Funny how this is something that came out from another source in a thread I started about 'forcing functions.' Granted it came from an advocacy source but these are the high school / grad-student lecture classes of the Internet. <GRINS> I don't claim to be able ready to make the 'Bob model' but I'm gaining enough to make informed, engineering comments about them . . . or at least ask technically clued questions. BTW, I got Mojo's number pretty early on. The clue was the gratuitous insults. It suggested and later proved out his abysmal ignorance of his own sources. It is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. Still, his posts are useful because it means sharpening my own understanding (and hopefully others do the same.) Bob Wilson
Sorry if I insult you, but I cant stand liars. I imagine that you are so brainwashed that you dont realize youre full of BS confirmation bias. Or you are so dedicated to the "cause" that you are willing to accept any lies which are necessary,as in the Stephan Schneider school of liars. At least you are dedicated.
More recent publications pointing towards more detailed views of climate change 'hot spots' http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150601172943.htm There appears to be a lot of variability in coral responses to +T and -pH across ocean basins http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150603182008.htm Melting water that flows below Greenland ice can form lakes, and not all drain to the sea. Implications for how effective such increased melt water would be for accelerating transport to the sea
Ocean acidification is a known threat to coral: http://www.denix.osd.mil/nr/crid/Coral_Reef_Iniative_Database/Coral_Reef_Information_files/Kleypas%20et%20al.,%201999b.pdf So it makes sense as this paper finds: Still, the title of the referenced paper: Timothy R. McClanahan, Joseph Maina, Mebrahtu Ateweberhan. Regional coral responses to climate disturbances and warming is predicted by multivariate stress model and not temperature threshold metrics. Climatic Change, 2015; DOI: 10.1007/s10584-015-1399-x Bob Wilson
Many here will have read that "Volcanoes release more CO2 than fossil-fuel burning". AFAIK this is typically rebutted by reference to a long-ago publication that dealt with the matter indirectly. Since myths do have a way of persisting, it is useful to notice publications that are newer and more direct. One such is now in press at PNAS DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1507889112 Considering volcanoes, ocean spreading centers and diffuse sources, their estimates range from 30 to 100 million metric tons of CO2 - C per year. That is more than many countries , but it is also 0.3 to 1% of the global CO2 burn (now about 10 billion metric tons of CO2 - C per year). The authors also refer to recent quantitative studies not seen at the 'myth busters' sites such as skeptical science. So, those folks ought to do some updating. The authors also suggest that we are on the verge of having much more precise measurements at point sources (terrestrial volcanoes). Whether this refers to the OCO satellite or instruments flown into erupting plumes, it would seem to assume that Earth System Science research is not on the verge of being defunded. Naturally I hope it continues, or I'll never have enough cash for an airplane Anyway, the standard-response number of 'about 1% of fossil C' seems to have a strong basis. We might be inclined to ignore it due to small size, but I think that the Earth System does not. When in an ice age, CO2 is low and terrestrial and marine carbon cycles are slowed. How does Earth escape from that? Thousands (tens of thousands) of years of volcanic CO2 emissions are probably an important component of atmospheric CO2 (and infrared trapping) recovery. Unless you are too close, volcanoes are a good thing. Besides the above, volcanic ash makes some of the most fertile soils you can imagine. This research qualifies as 'good news' here as it (a) does not suggest that we are all gonna die promptly, (b) advances the slow march of science, and (c) may help us understand the long-term stability of Earth as a bio-place
I noticed "Contributed by Peter B. Kelemen, April 23, 2015" which makes it a little too recent to be included in Denial 101x. But this is how science and engineering work, today's best is likely to be updated in the not too distant future. Even new information has to be read and analyzed not because the initial reviewers are incompetent but those working in the field actually have to spend time doing their work. For example the NOAA sea level data. A week after I downloaded the NOAA sea level data, a paper came out about a new calibration approach. It resolves a different aspect of sea level increase, the rate at which the rate is changing. Interesting but not immediately applicable to my investigation of using a Gaussian filter. I needed to find out if there were hidden signals of forcing functions in the data (there are.) Still I may have to wait for NOAA to publish an updated data set. Bob Wilson
"Still I may have to wait for NOAA to publish an updated data set" Well yes, you may. Or you could send an email asking for sooner, and saying what you want to do with it. In my experience, science people are happy to hear that people are interested in their work. One may receive preliminary data from XYZ with the proviso not to publish it (in journals) ahead of them. It's actually a lot of fun. Quite different from the situation painted by purloined climategate emails.
They may have a beta (draft) version available to look at. Or they may say no. But it seems unlikely that they will wrap you in silk and inject digestive enzymes.
The Weather Channel seems to have diverged from its founder's wisdom: The Weather Channel's new video series on climate change features 25 stark messages aimed at conservatives.
I found a more direct link, their press release, that has a link to the videos: The Weather Channel Presents Climate 25 | The Weather Company Dan Slatterfield used to work at a Huntsville TV station and earned my respect. During severe weather he would give fact-based analysis of what was going on and often was ahead of and more accurate than the 'official' weather forecasters. Because of Dan, all of the local stations upped their weather departments . . . and then he was gone. But I noticed Dan is also open about Climate Change which might have rubbed some local UAH climate scientists the wrong way. . . . One of the reasons I started writing this blog, is the huge amount of disinformation online about real science and especially climate change.In spite of what you may have heard, scientists are no longer debating whether the Earth is warming, or if humans are causing it. The definitive answer to both questions is settled. It’s yes. During Denial 101x, there was a chart of who agreed with Climate Change by profession and meteorologists were the second group after Climate Scientists. Not unexpected, engineers were on the other edge. I once dated girl whose father was a petroleum engineer . . . and instantly knew that discipline in physical sciences can be disconnected from other aspects of their lives. Bob Wilson
Global mortality from respirable particles: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150616071708.htm An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie This is an open access article, worth your attention. The good news is that large mortality reductions can be made with modest effort in many 'clean' countries. The bad news is colored red in Figure 2. I would not have thought that India's worst is in the Himalayan foothills. If the journal link does not work for you (cookie monster), click through from ScienceDaily
More on health effects: http://www.thelancet.com/commissions/climate-change I have not read any of these articles yet.
How to study Antarctica and the Southern Ocean A Strategic Vision for NSF Investments in Antarctic and Southern Ocean Research | The National Academies Press This report is free to read online. I am curious if it can be downloaded free by all. This boon is granted to folks in developing countries.
Potential for increased methane release from the Arctic has been widely discussed. There are two sources: Methane hydrates in marine or frozen soils, if they warm up, methane goes. Methane releasing bacteria in low-oxygen soils, more complicated because, well, biology. There is also a biological sink that has received less attention. Methane-consuming bacteria are active where soils have more oxygen. A new publication moves towards quantifying their effects: http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/v9/n8/full/ismej201513a.html This journal is well defended in terms of free access so I'll be emailing author. Qualifies as good news in the sense that methane dynamics are getting better known, and not all evidence points to blowout.
Another monthly Global Land/Ocean Temperature record. July 2015 data in: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Here's the official report from NOAA for the July record: Global Analysis - July 2015 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) tochatihu, you seem to be the data guru and regularly keep the environmental threads updated - I nominate you!
Yes overloading the hardest-working team member is a common management ploy. But in this case it is not the monthlies that interest me as much as decadal composites.
I've been more interested in picking up the data and using an annual, Gaussian, weighted average. But this means I need a full year of data and won't see July 2015 until March 2016. But I have been thinking about a half-Gaussian that would allow, with greater tolerance of noise, covering the most recent data. A Gaussian average uses the coefficients of a Gaussian curve to weight the observations on either side of the middle: The problem is an annual span means 'future' observations, up to 6 months of data points do not exist. However, I can take the 'missing' coefficients, the weighting values used for the future and level add them to all of the data points that exist. The sum of all Gausian coefficients is 1 and that must be maintained to avoid skewing the results. Once I get the code worked out, I can make a Web accessible, CGI, that takes publicly available data sets and covers all of the data to the most recent while preserving, the features of a Gaussian weighted average: Annual - so seasonal variations are not masked by a linear average Mins/Max - so one-time, noise events can not mask the trend Later, Bob Wilson
