying a surface temperature between 42-47 °C or 107-116 °F ... otherwise known as damn hot.<br />
<br />
The big dip in the 15 micron region is our friendly neighbourhood CO2 (here at 325 ppmv as it was circa 1970-1972) completely gobbling up outgoing photons from the surface ... plus everywhere between there and about 12 km above <i>terra firma</i>. Why 12 km? The 15 micron absorption band touches the 220 K blackbody emission curve, which is -53 °C or -65 °F. Not only is that bloody cold, it's the "standard" temperature of the tropical troposphere at about 12,000 m, or 39,000 feet above the surface ... a place where only jet aircraft thrive.<br />
<br />
"Aha," you say. "220 K is ALSO the temperature of the stratosphere at about 70 km, are we not seeing 15 micron photons from there as well?" Short answer is yes. Long answer is the topic of Part 2 (or 3, depending on how many more digressions I chase) of this series, so hold that thought.<br />
<br />
The modelled 10-13 micron window runs more toward the cool end of the range, implying that the retrieval in that band is biased a bit hot, the model a bit cool, or some combination of both. If the model, it could be anything from parametrization/vertical profile issues to oversimplified physics.<br />
<br />
It could also be completely wrong physics of course, but as the Air Force presumably first developed this beast with the aim of anticipating what happens to aircraft (and/or missiles) at high altitude/velocity atmospheric penetration, I'm guessing their science/engineering teams weren't full of <b>total</b> cranks.<br />
<br />
Overall, fidelity to observation warrants confidence that this transfer code reasonably represents reality.<br />
<br />
But I want ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
MOAR MODTRAN vs. Reality</h4>
The much cited and apparently excellent <a href="http://www.sundogpublishing.com/shop/a-first-course-in-atmospheric-radiation-2nd-ed/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation</a> by G.W. Petty contains this figure, familiar to many climate warriors:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_WKCd8x4ft19PAF2zF-jyo81cHi58LSVSQy27Q6rgUp5hTE1ZQBl4hBXOl97319Dx2-50I3C6_J9mcaBu5CUWvWJZXwJdBN9qkBxielz346VN88HOXM0dcEDpbplZqspExWrQKRY1-H8/s1600/iris1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="419" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_WKCd8x4ft19PAF2zF-jyo81cHi58LSVSQy27Q6rgUp5hTE1ZQBl4hBXOl97319Dx2-50I3C6_J9mcaBu5CUWvWJZXwJdBN9qkBxielz346VN88HOXM0dcEDpbplZqspExWrQKRY1-H8/s640/iris1.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 3 - Clear Sky and Thundercloud spectra from a satellite somewhere over the Western Tropical Pacific circa 1970-72. Credit: G. W. Petty (2004)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Again we have the IRIS instrument from one of the NIMBUS craft between 1970-72 (might be NIMBUS 4, but I'm not sure -- I don't have the book) taking clear sky shots, and as a bonus, readings from over a tropical Pacific Ocean thunderstorm. I looked high and low (mostly low) for the raw data -- found it ... it's in several YUGE binary files requiring software I don't have or know where to find to make sense of it all. So I that gave up and laboriously digitized it myself, combined it with MODTRAN output using 325 ppmv CO2 to match the approximate historical value, and voilà:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLnIpazjiBO-i7c7tGA0faSKsgHMIXhn8C-Q9GW6scN3C4C8hFPHsvrMXqzkcPr4hojrStIK_XotBrotYojlaQfw3mwCQz0sWsaSAhXlXcE_pX_7He5Y9fm2yHQ5jgPX0kz2eOST8pBQw/s1600/MODTRAN+All+Emitters+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+CO2+000325+ppmv.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLnIpazjiBO-i7c7tGA0faSKsgHMIXhn8C-Q9GW6scN3C4C8hFPHsvrMXqzkcPr4hojrStIK_XotBrotYojlaQfw3mwCQz0sWsaSAhXlXcE_pX_7He5Y9fm2yHQ5jgPX0kz2eOST8pBQw/s640/MODTRAN+All+Emitters+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+CO2+000325+ppmv.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 4 - Clockwise from upper left: Standard tropical atmosphere temperature profile (surface = 302 K); MODTRAN vs. observational spectra from 100-1500 cm-1; integrated radiative flux looking up, down and the absolute value of the difference; outbound (upward) radiative transmittance from surface to 70 km between 100-1500 cm-1.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A few notes are in order. A nifty feature of MODTRAN is the ability to simulate spectral intensity retrieval either looking down from altitude toward the surface, or up from ground-level (or any other altitude) skyward/spaceward. The above shows both, with the dark-blue curve looking skyward from the surface, the magenta curve looking toward the surface from 70 km, and the light blue curve being the NIMBUS IRIS observational returns for comparison -- which is again, quite good.<br />
<br />
The Planck distribution curves use the temperature of the standard atmosphere at the relevant level, which are 302 K for the surface and 218.9 K at 70 km. The model says that surface emissivity is assumed to be 0.980, which I take into account (hopefully correctly).<br />
<br />
The surface temperature is a free parameter in this implementation of the model, I chose 302 K to fit the observational curve. Default for the standard tropical atmosphere is 299.7 K. The input form asks for this parameter to be adjusted using an offset value, so 2.3 is the value I put there to get 302 K.<br />
<br />
The transmittance plot represents the fraction of radiation at a given wavelength hitting the simulated sensor which was directly emitted from the source -- in this case the surface. 1 is the maximum value, which means that 100% of the incident photons were emitted directly from the surface target and arrived unimpeded. 0 is the minimum value, and means that 100% of the incident photons were emitted from something OTHER than the surface.<br />
<br />
<b>This is important:</b> <i>0 transmittance does NOT mean that NO photons at a given wavelength are striking our hypothetical instrument.</i> NOR does it mean that absorption at that particular waveband is "saturated" between the surface and the sensor. It only means that whatever radiation shown in the intensity plot for a given wavelength was emitted by some other layer of atmosphere, NOT the surface.<br />
<br />
Transmittance for a skyward-pointing sensor would not make sense -- the only relevant targets would be the Sun or the cosmic background radiation, both of which are at frequencies with little overlap in the terrestrial longwave spectrum which is the sole focus of this version of MODTRAN. Somewhat confusingly, the code still returns transmittance in the data dump for an upward-looking model run, but the values are exactly the same as they'd be for a downward looking run at the same altitude.<br />
<br />
Finally, the LW flux figure in the lower left corner is the integrated flux in W m-2 looking up, looking down, and the absolute value of the difference between them. In either case, chunking those values into the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship between radiative power and the 4th power of temperature gives -- NOT necessarily the temperature at a given atmospheric level -- but the so-called "effective" temperature of the radiative flux our simulated spectral sensor is "seeing" through all layers of atmosphere to the target.<br />
<br />
Normally we'd expect a sensor pointed toward the surface to return a higher integrated flux value than one pointed skyward, in the case of the above plot this is NOT true. Reason being that a real sensor on the real surface looking up is picking up mostly radiation from lower, warmer layers of atmosphere than one at 70 km looking down, which is seeing more radiation from higher, and therefore (generally) cooler atmosphere. Further instalments of this series will show up/down views from the SAME altitude; however, the balance of plots in this post will hold altitude at 0 km looking up and 70 km looking down for apples-to-apples comparison.<br />
<br />
Yes, there are MORE plots for this post, hopefully I'll remember what brevity and concision mean as I describe them.<br />
<br />
<h4>
MODTRAN vs. Sliced and Diced Reality</h4>
Ever wondered what an atmospheric absorption/emission spectrum might look like if CO2 were the only major LW-active constituent? Turns out there's an app for that:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_YaqbJGzDAdVq-lDtQ76gCVjGjz9DTmvTCKK16tC3-O-CsQEhSyXCzWkFao_9vJfmZizVG-tTpf1-U46DqusBYiLtrrkVCaeofXsSYgRbPbwKts41Rq53HmE1RbIRVgwu6uTtMWHrt80/s1600/MODTRAN+CO2+Only+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+CO2+000325+ppmv.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_YaqbJGzDAdVq-lDtQ76gCVjGjz9DTmvTCKK16tC3-O-CsQEhSyXCzWkFao_9vJfmZizVG-tTpf1-U46DqusBYiLtrrkVCaeofXsSYgRbPbwKts41Rq53HmE1RbIRVgwu6uTtMWHrt80/s640/MODTRAN+CO2+Only+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+CO2+000325+ppmv.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 5 - MODTRAN CO2 Only, 325 ppmv, surface temperature 302 K, tropical atmosphere.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
First note the net radiative fluxes in the lower left and compare to Figure 4 just above. Downwelling LW (or, incident LW looking up from the surface) has plummeted from 350 to 100 W m-2, and upwelling LW from the surface to 70 km (looking down) has risen slightly from 300 to 380 W m-2. Plugging the resulting values into the S-B equation gives back 207 and 288 K respectively.<br />
<br />
Compare to the theoretical blackbody temperatures of 283 and 271 K. Am I really telling you that if we magically knocked out water vapour, methane and ozone from the real system, that the atmospheric temperature would fall 76 K (137 °F), or that the surface temperature would RISE 17 K (31 °F)? (!)<br />
<br />
No, that's not what I'm saying. Remember -- what our imaginary sensor is seeing in this model is not a "real" temperature, it's just the temperature of what the target "looks" like based on the incident radiation hitting it.<br />
<br />
The case of the flux from ground level looking up does make some sense, without (primarily) water vapour in the atmosphere, there would be significantly less "back-radiation" being emitted from the atmosphere, and much of what the sensor would be seeing is the cosmic background radiation of deep space, which has an apparent ("effective") temperature of about 2.76 K ... really chilly.<br />
<br />
The situation from 70 km looking down may be less intuitive, but makes sense (to me) with a little thought: removing all LW-<b>absorbers</b> from the atmosphere except CO2 leaves huge swaths of the spectrum which were previously impeded on their way to outer space open for those photons to now take a straight, unfettered shot to 70 km. The transmittance curve confirms this: practically everything outside CO2's main 13-19 micron absorption band has a transmittance of nearly 1.<br />
<br />
Assuming constant solar input, all that radiation once hindered from escaping would rush out like air leaving a slashed tyre, and surface temperatures would fall. Dramatically. How much? MODTRAN doesn't do that estimate for us -- the input parameter for surface temp is 302 K, and it "stubbornly" keeps it there. I'll walk through how to derive the new theoretical equilibrium temperature in the next post in this series.<br />
<br />
Notice also that outside the main CO2 absorption/emission band we see some non-zero radiant intensity for the blue "looking up" curve. Those are NOT due to CO2, but rather to the default parameters for CFCs, aerosols, dust and what have you that this implementation of MODTRAN (somewhat annoyingly) does not allow the user to futz with.<br />
<br />
Some say that water vapour is the most important "greenhouse" gas in our atmosphere ...<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgozg-NJe5shQ2ZeEh-hpYVGXppJ-s3BtY1hpE9t4o_3uYNL16XcFOeuZuBHaFf6iJPgOxyMuE4u0V0c42B8cq-2sKaGfktBk1W__-tg8S90FzHVZM7W9O_d92j6sOYeIzjQpONElcCoE/s1600/MODTRAN+H2O+Only+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+ppmv.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgozg-NJe5shQ2ZeEh-hpYVGXppJ-s3BtY1hpE9t4o_3uYNL16XcFOeuZuBHaFf6iJPgOxyMuE4u0V0c42B8cq-2sKaGfktBk1W__-tg8S90FzHVZM7W9O_d92j6sOYeIzjQpONElcCoE/s640/MODTRAN+H2O+Only+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+ppmv.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 6 - MODTRAN H2O Only, surface temperature 302 K, tropical atmosphere.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
... and from this perspective, they are correct. On an <b>instantaneous</b> basis, it is the hands-down most dominant LW-active species in the skies above. How much more so than CO2 will need to be the subject of a future post as even I'm getting tired of reading this post.<br />
<br />
Much ado has been made about flatulent cows, warming oceans releasing methane clathrates from sequestration and thawing tundra spewing methane from suddenly not-permafrost because methane is -- ppm for ppm -- a far more potent GHG than CO2 ...<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZWHBirKJeqSSW3ca-r1dSpm7EXMA4BAchyphenhyphenT4ebMyf2slNiAeh_zymvSxyKJi-THy-DvXdJ4wMeLRRGAJmzmP9yrEjB66mXeE_qs4BpiSwt79Rfc0gv4SH4kn88snxEMAtW7YpNxetQe4/s1600/MODTRAN+CH4+Only+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+ppmv.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZWHBirKJeqSSW3ca-r1dSpm7EXMA4BAchyphenhyphenT4ebMyf2slNiAeh_zymvSxyKJi-THy-DvXdJ4wMeLRRGAJmzmP9yrEjB66mXeE_qs4BpiSwt79Rfc0gv4SH4kn88snxEMAtW7YpNxetQe4/s640/MODTRAN+CH4+Only+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+ppmv.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 7 - MODTRAN CH4 Only, surface temperature 302 K, tropical atmosphere.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
... but it sure looks innocuous enough. Something to keep in mind, the MODTRAN default value for CH4, which this plot uses, is a scant 1.7 ppmv. Cranking it up and doing some maths to compare to similar rises in CO2 is on the list of experiments to run and write about in the near future.<br />
<br />
Last on the list for this section is ozone ...<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiu4InNtB_A0pmoMsymX6V1EZAkt2scyZBsv-RzNuyWsWZeEK5b-fcwBVlZ_l7RkuV_PWHoTSgqsB3b83yETX96CyJ7FfiaTgcksD1NodpnX5H-2iKTuIxm4_ECHz9qI_W05sf1ZbCzx0/s1600/MODTRAN+O3+Only+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+ppmv.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiu4InNtB_A0pmoMsymX6V1EZAkt2scyZBsv-RzNuyWsWZeEK5b-fcwBVlZ_l7RkuV_PWHoTSgqsB3b83yETX96CyJ7FfiaTgcksD1NodpnX5H-2iKTuIxm4_ECHz9qI_W05sf1ZbCzx0/s640/MODTRAN+O3+Only+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+ppmv.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 8 - MODTRAN O3 Only, surface temperature 302 K, tropical atmosphere.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
... which looks a little more impressive than methane's notch, especially when one considers that the MODTRAN default is 28 ppbv, as in parts per <i>billion</i> by volume. Maybe we should bring back Freon and CFC-compressed spray-on deodorant to get rid of it?<br />
<br />
Well, no, probably not, because then you'd have to use more CFC-compressed spray-on sunscreen and then we might get one of them there vicious cycles going. Adding more stuff to the atmosphere to mitigate the consequences of the CO2 we've already put there is a double-down on uncertainty for one thing ... we know what CO2 @280 looked like ... a bit chilly but livable FOR CERTAIN.<br />
<br />
Oh look, I digress again ... and I've got, like another 6 plots slated for this post. I'll spare us all and only do 4.<br />
<br />
<h4>
MODTRAN and Alternate Realities</h4>
... but hopefully not actual future realities. Seriously, you really don't want to do what I'm about to show you to OUR atmosphere: <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtphQ7wwp5HcAnUtwpEBgxb_L4g_K588xqgqU8tVPZ2_qEvP_upwLd5IF7aXrAkA1vYfMsNuErFgz8UTPGnhecl9f6dcRMrB8B2JXoe1qbm65uiEDy5DFthg0X91frIAoYGa-EB0oJrlA/s1600/MODTRAN+All+Emitters+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+CO2+003200+ppmv.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtphQ7wwp5HcAnUtwpEBgxb_L4g_K588xqgqU8tVPZ2_qEvP_upwLd5IF7aXrAkA1vYfMsNuErFgz8UTPGnhecl9f6dcRMrB8B2JXoe1qbm65uiEDy5DFthg0X91frIAoYGa-EB0oJrlA/s640/MODTRAN+All+Emitters+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+CO2+003200+ppmv.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 9 - MODTRAN CO2 3,200 ppmv, surface temperature 302 K, tropical atmosphere.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHoLZ021aURJ789nsPCEyAeTXbeRWEp9I41ZRAUlnKCrQGiweLaUH2o8bWiUw35F676KicciEr2XgjzDs5NCQh0EHOI9zltZEWjEgAgfPbgIY9euNALyRERs8lOVqlLRvnUtXOnmppB68/s1600/MODTRAN+CO2+Only+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+CO2+003200+ppmv.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHoLZ021aURJ789nsPCEyAeTXbeRWEp9I41ZRAUlnKCrQGiweLaUH2o8bWiUw35F676KicciEr2XgjzDs5NCQh0EHOI9zltZEWjEgAgfPbgIY9euNALyRERs8lOVqlLRvnUtXOnmppB68/s640/MODTRAN+CO2+Only+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+CO2+003200+ppmv.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 10 - MODTRAN CO2 only 3,200 ppmv, surface temperature 302 K, tropical atmosphere.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span id="goog_633279851"></span><span id="goog_633279852"></span><br />
Doesn't look bad you say? For the record, 3,200 ppmv is three doublings of 400 ppmv. The worst case IPCC scenario from AR5 (RCP8.5) only calls for CO2 equivalent (all GHGs and aerosols) of 2,641 ppmv by 2225 or so, and 1,231 ppmv equivalent by 2100. They're of the opinion that even 1,200 ppmv is a Bad Idea. I'll compare their projections for 2100 to what MODTRAN says we'd expect at the same level in a future post.<br />
<br />
For now, I'll sign off with something that really isn't within the realm of possibility even if we burned all the oil and coal still in the ground:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipsjUOYfygAyYFNAfCefZJiDjJjvypdJ7S-9CfCgbR81zqVIAUDYZkzniL9ULgewYwNSPI8ueOkstSscnKTAh0HDIUG9OfF4GskICH7idyux18Fg08k8zzsK_TBm_JO-Rlnu131Q4q-YQ/s1600/MODTRAN+All+Emitters+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+CO2+965000+ppmv.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipsjUOYfygAyYFNAfCefZJiDjJjvypdJ7S-9CfCgbR81zqVIAUDYZkzniL9ULgewYwNSPI8ueOkstSscnKTAh0HDIUG9OfF4GskICH7idyux18Fg08k8zzsK_TBm_JO-Rlnu131Q4q-YQ/s640/MODTRAN+All+Emitters+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+CO2+965000+ppmv.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 11 - MODTRAN CO2 965,00 ppmv, surface temperature 302 K, tropical atmosphere.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5DLh7o4CPC8pibKngHQJ6oN93OMd5sarbtjYdt7PODeP0yuzu92mchyj86FSt3A89Ykt4vpCwNfnybPj13Wyjv51MTEamviXx6cZZB0ODFxjar1vatIfnv1lky7Pzs8_B0e4pd88EOOA/s1600/MODTRAN+CO2+Only+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+CO2+965000+ppmv.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5DLh7o4CPC8pibKngHQJ6oN93OMd5sarbtjYdt7PODeP0yuzu92mchyj86FSt3A89Ykt4vpCwNfnybPj13Wyjv51MTEamviXx6cZZB0ODFxjar1vatIfnv1lky7Pzs8_B0e4pd88EOOA/s640/MODTRAN+CO2+Only+vs+NIMBUS+4+IRIS+W+Tropical+Pacific+CO2+965000+ppmv.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 12 - MODTRAN CO2 965,00 ppmv, surface temperature 302 K, tropical atmosphere.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Why 965,000 ppmv? It corresponds to Venus' CO2 mixing ratio of 96.5%. Not a directly comparable situation by any means as Venus has a much much much more massive atmosphere than Earth. However, I think the above two plots are informative for the very reason that they neatly demonstrate that adding more CO2 does not "saturate" the "greenhouse" effect ... it happily gobbles up more and more of the spectrum as concentration goes up.<br />
<br />
And ... even if it didn't spread out across multiple spectral bands as shown, impeding the path of photons trying to get to TOA is a simple matter of adding more absorbers. The ONLY limit is how many of them you can pack into a given column of atmosphere, which according to the maths of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Beer-Lambert law</a> is theoretically infinite -- just make the path longer, or put more absorbers in the same volume -- optical depth of a medium does not asymptotically approach any upper value as either of those two parameters increase.Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com53tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-46288081274094031072016-02-19T15:46:00.000-08:002016-03-17T02:13:41.047-07:00Yes MOST Models Run Hot... or, "Just what the world needs, another CMIP vs. Observation blog post".<br />
<br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
Arguments vary; this one touches on some of the common ones:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models and reveals that Man’s influence on the climate is negligible</a><br />
<br />
Anthony Watts / January 16, 2015 <br />
<br />
What went wrong?<br />
<br />
A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man’s effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.<br />
<br />
Thanks to the generosity of the Heartland Institute, the paper is open-access. It may be downloaded free from http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml. Click on “PDF” just above the abstract.</blockquote>
<br />
That link is now broken; fear not, co-author Briggs generously hosts the paper for us ...<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<a href="http://wmbriggs.com/public/Monckton.et.al.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Monckton, Soon, Legates and Briggs (2015), <i>Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model</i></a><br />
<br />
... so that we may be edified. Blog rebuttals to this paper are legion, when I have a bit more time I'll footnote my favourites. For purposes of this post I'll simply assert that this model isn't irreducibly simple ...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJMwSNc20WJAC6XAeQCUl7iflHVZ41v1DnVMap5eZjDRUC15coI4MFV2qq-LPHzj-6og1VbAFYqj1fEFC81IxnnSnE0vrwotUVLfYMq1ydLvOzeIQnj4YlhCqg6IUNAbA536oEzxkMI-U/s1600/CO2+regression+vs+HADCRUT4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJMwSNc20WJAC6XAeQCUl7iflHVZ41v1DnVMap5eZjDRUC15coI4MFV2qq-LPHzj-6og1VbAFYqj1fEFC81IxnnSnE0vrwotUVLfYMq1ydLvOzeIQnj4YlhCqg6IUNAbA536oEzxkMI-U/s400/CO2+regression+vs+HADCRUT4.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
... and is also irrevocably, irredeemably broken insofar as Monckton & Co. have selectively and inconsistently executed it. Other than that glowing condemnation, it is not wholly without merit so far as I can tell ... as long as one doesn't cherry-pick data for feeding its input parameters. Or as Monckton so <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/#comment-1837978" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">candidly states</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So I hope that people will do us the courtesy of reading the paper, thinking about it and then having a go at running the model for themselves, <b>using whatever parameter values they consider appropriate</b>. Each parameter is discussed in the paper, so as to give some guidance on the appropriate interval of values.</blockquote>
The emboldened bit being my emphasis because it's such a non-Briggs-like thing to say it made me wonder exactly how much of a contribution he offered to warrant being listed as an author save for ...<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIEG2Kd29magzzfhrPCCw6qxY1-6BNhJ6cQYa129E1x7vDQDXlrG397_98IsOmtVX7_0FFOSBXD-uQWqQc7CuXR9Q9R7S6rQsPmuBO0c9okgLY4OBhQfe_FHyhzlzGKY55-OfBltQD2tg/s1600/Monckton+2015+Figure+5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIEG2Kd29magzzfhrPCCw6qxY1-6BNhJ6cQYa129E1x7vDQDXlrG397_98IsOmtVX7_0FFOSBXD-uQWqQc7CuXR9Q9R7S6rQsPmuBO0c9okgLY4OBhQfe_FHyhzlzGKY55-OfBltQD2tg/s400/Monckton+2015+Figure+5.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Fig. 5 Climate sensitivity ΔT∞ at CO2 doubling against closed-loop gains g∞ on [-1,+2]</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
... the risible and deservedly much-derided "Process engineers' design limit y∞ ≤ 0.1", which has Briggs written all over it. Though to be fair, <i>plural </i>engineers is not the kind of thing one expects a staunch monotheist to espouse; perhaps he had a rare fit of inclusiveness. Or more likely, it being Monckton's plot, he really is making a secular argument that human engineers with the aim of designing stable thermodynamic/electronic systems keep closed-loop gain below +0.1 and thus takes the leap of logic that the Earth's climate system must follow suit.<br />
<br />
With that digression out of the way, on to my central point which is ...<br />
<br />
<h4>
The IPCC Throws Their Own Models Under the Bus</h4>
... with regularity. Rare is it a "teh modulz suck" argument seen in the blogosphere that I cannot find already published in AR5. One of the most "damning" I know of comes from AR5 WGI Chapter 9, <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><i>Evaluation of Climate Models</i></a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
Model Response Error<br />
<br />
The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998–2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration than is consistent with observations (Section 10.3.1.1.3, Figure 10.4). Averaged over the ensembles of models assessed in Section 10.3.1.1.3, the best-estimate GHG and other anthropogenic (OA) scaling factors are less than one (though not significantly so, Figure 10.4), indicating that the model-mean GHG and OA responses should be scaled down to best match observations. This finding provides evidence that some CMIP5 models show a larger response to GHGs and other anthropogenic factors (dominated by the effects of aerosols) than the real world (medium confidence). <b>As a consequence, it is argued in Chapter 11 that near-term model projections of GMST increase should be scaled down by about 10% (Section 11.3.6.3).</b> This downward scaling is, however, not sufficient to explain the model-mean overestimate of GMST trend over the hiatus period.</blockquote>
Emphasis mine. The implication being that the CMIP5 historical ensemble runs approximately 10% too hot ...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN-Ar2CvhEJD6lKDHmpGruvhLMEWxFN_puUjh77ilhVsZBxmiR8cGE2XkIYB07WaqdjLnJFLqji9mPyXK3uq09LDRewq74_MMoDNdz-ujPuab2P1CTcdEMhNwhM3NGJzVPcV1UNW5jN2A/s1600/HADCRUT4+vs+CMIP5+RCP8.5+regression+monthly+2015-12.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN-Ar2CvhEJD6lKDHmpGruvhLMEWxFN_puUjh77ilhVsZBxmiR8cGE2XkIYB07WaqdjLnJFLqji9mPyXK3uq09LDRewq74_MMoDNdz-ujPuab2P1CTcdEMhNwhM3NGJzVPcV1UNW5jN2A/s400/HADCRUT4+vs+CMIP5+RCP8.5+regression+monthly+2015-12.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
... and as ((1 / 0.9201) - 1) * 100 = 8.7%, by Jove, they may have a point:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf4MR8TW5w8F-ms-dLlwe-IZqNw8s7NDl5a3w_qJHZGSj9x65Vm2hFmij1azpOkrcTgbKfIHwwPs6k4zxH3huQlTUIm-9pcMv74cJIdaThyphenhyphen34WCB6SlsqHjXj48pOkwYfK0f5ey1CFyC8/s1600/CMIP5+RCP8.5+vs+Observations+to+2100.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf4MR8TW5w8F-ms-dLlwe-IZqNw8s7NDl5a3w_qJHZGSj9x65Vm2hFmij1azpOkrcTgbKfIHwwPs6k4zxH3huQlTUIm-9pcMv74cJIdaThyphenhyphen34WCB6SlsqHjXj48pOkwYfK0f5ey1CFyC8/s400/CMIP5+RCP8.5+vs+Observations+to+2100.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Ayup, using the (naive) assumption that CO2 is the only external forcing used by CMIP5 models in the RCP ensemble runs, the forward-looking results appear to be a tad too hot.<br />
<br />
However, simply scaling CMIP5 output and calling it good is hardly acceptable as a permanent solution, not least due to all the absolute temperature-sensitive non-linear responses known (and suspected) to exist in the real system -- some not very well constrained (e.g., ice sheet albedo feedback, tropical deep convection, from which also partially follows the perennially elusive role of radiative water vapour feedback vs. that of clouds). As such, the modelling community is hardly resting on its collective Nobel laurels, <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1455909693927#c6459913398013408170" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">as reader BBD comments</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span id="bc_0_2b+seedNnJFD" kind="d">There is evidence that when the
CMIP5 forcing estimates used for AR5 are updated to bring them into line
with real-world forcing history, then modelled global average
temperature comes into much closer agreement with observations <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html" rel="nofollow">(Schmidt et al. 2014).</a> This would suggest that model physics and so emergent behaviours like model sensitivity are reasonably accurate.</span></blockquote>
Given all the ink spilt by the IPCC in its own assessments and by the AGW consensus modelling community in peer-reviewed primary literature on the litany of poorly understood weather/climate processes, raw computational horsepower limitations, bugs and other gremlins lurking in zillions of lines of FORTRAN, I have often rhetorically asked climate model-bashers:<br />
<ol>
<li>How exactly is it bad science that the climate modelling community apparently knows far more about their problems and limitations than you do, and aren't shy about committing these "failures" to print in liturature?</li>
<li>If the models are so unreliable as to lack ANY predictive utility, <b>why in holy fuck are you so cavalier about making unmitigated changes to the radiative properties of atmosphere</b>?</li>
</ol>
Though I don't usually use such colourful metaphors out of respect for the lopsidedly tender sensibilities exhibited by Mr. Watts and the majority of his followers. Responses to more mildly stated versions of (2) run from "The failure of The Models proves that climate sensitivity is low," to "Yabbut, isn't it suspicious that ALL models run hot?"<br />
<br />
The latter argument is easily foiled ...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLs-VFBm23HJ10-vovRYdhmre8mEbiCo6-GIIDzOcO1Lfc9ZQ2sUfJCgTNhPefxG9BFHOv5jPx_riqxvLRsrXrgO33JvWlH4dKAR-47vTVSZ5kVZGjrKtWWqqZW6KLI4_Fvuqi4O5I83Q/s1600/CMIP5+vs+HADCRUT4+trend+1860-2014+01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLs-VFBm23HJ10-vovRYdhmre8mEbiCo6-GIIDzOcO1Lfc9ZQ2sUfJCgTNhPefxG9BFHOv5jPx_riqxvLRsrXrgO33JvWlH4dKAR-47vTVSZ5kVZGjrKtWWqqZW6KLI4_Fvuqi4O5I83Q/s400/CMIP5+vs+HADCRUT4+trend+1860-2014+01.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
... and never in my experience acknowledged. Certainly the "all models are hot" zombie myth shuffles onward, undead and rank as ever.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
As for The Models foiling the radiative theory of AGW, and therefore being ill-suited for policy-making decisions -- which is generally the root argument even when left unspoken -- I like this somewhat infamous bit of straight-talk from Richard Betts over at Bishop Hill:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Once again this brings us back to the thorny question of whether a GCM is a suitable tool to inform public policy.</blockquote>
Bish, as always I am slightly bemused over why you think GCMs are so central to climate policy.<br />
<br />
Everyone* agrees that the greenhouse effect is real, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.<br />
Everyone* agrees that CO2 rise is anthropogenic<br />
Everyone** agrees that we can't predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. <b>We don't know.</b> The old-style energy balance models got us this far. We can't be certain of large changes in future, but can't rule them out either.<br />
<br />
So climate mitigation policy is a political judgement based on what policymakers think carries the greater risk in the future - decarbonising or not decarbonising.<br />
<br />
A primary aim of developing GCMs these days is to improve forecasts of regional climate on nearer-term timescales (seasons, year and a couple of decades) in order to inform contingency planning and adaptation (and also simply to increase understanding of the climate system by seeing how well forecasts based on current understanding stack up against observations, and then futher refining the models). Clearly, contingency planning and adaptation need to be done in the face of large uncertainty.<br />
<br />
*OK so not quite everyone, but everyone who has thought about it to any reasonable extent<br />
**Apart from a few who think that observations of a decade or three of small forcing can be extrapolated to indicate the response to long-term larger forcing with confidence<br />
<br />
Aug 22, 2014 at 5:38 PM | Registered Commenter Richard Betts </blockquote>
Emphasis again mine. Shockingly, contrarian denizens immediately stripped all nuance and context out of the statements of a good scientist doing good science and being honest about the limitations of predicting a murky and uncertain future vs. what nearer to 20/20 hindsight has gleaned from observation -- and yes, models -- tell us about past and present. There was much rejoicing in the form of jig-dancing and declaration of victory along the lines of, "Even Richard Betts <b>admits</b> we don't know shitall about climate!" Very next comment in the thread sets it up:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I disagree, Richard.<br />
<br />
Four or five years ago I would probably have agreed but I'm afraid that now I think that the only people who agree that "the CO2 rise is anthropogenic" are those who have stopped thinking. <b>Some of the rise is anthropogenic but since the correlation with increased temperature is poor why should anybody care?</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
<b>And why do we need GCMs whose predictive capability is zero</b> to "inform contingency planning and adaptation" when that seems to include such political wheezes as not draining the Somerset Levels or building on flood plains because we aren't going to have as many floods or advising everyone to re-design their gardens for a Mediterranean climate?<br />
<br />
<b>I'm never quite sure whether it's hubris or chutzpah you guys suffer from but trying to second-guess nature is not very bright</b>. The largest uncertainty I see these days is how far from reality the next Met Office long-range forecast will turn out to be and how Auntie Julia will manage to convince herself that it was actually right if you include large enough error bars.<br />
<br />
(And you will also have to take the blame for idiots like the EU who think that reducing the power of vacuum cleaners will save electricity and at the same time do a better job. Oh yes you will, because it is the output of these GCMs as spun by the climate activists that are "informing" (LOL) the politicians' decisions! <b>You want us to adapt; they make the decisions as to how. Wrongly, usually.</b>)<br />
<br />
Aug 22, 2014 at 6:01 PM | Registered Commenter Mike Jackson</blockquote>
My emphasis. Note how "poor correlation" (it isn't when one considers more than the past 19 years of lower tropospheric temperatures) morphs into the absolute "zero predictability". Then the rather ironic chutzpah of claiming Dr. Betts is suffering from hubris after having just said, "We don't know" exactly what the future holds. Not one to stray off "the science is settled even when we're constantly told it isn't" meme, he triumphantly ends with a confident declaration that Betts' uncertainty is ever more evidence that "climate activists" are usually wrong.<br />
<br />
Next page of comments contains back-to back examples of some themes I mention previously:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Richard - even with all your points granted: <b>CGMs all run on a hot side</b>; none has been able to predict the temperature of the 21st century. <b>With a hindsight, the modelers claim they now cam model the "hiatus"</b>. For catastrophic scenarios, models are absolutely crucial.<br />
<br />
Aug 22, 2014 at 6:52 PM | Unregistered Commenter Curious George<br />
<br />
A short note to the "Climate Science Cabal"<br />
<b>When in a hole stop digging.</b><br />
<br />
Aug 22, 2014 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered Commenter Mike Singleton</blockquote>
Apparently George is not curious enough to do any fact checking on not-hot models, nor does he apparently understand that just because weather is chaotic and therefore not reliably predicable after about week does not mean we can't attribute causality to unexpected multi-decadal trends after they have happened.<br />
<br />
Singleton apparently doesn't realize that he's implicitly asking Betts to stick to the talking points of an imagined and improbable cabal of rent-seeking conspirators who are too incompetent to have the faked surface temperature data match the ideologically motivated, overly-warm model outputs.<br />
<br />
<h4>
What About this Hiatus Thingy?</h4>
... because even the IPCC <b>admits</b> it happened!<br />
<br />
Let's read the beginning of Box 9.2 ... <b>carefully</b>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years<br />
<br />
<b>The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST)</b> has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04oC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11oC per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3; Cohen et al., 2012). <b>Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST</b> (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19). Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of <b>what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it</b>.<br />
<br />
<b>Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series</b> (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Liebmann et al., 2010). However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21oC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of <b>(a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error</b>. These potential sources of the difference, <b>which are not mutually exclusive</b>, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus.</blockquote>
I'll do one better ...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1WYULXyYtNnobjzL4-eYaEgTjeAHHtT2G8rm4w_hD8jEzNjjH1GURcVqlV27ZqfTFoDHnrKaUMk-016IotxO65cumBRU_qI7e7_UYQmrLOGyhp3x3zXlk6YG9QVuOKBbpuDXA0IlQ3vE/s1600/hadcrut4+hiatuses.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1WYULXyYtNnobjzL4-eYaEgTjeAHHtT2G8rm4w_hD8jEzNjjH1GURcVqlV27ZqfTFoDHnrKaUMk-016IotxO65cumBRU_qI7e7_UYQmrLOGyhp3x3zXlk6YG9QVuOKBbpuDXA0IlQ3vE/s400/hadcrut4+hiatuses.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
... 40 year "pauses" have precedent in GMST <b>observation</b>. And internal variability ...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO70p9r_pvikAI30mwzksD-ONS41a6wvLSyWw_DXdQ8IIAo8Lel5tzjSTFl6c_Q8bc53G-3JkkUdJwL5ZqoYhvAhyphenhyphenHevIiZgEg6LYCXNpndTiv-aWvfbMwLei_X674za4Fqg-tz2qB4is/s1600/GISTemp+vs+CMIP5+RCP6.0+109CMA+vs+LOESS+2015-12.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO70p9r_pvikAI30mwzksD-ONS41a6wvLSyWw_DXdQ8IIAo8Lel5tzjSTFl6c_Q8bc53G-3JkkUdJwL5ZqoYhvAhyphenhyphenHevIiZgEg6LYCXNpndTiv-aWvfbMwLei_X674za4Fqg-tz2qB4is/s400/GISTemp+vs+CMIP5+RCP6.0+109CMA+vs+LOESS+2015-12.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
... is not your friend if you think two decades of flattish GMST trend is the harbinger of the next Ice Age and/or the death rattle of AGW.<br />
<br />
A topic for another day: why the 109 month filter sampling, how LOESS smoothing increases uncertainty at the endpoints of a series, and thus why declaring The Pause dead could bite one in the arse.<br />
<br />
On that latter note, here's Ye Olde Reliable ...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp2000_global.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp2000_global.png" height="254" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Pause? What Pause? I don't see no steenkin' Pause!Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-11629869170628551542016-02-18T14:59:00.003-08:002016-03-17T02:14:08.092-07:00On Competing Mechanisms for the Observed Temperature Gradients Between Surface and Upper Air... or in other words, is it the purported longwave radiative gradient due to water vapour, CO2, methane, and other so-called greenhouse gasses? Or something else? Is the "greenhouse" effect real, but presently saturated at present levels of GHG atmospheric concentrations? Or is the planet self-regulating to an extent that climate sensitivity to increased CO2 concentration is smaller than the present IPCC-published range of 1.5-4.5 K/2xCO2?<br />
<br />
I promise only strong and (sometimes) well-argued opinions, no definitive answers.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<h4>
Background</h4>
This post derives from the culmination of many discussions I've been having with a fellow name of Chic Bowdrie across several WUWT threads which started, I think, with our mutual intent to compare reliability and uncertainty of the surface temperature anomaly with bulk upper air temperature anomaly obtained by orbiting (advanced) microwave sounding units a la RSS and UAH.<br />
<br />
As these things so often do, that discussion sprawled into other areas such as ocean heat content, energy imbalance estimates, the pros and cons of atmosphere/ocean general circulation models, confirmation bias in science when policy is on the line and "bias bias" -- that all too common malaise which occurs when one's interlocutor is such a stubborn git that surely he's the one who can't see the forest through the trees. Not to mention some wrangling over Popper-style falsification, Fisher-esque null hypothesis testing and the Three C's of "normal science" as generally seen in practise, Consistency, Consilience and Consensus.<br />
<br />
"Damn your assertions, show me your evidence!" has been a common refrain.<br />
<br />
"That is utterly inconclusive (you ignorant clod)!" has been a common response upon delivery of same.<br />
<br />
And no small amount if wondering whether the other guy is burden of proof shifting, or really IS open to accepting the others' view if a mechanism could only be convincingly articulated, backed up with solid maths and reliable-looking empirical data. I have also openly held forth on my distaste for the word "proof" when inductive inference is a dominant logic. <br />
<br />
I exaggerate with the tone and parenthetic unspoken thoughts; at least for Chic's part he is far more polite in his responses than my inner dialogue often is when I read them. For the very reason that I enjoy discussing these things with him and because it has gotten logistically hairy for our conversations to have sprawled out over several threads (and now other blogs, namely ATTP's joint) I have invited him here to discuss what we have mutually agreed upon is the most interesting and central premise of AGW: the radiative theoretical model of climate forcing vs. various alternative mechanisms he thinks have merit sufficient to explore in earnest.<br />
<br />
My premise in support of that agreement is that all the evidence in the world for a given physical phenomenon does not a strong argument make unless it is backed by consistent, robust, well-tested theory. That, and I'm just plain weary of discussing (in)credible error estimates.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Pretty Pictures and Other Reference Materials</h4>
If there's any one thing which has dominated our discussions, it is the energy budget cartoon found in <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1" target="_blank">Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl (2009), <i>Earth's Global Energy Budget</i></a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsoQfX9a94shwJe4VWdIFgQ6k-DRAj9rbLlKEkqkm6QXbZzaN3dbD9uSO19lGuh2wof1H-sxTSCTjnx3jJl2Hb12g4KK_GjkuKfhmywOIHdDgW5qtFA38s8Fk8kRDT5IkmflFRlR6TLL8/s1600/Trenberth+Fasullo+and+Kiehl+2009+Fig1_GheatMap.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="467" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsoQfX9a94shwJe4VWdIFgQ6k-DRAj9rbLlKEkqkm6QXbZzaN3dbD9uSO19lGuh2wof1H-sxTSCTjnx3jJl2Hb12g4KK_GjkuKfhmywOIHdDgW5qtFA38s8Fk8kRDT5IkmflFRlR6TLL8/s640/Trenberth+Fasullo+and+Kiehl+2009+Fig1_GheatMap.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
I believe it is fair for me to say that we both provisionally accept the indicated fluxes, if not as a reasonable approximation of current global diurnal averages, at least as a faithful representation of the IPCC-approved model of radiative forcing and energy imbalance for sake of argument. We both have noted that net fluxes at all of the three layers of this model (surface, mid-troposphere and top of atmosphere) net to roughly zero, which is state we would both expect in the system at a steady state thermodynamic equilibrium. We also both recognize that the planet is never truly at equilibrium, only ever "seeking" it. However we have agreed to accept steady state (pseudo-)equilibrium as a useful illustrative and conceptual model.<br />
<br />
Chic does have at least two issues with this schematic that I can recall:<br />
<ol>
<li>He thinks the stated 0.9 W/m^2 downward flux imbalance should be closer to zero.</li>
<li>The 333 W/m^2 Back Radiation flux drawn from mid-troposphere to surface is unrealistic because extinction path length for 15 micron longwave radiation is variously cited as being between 3 and 10 meters at sea level pressure.</li>
</ol>
To (2) I would add that water vapour being a potent absorber outside the 15 micron band and present near the surface up to 4% by volume as opposed to CO2's 0.04% relatively well-mixed ratio should not be neglected either.<br />
<br />
As to (1), he has previously cited <a href="http://users.clas.ufl.edu/prwaylen/GEO2200%20Readings/Readings/Radiation%20balance/An%20update%20on%20Earth's%20energy%20balance%20in%20light%20of%20latest%20global%20observations.pdf" target="_blank">Stephens et al. (2012), <i>An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations</i></a>, which gives the TOA imbalance as 0.6 +/- 0.4 W/m^2 at TOA and 0.6 +/- 17 W/m^2 at the surface:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8BxyuvfFLNOtQ_oRIp7-qdri6JFRelWBaGlYtHQ0NX7v85jC3VhgzyprsB62kCyVekiTgrc3doKB_EVwgriT52v3_FsRunf4uwCqUJnYItsTj48XTUP8cqy7S71ykVLYRceDuiihLrxg/s1600/stephens+2012+energy+balance.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8BxyuvfFLNOtQ_oRIp7-qdri6JFRelWBaGlYtHQ0NX7v85jC3VhgzyprsB62kCyVekiTgrc3doKB_EVwgriT52v3_FsRunf4uwCqUJnYItsTj48XTUP8cqy7S71ykVLYRceDuiihLrxg/s640/stephens+2012+energy+balance.gif" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
He is of the mind that 0.6 W/m^2 is still too non-zero to be a credible estimate, especially given the magnitude of the stated uncertainties in the paper and the budget diagram. In light of that objection, I took it upon myself to appeal to published ocean heat content estimates to see if I could get into the ballpark on that basis alone. The data were from KNMI Climate Explorer which more or less conform to this plot from <a href="https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index1.html" target="_blank">NOAA/NESDIS/NODC</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZHmunagfLrEr36GfGDuVDp6M9g3_lwA4JMXFsEbzOBwJEAEAQWkAG_tZifxvPgMG2PJHzVDWeNnrBSiaeZowCRkIRx1j_jHO1COyD-9kfW3CbFx52mUdH4hLQd8zgHEEhbxtLp8BINXo/s1600/heat_content2000mwerrpent.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZHmunagfLrEr36GfGDuVDp6M9g3_lwA4JMXFsEbzOBwJEAEAQWkAG_tZifxvPgMG2PJHzVDWeNnrBSiaeZowCRkIRx1j_jHO1COyD-9kfW3CbFx52mUdH4hLQd8zgHEEhbxtLp8BINXo/s640/heat_content2000mwerrpent.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
In <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/earths-energy-balance-as-seen-in-ocean.html" target="_blank">this post</a> I use the KNMI plots for the visuals which come <i>sans</i> error bars. The moral of the story is that I calculate an energy imbalance from 1957-present of 0.34 W/m^2 for the upper 2,000 m of oceans, compared to 0.004 W/m^2 for the whole atmosphere over the same interval according to HADCRUT4. I then note that my OHC estimate falls within the stated uncertainty of Stephens (2012), and that I think it is plausible that the difference between my estimate and Stephens could be found deeper than 2 km as ARGO is upgraded to go deeper.<br />
<br />
One final citation and graphic from <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871903/" target="_blank">Wu and Liu (2010), <i>A new one-dimensional radiative equilibrium model for investigating atmospheric radiation entropy flux</i></a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrkIQsSeHlPrvBx3DtfY_ytAe3OJhfp4gw4w453XllTHegWquvWXqFjPTsJJdalNW0wvaO352YClg86WZM_-THJGbIj0n_IhByFa9lJBAh8VI7P6YBgaq1WgFkPhyJ6I9hemILqIHiu8k/s1600/rstb20090301-g3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrkIQsSeHlPrvBx3DtfY_ytAe3OJhfp4gw4w453XllTHegWquvWXqFjPTsJJdalNW0wvaO352YClg86WZM_-THJGbIj0n_IhByFa9lJBAh8VI7P6YBgaq1WgFkPhyJ6I9hemILqIHiu8k/s640/rstb20090301-g3.jpg" width="404" /></a></div>
<br />
The above plot encapsulates the main theses of my argument to date, namely:<br />
<ol>
<li>The radiative gradient as a function of altitude (both solar SW and LW emission/absorbtion by/from the surface and atmosphere) is primarily responsible for the temperature gradient in the troposphere between tropopause and surface (i.e., the lapse rate).</li>
<li>Convective transport of latent and sensible heat from the surface to (roughly) the tropopause must be considered by more complex models to explain observation. As well, this convective transport has the tendency to reduce the temperature gradient (i.e., reduce lapse rate).</li>
<li>(1) is not saturated, and thus increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration by way of anthropogenic emission will tend to reduce net LW loss from the surface as well as proportionally at higher altitudes as suggested by the curves shown by (b) in the above figure. The implication also being that where both the downwelling (blue) and upwelling (red) LW curves intersect at the surface will move to the right (increase) by way of response to any conceivable increase in CO2 levels.</li>
<li>(2) is not expected to compensate for (3) due to any mechanism, including albedo feedback due to increased cloudiness as a result of increasing specific humidity near the surface due to increased surface evaporation. IOW, if cloud feedback is negative, it is only weakly negative with respect to the increased radiative forcing due to CO2 and the secondary radiative feedback due to higher atmospheric water vapour content.</li>
<li>Whatever the final steady equilibrium state of the system thus perturbed by rising CO2, the NET of ALL fluxes at ALL levels is expected to be zero in any proposed model which reasonably represents actual physical processes taking place in the entire climate system. Until that equilibrium is reached, I expect there to be a net downward energy flux present at TOA and the surface when averaged over a climatically representative interval ... on the order of three decades or greater.</li>
</ol>
<h4>
Invitation to Comment</h4>
Although this post is intended mainly for Chic and me to check our own understandings and assumptions against alternative models, I welcome contributions from others who may (improbably) happen by. I have never formally established posting policies for this blog. However, my intent for this particular post wants some rules, which are as follows:<br />
<ol>
<li>Burden to substantiate claims is on the one making them. Citations to primary literature, observational data obtained from same, appeals to well-established physical theory, detailed calculations (show your work) and/or independently developed statistical/physical models are acceptable. Be prepared to defend all of the above on the merits of the arguments made themselves, not by who said them where.</li>
<li>Converse to (1), bickering about politics, making sweepingly generalized statements about the obvious biases and blind spots of one's interlocutor and other red herrings are strongly discouraged. I get it we all have preconceived notions and cognitive biases; this thread takes that as a given and I wish to rule it out as subject of "debate" herein.</li>
<li>Unilateral self-declarations of victory will be considered an immediate loss. Forward progress is obtained by at least understanding someone else's position, if not accepting some or all of their evidence and reasoned arguments. Unqualified victory here is being challenged and learning something from it.</li>
<li>Bluntly pointing out that someone else's argument is crappy is acceptable if one also explains why. Bluntly pointing out that one's own argument is crap is encouraged, especially if one also explains why.</li>
<li>Reminding me that I wrote the latter part of (4) may be necessary. The former, not so much.</li>
</ol>
First violations will stand, but with warning. Second violations will be redacted with explanation, with any surrounding non-offending comments left intact. Subsequent posts containing offences will be deleted <i>in toto</i> with explanation.<br />
<br />
With that all said (it was supposed to be short, dammit) I yield the floor to Chic. I would suggest to him that he also write a summary of his own position to date first, which I'll add to the head post, before taking up point-by-point arguments in comments.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update 2/29/2016 - Chic's Opening Statement</h4>
<div dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-d7c58fba-2ea0-e8cd-1998-d2c5a7f06f9e" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Brandon,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I accept your invitation to continue our debate on various climate change issues. Our chance meeting on another blog and many subsequent discussions attests to the degree we both seek the truth regarding climate science. I liken my quest to the Holy Grail of climate change, a search for definitive evidence that any further increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause a corresponding and discernable effect on global temperatures. Failing to see sufficient evidence, I am suspect of the radiative theoretical model of climate forcing which I agree is the central premise of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but not the only one. In addition to the claim that CO2 warms the atmosphere, another aspect of the theory is that the increase in CO2 is primarily, if not totally, due to man. That is also a debatable subject. I will only address the potential for CO2 to cause further warming, regardless of where the CO2 comes from. This presumes I acknowledge some global warming, but consider natural causes more likely to be the predominant contributing factors.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I dislike using the term greenhouse effect and avoid its use as an analogy for the atmosphere. A greenhouse is warm, because it is enclosed. The atmosphere has no lid and convection and wind contribute considerably to energy transfer. For this reason I do not consider CO2 and water vapor as greenhouse gases, but rather IR active gases because of their ability to absorb and emit SW and LW radiation. I also make a distinction between a greenhouse effect evidenced by a planet with an atmosphere compared to one without vs. the enhanced greenhouse effect which raises the issue of whether or not increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause any further increase in global temperatures. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Brandon notes our agreement on the basic virtues and flaws of the energy budget diagrams. In a response to his opening statement, I stated my disagreements with the main elements of the position encapsulated in his summary of the Wu and Liu paper. In the following paragraphs, I summarize my position generally and then follow that up with a more detailed explanation.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Aside from the inherent problem of oversimplification, the energy diagrams suffer from their inability to account for the effects of a rotating Earth. The Sun heats the surface only part of the day at any one location. This obviates any equilibrium being established and complicates energy budget estimates. The SW radiation is absorbed in land and ocean surfaces which eventually lose that energy to the atmosphere through several processes described in the diagrams. The three main phenomena, conduction, evaporation, and radiation, all have the same consequence which is causing the air above the surface to rise. Evaporation does it by making the air less dense. Conduction warms directly and radiation warms through absorption of LW radiation by IR active gases and subsequent thermalization by collisions with the more predominant atmospheric gases. Convection and advection bring this energy, originally from the Sun, up into the troposphere. This energy warms the troposphere mostly during the day, before being radiated back to space, mostly at night. On average, all the energy that enters the troposphere, either LW from the surface below or direct SW from the Sun, exits at the end of each diurnal cycle. If not, then global warming or cooling will occur in the long run.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><img height="425" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_d9ZYojYJU584vt9kt38reW_baOfEdRgu5ey7Ng-QVRtCLQ-Smp1ErwY5J5GZ64-MIWMlqnUrQi7hXDSrpw7jo8qsPWdtoZD7YU9RtBsXs0l0WazdxKA-z2S-YX9wMPJkpo6XOfGICVAEeDL0Q" style="-webkit-transform: rotate(0.00rad); border: none; transform: rotate(0.00rad);" width="622" /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The upward and downward radiative energy flows illustrated in the Wu and Liu (2010) diagram are unreal, because convection is ignored. While including mathematical equations that account for convection is currently beyond my ability, I diagrammed conceptually in the Figure above what the energy fluxes would be if my understanding of the atmosphere is correct. The curve labelled ULWR is similar to Wu and Liu’s upward LW radiation. It was plotted using the equation</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Z = A * ln [197/(ULWR -239)]</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Z is the altitude and A is a constant used to shape the curve. The DLWR curve was plotted using an equation similar to the ULWR curve, but at low altitude values there is a 40 W/m2 difference in consideration of the atmospheric window. At higher altitudes, I shaped the curve to reduce the downward LW as would be expected from the less dense upper troposphere.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The equation for the solar input is also conceptual and reflects the 78 W/m2 of SW gradually absorbed by the atmosphere that doesn’t reach the surface. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Solar = 161 + 78*F*EXP(B*(F-1))</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">F is Z/Z</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 8.799999999999999px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: sub;">TOA</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> and Z</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 8.799999999999999px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: sub;">TOA</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> is an arbitrary value for the altitude of the TOA at 13 km. B is another shape factor that favors most of the SW being absorbed at higher rather than lower altitudes. When Z = Z</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 8.799999999999999px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: sub;">TOA</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> , the solar radiation is the 239 W/m2 portion of the total 341 W/m2 solar insolation that isn’t reflected. The solar input goes to 161 W/m2 when Z = 0.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The convection curve is simply the remainder calculated from the assumption that the energy flux at any altitude is net zero. Therefore, Convection = Solar – ULWR + DLWR. Thus the contribution of convection to atmospheric fluxes is the predominant factor in moving energy from the surface to the upper troposphere where the burden is passed to radiation. It is only at high altitudes where the density is thin that molecular collisions no longer dominate over emissions. Although there is a 50:50 chance that an emission will go up or down, there will be a net flux up because upward will exceed the downward absorptions. This is well represented in the Wu and Liu diagram. But at altitudes close to the surface, the greater density means that upward and downward absorptions will be essentially equal. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The lapse rate in my Figure was calculated using the Stephan-Boltzmann constant to convert the temperature at each altitude to a W/m2 value. A lapse rate of 6.5 K/km was assumed. I used the shaping factors to bring the DLWR curve close the lapse rate curve. I justified this on the basis of the spectra of the atmosphere showing that temperatures of the atmosphere correspond to temperatures calculated from Planck’s equation. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">While a certain critical mass of IR active gases are required to maintain an atmosphere with a moderate range of temperatures, I contend that further increases in CO2 will not increase global temperatures substantially. Any actual effect cannot be detected amidst the myriad of natural factors also in play. If anything, additional CO2 is more likely to increase the ratio of ULWR to DLWR at the high altitudes.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I suspect that discrepancies between climate models and satellite temperature observations may be due to the models attributing too much influence from CO2, water vapor, and other IR active gases. This blog post addresses this possibility for model error:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/new-paper-illustrates-another-failure-of-the-ipcc-mullti-decadal-global-model-predictions-on-the-warming-in-the-tropical-upper-troposphere-models-versus-observations-by-fu-et-al-2011/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0563c1; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/new-paper-illustrates-another-failure-of-the-ipcc-mullti-decadal-global-model-predictions-on-the-warming-in-the-tropical-upper-troposphere-models-versus-observations-by-fu-et-al-2011/</span></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-top: 5pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Quotes from this article: “</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">One of the striking features in GCM-predicted climate change due to the increase of greenhouse gases is the much enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Here we examine this feature by using satellite MSU/AMSU derived deep-layer temperatures in the tropical upper- (T24) and lower- (T2LT) middle troposphere for 1979-2010.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> It is shown that T24- T2LT trends from both RSS and UAH are significantly smaller than those from AR4 GCMs</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">. This indicates possible common errors among GCMs although we cannot exclude the possibility that the discrepancy between models and observations is partly caused by biases in satellite data.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-top: 5pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">IPCC AR4 GCMs overestimate the warming in the tropics for 1979-2010,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> which is partly responsible for the larger T24-T2LT trends in GCMs. It is found that the discrepancy between model and observations is also caused by the trend ratio of T24 to T2LT, which is ~1.2 from models but ~1.1 from observations. While strong observational evidence indicates that tropical deep-layer troposphere warms faster than surface, this study suggests that the AR4 GCMs may exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere in the last three decades. In view of the importance of the enhanced tropical upper tropospheric warming to the climate sensitivity and to the change of atmospheric circulations, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">it is critically important to understand the causes responsible for the discrepancy between the models and observations</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">IMO, the main reason for the discrepancy is too much dependence on the amount of radiative forcing attributed to CO2. One has to keep in mind the time between absorption and emission relative to the time between collisions. At the surface, molecular density is so great that collisions result in essentially all LW being absorbed within a few meters. This situation is reversed in the upper troposphere where every collision involving the excitation of a CO2 molecule is more likely to result in emission of radiation rather than another collision transferring energy back to an IR inactive molecule. Although the emission is equally likely to go up or down, the net radiation will be up because more radiation comes up from the denser atmosphere below than comes down from above. So there is no justification for a tropospheric hot spot. The more CO2, the greater difference between upward vs. downward radiation.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Chic Bowdrie</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">February 24, 2016</span><br />
<br />
<h4>
Update 3/1/2016</h4>
Using output from an online version of the MODTRAN radiative transfer code, I ginned up a plot of radiative fluxes from the surface up to 30 km:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXeYs4DkMubY9oNdkEDcgsyxiAPuQxeA9-2r2gPSD1XoSbvOtETzPfr4DSjv0ohyphenhyphenq9E78EFEMhNunMNuNy_qELBjdVqHpBDkwaG3wLmafbGoX1Z938JyN16WFCydC43nAI0HwBpoL2Pgk/s1600/MODTRAN+1D+Model+by+Level+Tropical+Clear+Sky+CO2+400+ppmv.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXeYs4DkMubY9oNdkEDcgsyxiAPuQxeA9-2r2gPSD1XoSbvOtETzPfr4DSjv0ohyphenhyphenq9E78EFEMhNunMNuNy_qELBjdVqHpBDkwaG3wLmafbGoX1Z938JyN16WFCydC43nAI0HwBpoL2Pgk/s400/MODTRAN+1D+Model+by+Level+Tropical+Clear+Sky+CO2+400+ppmv.png" width="398" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The light blue curve is the Stefan-Boltzmann prediction taken from the temperature profile for the standard tropical atmosphere used in these particular model runs. The atmospheric emissivity value of 0.84 is my own parameter which I selected to make the difference between the DWLR and the graybody flux = 40 W/m^2, which is the value shown in the K&T energy budget cartoon as the upwelling radiation from the surface which goes out through the so-called atmospheric window. I've no idea if that's kosher, but it seemed reasonable as 0.84 is in line with other published approximations for emissivity in a "gray" atmosphere.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Compare the shape and values of the longwave curves to Wu & Liu (2010). Further compare this image from Grant Petty (2006) courtesy of <a href="http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/21/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-and-the-%E2%80%9Cgreenhouse%E2%80%9D-effect-%E2%80%93-part-eleven-heating-rates/" target="_blank">Science of Doom</a>:</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/petty-longwave-heating-rates-2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/petty-longwave-heating-rates-2.png" height="313" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Clearly, a pure radiative model which does not take convective/advective, latent and sensible heat transfers into account would not approximate observed temperature profiles with reasonable fidelity. A simple 1D model which does a better job of it presently eludes me, but I'm chipping away at it.</span><br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Update 3/5/2016</span></h4>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I used the following image <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1456815295749#c178270860919475140" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">in a reply to Chic</a> in the comments below. Since Venus/Earth comparisons have become a main theme of the discussion, I thought it appropriate to elevate this image and some discussion to the main article.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju6Bjpbwkk3PZ8C2Cb3cp7g504L5aXmKW2OJv6TQ2mr5kGSyhtJkLp3yy9neG6uu9FFMt2pD5Voe_R0T1guimllBgLbiNEnLk3Ap3xi1EQGBFvyWBVCpyoEAqcRi_Uq8uevYlz_hL8aiQ/s1600/earth-mars-venus.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju6Bjpbwkk3PZ8C2Cb3cp7g504L5aXmKW2OJv6TQ2mr5kGSyhtJkLp3yy9neG6uu9FFMt2pD5Voe_R0T1guimllBgLbiNEnLk3Ap3xi1EQGBFvyWBVCpyoEAqcRi_Uq8uevYlz_hL8aiQ/s400/earth-mars-venus.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Temperature profiles for Mars, Earth and Venus taken from <a href="http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s3c.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Astronomy Notes by Nick Strobel</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">As I dig into it, it seems appropriate to <a href="http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/03/lapse-rate-on-venus-part-1.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">elevate this discussion to its own article</a>.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></div>
Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com134tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-16018015813226130562016-02-18T13:36:00.002-08:002016-03-17T02:14:53.656-07:00Earth's Energy Balance as Seen in Ocean Heat Uptake<br />
<br />
<footer>
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<cite class="fn"> ... or, "is it plausible that the 'missing heat' has gone deeper than 2 km?"</cite></div>
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<cite class="fn"><br /></cite></div>
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<h4>
<cite class="fn">Background</cite></h4>
<cite class="fn">What follows is a post from WUWT in response to Chic Bowdrie about a number of different things which I reproduce here in full mainly because of the number-crunching I do to justify at least a portion of various energy imbalance estimates seen in the likes of papers such as:</cite><br />
<cite class="fn"><br /></cite>
<br />
<a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1" target="_blank">Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl (2009), Earth's Global Energy Budget</a><br />
<a href="http://users.clas.ufl.edu/prwaylen/GEO2200%20Readings/Readings/Radiation%20balance/An%20update%20on%20Earth%27s%20energy%20balance%20in%20light%20of%20latest%20global%20observations.pdf" target="_blank">Stephens et al. (2012), An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations</a><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
Chic's comments in indented paragraphs, everything else is mine.<br />
<br />
Begin Post<br />
---------------- <i><br /></i></div>
</footer><footer><div class="comment-author vcard">
</div>
<div class="comment-author vcard">
<cite class="fn">Brandon Gates</cite> </div>
<div class="comment-meta commentmetadata">
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/01/study-claims-no-natural-component-to-global-warming/#comment-2144020"><time datetime="2016-02-13T04:14:27+00:00">
February 13, 2016 at 4:14 am </time></a>
</div>
</footer>
<br />
<div class="comment-content">
<br />
Chic Bowdrie,<br />
<blockquote>
I get the notices by email and will keep my eye out. I
think our discussions here and on the Briffa post are converging on the
reliability of the surface and satellite measurements. Perhaps we should
continue here exclusively?</blockquote>
I don’t think that post is coming out of limbo any time soon, but I saved some of it which I use below.<br />
<blockquote>
I was interested in your response to the following exchange earlier:<br />
<i>The switch from ERSST v3b to v4 was … (drumroll) … net cooling:</i><br />
<i>
</i><i> From 1850 something that may be the case. However, Christy showed
that since 1995, that change biased NOAA trends upwards relative to
Hadcrut4 and UAH sea surface measurements.</i><br />
<i>
</i>The changes to ERSST, whether justified or not, do constitute a warming trend since 1995.</blockquote>
And my counterpoint remains: it’s the trend over the entire interval
which figure more into climate sensitivity estimates. So if the IPCC
are trying to pump up CO2 potency for political leverage, and NOAA are
complicit in helping them do it, the last thing they’d be expected to do
is reduce the overall trend.<br />
<blockquote>
Now concerning the Monckton issue,<br />
<i>I did, and attempted to respond to his assertion masquerading as a
question: “Why is the ocean warming not from above but below?”</i> <br />
But it wasn’t an assertion.</blockquote>
“The ocean is warming not from above but below” is implicit. It’s an assertion which has been loaded into the question.<br />
<blockquote>
It was a question that deserves an answer.</blockquote>
It’s an assertion that wants substantiation before it can be answered. I’ll demonstrate:<br />
1) Why does CO2 warm the planet?<br />
2) Why will AGW be catastrophic?<br />
3) Why are you still beating your wife?<br />
It’s one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book. People who habitually do it are not to be trusted in my opinion.<br />
<blockquote>
I would answer that there is insufficient evidence to know where the warming comes from.</blockquote>
Welllll … maybe you should give an earful to Monckton in addition to me.<br />
<blockquote>
The errors in measurement are too large to say with
confidence that warming comes from increasing CO2, or excess solar
insolation, or from ocean warming originating from who knows how long
ago. Solar insolation is greatly affected by clouds and I’m not aware of
any definitive data indicating how much SW radiation is actually
absorbed by the surface.</blockquote>
My standard response: all I can do is present evidence I find
compelling. If it doesn’t meet your standards of “definitive” or
“confidence” there isn’t much else I can do other than appeal to theory.<br />
<blockquote>
Had the intent been an assertion, I surmise that it would
have been something like “global warming can’t be caused by fossil fuel
emissions, because the troposphere hasn’t warmed as it would have had
to according to AGW theory. His substantiation was that you would have
to deny satellite data to claim that the troposphere is warming the
surface.</blockquote>
The troposphere’s absolute temperature is cooler than the surface.
Surface warms the troposphere, not the other way around. 2nd law of
thermodynamics.<br />
<blockquote>
Vertical convection in the ocean is not favored, because the temperatures are lower and density greater with depth.</blockquote>
Bingo.<br />
<blockquote>
Turbulence at the surface and thermohaline circulation are other phenomena.</blockquote>
Yes.<br />
<blockquote>
If the circulation is causing the warming, what does that have to do with fossil fuel emissions?</blockquote>
I don’t assert circulation is causing the warming. Here’s the basic
argument: Sun warms first few tens of meters. GHGs modulate the rate
at which oceans radiatively dissipate energy. Turbulent mixing carries
some of that heat to further depths, thermohaline circulation also moves
some of it, the balance is diffusive.<br />
CO2 is a GHG, and burning fossil fuels is what’s causing the rise.<br />
<blockquote>
If that were obvious there wouldn’t be such a debate about it, as you and I are having.</blockquote>
Yes that’s true. I was arguing that point as if you were Monckton,
whom I don’t consider to be acting in good faith. It’s bloody well
obvious to me; however, I should not impose that on you just because of
my animus toward him.<br />
<blockquote>
So what mechanisms and magnitudes do you attribute to the sources that are heating the surface(s) of the Earth?</blockquote>
I had a bunch of calcs and scribblings for a previous post that ended
up on the cutting room floor, let me see … ah. Some of this is has
been covered already:<br />
<br />
<pre>sea water (290 K) 4.006 kJ/kg K
air (300 K) 1.005 kJ/kg K
mass of oceans 1.35E21 kg
mass of atmosphere 5.15E18 kg
energy to change ocean temps by 1 K = 1 K * 4.006 kJ/kg K * 1.35E21 kg = 5.41E+21 kJ
energy to change atmos temps by 1 K = 1 K * 1.005 kJ/kg K * 5.15E18 kg = 5.18E+18 kJ</pre>
<br />
From Bintanja (2008) I estimate that the ratio of temperature change
at the surface to deep ocean is ~5:1 so a 1 K change to surface would be
expected to change ocean temps by 0.2 K, thus:<br />
<br />
5.41E+21 kJ/K * 0.2 K = 1.08E+21 kJ to oceans for every 1 K change in
surface temps. We can check this assumption against instrumental
observation since 1955:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp2000_global.png"><img src="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp2000_global.png" style="max-width: 100%;" /></a><br />
<br />
Regressing that against HADCRUT4 surface temps over the same
interval, I get a slope of 7.60, R^2 = 0.76, so the deep ocean model
from Bintanja (2008) is in the ballpark with modern instrumental
observation.<br />
<br />
The oceans are deeper than 2,000 m; average depth is 3,682.2 m according to a 2010 estimate: <a href="http://www.livescience.com/6470-ocean-depth-volume-revealed.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.livescience.com/6470-ocean-depth-volume-revealed.html</a>
(satellites again), so the 2,000 m layer works out to about 54% of the
ocean’s total volume, and therefore mass. We can check this another way
by doing some math against ocean heat content estimates for the 2000 m
layer:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iheat2000_global.png"><img src="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iheat2000_global.png" style="max-width: 100%;" /></a><br />
<br />
Mean ΔOHC works out to 5.47E21 J/yr, and ΔT works out to 0.0019 K/yr on average, so:<br />
<br />
<pre>4.006 kJ/kg K * 1,000 J/kJ * 0.0019 K/yr / 5.47E21 J/yr = 1.39E-21 1/kg = 7.19E+20 kg
7.19E+20 kg / 1.35E21 kg = 0.53</pre>
<pre> </pre>
That checks out within 1% of the expected result, which is rather
better than I thought I’d get. From the same uppper 2,000 m OHC data,
more calcs:<br />
<br />
<pre>5.47E21 J/yr / 3.16E07 s/yr = 1.73E14 J/s (W)
1.73E14 W / 5.10E14 m^2 = 0.34 W/m^2</pre>
<pre> </pre>
Using HADCRUT4 over 1957-2015 as a proxy for net atmospheric temperature change:<br />
<br />
<pre>0.0130 K/yr * 5.18E+18 kJ/K * 1,000 J/kJ = 6.72E19 J/yr
6.72E19 J/yr / 3.16E07 s/yr = 2.13E12 J/s (W)
2.13E12 W / 5.10E14 m^2 = 0.004 W/m^2</pre>
<pre> </pre>
Given that the uncertainty of Stephens (2013) is +/- 0.4 W/m^2, 0.004
W/m^2 is looking like nothing more than rounding error no matter
whether surface, radiosonde, or satellites are used to estimate the
temperature change. However, noting that 0.004 / 0.6 * 100 = 0.7%, it’s
in line with the 1% of net energy absorbed by the system the IPCC say
we should expect.<br />
<br />
My 0.34 W/m^2 calculation from 2,000 m OHC estimates is 0.26 W/m^2
lower than the 0.6 central estimate, and as such falls within the +/-
0.4 W/m^2 uncertainty interval. However it still wants an accounting.
What “should” OHC’s contribution be? According to the IPCC (going by
memory here), the estimated relative fluxes are as follows:<br />
<br />
<pre>0.93 oceans
0.05 land
0.01 latent heat (surface evaporation/ice melt)
0.01 atmosphere
----
1.00 total
0.6 W/m^2 * 0.93 = 0.56 W/m^2 - 0.34 W/m^2 = 0.22 W/m^2</pre>
<pre> </pre>
Given that the upper 2,000 m accounts for just over half of the
oceans’ mass, it seems plausible to me that my missing heat is
diffusing/circulating to lower layers. OTOH, the imbalance could be on
the lower end of the Stephens (2013) central estimate. Some of both.<br />
<br />
Mechanisms.<br />
<br />
First the Sun. Here’s Lean’s monthly TSI reconstruction from 1882 through October 2015:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itsi_ncdc_monthly.png"><img src="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itsi_ncdc_monthly.png" style="max-width: 100%;" /></a><br />
<br />
The average annual change over the entire interval is 9.06E-03
W/m^2/yr. However, that does not account for the fact that only half
the planet is illuminated at any given time, nor that the angle of
incidence is < 90 on the sunlit side everywhere except where the sun
is directly overhead, so we need to divide by 4, giving 2.27E-03
W/m^2/yr. We've then got to knock off 30% to account for albedo, which
gives 1.59E-03 W/m^2/yr. Or, to be fair, the ocean's mean albedo is
0.06, not 0.30, so call the maximum plausible upper bound 2.13E-03
W/m^2/yr.<br />
<br />
<pre>0.34 W/m^2 / 59 yr = 5.76E-03 W/m^2 yr (upper 2km oceans)
2.13E-03 W/m^2 yr / 5.76E-03 W/m^2 yr = 2.7</pre>
<pre> </pre>
… so AT BEST the increase in TSI since the late 19th century could
only account for between a quarter and a third of the observed OHC
increase in the upper 2 km layer over the past ~60 years.<br />
CO2:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/imaunaloa_f.png"><img src="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/imaunaloa_f.png" style="max-width: 100%;" /></a><br />
<pre> </pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>ΔCO2 = 1.5 ppmv/yr
Δln(C/C0) = 4.21E-03 1/yr
4.21E-03 1/yr * 5.35 W/m^2 = 2.25E-02 W/m^2/yr</pre>
<pre> </pre>
The net change over 1958-2015 is:<br />
<br />
<pre>ln(400 ppmv/315 ppmv) * 5.35 W/m^2 = 1.28 W/m^2</pre>
<pre> </pre>
And for parity with the solar calcs since 1882:<br />
<br />
<pre>ln(400 ppmv/290 ppmv) * 5.35 W/m^2 = 1.71 W/m^2 :CO2
9.06E-03 W/m^2/yr * 135/yr = 1.21 W/m^2 :TSI
1.21 W/m^2 * (1-0.06) / 4 = 0.29 W/m^2 :TSI accounting for albedo and geometry</pre>
<pre> </pre>
Ratio comparison to solar forcing:<br />
<br />
<pre>1.28 W/m^2 / 0.29 W/m^2 = 4.4 (CO2:1958-2015 / Solar:1882-2015)
1.71 W/m^2 / 0.29 W/m^2 = 5.9 (CO2:1882-2015 / Solar:1882-2015)</pre>
<pre> </pre>
… which gives a lot of wiggle room for CO2 vis a vis the energy
imbalance estimate uncertainty and magnitude IF the 5.35 W/m^2 forcing
coefficient is correct. I haven’t accounted for negative anthropogenic
forcings (mainly aerosols) which have the effect of reducing solar
influence. There’s also methane, albedo change (ice/snow loss, black
carbon), water vapor feedback, etc., to consider. This is wayyy to long
already and I’m too tired to get to it in this post anyway.<br />
<br />
We could attempt to juice solar by going all the way back to the Maunder Minimum:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iTSI_TIM_Reconstruction.png"><img src="http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iTSI_TIM_Reconstruction.png" style="max-width: 100%;" /></a><br />
<br />
… problem is, the shape of the OHC curve is all wrong.<br />
<br />
TSI peaked ~1960 and has been in a slight decline. If the runup from
1700-1960 caused most of the observed imbalance, we might still expect
to see OHC rising, but at a decelerating rate. The data above show the
exact opposite. The shape of the OHC curve best matches the shape of
ln(CO2). I find it very difficult to call that sheer coincidence.<br />
<blockquote>
I already referred to evidence from Stephens et al.
(2013) reporting that incoming SW radiation (gross minus reflected) is
240 +/- 2 W/m2. They also report outgoing as 240 +/- 3.3 W/m2. Trenberth
et al. (2009) report incoming and outgoing from various sources ranging
from 225 to 245 W/m2 for incoming SW and 236 to 254 W/m2 for outgoing
LW. By your own calculations, the increase in ocean heat content is
approximately 0.34 W/m2 which constitutes to over 90% of the increase in
global heat content. Therefore we can account for less than 0.5 W/m2 of
the energy imbalance whatever it may actually be. <b>Since the
imbalance from solar is possibly several times greater than that, I
conclude that all of the increase in heat content could be due to the
amount of solar SW insolation absorbed by the planet.</b></blockquote>
Emphasis added. A lot of things are possible. I know of no TSI
reconstructions that match OHC from 1957 and surface temp change from
1850. It doesn’t work. If it’s not CO2 and not the Sun, it’s something
else we haven’t found, and that seems extremely unlikely to me.
Logically I cannot rule it out, OTOH, I don’t think it irrational to
believe what the consilience of multiple lines of evidence and radiative
physics suggest: it’s CO2.<br />
<br />
To change my mind requires that someone identifies the … Force X …
applies a plausible physical model for it, and demonstrates it with
empirical evidence such that it is a better “predictor” of the past than
the CO2 model. I wasn’t kidding about supporting a Red Team to do such
a thing. I found it curious that I met with such resistance in this
forum when I expressed that sentiment.<br />
I cannot write another word. I hope some of the above makes sense.<br />
<br />
---------------- </div>
<div class="comment-content">
End Post<br />
<i><br /></i>
Could stand some for some cleanup<i>. </i>Mostly I just wanted to preserve these calcs here as a ready reference when I wish to refer to them.<i><br /></i></div>
Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com0