Are Some Alarmists Addressing Reality?

Well, I do give props where I think they’re due.  And there are a couple of alarmists who deserve at least half credit for recognizing a simple fact.  I’ve got to say, coming from one isn’t much of a surprise, but the other gives me hope.

image

I suppose I should back up.  If people have been watching, like I have, they would know the recent chatter among the socialists.  It’s fascinating that they’ve learned nothing. 

At any rate, I’ll share a chuckle with our readers.  The lunatics are pretending they understand markets, again.  They’ve learned absolutely nothing from their insidiously stupid and failed carbon market scheme.  They still believe they understand something in terms of markets and economics.  Apparently, they believe there’s some sort of “carbon bubble”.  I’ll let Planet 3.0 explain it.

The Carbon Tracker Initiative doesn’t come off like a climate-justice project, but its logic is just as implacable. And it has been explaining that logic to analysts on Wall Street and in the City of London, in language that they can understand. In short, Carbon Tracker has been arguing that “governments will limit carbon emissions, so if your business model is based on burning it, you are overvalued and at risk – sitting on a bubble. BAD haircut coming.” And they’re clearly right. This is a “systemic” approach that shows that markets fail, and sometimes spectacularly, and that right now they’re leading investors (and, oh yeah, humanity as a whole) to disaster.

Yes, BP and Shell are quaking.  Again, they’ve learned absolutely nothing from their carbon schemes.  They simply don’t understand the nature of markets, economics or people, for that matter. 

What they don’t understand, refuse to understand, and can’t understand by the nature of their ideology, is that all of the regulations in the world won’t matter to the companies.   I would go on as to why, but I think I’ll let our friends David and William explain the senselessness of this.  William Connolley has this to say….

he idea is that because we’ll need to keep unburnt oil in the ground to hit (or rather, to not hit) a 2 oC commitment, a pile of oil companies are wildly overvalued, leading to… well, who cares what it leads to, because it doesn’t matter.

Via AS I find Tol saying

As soon as the “market” expects that new regulation will seriously devalue an asset, its price drops. Bubbles only arise if the “market” is misinformed. The “market” is by no means infallible when it comes to pricing risk, but an expectation of “not much climate policy any time soon” strikes me entirely realistic

which is pretty well what I was going to say, so I won’t bother re-say it (note, BTW, that I’m of course not saying that I think sticking within 2 oC wouldn’t be a good idea. I think it would be an excellent idea. I’m just dubious about its plausibility). He continues with some econ-type stuff about how even if it were true it wouldn’t have the effects claimed, which seems plausible too, but I’m less interested in that. The Economist says about the same.

P3′s writeup says:

There’s a huge amount of evidence that… mainline financial analysts around the world are taking the argument on-board, and in a big way.

That’s hard to make sense of. If true, why aren’t the stock prices of oil companies tumbling? But I boldly plough on, to the report itself (Unburnable Carbon 2013:  Wasted capital and stranded assets). And don’t find much. Perhaps I missed it; its quite long and I only skimmed it.

Okay, William didn’t break it down very well, but, at least he understands that the people saying there’s a bubble and people are taking note doesn’t fit with reality.  No they’re not taking note.  Our friend David Appell will explain it better……  my bold.

This talk going around about carbon bubbles and overpriced assets — come on, who’s kidding who??
Do you live in the real world, or not?
In the real world, assets worth (at least) hundreds of trillions of dollars don’t get held out of the market just because it makes Bill McKibben happy.
The left is living in a dream world if they think so.
The world is going to burn its oil and gas and a fair piece of its coal.
……

Because you and me don’t want to ride our bikes to the store under the hot sun, and we want to fly to Albuquerque when we want to, on the exact day we want to.
No renewables are anywhere near providing the lifestyle we want, and it’s far from clear than any can.
The world has done nothing to eliminate fossil fuels, not even the US (we’re only moving towards natural gas because it’s cheaper, not because it’s better for the environment).
And we won’t — serious climate change is always too far away, too expensive to stop, too easy to ignore.
…….

In the real world, people with lots of money get their way. That means the oil companies and gas companies and coal companies will get their way, and you and I will let them, because the stakes aren’t high enough, for us, to do otherwise.
So Bill McKibben can organize all he wants — while, of course, flying anywhere he needs to fly to at a moment’s notice — and there’s no point pretending otherwise.
…….

The rest is typical alarmism stuff, which I won’t bother repeating.  Obviously, I don’t share the worry about CO2 causing the earth to burn, but, that’s for a different post.  What I want to note the reality David is addressing.  To be honest this is quite refreshing from someone who adheres to the alarmism. 

I’ll try to put it in a slightly different light.  Oil companies don’t care what regulations will or won’t be passed.  It doesn’t affect their business model one whit.  Because, as David points out, we’re not going to change.  And, as David points out, we’ve nothing to change to.  There is no viable  alternative to oil.  It’s utter fantasy to believe if we just tax it more that we’ll use less.  We can’t!  More, that cost will only be passed on to the consumers.  An oil tax won’t cause on investor to sell.  I don’t know if the alarmists realize this or not, but gasoline is one of the highest taxed products already…….. all over the world!

Coal is still in use and will be for a very long time.  As will be nat gas. 

So, why am I posting something that 99% of the readers here understand?  Because this is good news.  To get alarmists to address reality is a huge step forward.  Once they realize they can’t kill the beast they rail against, then perhaps, we can start having some realistic conversations with realistic proposals instead of having the Bill McKibbens and Jim Hansens and the lot spewing their lunacy. 

So, at least for this part, good for William and good for David.   I’ll take the baby steps.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate, Energy. Bookmark the permalink.

334 Responses to Are Some Alarmists Addressing Reality?

  1. PhilJourdan says:

    Getting alarmist to address reality is indeed a man bites dog story!

    • suyts says:

      No doubt! Even if it’s just a little reality!!

      On an aside, I’m still experiencing internet probs. :( I would have already had several more posts and comments, but, it’s become such a pain …… in out, on off. Will settle down in a few though.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Download Wireshark and see if you have an inordinate amount of outgoing traffic. My experience with ISPs is they are like Microsoft. There is no problem until they have a fix.

  2. Me says:

    I don’t think so, to Me, it sounds more like a rally call in their outreach program to try and turn things around.

    • Me says:

      :lol: Told ya! Hey, search this statement on the web, { In a half to one billion years the Sun will start to be too luminous and warm for water to exist in liquid form on Earth } :lol: since Toshinmack brought up the half billion years thinggy!!!!

    • suyts says:

      LOL, yeh, you nailed it.

  3. DirkH says:

    Appel:
    “In the real world, people with lots of money get their way. That means the oil companies and gas companies and coal companies will get their way, and you and I will let them, because the stakes aren’t high enough, for us, to do otherwise.
    So Bill McKibben can organize all he wants — while, of course, flying anywhere he needs to fly to at a moment’s notice — and there’s no point pretending otherwise.”

    Not bad. But Appel ignores that McKibben is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation (as one can see on their website); which leads us to a conclusion that all the warmists ignore, maybe knowingly: Big Oil is very very happy with the Green Religion indeed, and funds it on every occasion.

    I leave it to the leftist idiot frauds to find out why.

    • suyts says:

      Baby steps, Dirk. We can’t expect them to address all reality all at once. But, you’re right. They just get to charge more per unit if they tax their product.

    • PhilJourdan says:

      Smart investors make money in a down market. Oil companies will make money off of green or black energy.

  4. copernicus34 says:

    on what planet are we to think Mr Appell has addressed reality? i don’t for one minute think those things which he said were reality are what he actually advocates. Sounded more like a bitch fest on the way things are.

    • suyts says:

      Cop, to be sure, he doesn’t like it. But, it seems to me that he’s realizing that we’re not going to do without. And, that there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels for the moment. ….. it’s a start.

  5. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    This is why I will sometimes spend energy on blog discussions with Dr Appell, since he does seem to realise there is something wrong with the CAGW story, but its almost like he can’t bring himself to go the rest of the way.

    My experience is you can feed him science, journal citations and data which he cannot refute, whereupon he hits a mental wall and turns ad hom. But my hope in these arguments is that some of the data will percolate into his hindbrain, as I hate seeing scientists dogmatically ride the sinking ship into the not-rising-much sea.

    I suspect it is the tribal/ideological problem. If you are left in your politics it is hard to (a) ever believe people of the right, as many climate sceptics are, can possibly be correct (b) even harder to disbelieve fellow left wingers, which almost all CAGW climate scientists are, and (c) risk your own job and career when it rests upon the CAGW hypothesis being true.

    Its a really tough conundrum.

    I suspect underneath David’s bluster there is a scientist trying to get out. Likewise some journos like Andy Revkin. He can’t seem to take that last step either, but otherwise he appears to have a bit of a streak of honourable journalistic ethics underneath all the advocacy.

    • miked1947 says:

      I have been “Discussing” this with David for years! He is still the same old David. I have seen a bit of advance in Curry’s understanding over the last few years, but I still see the old Judith peeking out. David may one day run from the sinking ship, but he may just go down with it.

    • DirkH says:

      No, their problem is that they are Malthusians. Malthus serves as professor at the college of the East India Company. They had their ships, travelling all oceans, collect data, and Malthus saw himself as privileged, being the first researcher having access to data from all over the round, limited, globe. That’s how he devised his philosophy of the Earth as a limited system. No endless new discoveries, a fixed amount available, which leads us of course to Eugenics and Attenborough’s Optimum Population Trust, the 500 million max world population demanded by the Georgia Guidestones etc.

      So this philosophy is still the core belief of leftists (after socialism lost enough of its luster to be replaced by Keynesianism as their preferred economic system).

      And CO2AGW is just so amazingly useful for this philosophy as it entitles them to control the fuel usage of all of humanity, remember, limited resources. I often point Malthusians to the report of the German institute for geosciences that lists known energy resources for 1,500 years. And I get back a blank stare and they say “See? It’s limited!”

      (Each year we discover 40,000 exajoules more; yearly usage is at 481 exajoules…)

      So, thinking beyond the first stage is beyond them. They wouldn’t understand Julian Simon’s the Ultimate Resource. Their brains would refuse to process it. They have all been brainwashed by decades of Malthusian propaganda (of course most notably Limits To Growth).

      They NEED this belief; they have constructed their identities and lifestyles around it; their morality even.

      • DirkH says:

        So, what I mean, nothing short of a full personality breakdown and reconstruction, read, a personal crisis, will turn one of them into a non-Malthusian; it is a self-reinforcing belief system. And that’s why Appell won’t change, or Revkin.

        • DirkH says:

          And before one says, this is confirmation for Kant, meaning that ones values determine the truth that one finds, (a despicable anti-cartesian philosophy used to justify about anything one wants: pre-post normal if you will), I’d like to cite the late philosopher Bruce Lee:
          “”Those who are unaware they are walking in darkness, will never seek the light.”

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          Losing your CAGW climate scientists’ job and being forced to drive taxis for a living would be something of a personal crisis…

          I hope the climate scientists put together a personal lifeboat strategy, because the ship is going down. Like the temperature.

          Not many party bosses kept their jobs after the Wall fell. This is going to be similar.

      • suyts says:

        Well, that’s true, too. The don’t understand the equation. Or rather, they choose not to understand.

        The way I see it, we can look at it two ways. But, first we must understand that man cannot create nor destroy. Man’s ability to think is not limited. So, either way, if one considers it a closed system, or an open system it doesn’t matter. There are no limits on our uses of our resources. The only limits are the ones man places upon himself.

        Malthus was a moron. Or, more likely, a self-loathing misanthropist.

        • Bruce says:

          There’s enough uranium and thorium that we officially know about for maybe 10,000 years of human energy use at current rates.

          And I think I can find a few more millenia worth in a lot of undeveloped REE deposits I know of.

          After that we can start on vacuum energy.

          Malthus did not credit human ingenuity. These people today do know about human ingenuity but dishonestly refuse to acknowledge it because they have a political barrow to push. They don’t want truth they just was a convenient casus belli to fool the useful idiots with.

        • DirkH says:

          They dismiss human ingenuity as only inventing useless gadgets (iPhones – that they themselves use all the time – quite paradoxical – or an expression of their self-loathing. Personally, I find my Samsung Note a very practical invention indeed – I always wanted a Wacom digitizer with a display, now I have it way cheaper than expected).

          It has to do with them doing unproductive jobs. They think everyone has an unproductive job.

    • David Appell says:

      First, I don’t know what the “C” in CAGW is supposed to mean. It isn’t a scientific term.

      Second, emitting carbon warms the planet and changes the climate. The change in surface temperature is about 1.5 C per trillion tonnes of carbon, plus or minus a third. This is a proven fact.

      So you have to either accept a lot of warming at a rapid rate (with an acidified ocean), or you have to geoengineer. I think I prefer massive R&D into air capture of CO2, but both the R and the D and the resulting facilities to do it for as long as we burn fossil fuels will be costly: unlikely to get below $100/tonne, by the time you pull it out of the air and bury it somewhere.

      So we should tax carbon at this rate at least. It would mean getting rid of coal (it’s dirty and ought to go anyway) — it would be too expensive. It would cost about about 90 cents per gallon of gasoline, which won’t break anyone, and about $4 per 1000 cubic foot of natural gas (I pay about $12 for that now, so this won’t break anyone either).

      It’s simple: polluter pays, just like everywhere else.

      (Also, we should eliminate black soot as much as possible.)

      • DirkH says:

        David Appell says:
        May 8, 2013 at 8:04 pm
        “First, I don’t know what the “C” in CAGW is supposed to mean. It isn’t a scientific term.
        Second, emitting carbon warms the planet and changes the climate. The change in surface temperature is about 1.5 C per trillion tonnes of carbon, plus or minus a third. This is a proven fact.”

        Last time I checked even the warmists maintained that the change in LWIR backradiation behaves logarithmically to the concentration.

        BTW, how can one prove your “fact”? Why do warmists want their science to be assessed by the weak standards of Post-Normal Science when they can prove what you say? A proof means that the standards of Normal science are fullfilled.

        What you say contradicts everything I ever heard from warmists.

        • David Appell says:

          Concentration is increasing exponentially, so the net increase is a linear increase in temperature. (And above about 700-800 ppmv CO2, higher order terms in the logarithm start to become important.)

        • DirkH says:

          You said that x tonnes of CO2 lead to y degrees of warming. Think about it for a while. A constant increase in CO2 leads to a constant amount of warming, that’s what you said. That’s linear, not logarithmic.

        • DirkH says:

          ” (And above about 700-800 ppmv CO2, higher order terms in the logarithm start to become important.)”

          You mean something weird happens when the pressure broadening of the absorption spectrum of CO2 is completely saturated? Like what? Maybe like – no further increase in absorption and re-emission?

        • David Appell says:

          Yes, that’s what I said. Do the math.

        • DirkH says:

          I don’t have to, it’s obvious. So that’s good news, isn’t it. One doubling and that’s it. Hey, why don’t we just burn all the coal then. I guess the planet can use that extra CO2 for some plant growth.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        It is not a proven fact. It is only proven in a petri dish. Not in the real world. That is because no one has been able to successfully model the earth’s climate yet.

        As a supposed scientist, you should well know that facts are rare as hens teeth, And a real scientist does not throw ignorant opinion around and call it “fact”. Only charlatans and witch doctors do that.

  6. David Appell says:

    So what is a “realistic proposal” to deal with the climate change all this fossil fuel burning is bound to produce?

    • suyts says:

      Well, if one was a nutter that was truly concerned with CO2 emissions, (there are damned few) then one would advocate hydrogen or something similar to use as a fuel. Nuclear energy is another great place to work. Both are much more closer to being a reality than wind or solar. I advocate research in both.

    • Bruce of Newcastle says:

      David – Do nothing.

      As we discussed yesterday the empirical net sensitivity is so low that we won’t get 2 C of warming out of all the fossil fuels on Earth, even if we do burn them all.

      If the warming effect of CO2 is minor, it would be immoral to impoverish people to ameliorate a problem which doesn’t exist. As for natural climate change, sensible preparations can and should be made. I’m thinking of Sandy etc. Its likely we’ll see a new burst of hurricane activity over the next few years like that in the ’50′s, which was a similar phase of the AMO.

      Meanwhile there is good evidence that the extra pCO2 is giving a nice kick to agricultural production and biosystem productivity generally.

      • David Appell says:

        Simply wrong; climate sensitivity is no lower than 2 C:
        http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/wither-global-warming-has-it-slowed-down/

        With ~10,000 GtC available to burn (most of it coal), we would scorch the planet and ruin the ocean.

        Doing nothing is not an option. Polluters pays.

        • DirkH says:

          “Mathematics teaches us that 15 years is simply too short a period from which to draw statistically valid conclusions.”

          Oh please. The warming period the warmists base their theory on went from 1979 to 1998. That’s 21 years. The temperature plateau is now 15 years long. Remember we are still coming out of the LIA, BTW.

          So these yale eggheads say, ignore the 15 years, look at the 21 years. How stupid do they think we are? Defund and fire the lot.

        • DirkH says:

          Oh sorry, typing faster than thinking – it’s 19 years warming vs. 15 years plateau. Sorry. Doesn’t change the argument. But makes it stronger.

        • David Appell says:

          Perhaps you don’t know enough math to follow the reasoning — statistical uncertainties in autocorrelated time series?

        • philjourdan says:

          Or perhaps you just do not know statistics at all. Your statement is evidence of that fact.

        • DirkH says:

          Perhaps you don’t know the term Null Hypothesis?

        • DirkH says:

          “Doing nothing is not an option. Polluters pays.”

          That’s why we call you chicken littles. It has stopped warming. We don’t have to do a thing. The computer models were wrong. Junk them.

        • David Appell says:

          Read my Yale Forum article — it has certainly not stopped warming.

        • philjourdan says:

          We know about your hidey places. However none of the models predicted the creation of them, so you are still wrong. It has stopped warming. Whether the deep oceans have warmed remains to be seen (convenient that the postulate is for the places not measured).

          Now if the oceans have become a warmth magnet remains to be proven. Even hypothesized. So far, it is an out created when the old models failed to predict the present.

        • DirkH says:

          They made up their own temperatures? Oh. A competitor to GISS, then.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          It is a lot lower as the last 17 year hiatus of has proven.

        • David Appell says:

          There is no doubt that the deep ocean has warmed; that’s what the data shows.

          And no one ever expected a monotonic increase in surface tempertature, or that short-term intervals are climatologically meaningful. And come the next El Nino when surface temperatures shoot up, deniers will be the ones pointing out that short-term trends are meaningless.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          No, the data does not show that as there have been no measurements in the past (below 2k meters), and only 9 years of measurements below 700m. Why do you lie? Or are you claiming that 9 years is enough for a statistical certainty? Well, we know you flunked statistics in school.

        • David Appell says:

          Or perhaps you just do not know statistics at all. Your statement is evidence of that fact.

          So what do you know about autocorrelated time series?

        • PhilJourdan says:

          I know not to try skewering them. Do you know how to create one?

        • David Appell says:

          It is a lot lower as the last 17 year hiatus of has proven.

          Wrong in several ways. First the surface has certainly warmed in the last 17 years. The ocean has warmed a lot, showing the Earth still has an energy imbalance with more coming in than going out. And 17 years is far too short of a time to make judgements about climate sensitivity — the entire record, accounting for all forcings, shows it hasn’t changed at all.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          The surface has not warmed – according to the datasets. So stop lying. Now you can cook those books if you like, but I think you have to get the cooperation of Jones and Hansen’s successor.

          if 17 years is “far too short”, why have you been crying about AGW when the history was only 13 years (75-88)?

          2 different standards do no cut it in the scientific world. You just cut your feet out from under you.

      • David Appell says:

        The Rao paper you linked to yesterday in Current Science (never heard of it) is certainly not accepted science. The Friends of Science are pushing it makes me even more suspicious.

        I thought this was supposed to be a reasonable discussion, but clearly you have a skewed defintion of reasonable.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Yeah why should we trust the science of these “Yale egghead” scientists when we have oil funded climate organizations and amateur bloggers!?!

        • philjourdan says:

          WHich oil funded organizations would that be? The climate alarmist who are funded by over a 5-1 margin?

          Pathetic really. You still trot out the same old lies, with no basis in reality.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – Udipi Rao is a professional cosmic ray scientist and past head of the space agency in India. There are few more senior scientists in the world, and it is no surprise that India has paid little attention to the CAGW scare.

          The paper is not accepted by you or by IPCC consensus scientists. It is scientifically correct though.

          Add Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s work and the dozens of similar studies and you can see where nearly half of temperature rise last century came from. Solar cycle 23 was the most active cycle for a very long time. The current solar cycle is one of the most inactive for two centuries, and you in North America can see the result, snow-shovels in hand.

          Even aside from the solar dynamo indirect effect there is the roughly 60 year ocean cycle. The other paper again is one of many showing that cycle was responsible for a large chunk of the temperature rise last century. If you take that into account it alone drops derived climate sensitivity well under 2 C, as that abstract says.

          I find it curious that the IPCC chose a period of 1906-2005 for their signature century rise of 0.74 C. If you look at the detrended HadCRUT you can see that corresponds just about perfectly with the trough of one cycle and peak of the next. Now that cycle is also turning down, andadding to all the snow you guys are having. And my small model is tracking the CET rather well. CET for April averaged only 7.6 C.

      • suyts says:

        David, I want to thank you for coming by. Seeing that this is the bottom quote, I hope you allow me to respond to a few things you’ve already stated.

        David, you know darn well that correlation isn’t causation. There’s nothing that has been proven as to the climate sensitivity to CO2.

        As far as the “C” in CAGW, yes, you’re right, that isn’t a scientific term. But, we all know, and should acknowledge that many scientists proclaim “catastrophe” when discussing AGW. It’s silly to run from it. If 4 deg C doesn’t cause catastrophe, the so what? Quit trying to project that onto skeptics. Skeptics don’t claim catastrophe, alarmists do, including yourself.

        I don’t think sequestration is a viable response. Again, reality has to be addressed. Sure, the developed nations can do it. But the developing nations can’t afford it. Just like the carbon tax, they will immediately reject it.

        David, we’re going to find out whether or not CO2 leads to a hotter and more dangerous planet.. But, that’s going to be at least a century away. The only thing that funds R&D is excess capital. Presently, that’s only possible with fossil fuels.

        • David Appell says:

          There’s nothing that has been proven as to the climate sensitivity to CO2.

          Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or that CO2 doesn’t absorb it?

        • philjourdan says:

          So does water vapor. Are you going to propose drying out the planet to fulfill your wet dreams?

          You are throwing anything at the wall hoping something will stick. Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for you, you have already revealed yourself to be a shaman, and not a scientist.

        • DirkH says:

          Do you think you can change the CO2 concentration and ALL OTHER THINGS STAY EQUAL? No you don’t; you are a defender of warmist science, and warmist science postulates POSITIVE WATER VAPOR FEEDBACK. Fine, so you defend that there are feedbacks. The difference between your and most sceptics position is the direction of the feedback. You have mentally accepted that there ARE feedbacks;

          NOW comes the HARD part – ACCEPTING that there are indeed people who think that the feedbacks work the OTHER way; and will not take your word for it.

          Which leads me back to the question “proven fact”? What was that about the “proven fact”?

        • suyts says:

          No, that’s not what I said, and you know it. Or, rather you should know it. Are you that simplistic to believe that’s all there is to it? David, you’re not a sophist, quit pretending to be one.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – When they directly measure the IR radiation in response to climate forcings they measured empirical sensitivity as 0.6 and 0.7 C/doubling. ERBE and CERES were designed for that measurement. Yet as far as I know no one except Lindzen’s group and Spencer’s group have used the data to directly determine empirical sensitivity.

          And yes I am aware these papers are “not accepted science” by the consensus group. And again the data is compelling though. I’ve read both papers multiple times.

          You have a better grasp of the literature in that area than I do, since it is in your field, so I’d be pleased if you can cite sensitivity studies which use CERES and ERBE data which I am unaware of.

        • David Appell says:

          Then what did your sentence mean?

          I asked what “realistic proposals” there are. I’m interested in hearing about that, not debating every rude kook with their own pet theory.

          So what are they? Hydrogen requires a complete change of infrastructure — electric vehicles would require less.

        • suyts says:

          Not so. Hydrogen would still utilize the internal combustion engine. EVs would require an entire rebuild of our grids. Sure fueling stations and delivery would have to be addressed with hydrogen, but so too, would that be true for EVs. For the same reason you can’t run a TV on speaker wire is the same reason you have to entirely restructure the electric grid for EVs. But, that still requires increased electric output…. derived from what? Aluminum, copper, wood, cement… etc How goofy is that?

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          And I’ll add David that the whole reason why I modelled the CET was because at the time I wanted an independent test to see whether the IPCC was correct or if Spencer was. The test came out on the side of Spencer, and that small model is continuing to fit a whole lot better than the IPCC ensemble models do. I should note my experience is in statistical model building for large companies, so that was the reason why I went that way.

        • DirkH says:

          David Appell says:
          May 8, 2013 at 8:49 pm
          “not debating every rude kook with their own pet theory. ”

          …. tell him that the feedbacks might be negative instead of positive and his brain automatically shuts you off…

          … That’s what I meant with brainwashed…

        • Bruce says:

          what “realistic proposals” there are

          David – My proposal is to continue to burn coal and natural gas, with appropriate environmental controls. FGD, particulate and mercury control if required (and I think mercury has a hormensis effect so I don’t agree with your EPA’s overkill in this).

          If there is no significant anthropogenic warming due to a 2XCO2 well below 1 C/doubling then it is immoral to do anything else.

          I am fine with nuclear, as I said a short time ago on this blog. There is enough thorium and uranium in current reserves to power us all for tens of millenia, if we use it correctly. The cost structure of nuclear is sufficiently close to fossil fuel that there would be little economic harm in increasing its use, whereas diffuse energy sources like solar PV are harmful on a LCA basis and are not competitive. And wind energy is a terrible environmental sourge. I like birds, and if pressed even bats sometimes.

        • David Appell says:

          So does water vapor.

          Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. It’s already increasing and amplifying warming.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          It is the biggest greenhouse gas – lets get rid of it! OMG! hydrogen hydroxide is a killer! Ban it all!

          Think before you post.

    • DirkH says:

      David Appell says:
      May 8, 2013 at 7:49 pm
      “So what is a “realistic proposal” to deal with the climate change all this fossil fuel burning is bound to produce?”

      Foregone conclusion. Your warmist science has yet to come up with one successful prediction. The pause in warming was not predicted. For me, the theory is falsified.

        • DirkH says:

          What I am missing is a successful prediction of future temperatures.

        • David Appell says:

          “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”
          Wallace S. Broecker, Science Vol. 189 no. 4201 pp. 460-463, August 8, 1975
          http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf

        • philjourdan says:

          You love sourcing alarmist predictions that have yet to come true. Got any science?

        • David Appell says:

          Rahmstorf, S., et al. 2007: Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections. Science, 316, 709.

        • David Appell says:

          By the way, climate models don’t predict, they project based on a set of assumptions.

        • suyts says:

          Yes, that’s a distinction without a difference. Except that the assumption are/were clearly wrong.

        • philjourdan says:

          All wrong as reality has proven (the only proof in the whole affair, and it is proving AGW wrong – go figure).

        • DirkH says:

          So warmist science has by definition no predictions to offer?

          Oh. I guess it’s not Normal Science then.

          Unfortunately I am of the opinion that Post-Normal Science is a political tool thought up by a lifelong socialist who doesn’t believe in objective truth.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          post normal science is just a fun term thrown out by deniers to confuse and obfuscate the fact that they’re full of shit…

        • philjourdan says:

          It is a term advanced by the AGW movement. It has nothing to do with skeptics.

          Do you work at being stupid?

        • Bruce says:

          Its getting colder guys. My model projected this very well when I first built it in 2010. Do your models do so well?

        • Bruce says:

          One link didn’t work, sorry. Temperature trend 2002-present is falling very noticeably now.

          My model update a few weeks ago. Its running in advance of the CET because I have a composite sinusoidal in for ocean cycles, whereas I should really use the AMO alone for a CET model. But it turned out it acts well as a predictor (sorry projection is correct climate speak) so I haven’t elected to change it.

        • DirkH says:

          Sorry, Broecker’s guess from 1975 doesn’t load for me. Did he use a GCM? If not, how is his guess representative of warmist science today? Look I tossed a coin! it says warming!

        • David Appell says:

          Except that the assumption are/were clearly wrong.

          How so? (There are about three dozen economic scenarios.)

        • David Appell says:

          Temperature trend 2002-present is falling very noticeably now.

          An 11-year trend is heavily influenced by (ocean) weather — especially ENSOs — and meaningless for drawing conclusions about climate. You will learn then the next time such short trends climb to ~0.3 C/decade, as they were just 6-7 years ago.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          IMPOSSIBLE – according to you. The only driver in the climate is CO2. You told us so.

          I love how you try to weasel out of every bad report by basically trashing the whole AGW scam.

      • suyts says:

        Uhmm, no Ph, that’s not correct. Please give a modicum of time to research this. You were probably taught it.

        I like the surviving fellow. It’s just that he was wrong. Not because the thought was wrong, but because of what people would to with it after they accepted it, or at least parts of it. Which is why we are where we are today.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Umm yes it’s pretty much correct. I know the whole story of the Institute of Physics and even how it made the jump over to the denier community via denier hero Delingpole.

          And yes I stand by original comment…

        • philjourdan says:

          No one else would stand by your stupidity.

        • suyts says:

          Sometimes your ignorance is overwhelming. Here, check out this guy. I disagree with him but, I believe he’s a genuinely nice guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Ravetz

          PNS didn’t come from skeptics. It came from environmentalists. You don’t know jack. And please, don’t just read wiki. That’s just a start.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          I didn’t say PNS came from skeptics I’m saying one of your hero’s helped mainstream PNS into your denier arguments.

          Or are you again forgetting how this game works. Your side does no actual science, and explains no natural phenomena. You simply try to poke holes in the work of others and then declare your position as correct.

        • suyts says:

          Ph, you miss the entire point of my advocacy and, I might add, science. Yes, I’m not here to invent the wheel. I’m here to state what is wrong. When someone is shown to be wrong what should they do? Admit that they’re wrong and go on? Correct what was wrong and improve? Or rail against the people who show how they’re wrong? This isn’t hard.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Nope! PNS is all Alarmists! They are the ones using it. For the chronically stupid, let me repeat:

          Science 101 – You must disprove the null hypothesis before proving an alternative hypothesis.

          Since Skeptics have nothing yet to prove, I guess you are all PNSed out.

        • suyts says:

          PNS is a mainstay of what people pass on as science today. You can either defend it, refute it, or, state that you know nothing about it, but , don’t put this on skeptics, it has no basis of reality. I’m sorry you weren’t taught real science. I tried to prevent that from happening.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Ahh so your side gets to make claims that someone else is wrong and never have your own work reviewed or fact checked because it’s not actual work but just an internet blog. What a fortuitous position to be in – just free flowing non-factual bull shit that goes unchecked!

        • PhilJourdan says:

          The work is reviewed and fact checked continually. just ask Steve Mosher and Judith Curry. What you should have said is you are too lazy to read either the work, or the fact checking.

    • PhilJourdan says:

      First, to start using science, second is to admit you have no clue what you are talking about, and third is to let the data do the talking. You cannot fix it if it is A) either not broken or B) beyond our ability to do so.

      Your statement is representative of bad science. You make 2 assumptions and ask for a remedy when the problem has not been established, proven, or understood.

    • HankH says:

      David, rather than spend time debating for the n thousandth time climate sensitivity and the role anthropogenic CO2 plays in it, I would like to address your most basic question about a “realistic proposal.” First my prefaces:

      We face a reality that I have coined the “Tarzan Principle.” Tarzan never lets go of the vine that is carrying him until he has the next vine firmly in hand. His “realistic proposal” is to find the next viable vine before letting go of the last least he suffer a very predictable demise. Alternative energy is not yet in our grasp. It’s no time to let go of conventional energy but the time will come when appropriate.

      My “realistic proposal” is this:

      1) Change the message – stop pointing the finger at the public and playing the blame game. Nobody saw the future 100 years ago when fossil fuels replaced whale oil. People won’t be part of the solution when they’re in the firing line. They’ll just fire back.

      2) Embrace and promote market based incentives for technical innovation,

      3) Leverage currently viable “bridge” technologies and energy sources like nuclear to carry us to the next vine,

      4) Stop disincentivizing public and corporate support through draconian politics. You don’t make a technology more cost competitive by artificially raising the price on competing technologies. The general public rejects such tactics and resents being forced to play, loosing support for even viable technological advancements. You make the technology cost competitive by incentivizing technological innovation through policy that recognizes the solution will come from entrepreneurs like it always has.

      5) Espouse niche application that scales to broader application and score successes at successive levels of scale rather than shooting for the works and experiencing epic failures as has been the practice of government funded stupidity. Incrementally develop viable markets for each step of scale. The public will support broader scale initiatives if you give them a taste of the future. An excellent example is the transistor radio jump-started super computers and space exploration. Everyone tasted the the future of the transistor.

      6) Acknowledge and accept openly that there are issues, particularly in the transportation sector, that will take longer to solve or may need to wait upon some as-of-yet unrealized technology to solve. Thus, stop promoting an all or nothing proposition to the public. They’re not that stupid and are insulted to think activists see them that way,

      7) Champion greater R&D incentives to developing energy efficient technologies and value incentives to the public to buy it.

      8) Stop overselling the value proposition of energy efficient technologies – CFLs for example. Case in point: I converted my home to 100% CFLs and LED lighting five years ago. I have yet to have a “lasts 7 years” CFL last more than a year and a half (about the same life expectancy of an incandescent). My way overpriced (and experimental) LED lights in my kitchen are going on three years without a single failure. Get the price down on those and I might switch out CFLs for LED. Rather than spanking the public for not buying in, spank manufacturers who turn off the public with their false value statements.

      9) Demand that government grants doled out to “takers” undertake independent market analysis and CAPEX and OPEX budgetary analysis rather than board room promises – make sure there’s a real market that will buy into the product like us “real” technology companies do that actually make us successful with our own money. And for goodness sake, don’t let government entities do the analysis. They’re in government because they can’t make it in private business!

      10) Stop believing in and waiting on the government to solve the technical roadblocks to alternative energy solutions. You don’t solve problems by indiscriminately throwing my tax money at them with their predictable epic failures. The government can’t solve a one piece jigsaw puzzle and needs to stop pretending they can. Empower private and corporate R&D and stop encouraging the government to dictate the terms. There’s probably 1000+ sub-points to this one.

      • suyts says:

        Hank, that’s a very nice segue away from the never ending debate. At the risk of starting another I see an obvious flaw in your proposal…..

        “2) Embrace and promote market based incentives for technical innovation,”

        While I can’t know how each individual alarmist would act, we’ve seen over and over again, and even mentioned in the post that the alarmist group as a whole doesn’t have one clue about markets and how they work.

        • David Appell says:

          Those kind of simplistic generalizations don’t help. One could equally say deniers don’t understand the concept of market failures.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          One could also say that only fools and jackasses use the term denier since they have no clue of the origin or meaning.

          Perhaps you want to change that to skeptics? The only “deniers” are the idiots that refuse to believe their suppositions can possibly be false, even when proven so.

        • David Appell says:

          No.
          All scientists are skeptics. Almost all commenters here are deniers.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Sorry, the only deniers are those that deny skeptics. Basically you David. And your childish ad hominem is duly noted.

          You surely are denying all science. As well as having any intelligence to debate without juvenile name calling.

      • David Appell says:

        The ideal solution is certainly market based — the problem is we don’t have a free market in energy production, we have one that is heavily subsidized so that producers and users of an energy don’t have to pay the damage costs from their pollution.

        Instead the profits are privatized, and the costs are socialized. That’s fundamentally unfair, and why Stern called the problem of climate change “the biggest market failure in history.”

        Make producers and users pay the true costs of their products, which is arguably a few percent of global GDP, and you will see a much more rapid transition to truly clean and renewable energies.

        • DirkH says:

          David Appell says:
          May 9, 2013 at 3:20 pm
          “The ideal solution is certainly market based — the problem is we don’t have a free market in energy production, we have one that is heavily subsidized so that producers and users of an energy don’t have to pay the damage costs from their pollution.

          Instead the profits are privatized, and the costs are socialized. That’s fundamentally unfair, and why Stern called the problem of climate change “the biggest market failure in history.””

          I disagree. Even if one accepts the CO2AGW conjecture as a scientific theory that has not been falsified, and fossil fuels would therefore have an uncompensated negative externality, namely heating up the planet, this argument overlooks that the use of fossil fuels has far greater positive externalities. For instance, a society that values the survival of its members should emphasize and reward the positive externality that fossil fuels save the members of society from freezing to death. Therefore, punish fossil fuels for heating up the planet, but reward them for saving the members of the society from certain death.

          One could of course take the Malthusian position, that the planet has only a limited carrying capacity of 500 million people, and that therefore saving members of society from certain death is also a negative externality.

          I think that is where you and I disagree.

        • suyts says:

          LOL!!! I didn’t see you post this until I hit the comment button.

        • suyts says:

          David, I want to thank you for so quickly making my point.
          And the benefits? Are they privatized or socialized? And taxes?
          Sure, there’s some subsidies for energy production, but, to only address unquantifiable costs, without addressing societal benefits is beyond silly. To pretend that the fuels wouldn’t come out of the ground without the subsidies is also silly. They would its just a matter of who and where it would. And then to entirely ignore the fact that many fuels is also one of the most heavily taxed products only demonstrates Stern’s entire lack of understanding about fuels, energy, and markets. ….. not to mention cost/benefit analysis, tax and subsidy issues, and a plethora of other sub-issues.

          It’s incredibly maddening to me that people would entertain such notions as if there was a net cost to our fuel and energy uses. The best thing that ever happened to humanity was our ability to exploit these fuels for our benefit. If there was a net societal cost as opposed to a net societal benefit, then we wouldn’t use them.

        • HankH says:

          David, I think you’re off on a path where you’re focusing on energy producers and not the technology that needs to come to market to produce energy. A market based solution can and does work for technological innovation.

          Although energy production is not free market and heavily subsidized as you say, they buy technology from companies like mine and will jump on the next wave of technology that generates power if it is economically and functionally viable. We need not change the business model of the energy producer to spark innovation in energy technology. They’re the buyer and we’re the seller.

          They’re regulated; we’re entrepreneurial and will privately invest if there’s incentive and ROI. We don’t care if the buyer isn’t free market so long as we can take their money to the bank.

        • David Appell says:

          The positive benefit of fossil fuels is that they provide energy. There are other ways of providing energy, and hence of obtaining this benefit, that don’t have FF’s negative externalities.

          It’s a matter of benefits – costs, not just benefits.

        • suyts says:

          It’s a matter of benefits – costs, not just benefits.”

          That’s exactly true, David. And, as I stated, the net benefits far outweigh the costs, even if one buys into the alarmism of CO2. If the costs exceeded the benefits, then society wouldn’t use them. What is the quantification of people not freezing to death in the winter or dying of heat exhaustion in the summer? How much is it worth to feed people? Clothe people? How much is it worth to provide transportation for human productivity? How much is all of the R&D worth? Is any of this figured in on the “externalities”?

          I’m all for finding alternative sources for fuel and energy. As you’ve noted, the most popular notions from the warmist camps aren’t providing the alternate sources the global society needs. And, it isn’t clear that they ever will. Even only addressing electricity needs, much less all of the other uses our fossil fuels have.

          In my view, we should drop the fantasies of wind and solar. At least, until we solve the storage problems. And move our focus to other possible technologies. Such as atomic energy and the possible use of hydrogen. However, we should note, in all things, there are costs. There will never be a utopian panacea for our fuel and energy use.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          There are no other ways to provide the energy in the quantities necessary for civilization to thrive. Sun and win are not concentrated enough to produce the necessary to power the population to a standard of living that allows for them to withstand the climate. Water is not transportable. And nuclear is not small enough to power vehicles smaller than a submarine (you also have the hysteria factor).

          One day that may all change. But I can guarantee that government will not be the driving force. They do not have the incentive or know how to harness solar and wind into a compact enough area to overcome its limitations. So the money they spend on it are wasted. The industries were created without government subsidies, and with all the trillions pumped into them in the past 30 years, no real progress has been made. Because all government has done is subsidize inefficiency.

          When oil replaced whale blubber, the government did not subsidize it, nor discover it. Man did independent of government. A perfect example of the waste of government is Pancreatic Cancer. Government has wasted billions on finding ways to mitigate it. Yet it was a science student (HS) in North Carolina working for a science project that found a way for early detection (which is 90% of the battle).

          Government tries to invent a better pen to use in Zero G. Private industries go out and use a pencil.

        • Me says:

          Bwaaahahahaha! Is Toshinmack losing it again!

        • HankH says:

          The positive benefit of fossil fuels is that they provide energy. There are other ways of providing energy, and hence of obtaining this benefit, that don’t have FF’s negative externalities.

          It’s a matter of benefits – costs, not just benefits.

          Exactly – it’s a matter of benefits – costs and that’s what I’m addressing – both. Just because I propose market incentive doesn’t mean I get all the benefit at someone else’s cost. My cost is investment in R&D with a calculated ROI. I pay the CAPEX and OPEX to deliver a new technology to market. Where’s the “just benefits” part in that?

        • DirkH says:

          David Appell says:
          May 9, 2013 at 3:46 pm
          “The positive benefit of fossil fuels is that they provide energy. ”

          Wait; you mean the state taxes me for the negative externalities but doesn’t reward me for the positive externality? Somehow I think the profits are socialized here and the losses are privatized.

        • David Appell says:

          It’s incredibly maddening to me that people would entertain such notions as if there was a net cost to our fuel and energy uses.

          A big problem on this blog is that people construct red herrings, and then argue against those. Or against themselves, I can’t tell.

          In any case, I never said there was a “net cost” to our fuel and energy use. So if you want to address what I actually wrote, I’ll be happy to respond. Otherwise it’s a waste of time.

        • David Appell says:

          We don’t care if the buyer isn’t free market so long as we can take their money to the bank.

          Exactly. You (or they) don’t care, but the world does care, because it has to eat the costs of energy pollution.

          Why would anyone invest in a new technology if existing technologies provided the product cheaper? They wouldn’t — that’s basic economics. And they aren’t, except in a few niches. The world has spent 100+ years perfecting fossil fuel technology, and it’s gotten to be the cheapest source because of its long product line, its many subsidies, and because its waste products are freely dumped.

          Would you invest in a restaurant if your competitor was allowed to dump his trash in the street instead of paying for it to be hauled away?

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Which it is more than able to do with due to the benefits of CHEAP energy. Without cheap energy, there would be a lot less wealth (think feudal europe), and no way to pay for the supposed costs. And a lot less time. Life expectancy would be halved.

        • David Appell says:

          More red herrings. No one is suggesting people freeze to death or go without food. They are suggesting we generate the energy we need in a way that doesn’t alter the climate for 100,000 years.

        • suyts says:

          David, I was writing directly to the supposition that there’s a net cost to fossil fuel use. Specifically the proposition of Stern’s which you mentioned earlier. I’m demonstrating why it’s wrong to believe there is an additional cost to be paid for our fuel use. If we’re going to weigh external costs, then it should be weighed against external benefits. I really don’t see how that’s a red herring, but, to each their own.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          The red herring is yours. There is no way to replace fossil fuels with any alternative at this time. Yet Hansen et. al. call coal trains “death trains” and try to prevent a pipeline (that would actually reduce pollution) for mysterious reasons. Ergo the red herrings are yours. There is no alternative. Period.

        • David Appell says:

          If we’re going to weigh external costs, then it should be weighed against external benefits. I really don’t see how that’s a red herring.

          It is a red herring because no serious person thinks that way.

          I’m curious — do you ever spend any time on blogs that don’t agree with your positions? (I.e. not Steve Goddard)? Do you read anything that does not support your preconceived notions? Because some of your arguments are just ridiculous, like you spend too much time on Free Republic and don’t understand how insular your views are.

        • suyts says:

          David, you’re hilarious. “It is a red herring because no serious person thinks that way.” And, yet, the Stern review, which you mentioned, does it address what I was discussing? Nope. But, go on thinking no one thinks that way even when their publications demonstrate they think that way.

          As to your curiosity about blogs I frequent and the insular world I live in. Is that some sort of alarmist/leftist retort memo? I’m curious if you always blithely wander blogs oblivious to their content. Damn David, I’ve commented on your blog before. I LINKED YOUR BLOG FOR MY POST! And Connalley’s. I constantly write about content on other blogs and periodicals. Probably a good 20% of my posts reference the Huffington Post. I reference Climate Progress and Skeptical Science fairly frequently, as well. But, you guys go ahead with the “insular” meme, reality demonstrates otherwise.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          The same can be said for your “cost” argument. You live in an echo chamber. The echo died here. Suyts has a very valid point. It is not a red herring. It is economically valid.

          Just because you do not agree with it, and your echo chamber does not agree with it, get out into the real world and experience what real people think.

          A study several years ago basically demonstrated that liberals had a very difficult time debating with and thinking like conservatives. The reason is they never had to justify their beliefs, so they always assumed that “everyone thinks that way”, which of course is a fatal logic flaw.

        • HankH says:

          Exactly. You (or they) don’t care, but the world does care, because it has to eat the costs of energy pollution.

          Why would anyone invest in a new technology if existing technologies provided the product cheaper? They wouldn’t — that’s basic economics. And they aren’t, except in a few niches. The world has spent 100+ years perfecting fossil fuel technology, and it’s gotten to be the cheapest source because of its long product line, its many subsidies, and because its waste products are freely dumped.

          You’re taking my comment out of context and inferring I don’t care. I do care else I wouldn’t be in work I’m in. You didn’t miss my comment about changing all lighting in my home to CFL’s and LED did you? I didn’t mention that changed out the air conditioning (that wasn’t broken) in my home to a cooling technology that uses 1/4 the energy of conventional AC and is capable of freezing my butt off in the summer. And more. Why? Incentive.

          I was also the president of a volunteer club for a number of years that works with the BLM in wilderness clean-up and restoration, much of it funded by my company profits. Let’s not go down the route of I’m an evil capitalist who doesn’t care. Put away your broad brush as it paints with the wrong color.

          With that aside… David you’re tripping over a problem and failing to see the solution. Of course the world cares and that’s a key point. The world cares that someone is working on a cost effective solution. Unless there is a solution then the burden remains on the world to clean up the pollution. Acknowledge the problem as you have done, but focus on how to get the solution to market. Put your effort there. This is called root cause analysis. You analyze the root cause for the problem to understand it so you can solve it. If you provide a solution to the root cause the many consequences of the cause are then addressed in a least cost and responsible way.

          Yes, the world spent 100+ years perfecting fossil fuel. The world spent less than a decade solving the problem of putting a man on the moon. That took rapid development of technology that didn’t previously exist. Why? Because there was incentive and partnering with the vast resources of the entrepreneur. Things get accomplished when there is incentive. If you want it done fast, create incentive. If you would prefer to wait a very long time then continue down the road of championing problems and blaming us evil entrepreneurs rather than recognizing we have vast creativity and financial resources you might could use if you understood the entrepreneurial spirit.

        • David Appell says:

          Be truthful: you only saw my post because one of the denier blogs you read linked to it, probably Morano.

          I do not think you go out of your way to read contrary points of view. The ridiculous way you think, as if someone is proposing people freeze or starve to death, shows it.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          You are a miserable liar. Earlier you accused others of using pejoratives and invectives against you. Yet you manage to do that in most of your posts.

          You are dishonest, ignorant and bigoted.

        • David Appell says:

          Hank wrote:
          Why? Incentive.

          What incentive?
          Exactly?

          Your incentive was to save money, not to reduce your external costs. Because if it was the latter you’d be taking additional steps that you are not taking, because you pollute for free.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          If you mean green energy, you are correct. If you mean fossil fuels, that is your economic ignorance. Fossil fuels receive NO government subsidies (in this country or in other first world ones where it is heavily taxed).

          Costs are not socialized, Costs are amortized. The privatization of the profits is based upon investment. In other-words RISK. The costs are born by the producers, and affect the profits by lowering them.

          If you want to learn more, I suggest you start with a manual on GAAP. If that is too much, a basic accounting class, with special attention to COGS, T charts and Balance sheets.

          I will warn you that while it is in vogue to claim that fossil fuels are subsidized, that is merely inflammatory rhetoric that has no basis in reality, and only displays the economic and accounting ignorance of the person using the false exclamations.

        • David Appell says:

          Fossil fuels receive NO government subsidies

          False. Very false.

          The biggest subsidy fossil fuels get is that they are allowed to pollute for free. That’s worth a few percent of world GDP, or a few trillions dollars a year worldwide.

          it’s worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the US alone.

          They also get direct subsidies and tax breaks:

          “Happy 100th Birthday, Big Oil Tax Breaks”
          http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/01/1654501/oil-subsidies-century/

          One of their biggest subsidies is getting to lease FFs for very low prices — for example, about $1/ton for coal from the Power River Basin, which they then sell for about $10/ton.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          I explained to you how your claim was patently false. Yet did you learn a thing? No you did not. You repeated the same flawed talking points that demonstrates ignorance, not knowledge or awareness. But just for you, I will do your homework:

          Subsidy:
          1.a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
          2.a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
          3.a grant or contribution of money.

          Notice the commonality of all 3 definitions. A direct, a sum paid, a grant. Not one says anything about AVOIDING costs. All say that money is given TO the recipient.

          So it is not patently false, you have proved yourself to be a close minded fool, and you have no clue what you are talking about.

          And yes, that may be harsh, but if no one ever bitch slaps you, you will never wake up from your coma and be able to learn again.

          Final warning. Never quote Think Progress. That merely makes you a mind numbed robot incapable of rational thought. If you have not learned that by now, go back to school so your teacher can drill that into you.

        • David Appell says:

          Sun and win are not concentrated enough to produce the necessary to power the population to a standard of living that allows for them to withstand the climate

          Baloney. If fossil fuels disappeared tomorrow, you can bet we would quickly find a way to use solar, wind, nuclear, hydro and tidal power to give us the energy we want. People would be putting solar panels on their houses and storing energy in their car batteries during the day.

          We’re only not doing this today because FFs pollute for free, so there is no incentive unless subsidized by government.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          No baloney and you have no evidence to suggest otherwise. If fossil fuels disappeared tomorrow, civilization would collapse. There is no alternative,. nor the ability to make one at this time.

          To “find a way” requires energy. But you just pulled the plug on that. So civilization would revert to bear skins and stone knives. And you cannot create solar panels with those. Indeed, you cannot create windmills or solar panels WITHOUT fossil fuels because (drum roll) they are not just for gas.

          You did not know that did you? Your computer is composed of half fossil fuels – and the other half is just common sand. with a minute fraction of metals thrown in for good measure.

          Stop being an idiot. If you refuse to learn, at least think.

        • David Appell says:

          Without cheap energy, there would be a lot less wealth (think feudal europe), and no way to pay for the supposed costs

          Can you at least try to think? Costs are (and will) be paid for, whether they are priced in the product or not.

          Many are being unfairly and immorally shifted to future generations, because this generation is too selfish to pay for its slop.

          Wealth is not “wealth” if it produces costs — it is only wealth at the expense of others. You don’t seem to care that you are shifting costs elsewhere — as long as if costs you nothing, you don’t care, which is the very definition of greed and selfishness.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Econ 101 David. No money is not inexhaustible,and to allege that is both short sighted and supremely ignorant. It is the reason not everyone can afford premium health care. Money is the rationer (until now, with obamacare, some faceless bureaucrat is – but it is still rationed).

          The law of supply and demand may not be liked, but as it is a law (much like gravity), it cannot be circumvented. Regardless of the level of mass ignorance displayed by any religion.

          Wealth is not at the expense of others. Wealth is created, not rationed. My wealth has no impact on your wealth. You can be as rich as Bill gates, without taking a single nickle from Bill.

          Your ignorance is astounding. I am surprised they let you out alone. Take a BASIC economics course. Or shut up. Your close mindedness is stupid, but you are free to remain ignorant.

        • HankH says:

          Your incentive was to save money, not to reduce your external costs.

          David, I question your ability to understand what motivates social change and submit that’s why your message does not have broad appeal or support. It was rather indicting when it could be more, shall we say, encouraging (read incentivizing).

          Because if it was the latter you’d be taking additional steps that you are not taking, because you pollute for free.

          Wow, was that motivational! Now I think I’ll paint my roof white. See, herein lies a serious problem with your message and you can’t see it so allow me to point it out.

          I say, I do care – I’ve invested company finances and personal time in CLEANING UP POLLUTION IN THE WILDERNESS (sorry to shout but you seem blind). What, I didn’t clean up something on your list? Is that what made you launch? And yes, I saved money in the long run. Why that pissed you off seems a mystery. I should think that would be your goal in offering solutions that elicit the social change you want.

          So rather than saying “say, nice first steps, let me refer you to a web site that provides additional resources” you turn rude, attack, accuse, and shut down the conversation in one quick obviously well rehearsed canned response taken right out of your “How to Lose An Audience With Damning Accusations” book.

          Well done! You just convinced me you’re not about solutions – just stuck in finger pointing mode.

        • David Appell says:

          Hank: I too have cleaned up pollution in the wilderness.

          But why haven’t you cleaned up your carbon pollution?

          Please answer honestly, since you’re anonymous and have nothing to lose.

        • HankH says:

          But why haven’t you cleaned up your carbon pollution?

          David, is that one of those “Do you enjoy beating your wife” type questions?

          And you’ve completely cleaned up your carbon pollution? How did you do it? And please don’t tell me you paid indulgences.

        • David Appell says:

          Hank wrote:
          David, is that one of those “Do you enjoy beating your wife” type questions?

          Hank, I didn’t mean it this way at all, and I apologize if that’s what it seemed.

          Of course, I don’t pay for my carbon pollution either. I buy CFLs — what other choice is there anymore? — and I drive a relatively small amount, about 4,000 mi/yr, only because I don’t have places to go like I used to. (But when I did, I drove 12-15 K miles/yr like many people, and would again today if so.)

          All of us want to get what we want for the cheapest possible price. It’s human nature. Which is why our pollution costs need to be included at the pump, or at the export terminal.

          I am OK with paying for my pollution, if it’s easy and if it’s equitable. Then it becomes another cost.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          “I buy CFLs — what other choice is there anymore? ” – LEDs. A true believer would not be buying mercury laden CFLs, but energy miserly LEDs.

        • HankH says:

          David, glad to see we got back to a less cryptic discussion. I wasn’t sure where you were going with these nebulous questions, which I generally see as “set-ups” that aren’t necessary.

          You can click on my green avatar next to my comments and get a short (and honest) bio. The image itself should suggests one of my passions.

          I drive a hybrid for most around town driving. I rarely drive more than 3,000 a year. Business requires that I travel occasionally.

          If you own a cell phone, my technology touches your life on a daily basis. If you’re married and your wife delivered your children in a hospital both my technology and my work in medical research (perinatology) has touched your wife and children’s lives in I hope a positive way. So, I’m a business owner, mathematician, and medical researcher. James can confirm to you that I am legit as he has seen some of my work in mathematics and I send him my leading journal published abstracts occasionally.

          David, a point I think activists like you should be more open to is people can accomplish common goals for different reasons. They have motivation buttons that, when pressed, invoke a “common good” response. What does it matter to you if I don’t buy into your ideology so long as I have a button you can press to invoke my contribution to at least part of the solutions you seek? Touch enough people with a broad spectrum of motivations and you have a full solution. So a broad spectrum approach is a winning strategy. I use it in business and it works.

          A practical case in point… I now know you have done environment clean up, which has been enough of a passion of mine to be president of a club that worked with the BLM in such projects. If you lived close to me and I were organizing an effort, I wouldn’t care who you voted for, what your take is on climate sensitivity, or what your worst fears are (so long as it isn’t rattlesnakes which we encounter often, LOL!). What I care about is are you willing to get dirty with me to fix a problem we both agree we can fix together? If you’re doing it to clean up carbon, that’s nice but I’m doing it because if I don’t, the lands will be closed to the public because nobody cared enough to undo the damage. Carbon or keeping lands open… what does it matter? A common good was accomplished because we found a common goal via different motivations.

        • David Appell says:

          Hank: I am not an “activist.”

          OK. Let’s get that clear. I report on the science, as hard and as best I can.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          You are indeed an activist. You do not “report” on the science. You write PR pieces for the Alarmists. You ignore verifiable analysis that threatens your story line. You seek to belittle and insult those who dare challenge your erroneous opinion concerning the subject. You malign and libel those who disagree with you. In short, you are no more than a PR flack, a not very competent one since you lack even a basic understanding of the subjects you pontificate on.

        • HankH says:

          Hank: I am not an “activist.”

          OK. Let’s get that clear. I report on the science, as hard and as best I can.

          Sorry, your earlier tact with me convinced me you were. To be fair, I’m a literalist and so tend to take comments as having specific meaning when perhaps none was intended. But I play my cards openly so as to avoid ongoing misunderstandings in the event I’ve missed an important cue. Okay, we’re clear.

      • HankH says:

        At the risk of starting another I see an obvious flaw in your proposal…..

        It’s not a flaw, it’ something that needs to be changed as part of a strategy to unlock market solutions, which are currently not invited to the table.

        Look at it this way… I invest my own money in R&D to build technology because I have buyers. Most of them are heavily regulated. I’m not so I’m more agile than them in bringing technology to market. They like that I’ve done the heavy lifting for them and ask only that I scale my solution to meet their needs. They give me money to do that too. That’s a big incentive for me ;-)

        • David Appell says:

          They like that I’ve done the heavy lifting for them and ask only that I scale my solution to meet their needs.

          I understand that, and that’s great. But, if we’re talking about fossil fuel technology, is not to minimize their carbon emissions. So why would the free market spend any time addressing that need — who’s going to pay for it.

          Sure, investors *might* give you money to invent and develope a cheaper, cleaner energy source. But fossil fuels already have a 100+ year head start on the cheaper part, and they don’t have to care about the cleaner part. If solar were nominally cheaper it would invested in and developed years (decades?) ago. Or technology X would have been.

          There’s no denying fossil fuels are cheap and energy dense — that’s precisely why they’ve become the global standard. But they also pollute, and in costly ways.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          False logic. Whale oil had a 200 year head start on fossil fuels. It lost out.

        • HankH says:

          Sure, investors *might* give you money to invent and develope a cheaper, cleaner energy source. But fossil fuels already have a 100+ year head start on the cheaper part, and they don’t have to care about the cleaner part. If solar were nominally cheaper it would invested in and developed years (decades?) ago. Or technology X would have been.

          David, you’re stuck in problem targeting mode and unable to transition to solution mode. The reason I’m successful in high tech business is because I created something that didn’t exist before I designed it. Sure, there were other companies trying to do the same thing but I did it better and at half the price.

          Your argument of cheaper because of 100+ years of head start is non-sequitur. If I were to have a brilliant stroke of genius and figure out a completely different technology to harness solar power at 1/4 the cost of current technologies, do you think the 100+ years argument would dictate that I wouldn’t have power companies beating a path to my door? The roadblock isn’t cost or time. It’s empowering imagination and creativity in the private sector.

          And yes, my first prototype will cost 10X the final product. On that basis you might dismiss it rather than realize what you’ve got in your hands. But that’s how technical innovation and product evolution works.

          If your position is the problem can’t be solved because of historical precedence and you’re stuck in that frame of mind, I think it fair to say the solution won’t be coming from you.

          That and you keep repeating about pollution which I have not disagreed with you.

        • David Appell says:

          Hank, since I don’t know what you do, I don’t know what you made. In what way did it help solve a pollution problem?

          If I were to have a brilliant stroke of genius and figure out a completely different technology to harness solar power at 1/4 the cost of current technologies, do you think the 100+ years argument would dictate that I wouldn’t have power companies beating a path to my door?

          How would you have the time to spend on a “brilliant stroke of genius” when you have to make a living in the (so-called) free market just like the rest of us?

          The very fact that there ISN’T solar power at 1/4th the cost of current technologies proves my point.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          How did Steve Jobs? Bill Gates? McAfee? or Sam Walton?

          I guess you have never had to work in the real world.

        • HankH says:

          How would you have the time to spend on a “brilliant stroke of genius” when you have to make a living in the (so-called) free market just like the rest of us?

          The very fact that there ISN’T solar power at 1/4th the cost of current technologies proves my point.

          Well, actually, it was my time spent making a living in the free market that led to a an innovative idea that built a successful business that provides top salary and benefits for over 20 employees (and their families) in five states and still growing.

          The very fact there ISN’T a solar power at 1/4 the cost means that someone’s working on it and tomorrow it might be announced, disproving your point. Just because it hasn’t been done yet doesn’t mean it won’t be done.

          As a science writer, I hope you’ll appreciate my point applies to the process of taking an idea from concept to delivering a marketable solution without being deterred by nay-sayers who lack vision. I’ve never paid any attention to them because they focus on what they can’t do and define themselves and everyone else by their limitations.

        • David Appell says:

          The very fact there ISN’T a solar power at 1/4 the cost means that someone’s working on it and tomorrow it might be announced, disproving your point.

          No, it won’t be announced tomorrow, and your claim is utterly meaningless.

          It wasn’t announced yesterday. It wasn’t announced today. And It won’t be announced tomorrow, either.

        • HankH says:

          No, it won’t be announced tomorrow, and your claim is utterly meaningless.

          It wasn’t announced yesterday. It wasn’t announced today. And It won’t be announced tomorrow, either.

          Alright, I get your point – everything that can be invented has already been invented. So lets solve raise the price on conventional energy so high that everyone lets go and grabs on to what? You don’t offer solutions, you don’t understand how past technological successes were fostered through inspiring creative minds to think beyond the box, you don’t grasp how to build success through engaging resources, nor do you demonstrate any real faith in or understanding of how technological innovation works.

          My early career was spent in Bell Labs. We did things that at the time you would have said were meaningless and impossible. Yea, that was the prevailing consensus of the day. What science do you write about anyway? Anything I would recognize as [b]leedig edge or just painting of predictably colored boxes for a limited audience? You’re loosing me with your wild ass swings into “it will never work.” I’ve heard it before and never listened to it and don’t consider it relevant to tomorrow.

        • HankH says:

          David,

          I’m QRU and QRT. Look it up (hint: Q codes)

    • david says:

      Since, according to you, CAGW it is not catestrophic, nothing. ( having distanced yourself from the “C” in CAGW you do not need public policy to stop CO2 emissions.)

      You must understand that the KNOWN affects of CO2 are beneficial, but the dangerous, (must avoid the “c” word) affects, increased hurricanes, tornados, droughts floods, larger frogs, smaller frogs, etc, are all failing to materialize. So again, we can endlessly debate the climate snstivity to CO2 doubling, but it is academic debate only as the “C” word is false.

  7. DirkH says:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    May 8, 2013 at 9:03 pm
    “post normal science is just a fun term thrown out by deniers to confuse and obfuscate the fact that they’re full of shit…”

    You can start with the wikipedia. Read about Normal Science and Post-Normal Science; then about Jeremy Ravetz, the inventor of PNS; and maybe you can then google for Hans von Storch’s “Climate Science As Post-Normal Science”; there is also an article by Ravetz and Mike Hulme on the BBC-.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm

    “PhdScientist”, you have again shown that youare not a scientist, do not know the scientific method, do not know the difference to Post-Normal Science, and did not know that the inventor of PNS has worked together with the warmist social engineer and boss of the Tyndall centre for Climate Science Hulme, and that the warmists, for instance Hans von Storch have for ages advocated to classify Warmism , eh, excuse me, Climate Science, as Post-Normal Science, because this allows them to get away with their failing models by handwaving the failure away.

    Ravetz’ PNS claims to be the first definition of science that deals in uncertainty. (Sorry if I lost you Phd, but I’m on a roll now and talking to the general public which will understand what I’m saying).

    Ravetz, a lifelong socialist who doesn’t believe in objective truth, in his own words, ignores that mathematics has a long history of dealing with uncertainty, notably in probability theory and statistics. But as he is a social scientist, not a hard scientist or a mathematician, he never said a single word about the everyday work of risk analysis that happens on every large engineering project in the world every single day.

    Yet he is revered by the climate scientists… Why? Well, low standards, and the ticket to get away with their broken computer models. Look what they’ve done to David’s brain.

  8. DirkH says:

    Let’s refute the notion once and for all that David Appell starts addressing reality. Excerpts from this comments:

    “The change in surface temperature is about 1.5 C per trillion tonnes of carbon, plus or minus a third. This is a proven fact.”
    So he says, temperature rises linearly with CO2 concentrations.

    “With ~10,000 GtC available to burn (most of it coal), we would scorch the planet and ruin the ocean.”
    In other words he expects 15 deg C (+- a third) warming if all fossil fuels are burned.

    And the kicker:

    David Appell: And above about 700-800 ppmv CO2, higher order terms in the logarithm start to become important.
    DirkH:You mean something weird happens when the pressure broadening of the absorption spectrum of CO2 is completely saturated? Like what? Maybe like – no further increase in absorption and re-emission?
    David Appell:Yes, that’s what I said. Do the math.

    Now he says that only the next doubling of CO2 will have an effect on temperatures, the further doublings will not.

    So, he says, if we take all this together, that we need to burn all the remaining fossil fuels to achieve 800 ppm, and that that will increase temperatures by about 15 deg C; and we know that a doubling of CO2 increases LWIR backradiation by 5.35 W/m^2 – so David Appell expects 5.35 W/m^2 to warm the planet by about 15 deg C.

    I don’t really WANT to sound mean but this shows an unfamiliarity with numbers and logic that I have come to expect from science writers.

    • DirkH says:

      But let’s ask ourselves how David Appell has synthesized the obviously contradictory arguments he has presented into what he thinks of as his Weltbild.

      It’s not a consistent picture, right? And he hasn’t noticed himself.

      So is he a seeker for truth? No. That would require fitting pieces of the puzzle together. Maybe he doesn’t believe in a consistent truth that can be found – like Kant or Ravetz.

      Or maybe he just stores scientific results that confirm his Weltbild without questioning them. His job is to write descriptions of such results without expressing an own opinion.

      Maybe his personal attitude predestined him for that job; or maybe he learned the unquestioning attitude during his job, impossible to say. But we can state for sure that he never doubts anything he finds in a paper that roughly fits his CO2AGW-endtimes (“scorching the planet” no less!) Weltbild. He would have noticed the discrepancies between the various “scientifically proven facts” he presented.

      And we can also say that he is a true CAGW believer (“Catastrophic” AGW as in “scorching”), even though he tries to deny that he is. Usually I use CO2AGW to evade accusations of insinuating a believe in catastrophes on the side of the warmists; but in the case of David Appell, CAGW fits the bill perfectly.

      And like he gullibly swallows every piece of alarmist papers, he will likewise unthinkingly reject any counterargument (he didn’t answer on my feedback argument).

      So, a debate with David Appell is not possible. He makes noises as if he were debating but he is not; he tries to ramrod through his foregone conclusions that he tries to confirm with an assorted contradictory collection of warmist conjecture that he mistakenly calls proven facts.

      • David Appell says:

        This is why I’ve learned to ignore people like Dirk H.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Because they eat you for a snack. You would much rather pick on children who do not know when you are BSing them. Your type is not unique or unknown. You are a dime a dozen.

        • David Appell says:

          No, I’m just tired of people like you and him who can’t respond civilly. Anyone who disagrees with you is immediately accused of dishonest and lying and worse. Who wants to engage with people like that? It’s a waste of time….

        • PhilJourdan says:

          David, you have demonstrated your civility in the past. If I carry it over to your idiocy here, it is only because I do not forget, even if you do. So get off that horse. You are the biggest insult to intelligent discussion since Mikey Mann.

        • DirkH says:

          David Appell says:
          May 9, 2013 at 10:25 am
          “No, I’m just tired of people like you and him who can’t respond civilly. Anyone who disagrees with you is immediately accused of dishonest and lying and worse.”

          I didn’t accuse you of being dishonest or a liar. I asked myself how you have synthesized contradictory information into your Weltbild.

          I always ask myself how Malthusians see the world and filter out the information that contradicts their phantasy world.

          That you see this as an accusation of dishonesty is telling; it helps you avoiding discussions with people who disagree with you.

        • David Appell says:

          Your comments are full of insults and insinuations. People who write like you do don’t deserve a response.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          I guess this will be my last response to you using the David Appell rule. Since that is all your comments contain.

        • DirkH says:

          David Appell says:
          May 9, 2013 at 11:55 am
          “Your comments are full of insults and insinuations. People who write like you do don’t deserve a response.”

          This way you rationalize not having to talk to me. That is your decision; and you can give any pretense you want.

    • David Appell says:

      The dT ~ log(C) relationship only holds in a certain domain. In fact, CO2 isn’t even saturated on Venus — more CO2 there would lead to still higher surface temperatures.

      • DirkH says:

        How does this work when the pressure broadening leads to complete saturation? You have admitted that the curve goes flat at 800ppm. You are contradicting yourself again.

        As for more CO2 leading to higher surface temps on Venus. Of course it would; as surface pressure would rise – as you might notice the discussion of the lapse rate does not mention radiative energy exchange.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate

        And you have contradicted yourself again – you said that after 800ppm the CO2 spectrum is saturated; at the same time you hold the opinion that on Venus the “greenhouse effect” could still rise even given the enormous amounts of CO2 already in the atmosphere.

        How do you do that? Do you not notice your own contradictions? How can one person hold so many conflicting opinions?

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Yes, CO2 in a vacuum raises the temperature of outerspace as well.

        Do you realize how stupid your statement is? If there is no IR getting into the atmosphere of Venus due to the existing cover, just how is CO2 going to affect anything? Does it magically produce heat?

        Do you ever think about what you are saying?

      • David Appell says:

        you said that after 800ppm the CO2 spectrum is saturated

        No, I did not. Reread what I wrote — I said that at about 700-800 ppmv CO2 higher order terms in the logarithm start to become important

        dT ~ ln(C + bC^2 + cC^3)

        which is just one way to approximate the relationship. The true solution for optically thick atmospheres has no closed analytic form but itself can be parametrized by polynomials, which Pierrehumbert does in his textbook.

      • David Appell says:

        If there is no IR getting into the atmosphere of Venus due to the existing cover, just how is CO2 going to affect anything?

        You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect. The IR that is trapped does not come *in* from the sun, it is radiated *up* from the surface. The sun’s spectrum has very little IR — what’s not reflected (mostly by clouds) passes down through the Venetian (and Earth) atmospheres. But the surface does emit in the IR, and some of that upward radiation is absorbed and then reemitted in random directions, and some of that emission is back downward.

        IR does leave the planet at the top of the atmosphere — anywhere from one unit of optical depth upward. This spectrum can be measured by satellites — here it is for the Earth:
        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

        and here it is for Venus:
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/Venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect.htm

        Neither is saturated.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          No, you have a fundamental problem understanding a black dome. If there is already an insular cover blocking all the radiation from escaping, what does it matter if you add more insulation? And a very poor one at that?

          You jumped to try to create an analogy that does not exist – in any scientific literature (except Edgar Rice Burroughs). You statement is demonstrably false, yet you are going to try to justify it instead of excusing yourself and admitting you misspoke.

          And that is why you get no civility. You offer none, nor do you offer any common decency. You only offer insults and cooked books.

        • David Appell says:

          IR radiation escapes from the top of the planet — the observations clearly show this. Hence more can be blocked, and the level at which IR escapes will be correspondingly pushed upward.

        • cdquarles says:

          You said this: “You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect. The IR that is trapped does not come *in* from the sun, it is radiated *up* from the surface. The sun’s spectrum has very little IR — what’s not reflected (mostly by clouds) passes down through the Venetian (and Earth) atmospheres. But the surface does emit in the IR, and some of that upward radiation is absorbed and then reemitted in random directions, and some of that emission is back downward.”

          Wiki (yeah, I know) says this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight. From that article, it is said that nearly half of the incoming power is in the infrared. So, I take it, that ‘very little’ means up to half? Really? And you wonder why people scoff and laugh at your and your fellow traveler’s ‘Boy who cried Wolf’ pronouncements?

        • David Appell says:

          You don’t have your numbers right. The outgoing IR spectrum below 20 cm^-1:
          http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

          That’s wavelengths above 5000 nm and above, which on your solar spectrum chart has very, very little radiation:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

        • DirkH says:

          Ahem, thanks for the GISS link. A rich target.

          “demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the “feedbacks” are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone. Past climate data suggests that this is what happens in the real world as well. ”

          One would love to see those past climate data – unfortunately they forgot a link – … and how the GISS geniusses found out about the water vapor content in the past… and why CO2 generally rose 800 years after the warming… Guess they modeled it, right? Isn’t that circular logic then? Oh, logic, damn…

          Oh, and in the GISS model the positive water vapor feedback works like a charm, now why am I not surprised about that.

          “What happens when the trace greenhouse gases are removed? Because of the non-linear impacts of CO2 on absorption, the impact of removing the CO2 is approximately seven times as large as doubling it. If such an event were possible”

          Ok, so we remove the CO2 and H2O would now alone have to do the job of emitting IR from the atmosphere to space. In GISS’ phantasy world this leads to dramatic cooling; well let’s assume that happens as well, and the H20 snows out of the atmosphere, let’s just go along with it.

          Now what do we have now? An icecold world, covered with snow, reflecting all light straight back to Earth, with a totally dry atmosphere, right? an icehouse, right?

          Say, David, are you sure they included sublimation in their model? You know they usually forget about the local processes. Anything smaller than a gridbox you know. And once a little H2O sublimates you get… a “greenhouse” effect…

          And… how would the atmosphere cool down if its devoid of greenhouse gases?

        • DirkH says:

          David Appell says:
          May 9, 2013 at 11:51 am
          “That’s wavelengths above 5000 nm and above, which on your solar spectrum chart has very, very little radiation:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

          David, the IR frequency range encompasses a wide range of frequencies. You have to integrate the curve, i.e. take the area under the curve. Just looking at it I would estimate that the IR area is as large as the visible spectrum’s area. Yeah granted CO2 absorbs only in two lean bands, but we were talking about total IR weren’t we?

  9. suyts says:

    Hmm…… “The sun’s spectrum has very little IR ……” Care to define “very little”? And did I miss the part about atmospheric pressure? Might that play a part in the heat of Venus?

    What is very little is the amount of energy that reaches the surface of Venus. Not that it should be discussed in relation to what is occurring on earth because they are not similar. But, that doesn’t negate the fact that at pressure depths the same as earth’s the temps are very similar to the earth’s in spite of an entirely different atmospheric composition.

    • David Appell says:

      Just look at the Sun’s blackbody spectrum via the Planck Law.

      No, atmospheric pressure does not explain Venetian temperatures, or Earth’s. (Pressure alone has no way of blocking upgoing IR, since the classical molecules of thermodynamics do not interact with it.)

      • cdquarles says:

        So you are saying that there’s no such thing as the lapse rate? I am really wondering if you understand what you are saying. To an IR active gas, which way the photon is coming does not matter. It will absorb and re-emit the photon in a random direction.

        Pressure does matter, for that determines optical thickness and line broadening. And the surface temperature is determined by the incoming power, The atmosphere, if there is one, bounds the ranges to smaller values; and if there are substances present that undergo phase changes, those ranges get reduced even more.

        • David Appell says:

          Of course there is a lapse rate. It is a result of classical processes — thermodynamics in a gravitational field, conduction, and convection — and not a result of quantum processes like the greenhouse effect is. Nitrogen and oxygen are not IR-active gases — they do not interact with IR, because they have no absorption bands in the IR, because they are diatomic. It is the rotational and vibrational energy levels that interact with IR, which is why all greenhouse gases have at least three atoms in their molecules: CO2, H2O, CH4, NO2, O3….

          Yes, eventually you need to account for pressure broadening, etc. But these are second-order effects that you need to include to get exactly the right answer, not to get the first-order greenhouse effect.

        • DirkH says:

          “Yes, eventually you need to account for pressure broadening, etc. But these are second-order effects that you need to include to get exactly the right answer, not to get the first-order greenhouse effect.”

          The 5.35 W/m^2 increase in LWIR backradiation that the IPCC postulates for a doubling of CO2 is entirely due to pressure broadening; otherwise it would not be logarithmical.

    • suyts says:

      David, I agree. Pressure alone has no way of blocking IR. And, yet, the temps are remarkably the same at same pressures. Wouldn’t this indicate some significant voids in the thoughts?

      As to the IR, let’s see what Dr. Curry is teaching…..

      The analysis of satellite data suggests a solar constant of 1366Wm2 with a
      measurement uncertainty of 73Wm2. Of the radiant energy emitted from the Sun, approximately 50% lies in the infrared region (40.7 mm), about 40% in the visible
      region (0.4–0.7 mm), and about 10% in the UV region (o0.4 mm).
      The solar constant is not in fact perfectly constant, but varies in relation to the solar activities. Beyond the very slow evolution of the Sun, …….

      http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter3/Ency_Atmos/Radiation_Solar.pdf

      • suyts says:

        I was taught the other way around, (50/40) but, that was before the sat measurements.

      • David Appell says:

        No void in any thought. Any scientist trying to explain surface temperatures would have thought of pressure in the first half-hour, and eliminated it 5 minutes later. Pressure alone simply cannot block infrared radiation, because it does not interact with it. IR has wavelengths of 1-20 microns, which is much much bigger than the size of an atmospheric molecule. They simply do not interact classically, i.e. thermodynamically.

        The similarities between Venus and Earth in a small part of the spectrum are a coincidence.

        • suyts says:

          Coincidence? That’s your scientific explanation? Really? Some of us don’t have the hubris to be so dismissive.
          David, I know what the spectrum is. Almost every one here does. We also know the absorption bands of CO2. Which is why I think comparisons to Venus are silly. Do you believe our pressure will ever become near Venus’ as to enlarge the bands on earth? But, that’s why at the same pressure the temps are the same. Because CO2 doesn’t absorb much IR at this pressure. It can’t close the window that allows the energy to escape. It’s like trying to heat your house with a penlight in winter with your windows open. It’s silly.

        • David Appell says:

          Yes, coincidence. (Just like the coincidence that Venus’s atmospere has a mass of 92 times Earth’s, and its surface pressure is also 92 times Earth’s, because coincidentally M/R^4 is very nearly the same for both planets). And it’s really not a good coincidence; last time I looked at this I think the pressure at a some altitudes differed by as much as 10% (between Earth and Venus).

          Yes, Earth’s pressure will become like Venus’s when our greenhouse effect runs away in about a half billion years, and our water boils away and the hydrogen gets dissociated into space, and the Urey reactions can no longer take CO2 out of our atmosphere. Then it will build up like on Venus.

        • David Appell says:

          Pressure broadening is a fundamentally different phenomenon from atmospheric pressure explaining the elevated surface temperatures, and I’m not sure which one you mean. The first is certainly real, and large on Venus. The latter cannot account for the fact that surface temperatures on Earth or Venus are higher than their emission temperatures.

        • david says:

          Just a question, you say, referring to surface heat in the LWIR interacting with the surface atmosphere of non GHG molecules…”. They simply do not interact classically, i.e. thermodynamically. ” Should this not read they do not interact radiatively? Can not a surface radiating heat in the LWIR lose some of that same energy via conduction to another non GHG molecule? Are you saying that an atmosphere of non ghg molecules cannot be warmed by conduction from contact with the surface?

        • David Appell says:

          Are you saying that an atmosphere of non ghg molecules cannot be warmed by conduction from contact with the surface?

          Of course not.

          Conduction has nothing to do with infrared radiation.

    • David Appell says:

      If you look at the outgoing IR spectrum:
      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

      you see that it takes place below a wavenumber of 2000 cm^-1 ; that is, above wavelengths of 5000 nm. If you look at the solar spectrum
      http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

      you see that vanishingly little lies at that point and beyond.

      (Interestingly, there are now known to be exoplanets that orbit red dwarf stars that *do* have signfiicant radiation in the IR, which makes their planets very interesting vis a vis the greenhouse effect.)

      • DirkH says:

        David Appell says:
        May 9, 2013 at 11:44 am
        “you see that it takes place below a wavenumber of 2000 cm^-1 ; that is, above wavelengths of 5000 nm. If you look at the solar spectrum
        http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
        you see that vanishingly little lies at that point and beyond. ”

        David, you are making my point. The IR power is the area under thecurve for the entire IR spectrum. Yes, vanishingly little of it lies at the two lean absorption/re-emission bands of CO2.

        So a small change in the CO2 concentrations will do next to nothing (especially as most surface objects have their IR emission peak exactly in the middle BETWEEN the two CO2 absorption bands).

      • DirkH says:

        And again, the area under the curve of the entire IR spectrum is about as big as the area under the curve of the visible spectrum. Only more distributed amongst wavelengths.

        Think about it. We outlaw lightbulbs because they convert most of their energy into IR, right? Their power spectrum peak nevertheless is in the visible spectrum. Otherwise the light would not appear white.

  10. DirkH says:

    BTW it turns out that a few tiny unnamed volcanoes have sufficed to cause the 15 year lull in CO2AGW, overwhelming all the CO2′s mighty force. After looking really hard for the reason it ain’t warming, meticulous scientists have now found the explanation; in retrospect, as with all protective hypotheses of a degenerative research program that needs to protect the core theory…

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/03/climate-change-volcanoes/

    • David Appell says:

      “…a surge in the concentration of light-scattering particles in the stratosphere countered as much as 25% of that potential temperature increase” [the study claims]

      • DirkH says:

        So they gotta look for the remaining 75% in their backsides. Hey, I saved 25% of CAGW for you, you could at least say Thank You.

        • David Appell says:

          That’s how all sciences work — when observations do not meet expectations, investigate and see what was missed.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          And yet no one in Climate Science Alarmism seems to be doing that. Instead, they try to justify why they are wrong by making up stories that cannot be disproven.

          Very much like a religion.

        • suyts says:

          There should be an addendum to that statement, David. Here, I’ll try to fix it for you…..

          “That’s how all sciences work — when observations do not meet expectations, investigate and see what was missed.” …… and in climate science never ever revisit the underlying hypothesis.

        • Latitude says:

          …or admit the computer games were wrong about everything

        • DirkH says:

          David Appell says:
          May 9, 2013 at 3:04 pm
          “That’s how all sciences work — when observations do not meet expectations, investigate and see what was missed.”

          Wait; you are saying warmism is not yet able to explain what’s happening? Maybe we should give them some more time before taxing energy production with fossil fuels into oblivion.

        • Bruce says:

          Epicycles.

          In one word. Nothing is new under the Sun.

        • David Appell says:

          “That’s how all sciences work — when observations do not meet expectations, investigate and see what was missed.” …… and in climate science never ever revisit the underlying hypothesis.

          Are you kidding?? The radiative properties of greenhouse gases have been investigated for over 150 years. That physics is among the BEST known parts of climate science — a cornerstone of planetary climatology and paleoclimatology.

          If you are waiting for some turnaround on the warming properties of CO2, you will wait forever — it won’t happen. Climate sensitivity might be lowered a bit — it won’t matter much, since our emissions are increasing exponentially — or it might be raised — the PETM suggests we’re missing some significant feedback.

          Sorry, that’s what the science shows, which is why the truth is called “inconvenient.”

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Best known – in a PETRI dish. Not a single proclamation of catastrophe has come to pass. The problem is that the CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be isolated like it can in a lab. The other forces are both negative and positive, and the alarmist have yet to understand how the interact. They have guesses – which either they have all proved wrong, or the alarmist merely cling irrationally to false hope.

        • David Appell says:

          you are saying warmism is not yet able to explain what’s happening?

          I don’t know what “warmism” means. The science says that many factors determine climate, and that there is more than one anthropogenic factor, and that natural cycles have variability… but you know what, screw it. I laid all this out very carefully in my Yale Forum article. If you can’t be bothered to read it, or you can’t understand it, that’s your problem.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          As I did in my Harvard Business review article on GAAP principals. Bit then I guess you do not like that ugly word. most scientists look down their nose at business – because it produces where they do not.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          That physics is among the BEST known parts of climate science

          David – On the surface you are right, but heat is mutable. The hydrologic cycle gets it from the surface to the stratosphere without the CO2 in the middle ever seeing it. Its the hydrologic cycle that we don’t know enough about, not the physical chemistry of CO2 et al.

          At the same time cloud coverage and genesis is poorly understood by the consensus. Which is the point of Rao’s paper I linked yesterday and Svensmark/Friis-Christensen. Also some of the work on Forbush events.

          Even I can see the correlation between cloud cover peaks and the solar cycle minima. Clouds are very good diffractors of solar radiation. I know such things as I worked with titanium pigment for a while. Car paint is only 30 particles deep on average, yet it diffracts all the incident light so that you cannot see the grey tinge of the underlying steel. Clouds are remarkably good diffractors too. Doesn’t take much of an increase in cloud cover to massively reduce temperature.

        • David Appell says:

          And yet no one in Climate Science Alarmism seems to be doing that. Instead, they try to justify why they are wrong by making up stories that cannot be disproven.

          You’re completely wrong, and in fact people have been doing that in recent years, as my Yale Forum article tells.

          But you seem interested only in ranting, not learning….

        • PhilJourdan says:

          One cannot learn from closed minds. Indeed, I am not ranting, I am observing – a lost art in climate alarmism (learn to reply – you claim to have your own blog – do you ever use it?)

          After your libelous articles, I do not care to visit a site that has already proven to be hysterical, libelous, error filled, and untruthful. You made your bed, you have to sleep in it.

          But I do learn. As you probably noticed by now, my formal education is in economics and Mathematics, not Physics or meteorology. So I had to learn that part of AGW. A big task and one that I am still doing. You stopped learning once you arrived at your preconceived conclusion. Now you merely try to excuse your excesses, lie about your mistakes, and cover up your faulty predictions.

          In short you come in here, accuse others of your crimes, and then prance merrily away without picking up a scintilla of new information. How could you? Your mind is closed.

        • David Appell says:

          Not a single proclamation of catastrophe has come to pass.

          What scientist used the word “catastrophe?”

          And, if any did, which said it would happen by May 9, 2013?

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Increase destructive weather? Increased frequency of tornadoes. Disappearance snow?

          Notice I did not say that ANYONE used the term Catastrophic (that is reserved apparently for the mouthpieces). So your straw man does not fly. I said not a single proclamation. The proclamations are made by the willing fools who are told what to say by the fake scientists who have reached a conclusion without the data to support it. Nor the science for that matter.

          As for who said by – I refer you to James Hansen West Side Manhattan highway faux pas. The time has expired on that one.

          Guess you really do not know what you are talking about. Without googling, I came up with one. But the headlines are replete with further examples. I am sorry you are Google impaired.

        • David Appell says:

          Bit then I guess you do not like that ugly word. most scientists look down their nose at business

          a) I am not a scientist.
          b) I make my way in one of the most hardcore free markets in existence, freelance writing, and have now for 15 years.
          c) I own copious shares in a company that also competes in the free every day, and which I helped establish from nothing.

          So don’t preach to me about business, unless you want to hear what it’s really like.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          “a) I am not a scientist.”

          That much is evident. At least you are more honest than others.

          as far as B, no you SOLD out in your stated field. The hard choice would be to seek the truth and write about it, and you have abandoned that route in order to be a PR flunky to the politically correct.

          And I will preach to you about business because you are totally clueless. Actually, I was being nice and trying to educate you. For that, you turn all defensive and offensive. Nice going. I am sure your readership will continue to fall – just like all the other Propaganda Ministers of your new faith.

        • David Appell says:

          The hard choice would be to seek the truth and write about it,

          I work harder on the truth than you have any idea, and the fact that you dismiss that so easily proves you don’t know what it’s like.

          I haven’t seen a detailed response from you here, one that means anything at all.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          No David. And if you believe that claptrap, you are lying to yourself. You do not work harder on the truth, You work hard at convincing others of YOUR truth, which has no bearing on objective truth.

          You have already been caught in more lies than Obama. To claim truth is to deny reality. And you are only deceiving yourself.

    • PhilJourdan says:

      They did more damage than Pinatubo or Krakatoa! Who would have thunk it.

      Desperation time again.

      • David Appell says:

        Neither the article or the paper said that.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Thought you were not talking to me. So much for the Appell Doctrine.

          Google Sarcasm.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – You realise the implication of the aerosol fallacy don’t you?

          It works like this. If China, by not controlling sulfur emissions, has caused global cooling to neatly match the supposed warming from CO2 then the answer to global warming is very simple.

          The US and EU would just turn off their flue gas desulfurisation units on the existing power stations, and remove the sulfur content limits on coal, kerosene and bunker-C ship fuel.

          This would immediately fix global warming AND save money, since FGD and desulfurisation during refining of fuel is expensive.

          That is why there isn’t much heart in the ‘China-is-wot-dun-it’ excuse from the consensus fraternity, since it immediately results in the opposite answer to what the decarbonisation people want.

          Unfortunately for the consensus climate science community this hypothesis is garbage.

          Easily disproved with a bit of work on regional temperature trends. No, the reason for the temperature hiatus and recent cooling is that the Sun and oceans have greater forcing than the consensus hypothesis acknowledges, which in turn means CO2 is harmless. Unfortunately this will prick the climate science bubble, and many will be out of a job, even tenured professors. The latter link, from this morning, is very interesting. Read the signs before its too late.

        • David Appell says:

          Most aerosols are particulate matter, which has harmful effects on health. It has practically ruined some Chinese cities, and even in the US it causes over $120 B/yr in health and ecosystem damage, according to a 2010 NAS report.

          No one wants aerosols in their air.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          The $120b is a red herring (you seem to love those as well). It does not take into account how many of those spending that money would not be around to waste it – without the cheap energy. I guess that is why most alarmists are also Eugenicists and Malthusians. Cheap energy for the few, not for the masses.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – I agree. I’ve been working in pollution control, gaseous and aqueous, for a very long time. Almost three decades. I’ve been inside an operating SO3 absorption tower in a ‘space suit’ in one project. But that is not the point.

          The point is that you cannot invoke dust and sulfur from China as the cause of the temperature hiatus, since it is localised. The current cooling is global, which can only be from a global cause.

          And no its not volcanoes. I watch the volcano blogs most days and have done so for many years because its fun science. I susbscribe to the Smithsonian/USGS feed. I was watching the magma movements for weeks prior to the first Eyjafjallajökull basaltic cinder cone eruption (now known as Fimmvörðuháls) on the Iceland Met Office page.

          I can’t recall a period the three years since then when there has been so few eruptions, and so few big andesitic ones, which throw up so much of the dust. An analysis of eruptive history of the Earth will show this quite well. And will kill off the aerosols-ate-global-warming idea.

          Occams razor is coming to climate science. So many more studies are coming out now every day on the solar and oceans effects as the pal review system breaks down. It won’t take long for the bubble of budgets to pop. Here in Oz there will be a big cut after the federal election due in September, and our carbon tax will also become roadkill. Politicians will not stump up cash for this stuff for much longer, they are increasingly desperate to find savings and the colder it gets the more that climate departments will become tempting morsels.

        • David Appell says:

          But Bruce: aerosol cooling in certain places will lead to a lower global average, right?

          Have a look at the 1st figure in my Yale Forum piece. It shows significant changes in aerosol content (optical depth) around the world:
          http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/wither-global-warming-has-it-slowed-down/

          I will address the volcanoes separately.

        • David Appell says:

          Bruce: Can you give me the link for the USGS volcano feed? I get their earthquake feed, but haven’t found the one for volcanos.

          To me, your recollections seems like anectodal evidence, not systematic scientific evidence based on data collections. What we think we know based on recollections is often not what systematic data shows (i.e. nurses who swear that full moons bring more patients to the ER).

          Although I am also surprised by this Sid Perkins article in Wired, because for my Yale Forum piece I talked to a NCAR scientist, Dan Murphy, who found no net change in aerosol forcing last decade because of some competing effects in how sunlight would hit aerosols that shift geographical location….

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          Yes, it is highly localised and in the NH. Almost everywhere that is distant from China-India-ME is trend zero. Southern hemisphere is zip, flat. The ITCZ has not been repealed that I know of, and SH and NH temperatures track together, they do not diverge much…and the divergence is actually the SH getting cooler.

          If China-India etc caused offsetting cooling you would have obvious localised cooling, which would cause temperature anomaly divergence of the hemispheres. It doesn’t.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – Here’s the Smithsonian volcanoes feed. Its weekly and rather good.

          Link

          The Smithsonian volcanoes page is also a place you can lose large parts of your life in…

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          Sorry, syntax errors are why I never did so well in my computer science minors, but the two links are working so I won’t redo it.

        • David Appell says:

          Bruce, thanks for the RSS feeds.

        • David Appell says:

          Bruce wrote:
          Almost everywhere that is distant from China-India-ME is trend zero.

          What data says this? Citation please?

          Because the research I’ve done says otherwise: a decrease in aerosols around 40 deg N, an increase around 20 deg N especially in the Middle East, and a decrease around 40 deg S due (probably) to wind shifts that affect sea salts.
          http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/wither-global-warming-has-it-slowed-down/

          So please tell us the source for your claim.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – I was referring to Dr Murphy’s figure in your Yale post, which you were pointing out. Green is zero. Blue is negative.

          Ok I could do image analysis and do a hemispheric average, but its obvious to anyone with eyes that the SH aerosol depth decadal trend is flat in that dataset. Arguably it is rising in the NH in that graphic, again I do not have the hemisphere average data, but then I’m not in your field.

          Now since there is a much higher overall trend in the NH you would expect some difference in temperature trend NH vs SH over the same time base. There isn’t.

          The text in that section of your article is not clear in this respect: if you have a difference in NH and SH trends in aerosol depth and a strong cooling effect from aerosols (ie to counteract strong warming by CO2) then you should see a SH-NH difference in temperature trend. Even if the NH aerosols are in the equatorial zone with shorter optical path length. There are no aerosol depth trends on the southern side of the equatorial zone. So if you have something on one side and nothing on the other you should get a measurable difference. You don’t. Which suggests those aerosol forcings are empirically not as strong as you think.

          This makes plenty of sense since that stuff is LT and near surface dust and salt spray not stratosphere. And localised. And as I said upthread the hydrologic cycle moves heat from the surface to the stratosphere without physical chemistry in between coming into play. So 670 nm wavelength is not as important, since it has less to work with. The heat is bypassing the CO2 and the 0.5 um aerosols. Meanwhile since cloud forcing is stronger than the consensus wants it to be the increased diffractive reflection of solar energy to space causes the cooling trend we’re seeing, as well as the ocean cycles AMO and PDO, which are both on downwards phase of the cycles. The heat is never there to be absorbed coming or going.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          Actually I’ll correct myself slightly, since the zonal average is given in the Murphy figure. It is even more clear with that that the NH has had an increasing average aerosol optical depth trend compared with the SH, which if anything has been falling slightly over the decade.

          But as I said the SH and NH temperature anomaly trends have been almost identical over the decade. The cooling is not hemispheric its global, requiring a global cause.

        • David Appell says:

          The $120b is a red herring (you seem to love those as well). It does not take into account how many of those spending that money would not be around to waste it – without the cheap energy.

          This sentence does not even make grammatical sense, so I have no idea what you are trying to say.

          You will now also be filtered out.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          No the sentence is grammatically and logically correct. What is missing is any comprehension on your part about basic economics. If you cannot understand basics, get educated As a writer, you are supposed to have at least a rudimentary understanding of what you are writing about. Now I can see why your writing sucks. You are clueless.

        • David Appell says:

          It is even more clear with that that the NH has had an increasing average aerosol optical depth trend compared with the SH, which if anything has been falling slightly over the decade.

          You’re exactly wrong — the very point of the Murphy paper is that, in fact, geographical shifts in aerosols cancel out due to competing factors.

          Read harder.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – I just took the Murphy figure and read what it said. I’m a scientist, I read data and interpret it every day. Where did I go wrong with that?

          Epicycles again. High CO2 sensitivity cancelled by aerosols which are cancelled by geographical variations which are cancelled by…?

          I did read what you wrote. You waffled to a non-conclusion in the aerosols section. I interpreted the data and made a statement: if aerosol optical depth is trending up in the NH and not in the SH then you should see a difference in temperature trend between hemispheres. You don’t. This shows aerosols as measured by Murphy do not have a strong enough forcing to make much difference to temperature trends. If they were you’d see hemispheric difference in temperature trend. If not then they cannot be strong enough to offset a hypothesised high CO2 sensitivity. You can’t have it both ways.

          The Sun and the ocean cycles explain about 80-85% of the long term temperature variance. CO2 does not. Volcanoes do not. Decadal variation in salt spray seems an unlikely significant variable for long term temperature trends.

        • David Appell says:

          Bruce wrote:
          if aerosol optical depth is trending up in the NH and not in the SH then you should see a difference in temperature trend between hemispheres.

          That is not what the data shows. It shows aerosols trending down in the north ~40 deg N, and up nearer the equator ~20 deg N, with geometrical factors cancelling out.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – Dr Murphy’s graph has ‘zonal average’ on the left hand side.

          It is clear to me that if you mathematically integrated all under the curve of the NH it would be much more than if you added up all of the SH to give respective hemispheric average decadal trends.

          In other words there are a lot more aerosols, sulfur particulates, dust, soot, salt spray and etc in the NH in the last decade than in the SH where there has if anything been a fall in optical depth.

          You cannot have it both ways. If the NH has more aerosols than the south then you should see a difference in the temperature trend between the hemispheres.

          There is no such difference. Both NH and SH have been cooling at the same average rate.

          If aerosols have enough effect to offset strong CO2 warming then the difference between the hemispheres would show up in the temperature anomaly trend slopes.

          If aerosols have weak forcing then they cannot offset strong CO2 forcing. Logic then says CO2 empirical net forcing is weak or something else unknown is counteracting CO2.

          But since we now have many studies showing the Sun, especially the solar magnetic field, and ocean cycles explain the temperature record well, leaving about 1/6th as much temperature rise for CO2 that the IPCC thought, Occams Razor indicates that CO2 forcing is indeed empirically low (net of feedbacks) and aerosol forcing is also low (because hemispheric temperature trends are very similar).

        • David Appell says:

          Bruce wrote:
          It is clear to me that if you mathematically integrated all under the curve of the NH it would be much more than if you added up all of the SH to give respective hemispheric average decadal trends.

          I don’t care. It’s his paper, not mine. I’m just reporting on it.

          Your claims about it are false. At least you can admit that.

        • David Appell says:

          Bruce wrote:
          There is no such difference. Both NH and SH have been cooling at the same average rate.

          Says who? Says what data?
          Give us results for each dataset (GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC).
          Where are your numbers?
          What are their statistical uncertainties?

          You’re making claims with no evidcenc whatsoever. That’s lame, and I don’t believe any of it.

          I want links to data, I want calculationaly results clearly spelled out, I want uncertainties.

          Otherwise you are useless.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – I am reading his own data! I am then pointing out the NH and SH temperature trends.

          This is the unadulterated data. Put them together and the conclusion is obvious.

          Scientists are human. All journal papers comprise data and conclusions. The authors are making their conclusion from the data, or are supposed to be. In this case I am taking Dr Murphy’s data with Hadley Center’s temperature data and I’m showing that aerosols cannot be the reason why the temperature is falling.

          I’ve been a scientist for more than three decades now. I’m doing no more or less than I’ve done with data since I started in research back in ’81. I’m doing no more or less than Kepler did when he showed ellipses eliminated the need for epicycles.

          I am sorry if this doesn’t fit the narrative that some people want. Its happened to me before, albeit with fewer personal ‘sheep-stations’ at risk. I have learnt not to hold onto hypotheses that don’t fit the data, and to move on to something else when the data is so obvious. I hope that my colleagues in science who work in the climate field will do likewise. It will be hard for them I know, but it is going to happen whether they like it or not. The science does not lie: CAGW is falsified. This is going to hit climate budgets the world over like an iceberg hitting a rowboat. All they can do is prepare themselves for it.

        • David Appell says:

          David – I am reading his own data! I am then pointing out the NH and SH temperature trends.

          WHAT are you talking about? Murphy says nothing about temperature trends, let alone their values in each hemisphere?

          What are you talking about?

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – I linked to HadCRUT 3 NH and SH data! I’ll do it again a third time so you can find it more easily, this thread is getting pretty long:

          Link.

          Here it is again for HadCRUT 4 instead of HadCRUT 3 in the original link. The trendlines are like railway tracks.

          I can’t easily do any of the other datasets because only those are available in separate NH/SH data on that site. Spencer certainly has UAH data by hemisphere because I recall seeing it occasionally, but woodfortrees hasn’t got this set up.

          I can’t comment on the error bars, but Hadley’s data is regarded pretty well by CAGW and sceptics both. If you don’t like their data I suggest you take it up with them. I am just linking to it.

        • David Appell says:

          Bruce wrote:
          I linked to HadCRUT 3 NH and SH data!

          No, you claimed Murphy wrote about temperature trends.

          He did not.

          Why did you say he did?

          And you should know that the HadCRUT3 dataset is old and has been replaced by a more accurate dataset, HadCRUT4:
          http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David, please! I am reading this graph which you pointed out to me in your article, which is a fine comprehensive article (albeit that it summarises only one side of the story, the incorrect side as I’ve just showed).

          I am imposing on your time like this because I am a scientist and I have long experience interpreting such datasets. And comparing them and contrasting them with allied datasets like HadCRUT.

          For a hypothesis to fit the data it has to fit all the data (within error bars). If it is confirmed it doesn’t fit then you need to develop a new hypothesis which does fit.

          The low sensitivity hypothesis fits the data. All of the data. The IPCC’s high sensitivity hypothesis does not. Therefore we don’t need to be worried about global warming (until the Sun flares or sommething).

        • David Appell says:

          Bruce wrote:
          David, please! I am reading this graph which you pointed out to me in your article

          Murphy said nothing about the temperature difference between the NH and SH.

          Nor did I.

          So why are you claiming otherwise??

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – I never said Murphy addressed the temperature, his graphic is about aerosol density.

          I am the one who raised temperatures, pointing out that if Murphy’s data is right (as it seems certainly right to me) and aerosol density is higher in the NH in the last decade then there must be a difference in temperature trend for aerosols to have a big enough forcing. Alternatively you can tell me why the temperature trends are identical despite aerosol trends being different. You haven’t given me any reason why, and avoiding it isn’t especially convincing.

          These data are from the one common source, the Earth’s climatic system. They fit together. We, though, have to work out how and why.

          You cannot say that aerosols are offsetting otherwise large CO2 warming if there is such a large hemispheric difference in aerosols but not in temperature trend, in the same way you can’t say blue is yellow. Its a logical inference.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Bruce, I am afraid your excellent analysis if falling on deaf ears. It does not fit his warped idea of his subjective truth, so instead of reading what you are saying (which you have made easily understandable), he is trying to construct straw men for you to chase to lead you off the conclusion. His misdirection is well documented, as is his liberties with the truth.

        • David Appell says:

          Bruce: at 9:09 pm you wrote:
          David – I am reading his own data! I am then pointing out the NH and SH temperature trends.

          There are NO temperature trends in Murphy’s paper.

          None.

          You’re simply wrong.

          And I’m tired of this. Not one of you here is able to stick to the science….

        • suyts says:

          David, recall further up in the conversation it was posited that the pause in temps warming were because of aerosols. Which is why you introduced your article. If your image is correct and aerosols are causing cooling then the NH and SH should be moving at different rates. We know Murphy didn’t discuss temp trends. That was introduced into the conversation. Because Murphy didn’t discuss temps, you can’t apply the thought to his work? Are you that simple?

          And re-read what you quoted of Bruce. He didn’t say Murphy discussed temps.

          David – I am reading his own data! I am then pointing out the NH and SH temperature trends.

          That doesn’t mean that Murphy wrote about it. It means Bruce is comparing two sets of information to see if there’s a relationship. It really isn’t that hard to understand.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Bruce did. You did not. He stated several times where he was pulling the data. But you ignored it ever time he did. Because it does not fit your idea of your truth. Bruce stated truth. You ran from it. Which makes you a liar about seeking truth. You do not. You merely seek affirmation of an incompetent career.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          So? The NH and SH temperature trends are accepted pretty much by everyone.

          They are pretty much identical.

          Aerosols this last decade have been increasing in the NH and not in the SH, according to Dr Murphy’s data.

          If aerosols strongly affect temperature to offset a CO2 strong effect on temperature, then the temperature trends should be different. They aren’t.

          Its a simple equation. About as stark as you can get in climatology.

          This is why the IPCC never sounds like they really believe the aerosol argument when they write press releases about it, nor push it with much gusto. The argument is so obviously wrong it doesn’t take much science training to understand.

        • Scott says:

          David,

          Your conclusion about what Bruce was saying is non sequitar. The quoted sentences are separate and distinct sentences. Maybe he should have been clearer in the second sentence and said he was comparing the aerosol data from Murphy to the HadCRUT data.

          But just to try to add to the conversation, I ran the numbers using UAH for the NH and SH. I don’t for sure what time period you’re covering, or if you can even agree on one, but here are the NH and SH trends and 95% confidence intervals (no correction for autocorrelation) for Jan 2002 through Apr 2013:

          NH = +0.035 +/- 0.093 C/decade
          SH = -0.003 +/- 0.091 C/decade

          If we’re looking for NH-SH < 0, then we'd get 0.038 +/- 0.130 assuming independent data. Clearly the probability of NH-SH<0 is below 50%, but we can't say much of anything given the huge relative uncertainty.

          The above approach is looking at the differences in the trends, which seems to be favored by ignorant people when trying to show two things are indistinguishable. A better test would be to look at the trend in the differences instead of the difference in the trends. This is similar to computing anomalies and will get rid of a lot of the shared "noise" between the data sets and help reduce uncertainties (and presumably some autocorrelation). Doing this approach gives NH-SH as 0.038 +/- 0.098 C/decade. Same value with moderately better uncertainty. I honestly thought the uncertainty would go down more compared to the other method…looks like the noise shared between the SH and NH is less correlated than I imagined.

          Regardless, if Bruce's test is valid, then aerosols are not to blame for the lack of measured warming the atmosphere. Personally, I think Bruce's test is way too simple because of the different heat capacities in the SH and NH (plus all sorts of other variables). A better test would be to compare the SH and NH trends above to those from earlier times, but we'd need to have good aerosol numbers from earlier times to get at the meaning of the data. Do those data exist?

          -Scott

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          “Personally, I think Bruce’s test is way too simple because of the different heat capacities in the SH and NH (plus all sorts of other variables).”

          Exactly sir! I had been hoping David would engage this way. See there is more water in the SH than the NH. And more UHIE in the north. And etc.

          But to make such an argument you have to think about the data and what it is saying. Not just read the conclusions section of papers.

          Which is what I’ve been trying to get David to do all along.

          Sceptics want to be convinced by the science one way or another. That’s why I’m willing to spend so much time in discussions like this. On the other hand I have a personal (rather swell-headed) view that I can hold my own in any full-press science discussion like that. Even though I’m a chemist too, not a climate scientist. But I have to say the low sensitivity hypothesis is really looking very strong in light of the temperature trends lately.

        • Scott says:

          Bruce of Newcastle says:
          May 9, 2013 at 10:47 pm

          But to make such an argument you have to think about the data and what it is saying. Not just read the conclusions section of papers.

          Wow Bruce, you just made my day! I’m serious. It’s all about the data, data, data. Conclusions can help a person process the data, but just as often they get in the way because of personal biases and subjectivity. I was trying to get Ph to do the data thing the other day, but all he would say is that the claim I was making wasn’t stated in the paper I linked. Of course it wasn’t! I was running their numbers myself in a way the authors hadn’t discussed in the paper, likely because of their biases. But according to Ph, my all of stuff was “make believe [sic] data”…personally I don’t think he even read it.

          Like you, I’m a chemist, so delving outside an area of exact science and dealing with some of the crap is tough. But even in exact science, it’s frustrating. I routinely work with grad students working to get their Ph.D.’s and to many of them it’s all about memorizing things, particularly conclusions. They just can’t get that it’s not about memorization! It’s about critical thinking and coming up with new ideas…something no amount of memorization can accomplish (though having more memorized is a plus in that it helps your search for new successes and gives you examples to go on). I don’t know where they get this memorization idea, but it really seems to get a contribution from more politically and ideologically driven areas of science.

          Anyway, thanks again for your comment. I really appreciate the way you a Hank think and communicate on this blog. That’s not a bash to the others, but just complimenting you two particularly.

          -Scott

        • David Appell says:

          Scott:

          Bruce said the paper said things it did not say.

          Why?

        • PhilJourdan says:

          No he did not. He clearly clarified that he was using the conclusions of the paper in the comparison to determine the effects of aerosols.

          You clearly understood that. Why are you lying now?

        • Scott says:

          David,

          Then show me where. Your above quotation for Bruce doesn’t have any make-believe stuff in it.

          -Scott

        • David Appell says:

          David, recall further up in the conversation it was posited that the pause in temps warming were because of aerosols. Which is why you introduced your article.

          In fact, it was not at all why I wrote my article.
          Nor was it the conclusion of my article.
          If you can’t read well enough to understand that much at least, then I am wasting my time here.

        • suyts says:

          Good Heavens, David! Is your reading comprehension this poor? When I wrote “introduced your article” I clearly meant introduced it to this conversation. I have no idea why you originally wrote it. Nor was I addressing your conclusions.

          I was doing my best to get you to understand what Bruce was talking about. I was trying to give you something many of us call “context”. I really was trying to help clear up your misunderstanding of what Bruce was saying. For that, you give me insults based on unwarranted assumptions. Is English your first language?

        • PhilJourdan says:

          in fact your article is not gospel. In fact, people can read, and then ADVANCE beyond your childish writings. In fact, Bruce did exactly that, but you are incapable of advancing beyond your own stunted set of beliefs.

          In fact, until you understand that your writings are unintelligible gibberish, you cannot grow in knowledge.

        • David Appell says:

          Bruce wrote:
          So? The NH and SH temperature trends are accepted pretty much by everyone.

          So you lied about what the paper said!

          it said nothing like what you claimed.

          I’m not going to waste my time here with someone who cannot accurately state what a paper says.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          The ignore yourself. You are the worst offender of that.

        • Scott says:

          David,

          You say this quote means that Bruce is saying Murphy was discussing temperature:

          David – I am reading his own data! I am then pointing out the NH and SH temperature trends.

          Using your same logic, what conclusion would you get from me saying this:

          David – I am shopping at the grocery store! I am then filling up my car with gas.

          Would you conclude that I’m getting gas from the groc?

          -Scott

        • Scott says:

          David Appell says:
          May 9, 2013 at 11:13 pm

          So you lied about what the paper said!

          it said nothing like what you claimed.
          I’m not going to waste my time here with someone who cannot accurately state what a paper says.

          Where did he lie? State sources.

          Maybe I shouldn’t waste my time here with someone who cannot accurately read logically. Or maybe you should just “read harder”.

          -Scott

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Read logically? he cannot even think! It is apparent, after having the analysis (with supporting documentation) handed to him on a baby spoon, he still cannot grasp it.

          And you wonder why he never demanded the data from Mann. Yet he is suppose to report the truth? He hides from it.

  11. suyts says:

    Bruce, just so you know, RSS is showing the same thing. http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/rssnhsh.jpg

    David is pulling his classic pretend-to-be-obtuse strategy. Yeh, aerosols are causing this, except they’re causing it differently. ….. or something.

    • Bruce of Newcastle says:

      Nice! Thanks for that. I always like RSS best because they sell their wares, so are less likely to be pushing an ideological position which might annoy potential customers.

      I am trying to get David to think about the data rather than just pass on what others say.

      If the data contradicts the message then in the end the data will win. As it has done so time and time again over the sweep of science history. Anyone who is dependent on government climate money needs to be prepared for this.

      • David Appell says:

        What data will win?

        Why is RSS data better than UAH data?

        10 years ago RSS showed higher temperatures than UAH.
        Now they show lower temperatures.
        Where they trying to make a profit then, but not now?
        Otherwise, what?
        To whom are they selling this data?
        And how do you know to whom they are selling data?
        Why should I think the RSS data is now more accurate then the UAH data?
        Why do you think so?

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – The three datasets in the thread: HadCRUT 3 and 4 and RSS all show parallel temperature trends for NH and SH since 2002.

          All three.

          There can be systemic bias between datasets (as anyone who has done a ’round robin’ analysis between groups will know), but internally the precision is remarkable in this respect. You might just about say there is a very slight difference between NH and SH trends in HadCRUT 3, but that’s about it.

          There is no such trend parallel between the NH and SH in the aerosol data. NH is much higher than SH, that is apparent from the zonal averages on the LHS side of Dr Murphy’s graphic.

        • David Appell says:

          The three datasets in the thread: HadCRUT 3 and 4 and RSS all show parallel temperature trends for NH and SH since 2002.

          Says who?
          Can you please be specific and give the actual trends for the actual dates you have in mind, with uncertanties, accounting for temporal autocorrelation?

          Just give the numbers.

      • David Appell says:

        If the data contradicts the message then in the end the data will win.

        You haven’t given any results at all.

        I want:
        * a URL to the dataset
        * the start and end dates for your calculation
        * the trends you have calculated
        * the uncertainty in the trends, including temporal uncertainty.

        Can you do science or not? So far, clearly not.

        • Me says:

          Me guesses you can’t either or you wouldn’t want someone else to do it fer ya thar Toshinmactivist! :lol:

        • Scott says:

          Same analysis as above but using RSS data. You didn’t appear to read the above, so I’ll specify again that it’s 01/2002 through 04/2013. As above, you can request a different interval than that.

          URL is:
          ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt

          Trends are (with 95% conf int, no correction for autocorrelation):
          NH = -0.078 +/- 0.099 C/decade
          SH = -0.071 +/- 0.084 C/decade

          What else do you want?

          -Scott

        • David Appell says:

          that it’s 01/2002 through 04/2013

          This is a climatoligically meaningless interval.

          So why should I care about your calculation?

        • PhilJourdan says:

          No, it is what the alarmists are using. A shorter period actually for their phony claims about the warming temperatures in the oceans.

          But then the truth and you are still total strangers.

        • Scott says:

          David Appell says:
          May 9, 2013 at 11:31 pm

          that it’s 01/2002 through 04/2013

          This is a climatoligically meaningless interval.
          So why should I care about your calculation?

          David, is this not the time interval being discussed in your recent article? So why should I care about your article? Note that you also forgot to quote this part of my comment:

          As above, you can request a different interval than that.

          Why did you omit that David?

          -Scott

        • Bruce says:

          No, David, I will not spend several hours graphing up this data, or doing stats on it. Which I’d have to do manually as the stats package I used to use for that stuff was owned by the company. I don’t do enough to warrant the expense of buying a copy for myself.

          I have never heard anyone on any side of the climate debate question the veracity of the woodfortrees graphing tool. If you can’t see from the axes and the shape of the pictorially represented data that the SH and NH trends are parallel since 2002 or very nearly so then you must be visually challenged. I hope you aren’t (and apology in advance if you are).

          Now if I was paid by someone to do this I would cheerfully do so and then send them an invoice at the end of the month. So far the people who do pay me, and some is actually real authentic government climate money, have not asked me to do this data analysis. But neither have they asked me to reinvent the wheel or do an F test on whether the railroad tracks between Sydney and Newcastle are parallel.

        • David Appell says:

          No, David, I will not spend several hours graphing up this data, or doing stats on it.

          Then I will ignore you. You can’t take a few seconds to be specific about what you’re doing, or to be specific about what you’re calculating.

          You like to throw claims around, without defending them.

          You’re not scientific, like most people here.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          He was specific David. You just rejected the truth. You are indeed a serial liar.

        • David Appell says:

          I have never heard anyone on any side of the climate debate question the veracity of the woodfortrees graphing tool

          You haven’t even specified what exactly you’re calculating, or what dataset you’re using, or what endpoints you’re taking, or what are the uncertainties of your result.

          In other words, you’re not being scientific at all. So you’re not worth paying attention to.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Yes he has. Several times. Since I read his analysis, I had no problems understanding what he was proving and with what. You seem to be the only one obtuse.

          Do not lie about it. Stop saying that no one has done anything. You are merely closing your eyes and denying the truth because it does not fit your narrative.

          You are a stranger to truth. You do not seek it. You shun it.

        • Scott says:

          David,

          If your point is that the time interval to discuss any of this is too short, then just say so. Or if you think that Bruce’s proposed metric is not very good, then say so (that’s what I did above). I’m pretty sure Bruce and several other people on this thread would take that news decently well or maybe even agree with you.

          But making claims that Bruce is lying about the Murphy data and spinning everyone in circles by ignoring their responses to you is just wasting everyone’s time and effort. And the number of times you’ve said that you’ll ignore someone or that you’re not going to waste your time here only to then stick around and keep up more of the same is just getting old.

          -Scott

        • Me says:

          Waah Waah Waah! Bwaaaaaahahahaha!

        • Bruce says:

          David, on every graphic generated by the woodfortrees interactive tool is a legend describing what the data represented is. I had hoped you would understand this.

          Each graph that I have linked to has that descriptive infromation giving what the dataset is, what the timebase is and with numerically labelled axes. Furthermore you can play with it easily. Click the links I’ve given. I have not personally validated the data from the official sources, which was why I said what you’ve quoted I said. The only thing it would be nice to have is ability to fit something like a least squares sine curve, like this, to better show the ~60 year cycle.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          He gave the links. He gave the process. Clearly he has done his science. Clearly you have no clue what science is.

          Clearly you are in way over your head.

        • DirkH says:

          David Appell says:
          May 9, 2013 at 11:16 pm
          “You haven’t given any results at all.

          I want:
          * a URL to the dataset
          * the start and end dates for your calculation
          * the trends you have calculated
          * the uncertainty in the trends, including temporal uncertainty.”

          Oh, David, glad to see you’re interested in the details. I am as well. You said somewhere above about the higher terms in the radiative forcing :
          “dT ~ ln(C + bC^2 + cC^3)”

          I want
          * a value for b for the Earth’s atmosphere
          * a value for c for the Earth’s atmosphere
          * the formula for the change in radiative forcing ; as an equation, not a “somewhat like” relation.

          TIA.

    • David Appell says:

      RSS is far below the other 5 datasets.

      Why do you believe it, and not them?

    • David Appell says:

      To whom does RSS sell their calculation of tropospheric temperatures?

      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        NASA. See link which says “Remote Sensing Systems is a research oriented business”.

        Alternatively you could say they have a contract with NASA to analyse the data. In which case you could ask NASA about the veracity of the data products they produce.

        • David Appell says:

          Bruce, please answer the question honestly: To whom does RSS sell their calculation of tropospheric temperatures?

        • PhilJourdan says:

          What difference does that make the point Bruce is making? RSS was but ONE of 3 datasets he linked to. So who cares? Does it change his analysis? Answer the last question if you dare.

        • Me says:

          :lol: it’s too hard for Toshinmactivist! LMAO!

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Apparently it is impossible for him.

        • Bruce says:

          sell
          /sel/
          Verb
          Give or hand over (something) in exchange for money: “they had sold the car”.”

          NASA. Read the page About Remote Sensing Systems. ‘Sell’ is quite a small word. Difficult to understand I know, but…

        • David Appell says:

          To whom does RSS sell their data?

          I get it for free every month.

          To whom do they sell their data?

        • Bruce says:

          David, you asked “…sell their calculation of tropospheric temperatures?”

          To which I answered NASA. Who pay for them to do this calculation. “Give or hand over (something) in exchange for money”. The resulting data they make available to the public, as we have seen. I expect that is part of the contract, but I have no way of knowing.

          Did you do an LLB along with your BSc…?

        • David Appell says:

          Then explain why 10 years ago RSS LT’s were above UAH’s, and now they are below them?

          And why should I believe either dataset if there is no consistency between them? The entire saga of the MSU numbers makes me very suspicious that either group knows what they are doing.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          If he was trying to prove an absolute temperature, your question would be valid. As he is merely using trends, your question is not only a non-sequitur, but stupid.

        • Bruce says:

          Ok then David, we go back to HadCRUT 3 and HadCRUT 4.

          Which is where we started before you tried the ‘look, a unicorn!’ strategy.

          I’m sure the horse will sing if you try hard enough.

      • Me says:

        David Appell says:
        May 9, 2013 at 10:11 pm
        Hank: I am not an “activist.”
        OK. Let’s get that clear. I report on the science, as hard and as best I can.
        ————————————————————————————
        With questions like that above, it doesn’t look like you report on science as hard and as best as you can or you wouldn’t have to ask you would already know! :lol:

    • Bruce of Newcastle says:

      David – I gave you links to HadCRUT 3 and HadCRUT 4 hemispheric trends. The RSS trend is showing the same parallels as they do.

      Do you want to measure it yourself with a thermometer?

      • David Appell says:

        Bruce:

        HadCRUT4 and HadCRUT3 say very different things than RSS LT.

        Please be scientific and give actual numbers based on the actual data.

        • Scott says:

          David,

          I ran the UAH numbers above and discussed them. Chose UAH for convenience…already had a spreadsheet set up. Discuss the numbers given above if you’d like.

          -Scott

        • David Appell says:

          I ran the UAH numbers above and discussed them

          1) Give a link to your dataset.
          2) Specify the start and end dates of your calculation.
          3) give the results for whatever you are calculating
          4) gives its uncertainty, including temporal autocorrelation

        • Scott says:

          I gave everything there already except the URL and the autocorrelated part of the unc. I did mention, however, that I didn’t include autocorrelation. Did you even read what I wrote? You’re starting to get really agitating.

          URL is super-easy to find:

          http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

          -Scott

        • David Appell says:

          There’s a link to your data.

          What interval are you calculating for?
          What are you calculating?
          What is its value?
          What is its uncertainly, including all relevant factors (which include temporal autocorrelation)?

        • Scott says:

          It’s all above in an earlier response to you. You clearly didn’t even read it. What a waste of time.

          -Scott

        • Bruce says:

          Scott – Sometimes in threads like these I’ll see a post from someone new sometime later if I check. They are usually people who have been quietly following the argument who say ‘thank you for being so polite’, and ‘thank you for the links’, since they are looking for themselves and weighing up the merits of each side.

          Unfortunately when David goes petulant like this he is really not helping his own cause.

          BTW – Thanks for doing the trends and errors. I haven’t ever set up for it as I’ve tended to go other directions in discussions.

        • Scott says:

          That’s a fair (and very forgiving!) assessment Bruce. You could be right. I should probably be better about giving the benefit of the doubt…though when he clearly hadn’t read it the second time (after I pointed out that it was above), then that’s on his shoulders.

          And no prob on the calculations…already had some of it worked up…just needed updated and a copy/paste job for my code. But I do need to add in an autocorrelation correction.

          -Scott

        • David Appell says:

          If you can’t be specific — and apparently you can’t — then you can’t be scientific, which means you can say anything and no one can check it.

          I’m not going to deal with people who can’t be specific. You had every chance, but too, will now be filtered out.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          He was specific. You are the obtuse one. And you have no clue how to be scientific. Stop the libel. You are merely making a bigger fool of yourself. This dialog has been recorded and will be used against you. To show your supreme incompetence.

        • David Appell says:

          Asking for accuracy is not “petulant.”

          Maybe you’re never done any science. I have. (No, I don’t mean engineering, I mean science.)

          Unless you can be scientific, there is no point discussing with you, because your claims are too vague to be helpfuul.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          No david, you contradict yourself again. You have not done science. You have done propaganda only. But your inflated claim comes as no surprise. You have already proven you are a liar.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          If you are representative of writers in general, we have found the new morons of the 21st century.

          He used all 3 data sets so that you would have no problem with the numbers being run. He then demonstrated how all 3 data sets (taken on their own) showed the same trends. He then compared that to the conclusions of the Murphy paper talking about Aerosols and the impact on temperature and proved there was no relation. Bruce has done his job. You apparently are incapable of doing yours.

      • David Appell says:

        The RSS trend is showing the same parallels as they do.

        I don’t even know what this means.
        Please be specific with actual data, and links to it.

        • suyts says:

          David, you’re completely missing the points trying to be made. No one cares which data set. They’re looking at the trend differentials between NH and SH. You can use which ever one you like.

          The question is, are they trending at significantly different rates? (and no, no one cares which direction, that’s not the point) If the answer is no, then it indicates that there may be a difficulty with the notion that aerosols have caused the pause in the warming. Because, as you’ve shown, the aerosols are increasing in the NH much faster than in the SH.

          Again, this really isn’t hard to understand. As to the location of the various data sets. You’re science writer and not know how to find the data from the various temp gathering organizations? If you do need help finding HadCru temp data, UAH temp data, RSS temp data, or GISS temp data just ask and I can point you in the right direction.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          He already did. The “parallels” (perhaps lazy speak on his part) are the temperature trends for the NH and SH. THOSE parallels.

          Apparently, you are the least intelligent here since everyone else has read and understood what Bruce is saying. The interesting part is you are not arguing he is wrong, you are using non sequiturs and feigned stupidity to try to get him frustrated and stop trying to teach you.

          He should stop. If you have not understood by now, you are clearly one of the ineducable.

    • david says:

      I just real all of the above. I followed the logic of what Bruce was saying… There is an assertion of of why warming has stopped. That causetive materials composing said assertion are located primarily in the NH. Both hemispheres have cooled about equally. This is evidence against that assertion as the cooling is global and not limited to the claimed cause of the cooling, which is primarily in the NH.

      And yet David A acts like this is incomprehensible, and cannot even address it. “pretend to be obtuse” indeed. No wonder the number of sceptics is ever growing.

      • Bruce says:

        David, I would also add the other side of it, which is since the temperature change in the last 10 or 15 years (flat to declining) is pretty much happening at the same rate on both sides of the Equator then reason is most likely to be a global impetus.

        Where we all got started in this was that the Sun has been shown to have caused about 44% of temperature rise last century (0.33 out of 0.74 C), and ~60 year oceanic cycles another 38% or 0.28 out of 0.74 C, give or take.

        Both would have much more of a global effect than the northern hemisphere aerosol emissions from the Middle East China and India that Dr Murphy was reporting. So are consistent with both hemispheres cooling at similar rate in the last decade.

        (I have quite a few more bookmarked studies which corroborate these numbers reasonably well, these two studies happen to be convenient. Scafetta 2010 for example has some good stuff on the ~60 year cycle in the HadCRUT data, but I’m not convinced of his barycentre ideas. Likewise Svensmark and several others have similar stuff on the solar magnetic field effects on the Earth’s temperature.)

        If the Sun and oceans caused about 82% of the temperature rise last century, then CO2 didn’t, which is the main story.

        • david says:

          Thanks Bruce, I appreciate your comments, and I know of these peer reviewed scientific studies which do not pretend that CO2 is the only hammer in the climate tood shed. From a psychological perspective the amazing part is that D.A. would not, or could not progress to the simple logic of more nuanced conversation about said factors beyond the CO2 dominates all equations models.

          I would like to ask you the same question I asked DA earlier in the thread. D.A. made a statement referring to surface heat in the LWIR interacting with the surface atmosphere of non GHG molecules…”. They simply do not interact classically, i.e. thermodynamically. ” I asked, “Should this not read they do not interact radiatively? Can not a surface radiating heat in the LWIR lose some of that same energy via conduction to another non GHG molecule? Are you saying that an atmosphere of non ghg molecules cannot be warmed by conduction from contact with the surface?

          I ask the above because I thought conduction did not depend on radiation absorbition bands. Which, if true, always leads me to what would happen to an NGHG atmosphere, which is some 30 degrees cooler then the surface. Would not the surface non GHGs consistently recieve energy via conduction, until the reaced equalibrium with the surface?
          And whould this not take some time, as the conducting convecting non GHG molecules would continual , until equalibrium with the surface is reached, conductively give their energy to cooler molecules above them, until they also reached the same energy state?

          As I stated earlier to DA, this is all strictly academic, as he admits that the “C” in CAGW is non scientific.

  12. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    For those poor souls following this thread unto the deeps and who are gasping and drowning in hadcrud, you need something different.

    And here it is. Our capital city in its wisdom has been making preparations for their centenary. Always wonderful to see what city bureaucrats come up with for events like this.

    Enjoy.

    • suyts says:

      I’m in awe. That’s….. on so many levels…. it’s strangely obscene and yet symbolic of something much more disgusting all wrapped in unfathomable stupidity.

      Please remind me to repost this!

      • Bruce says:

        Fortunately I posted this before reading the comments. Afterwards I was too busy holding my sides to be able to type.

        Be warned, I worked out eventually the design is by a lady sculptor, Patricia Piccinini. Her work is strange and wonderful and at times very disturbing. And usually very good. But it really really doesn’t work as a very large commemorative balloon for the centenary of our national capital.

  13. Scott says:

    A lot of the conversation here is buried in subthreads. But early in the thread David posted a link to his recent article:

    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/wither-global-warming-has-it-slowed-down/

    The focus is on the last 10-15 years and it is a pretty decent article, even if a little one sided. But then, regarding the last 10 years of UAH & RSS data, David said:

    David Appell says:
    May 9, 2013 at 11:31 pm

    that it’s 01/2002 through 04/2013

    This is a climatoligically meaningless interval.
    So why should I care about your calculation?

    Honestly, the interval doesn’t have a lot of meaning. So why should we care about his article then? Maybe because in the end of the article he points out that short timeframes aren’t very useful. Hopefully everyone, including the scientists quoted in his article, can understand or at least learn a little from that.

    David’s ability to communicate and comprehend doesn’t seem to be very good…at least tonight. And his bias and hypocrisy run deep. But I think the point he’s trying to make is that we can’t really say much at all about the last 10-15 years because statistically there isn’t any certainty. I agree with that, and everyone should realize that it holds true for both sides of the argument. And with that, I think I’ll go to bed tonight…way too late for me.

    -Scott

  14. Scott says:

    So I think this might rank as one of the most bizarre threads we’ve seen here. James writes an article that in part praises Appell. Appell then comes here to argue a variety of things. The back half of the thread then turns into a weird argument between Bruce and Appell where Appell ignores pretty much everything that people post and he just keeps repeating the same things, all the while threatening to leave the discussion. His main argument seemed to be that Bruce was lying about the Murphy paper, despite at least three people showing him the logical disconnect his conclusion was relative to what Bruce actually said.

    Just an odd conversation overall.

    -Scott

    • suyts says:

      Yes, it was. But, I’ve seen this from Appell before. I really don’t believe he’s that dense. He just acts that way when the conversation turns in a direction he doesn’t like. Still, there were some thought provoking points brought up, so there was a benefit. But, one has to parse through some of the silliness. It’s sort of sad, too. While I accept that sometimes my barbs can cause a conversation to go south, if someone can’t get along with some of the other commenters, like Bruce, then they aren’t trying.

      • Scott says:

        Bruce and Hank are about as well behaved as any commenters I’ve seen on any blog anywhere. I’ve always appreciated their thoughts and the way they present.

        -Scott

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Great benefit! Bruce was eloquent and informative. He proved his point, and in a manner that was easily understandable.

    • PhilJourdan says:

      They always are when liberals are involved.

  15. Paul Baer says:

    Dropped by to see what you had to say about the carbon bubble. Sorry I to say it wasn’t worth the time.

    • suyts says:

      Interesting that you couldn’t find anything in the post or the comments which would have piqued your interest.

    • DirkH says:

      What carbon bubble? Do you mean the rampant growth of carbon concentration in our forests? I did my part against that today. But it’s not easy. These creatures keep growing faster and faster.

  16. Ally owes government entities — fourteen point six billion for that infusion of public dollars how the company out of bankruptcy.
    The Hutu took over and between December, 1963 and January, 1964 all Tutsi
    politicians were murdered. They produce an easy
    way to understand when foodstuffs need to become thrown out by.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s