Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Quoting Snowlover123:


I will become an advocate to AGW being the dominant cause of the warming and not the sun, if we do not cool 0.1-0.3 Degrees C by 2030-2040.

We're not looking for believers or advocates, unlike the Denialist Crowd. We're looking for people to start looking at the true facts of credible scientific research.

Since you have decided that your mind is closed until possibly as late as 2040, why don't you just take a long, nap. However, if you decide to wake up every 4/5 years you'll quite possibly notice higher temperatures, rising sea-levels, extreme droughts all occurring in coincidence with rising GHGs.

Nighty.....Night!

Quoting OldLeatherneck:


We're not looking for believers or advocates, unlike the Denialist Crowd. We're looking for people to start looking at the true facts of credible scientific research.

Since you have decided that your mind is closed until possibly as late as 2040, why don't you just take a long, nap. However, if you decide to wake up every 4/5 years you'll quite possibly notice higher temperatures, rising sea-levels, extreme droughts all occurring in coincidence with rising GHGs.

Nighty.....Night!

I missed that. I'm certainly no advocate of AGW. I'm downright against it. I do, however, accept the science that indicates that AGW exists and is a real problem.

I don't much like Indeterminancy, either...but there it sits, supported by the science, whether I like it or not. :^)

Snowlover
Certainly the halt in the warming over the last 10-15 years does not bode well for CAGW at all




The last 15 years of that red line does not look flat to me. And those data points are not adjusted for ENSO and solar cycles.

You can read a lot more about it here. Link


Snowlover -
since we have warmed less than predicted by models, and have warmed much less than Dr. Hansen's forecast back in 1988

Let's go to Skeptical Science once more and see if that dog hunts...

"Hansen et al. (1988) used a global climate model to simulate the impact of variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases and aerosols on the global climate.

Unable to predict future human greenhouse gas emissions or model every single possibility, Hansen chose 3 scenarios to model.

Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth. Scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth, and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000.

The 'Hansen was wrong' myth originated from testimony by scientist Pat Michaels before US House of Representatives in which he claimed "Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted....The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure."

This is an astonishingly false statement to make, particularly before the US Congress. It was also reproduced in Michael Crichton's science fiction novel State of Fear, which featured a scientist claiming that Hansen's 1988 projections were "overestimated by 300 percent." Moreover, Michaels has continued to defend this indefensible distortion."

and after data presentation...

"As you can see, Hansen's projections showed slightly more warming than reality, but clearly they were neither off by a factor of 4, nor were they "an astounding failure" by any reasonably honest assessment. Yet a common reaction to Hansen's 1988 projections is "he overestimated the rate of warming, therefore Hansen was wrong.""

Read the whole piece here... Link

Snowlover - Planet hasn't warmed in the last 15 years.

Let me copy a bit more for you...

"In addition to removing the ENSO signlal, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to remove the effects of solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data. Their results are shown in Figure 5.





Figure 5: Average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)

When removing these short-term effects, the warming trend has barely even slowed since 1998 (0.163°C per decade from 1979 through 2010, vs. 0.155°C per decade from 1998 through 2010, and 0.187°C per decade for 2000 through 2010)."

Read the entire piece here - http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-sto pped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

Perhaps the big question you should ask is how trustworthy your information source is. If your source is telling you that the planet hasn't warmed for 15 years when it clearly has, that Hansen way over predicted warming when he didn't, then might there be a flaw in your source?

Is it possible that you've stumbled into a pool of disinformation?

Quoting Snowlover123:


So I can take two points from your post.

1)Stratospheric Cooling can only be expected with the GHG Forcing

2) Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Soon are not correct because you say so.

Your second post is just simply ridiculous, so I won't even address that in great detail at all.

Well, if those are the two points you take from my post, that would explain a lot. (For starters, underdeveloped reading comprehension skills.) But since you brought it up, I'll answer thusly: Scafetta and Dr. Soon are not incorrect because I say so; they're incorrect because they say so. Every time they open their mouths. They are both--though Soon more than Scafetta--quickly receding into the laughbin of climate science for the illogical and easily dismissed things they throw out. Imminent cooling? Only if the known laws of physics are rewritten.

Now, as to your claim that the stratosphere isn't cooling:



I suppose if some were to cherry-pick, they could convince themselves that stratospheric cooling had "stopped". That is, they could draw a straight line from the bottom of the cool dip in 1996 to the top of the "warm" spike in 2010, then point at it and exclaim, "A-ha!" But even without any visual aids, the overall downward trend in this graph (and others like it) is pretty unavoidable.

Here's another for you.



Now, I'd be interested in hearing how stratospheric temperatures "have actually increased" since 1996, because, according to the data, they haven't.

Question???

I just posed the following question on Neven's blog:

Anyone want to venture any guesses as to how much this storm will decrease the albedo across the arctic?
My thoughts are these:
1. To begin with there will be less ice period, due to what will have been melted.
2. The winds and rain will wipe off any remnants of snow from the ice pack.
3. If the storm broke up enough of the ice into smaller pieces, there are likely to be more rugged surfaces and jagged edges which will be less reflective than flat smooth surfaces. (That's if my knowledge of reflection, deflection and absorption in the radar bands applies to these wavelengths)

Any thoughts and/or better information??

Unacceptable............Just out today......Tunnels restore the balance....



A most interesting Arctic summer
August 6, 2012

Arctic sea ice extent declined quickly in July, continuing the pattern seen in June. On August 1, ice extent was just below levels recorded for the same date in 2007, the year that saw the record minimum ice extent in September. Low sea ice concentrations are present over large parts of the western Arctic Ocean. Warm conditions dominated the weather for most of the Arctic Ocean and surrounding lands. For a brief period in early July, nearly all of the Greenland ice sheet experienced surface melt, a rare event.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent for July 2012 averaged 7.94 million square kilometers (3.07 million square miles). This was 2.12 million square kilometers (819,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent. July 2012 ice extent was 20,000 square kilometers (7,700 square miles) above the 2011 record July low.



Link

Quoting Snowlover123:


There are many papers out there that disagree with the alleged "mainstream hypothesis" that Carbon Dioxide is responsible for most of the warming over the last 100 years, and even the last 50 years. I have been continuing to do more and more research, and finding that there is a substantial amount of peer reviewed research that disagreed with the hypothesis that most of the warming over the last 100 years was due to increases in Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas concentrations.

This of course, would also imply an insensitive climate system, and small amounts of future warming.

I am willing to concede that I am wrong about this issue... I will become an advocate to AGW being the dominant cause of the warming and not the sun, if we do not cool 0.1-0.3 Degrees C by 2030-2040. If we do, then it confirms skeptics who are arguing that the sun is responsible for most of the previous warming over the last 100-150 years. Certainly the halt in the warming over the last 10-15 years does not bode well for CAGW at all, since we have warmed less than predicted by models, and have warmed much less than Dr. Hansen's forecast back in 1988. I was very surprised to see that Andrew Dessler conceded that the reason for halted warming over the last 10 years was due to strong net negative feedbacks (Dessler 2012)(though he still argues a positive cloud and water vapor feedback). These strong net negative feedbacks confirm a more insensitive climate system.

Snowlover123... wow. I continue to be impressed with your ability to twist the facts every which way til Sunday. Whatever "research" you engage in, I'm not sure it has served you well. You've made several substantial errors/omissions in your analysis that a first year graduate student would be ashamed of. Yet, you still press on; confusing yourself about albedo, misinterpreting solar activity, misunderstanding feedback mechanisms, and (most amazingly) ignoring the basic physics behind greenhouse gases.

If these errors are intentional, you've shown yourself to be a classic denialist, marching to the banner of the Manufactured Doubt industry, and spinning yarns of deception all over the internet. If these errors are unintentional, then you've shown yourself to be quite scientifically illiterate. Either way, it comes down to one simple fact: You're wrong.

Good day, sir.

Snowlover " I have been continuing to do more and more research, and finding that there is a substantial amount of peer reviewed research that disagreed with the hypothesis that most of the warming over the last 100 years was due to increases in Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas concentrations. "

How are you doing your research? Are you in the library digging through the top rated journals or are you harvesting things from the web? If relying on second hand versions from the web are you ever checking original sources to make sure that the web version is accurately reported?

What method have you settled on for determining what is credible work and what is not? Are you, for example, checking to see how the papers you cite are treated in subsequent works? Are you doing forward searches?

Are you looking to see what are the highest regarded scientific organizations and reading what they are publishing? What is your criteria for the "most trustworthy and knowledgeable" in the field?

Are you starting with a supposition and seeking papers which support your belief, or are you starting from what the field, in general, holds to be the best version of the facts and working back to see if the data supports those holdings?

Do you understand that there is always a certain amount of "noise" in science and scientific publications? That sometimes things get published that just do not stand the test of time? That sometimes scientists make mistakes and sometimes reviewers and editors make mistakes? That there are second rate journals with low publication standards, journals that are more about letting someone keep their publication rate high for tenure purposes than for forwarding the cause of high quality work?

Do you grasp the fact that a peer-reviewed article can be a piece of crap if the reviewing peers are incompetents?

Inquiring minds have so many questions....

Solar superstorm could knock out US power grid - experts

ChicagoTribune.com


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. weather has been lousy this year, with droughts, heat and killer storms. But a solar superstorm could be far worse.

A monster blast of geomagnetic particles from the sun could destroy 300 or more of the 2,100 high-voltage transformers that are the backbone of the U.S. electric grid, according to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Even a few hundred destroyed transformers could disable the entire interconnected system.

Some U.S. experts estimate as much as a 7 percent chance of a superstorm in the next decade, which seems a slight risk, but the effects would be so wide-ranging - akin to a major meteorite strike - that it has drawn official concern.

NO POWER FOR A YEAR?

The academy's report noted that replacements for transformers might not be available for a year or more, and the cost of damage in the first year after a storm could be as high as $2 trillion. The most vulnerable areas are the eastern one-third of the country, from the Midwest to the East Coast, and the Northwest, as far east as Montana and Wyoming and as far south as California.

The national grid was built over decades to get energy at the lowest price from where it is generated to where it is used. A solar superstorm has the capacity to bring that network down, the academy's report said.

"Historically large storms have a potential to cause power grid blackouts and transformer damage of unprecedented proportions, long-term blackouts and lengthy restoration times, and chronic shortages for multiple years are possible," the report said.

New Study Suggests Pacific Ocean is Polluted With… Coffee?

InHabitat.com

People aren’t the only ones getting a jolt from caffeine these days; in a new study published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, scientists found elevated concentrations of caffeine in the Pacific Ocean in areas off the coast of Oregon. With all those coffee drinkers in the Pacific Northwest, it should be no surprise that human waste containing caffeine would ultimately make its way through municipal water systems and out to sea – but how will the presence of caffeine in our oceans affect human health and natural ecosystems?

Quoting RevElvis:
New Study Suggests Pacific Ocean is Polluted With… Coffee?

InHabitat.com

People aren’t the only ones getting a jolt from caffeine these days; in a new study published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, scientists found elevated concentrations of caffeine in the Pacific Ocean in areas off the coast of Oregon. With all those coffee drinkers in the Pacific Northwest, it should be no surprise that human waste containing caffeine would ultimately make its way through municipal water systems and out to sea – but how will the presence of caffeine in our oceans affect human health and natural ecosystems?

That should be enough information for our friend Bob Wallace to put down his coffee cup and start drinking beer earlier in the day!

Research Links Extreme Summer Heat Events to
Global Warming


"A new statistical analysis by NASA scientists has found that Earth's land areas have become much more likely to experience an extreme summer heat wave than they were in the middle of the 20th century. The research was published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

There are some nice animations of the graphics in Dr. Hansen's new paper.

Link

Deleted

Some1 - just read the first part.

You might point out that we are now paying around $0.28/kWh for electricity produced by burning coal. That number includes what we pay in tax and health insurance premiums to cover the damage of coal emissions.

Renewable energy is cheaper than coal.

If we're wrong about AGW and go forward with renewable energy, the worst that happens is that we live in a cleaner, healthier environment.

--

Overall - seems very long. I would expect him to toss it before he gets to the end. Spencer is fighting a loosing battle and I'm sure he recognizes it. I've seen these old academics get themselves out a limb and fight for survival as new data saws off the branch they stand on. Part of survival is shutting off criticism.

Can you figure out how to smack him with a dose of facts quicker?

Makes sense doesn't it more droughts less available water for hydro electrical power!!! Especially during peak hours this will cause us to burn more coal and fuel oil which will exacerbate the problem. California's Hydro power Stations to G
enerate Less Electricity in Summer as Climate Warms ScienceDaily (Aug. 7, 2012) — California's hydropower is vulnerable to climate change, a University of California, Riverside scientist has advised policymakers in "Our Changing Climate," a report released July 31 by the California Natural Resources Agency and the California Energy Commission (CEC). "Climate change is expected to affect the quantity and timing of water flow in the state," explained Kaveh Madani, a former postdoctoral research scholar in UC Riverside's Water Science and Policy Center (WSPC), who led a research project on climate change effects on hydropower production, demand, and pricing in California. "Under dry climate warming, the state will receive less precipitation, with most of it as rain instead of snow, impacting hydropower supply and operations."

On average, 15 percent of California's electricity comes from hydropower, a cheap and relatively clean energy source. About 75 percent of this hydropower comes from high-elevation units, located above 1,000 ft. The state has more than 150 high-elevation units, with most of them located in Northern California and the Sierra Mountains. The majority of the high-elevation reservoirs are small in terms of their storage capacity, being built only for hydroelectricity production and no other benefits, such as water supply and flood control.



Link

Deleted

Quoting RevElvis:
Solar superstorm could knock out US power grid - experts

We can see the storm coming at us.

Couldn't we do a big short-term grid shutdown an avoid the damage?

Deleted

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Bob, thank you for your input.

Yes, I agree that it is a bit wordy. I will see if I can trim some of the fat and still retain the context of the message.

Since I am offering a rebuttal to his comments, I knew I would have to bring in as much detail as he did in his interview. Should I have given him too little detail I sense he would have been too willing and to able to seek a run around on the topic. Offering as much specifics as I could was the approach I felt I could take. ... Do you have any suggestions on how I may trim the fat? Using fewer descriptive words will not trim much.

Breaking down the true costs of each energy source would have to be very detailed and quantified.

I seriously doubt that he will not just trash can the whole thing, even if he does read it all. Since I could not find an email address for him, I thought I would post it on his blog at drroyspencer.com and see if he allows it to remain. I prefer that he submits his own rebuttal to this, but I rather doubt it and for the very reasons that you have mentioned. People hate to admit when they wrong. Most assuredly when it puts their reputation as a scientist at risk. ... I will say, to his credit, he did not come across a Monkton, but rather more as someone that actually knows something about what he is talking about. Then he blew it all by using misdirections, misinformation and unsubstantiated comments.

Does anyone here know his email address? Else, I feel compelled to post it on his blog. ;-)

Possibly make your main facts in the first few lines and then flesh them out in the rest of the post.

Start with something like "Heard you on (whatever that was) and it seems to be that you did not answer the question(s) about ....."

Then go on to "You were asked ... and you seemed to dodge that question by ...." "It seems to me that you should have answered ...."

Perhaps set each topic off somehow. Then if he quits reading one topic because it's making him uncomfortable he might light on the next.

Just thinking here....

--

I hope you send it. I'd check the (University of South Alabama?) site for faculty email addresses.

Perhaps it would help if he were to be reminded that he is not operating as an honest scientist when he fails to address direct questions. As a scientist and faculty member I would hold him to a higher standard of honesty than just some guy making a living by talking on the radio.

Quoting BobWallace:


We can see the storm coming at us.

Couldn't we do a big short-term grid shutdown an avoid the damage?

On the second page of the newspaper article -

Replacing one of these transformers can take up to two years. However, three smaller transformers can take the place of one big one, and a transformer trio can be put in place in less than a week, according to the Electric Power Research Institute.

Other possible solutions include installing resisters on high-voltage transformers to keep the transformers from heating up. A systemic fix involves an early warning to power companies that a solar event is coming, so managers could switch to locally generated power, avoiding the use of long-distance transmission lines.


Possible solution: Be ready to dial back (brownout) in order to reduce overheating the big boys. And have a bunch of "trios" positioned around the country, ready for installation if the worst happens.

If we had our smart grid up and going then we could cut all non-essential use and keep essential (hospital, life support, elevator, etc.) use supplied during the storm.

Deleted

Deleted

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Shhhhh! I was saving that part for later. ;-) Dr. Spencer did mention that quality drinking water was a bigger concern than climate change, but I was wanting to hit him with water shortages all around being a problem. This will be an even greater problem as a warming climate helps to bring about droughts where hydroelectric facilities already exist. Hoover Dam would be a prime example of this.

Tell him carbonic acid doesn't only occur in sea water. Fossil fuels add many different types of acid to our drinking water such as Nitric acid Sulfuric acid.

Greenland's 2012 Melting Continues
LINK: Dr. Jason Box's Meltfactor

While we've all been absorbed with the recent arctic storm tearing up the arctic ice-cap, we can't forget that the high levels of melting on Greenland are continuing unabated.

early-August 2012 Greenland ice reflectivity dips again below 2 standard deviations



And for those who doubt about warming (past/recent past/current) here is some more scientific data, courtesy of Dr. Box.

Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


We have to harden the infrastructure. Just shutting down the grid until the storm passes does not save the grid because any unprotected electronics would still be fried. The sigh of relief comes from the fact that it would take a massive solar storm making a direct hit on Earth to bring about the major grid failures some fear. The uncomfortable feeling comes from the fact that it still could happen. Until our electronics are hardened against the ionized charged particles of a massive solar storm, our grids are at risk.

I didn't read about a storm that severe in the article. They talk about disruption lasting for a while but the actual damage seems to be limited to overheated large transformers.

A report by the NAS estimated that about 365 high-voltage transformers in the continental United States are at risk of failure or permanent damage requiring replacement in the event of a solar superstorm.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC, which oversees North America's power grid, disputed the academy's estimate that hundreds of high-voltage transformers could be lost in a solar superstorm.

Perhaps I missed something...

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I see what you are saying. I will work on that aspect of it. The only way to get someone interested in reading a book is to capture their attention with the first few paragraphs. Or, in this case, the first few sentences. ..... Do you want to help me write my novel? ;-)

Stick your draft(s) up here and let people give you input if they have some.