Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
tincan
Well-Known Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/21/canada-climate-change-ranking-oecd-report_n_6024844.html
Canada does well at many things.
Earlier this year, Canadian cities were listed among the world's top places to live. The country ranks high with the best when it comes to wealth and it's been praised for emerging from the financial crisis in decent shape.
But there's one category in which Canada ranks dead last among industrialized nations: its efforts to combat climate change.
"The Climate Change Performance Index," published annually by Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe, lists Canada among the world's worst at no. 58.
Canada does well at many things.
Earlier this year, Canadian cities were listed among the world's top places to live. The country ranks high with the best when it comes to wealth and it's been praised for emerging from the financial crisis in decent shape.
But there's one category in which Canada ranks dead last among industrialized nations: its efforts to combat climate change.
"The Climate Change Performance Index," published annually by Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe, lists Canada among the world's worst at no. 58.
Attachments
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record
October 21st, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Much is being made of the “global” surface thermometer data, which three-quarters the way through 2014 is now suggesting the global average this year will be the warmest in the modern instrumental record.
I claim 2014 won’t be the warmest global-average year on record.
..if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.
(And even if 2014 or 2015 turns out to be the warmest, this is not a cause for concern…more about that later).
The two main research groups tracking global lower-tropospheric temperatures (our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998:
Yearly-global-LT-UAH-RSS-thru-Sept-2014
With only 3 months left in the year, there is no realistic way for 2014 to set a record in the satellite data.
Granted, the satellites are less good at sampling right near the poles, but compared to the very sparse data from the thermometer network we are in fat city coverage-wise with the satellite data.
In my opinion, though, a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.
Furthermore, land-based thermometers are placed where people live, and people build stuff, often replacing cooling vegetation with manmade structures that cause an artificial warming (urban heat island, UHI) effect right around the thermometer. The data adjustment processes in place cannot reliably remove the UHI effect because it can’t be distinguished from real global warming.
Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds. The satellite measurements still have residual calibration effects that must be adjusted for, but these are usually on the order of hundredths of a degree, rather than tenths or whole degrees in the case of ground-based thermometers.
And, it is of continuing amusement to us that the global warming skeptic community now tracks the RSS satellite product rather than our UAH dataset. RSS was originally supposed to provide a quality check on our product (a worthy and necessary goal) and was heralded by the global warming alarmist community. But since RSS shows a slight cooling trend since the 1998 super El Nino, and the UAH dataset doesn’t, it is more referenced by the skeptic community now. Too funny.
In the meantime, the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case.
As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”
So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet.
Except, as the public can tell, the changes in global temperature aren’t even on their radar screen (sorry for the metaphor).
Of course, 2015 could still set a record if the current El Nino ever gets its act together. But I’m predicting it won’t.
Which brings me to my second point. If global temperatures were slowly rising at, say, a hundredth of a degree per year and we didn’t have cool La nina or warm El Nino years, then every year would be a new record warm year.
But so what?
It’s the amount of temperature rise that matters. And for a planet where all forms of life experience much wider swings in temperature than “global warming” is producing, which might be 1 deg. C so far, those life forms — including the ones who vote — really don’t care that much. We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree, which no one can actually feel.
Not surprisingly, the effects on severe weather are also unmeasurable …despite what some creative-writing “journalists” are trying to get you to believe. Severe weather varies tremendously, especially on a local basis, and to worry that the average (whatever than means) might change slightly is a total misplacement of emphasis.
Besides, once you consider that there’s nothing substantial we can do about the global warming “problem” in the near term, short of plunging humanity into a new economic Dark Age and killing millions of people in the process, its a wonder that climate is even on the list of the public’s concerns, let alone at the bottom of the list.
October 21st, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Much is being made of the “global” surface thermometer data, which three-quarters the way through 2014 is now suggesting the global average this year will be the warmest in the modern instrumental record.
I claim 2014 won’t be the warmest global-average year on record.
..if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.
(And even if 2014 or 2015 turns out to be the warmest, this is not a cause for concern…more about that later).
The two main research groups tracking global lower-tropospheric temperatures (our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998:
Yearly-global-LT-UAH-RSS-thru-Sept-2014
With only 3 months left in the year, there is no realistic way for 2014 to set a record in the satellite data.
Granted, the satellites are less good at sampling right near the poles, but compared to the very sparse data from the thermometer network we are in fat city coverage-wise with the satellite data.
In my opinion, though, a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.
Furthermore, land-based thermometers are placed where people live, and people build stuff, often replacing cooling vegetation with manmade structures that cause an artificial warming (urban heat island, UHI) effect right around the thermometer. The data adjustment processes in place cannot reliably remove the UHI effect because it can’t be distinguished from real global warming.
Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds. The satellite measurements still have residual calibration effects that must be adjusted for, but these are usually on the order of hundredths of a degree, rather than tenths or whole degrees in the case of ground-based thermometers.
And, it is of continuing amusement to us that the global warming skeptic community now tracks the RSS satellite product rather than our UAH dataset. RSS was originally supposed to provide a quality check on our product (a worthy and necessary goal) and was heralded by the global warming alarmist community. But since RSS shows a slight cooling trend since the 1998 super El Nino, and the UAH dataset doesn’t, it is more referenced by the skeptic community now. Too funny.
In the meantime, the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case.
As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”
So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet.
Except, as the public can tell, the changes in global temperature aren’t even on their radar screen (sorry for the metaphor).
Of course, 2015 could still set a record if the current El Nino ever gets its act together. But I’m predicting it won’t.
Which brings me to my second point. If global temperatures were slowly rising at, say, a hundredth of a degree per year and we didn’t have cool La nina or warm El Nino years, then every year would be a new record warm year.
But so what?
It’s the amount of temperature rise that matters. And for a planet where all forms of life experience much wider swings in temperature than “global warming” is producing, which might be 1 deg. C so far, those life forms — including the ones who vote — really don’t care that much. We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree, which no one can actually feel.
Not surprisingly, the effects on severe weather are also unmeasurable …despite what some creative-writing “journalists” are trying to get you to believe. Severe weather varies tremendously, especially on a local basis, and to worry that the average (whatever than means) might change slightly is a total misplacement of emphasis.
Besides, once you consider that there’s nothing substantial we can do about the global warming “problem” in the near term, short of plunging humanity into a new economic Dark Age and killing millions of people in the process, its a wonder that climate is even on the list of the public’s concerns, let alone at the bottom of the list.
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
And I'll bet the guy you cut and pasted also believes in the tooth fairy too Gerry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKhS8TAxvjE
That's a crock - that's like saying I can estimate the average temperature of a room with a thermometer in a few locations. When someone leads with that, you have to wonder from what Cracker-Jack box he obtained his Ph.D.
When he finishes with this, you begin to feel like I've done a disservice to Cracker-Jack with the above comment.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
You guys are so funny.
Go ahead and read about this author.
Seems pretty qualified.
Go ahead ant tell us what you do not like about his qualifications?
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
Go ahead and read about this author.
Seems pretty qualified.
Go ahead ant tell us what you do not like about his qualifications?
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
I'm saying that given his clearly idiotic statements, his qualifications are in question. If I had been the research advisor of a Ph.D student who went on to say such stupid things, I'd be embarrassed. (For the record, I've had a few Ph.D. students and multiple postdoctoral trainees under my wing).
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Research Articles
UPDATED 5/28/2014: These are the ~30 most climate-relevant peer-reviewed papers I have authored or co-authored. I have many more that are weather-related or satellite remote-sensing related. I will add links as I find time.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2014: The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955-2011 simulated with a 1D climate model. Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 50(2), 229-237.
Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell, 2011: On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth’s radiant energy balance. Remote Sens., 3, 1603-1613; doi:10.3390/rs3081603
Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell, 2010: On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res., 115, doi:10.1029/2009JD013371
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Potential biases in cloud feedback diagnosis: A simple model demonstration, J. Climate, 23, 5624-5628.
Spencer, R.W., 2008: An Inconvenient Truth: blurring the lines between science and science fiction. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9129-9)
Spencer, R.W., W.D. Braswell, J.R. Christy, and J. Hnilo, 2007: Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. J. Geophys. Res., 9 August.
Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, R.W. Spencer, and J.J. Hnilo, 2007: Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06102, 16 pp.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, W.D. Braswell, and W.B. Norris, 2006: Estimation of tropospheric temperature trends from MSU channels 2 and 4. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech, 23, 417-423.
Ohring, G., B. Wielicki, R. Spencer, B. Emery, and R. Datla, 2005: Satellite instrument calibration for measuring global climate change. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 1303-1313.
Lobl, E.E., and R.W. Spencer, 2004: The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) and its products. Italian Journal of Remote Sensing, 30/31, 9-18.
Kawanishi, T., T. Sezai, Y. Ito, K. Imaoka, T. Takeshima, Y. Ishido, A. Shibata, M. Miura, H. Inahata, and R.W. Spencer, 2003: The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E), NASDA’s contribution to the EOS for Global Energy and Water Cycle Studies. IEEE Trans. Geosys. Rem. Sens., 41, 184-194.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, W.B. Norris, W.D. Braswell and D.E. Parker, 2003: Error Estimates of Version 5.0 of MSU-AMSU Bulk Atmospheric Temperatures. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology: 20, pp. 613-629.
Robertson, F.R., R.W. Spencer, and D.E. Fitzjarrald, 2001: A new satellite deep convective ice index for tropical climate monitoring: Possible implications for existing oceanic precipitation datasets. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28-2, 251-254.
Imaoka, K., and R.W. Spencer, 2000: Diurnal variation of precipitation over the tropical oceans observed by TRMM/TMI combined with SSM/I. J. Climate, 13, 4149-4158.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W. D. Braswell, 2000: MSU tropospheric temperatures: Dataset construction and radiosonde comparisons. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 17, 1153-1170.
Spencer, R.W., F. J. LaFontaine, T. DeFelice, and F.J. Wentz, 1998: Tropical oceanic precipitation changes after the 1991 Pinatubo Eruption. J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 1707-1713.
Wentz, F.J. and R.W. Spencer, 1998: SSM/I rain retrievals within a unified all-weather ocean algorithm. J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 1613-1627.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and E.S. Lobl, 1998: Analysis of the merging procedure for the MSU daily temperature time series. J. Climate, 11, 2016-2041.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 1997: How dry is the tropical free troposphere? Implications for global warming theory. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 1097-1106.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, and N.C. Grody, 1996: Analysis of “Examination of Global atmospheric temperature monitoring with satellite microwave measurements”. Climatic Change, 33, 477-489.
Spencer, R.W., 1994: Oceanic rainfall monitoring with the microwave sounding units. Rem. Sens. Rev., 11, 153-162.
Spencer, R.W., 1994: Global temperature monitoring from space. Adv. Space Res., 14, (1)69-(1)75.
Spencer, R.W., 1993: Monitoring of global tropospheric and stratospheric temperature trends. Atlas of Satellite Observations Related to Global Change, Cambridge University Press.
Spencer, R.W., 1993: Global oceanic precipitation from the MSU during 1979-92 and comparisons to other climatologies. J. Climate, 6, 1301-1326.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1993: Precision lower stratospheric temperature monitoring with the MSU: Technique, validation, and results 1979-91. J. Climate, 6, 1301-1326.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1992a: Precision and radiosonde validation of satellite gridpoint temperature anomalies, Part I: MSU channel 2. J. Climate, 5, 847-857.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1992b: Precision and radiosonde validation of satellite gridpoint temperature anomalies, Part II: A tropospheric retrieval and trends during 1979-90. J. Climate, 5, 858-866.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, and N.C. Grody, 1990: Global atmospheric temperature monitoring with satellite microwave measurements: Method and results, 1979-84. J. Climate, 3, 1111-1128.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1990: Precise monitoring of global temperature trends from satellites. Science, 247, 1558-1562.
UPDATED 5/28/2014: These are the ~30 most climate-relevant peer-reviewed papers I have authored or co-authored. I have many more that are weather-related or satellite remote-sensing related. I will add links as I find time.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2014: The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955-2011 simulated with a 1D climate model. Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 50(2), 229-237.
Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell, 2011: On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth’s radiant energy balance. Remote Sens., 3, 1603-1613; doi:10.3390/rs3081603
Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell, 2010: On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res., 115, doi:10.1029/2009JD013371
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Potential biases in cloud feedback diagnosis: A simple model demonstration, J. Climate, 23, 5624-5628.
Spencer, R.W., 2008: An Inconvenient Truth: blurring the lines between science and science fiction. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9129-9)
Spencer, R.W., W.D. Braswell, J.R. Christy, and J. Hnilo, 2007: Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. J. Geophys. Res., 9 August.
Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, R.W. Spencer, and J.J. Hnilo, 2007: Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06102, 16 pp.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, W.D. Braswell, and W.B. Norris, 2006: Estimation of tropospheric temperature trends from MSU channels 2 and 4. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech, 23, 417-423.
Ohring, G., B. Wielicki, R. Spencer, B. Emery, and R. Datla, 2005: Satellite instrument calibration for measuring global climate change. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 1303-1313.
Lobl, E.E., and R.W. Spencer, 2004: The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) and its products. Italian Journal of Remote Sensing, 30/31, 9-18.
Kawanishi, T., T. Sezai, Y. Ito, K. Imaoka, T. Takeshima, Y. Ishido, A. Shibata, M. Miura, H. Inahata, and R.W. Spencer, 2003: The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E), NASDA’s contribution to the EOS for Global Energy and Water Cycle Studies. IEEE Trans. Geosys. Rem. Sens., 41, 184-194.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, W.B. Norris, W.D. Braswell and D.E. Parker, 2003: Error Estimates of Version 5.0 of MSU-AMSU Bulk Atmospheric Temperatures. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology: 20, pp. 613-629.
Robertson, F.R., R.W. Spencer, and D.E. Fitzjarrald, 2001: A new satellite deep convective ice index for tropical climate monitoring: Possible implications for existing oceanic precipitation datasets. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28-2, 251-254.
Imaoka, K., and R.W. Spencer, 2000: Diurnal variation of precipitation over the tropical oceans observed by TRMM/TMI combined with SSM/I. J. Climate, 13, 4149-4158.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W. D. Braswell, 2000: MSU tropospheric temperatures: Dataset construction and radiosonde comparisons. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 17, 1153-1170.
Spencer, R.W., F. J. LaFontaine, T. DeFelice, and F.J. Wentz, 1998: Tropical oceanic precipitation changes after the 1991 Pinatubo Eruption. J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 1707-1713.
Wentz, F.J. and R.W. Spencer, 1998: SSM/I rain retrievals within a unified all-weather ocean algorithm. J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 1613-1627.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and E.S. Lobl, 1998: Analysis of the merging procedure for the MSU daily temperature time series. J. Climate, 11, 2016-2041.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 1997: How dry is the tropical free troposphere? Implications for global warming theory. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 1097-1106.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, and N.C. Grody, 1996: Analysis of “Examination of Global atmospheric temperature monitoring with satellite microwave measurements”. Climatic Change, 33, 477-489.
Spencer, R.W., 1994: Oceanic rainfall monitoring with the microwave sounding units. Rem. Sens. Rev., 11, 153-162.
Spencer, R.W., 1994: Global temperature monitoring from space. Adv. Space Res., 14, (1)69-(1)75.
Spencer, R.W., 1993: Monitoring of global tropospheric and stratospheric temperature trends. Atlas of Satellite Observations Related to Global Change, Cambridge University Press.
Spencer, R.W., 1993: Global oceanic precipitation from the MSU during 1979-92 and comparisons to other climatologies. J. Climate, 6, 1301-1326.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1993: Precision lower stratospheric temperature monitoring with the MSU: Technique, validation, and results 1979-91. J. Climate, 6, 1301-1326.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1992a: Precision and radiosonde validation of satellite gridpoint temperature anomalies, Part I: MSU channel 2. J. Climate, 5, 847-857.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1992b: Precision and radiosonde validation of satellite gridpoint temperature anomalies, Part II: A tropospheric retrieval and trends during 1979-90. J. Climate, 5, 858-866.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, and N.C. Grody, 1990: Global atmospheric temperature monitoring with satellite microwave measurements: Method and results, 1979-84. J. Climate, 3, 1111-1128.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1990: Precise monitoring of global temperature trends from satellites. Science, 247, 1558-1562.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
So, i posted some of his research peer reviewed papers.
So can we assume you are his equal in climate studies and therefore will show us why in your opinion his idiotic statements are wrong?
So can we assume you are his equal in climate studies and therefore will show us why in your opinion his idiotic statements are wrong?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/21/canada-climate-change-ranking-oecd-report_n_6024844.html
Harper Named World's 'Worst Climate Villain' After Damning Report
The Huffington Post Canada
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:41 pm EDT Updated: 10/22/2014 9:59 am EDT
Share
2499
Tweet
0
4
Email
22
Comment
92
In a Thursday, May 29, 2008 file photo, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivers a speech on climate change in London. Canada was recently ranked the worst climate change performer by a pair of environmental organizations.
Canada does well at many things.
Earlier this year, Canadian cities were listed among the world's top places to live. The country ranks high with the best when it comes to wealth and it's been praised for emerging from the financial crisis in decent shape.
But there's one category in which Canada ranks dead last among industrialized nations: its efforts to combat climate change.
"The Climate Change Performance Index," published annually by Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe, lists Canada among the world's worst at no. 58.
climate change rankings
The report assigned scores to different countries based on factors such as emission levels, efficiency, renewable energy and climate policy.
And while the authors say that "no single country is yet on track to prevent dangerous climate change," they are especially tough on Canada, saying it "still shows no intention of moving forward with climate policy and therefore remains the worst performer of all [industrialized] countries."
Only Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia were ranked worse in the index.
The report is kinder to China, praising "the world's largest CO2 emitter" for slowing emissions growth, investing in renewable energy and holding a high-level debate on coal.
The New Republic noted Canada's position represents a complete reversal from its previous role as a champion of efforts to stop global warming.
The publication even went as far as to label Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Australian counterpart Tony Abbott the "earth's worst climate villains."
Twelve years ago, Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce emissions.
In 2005, then-prime minister Paul Martin stood up at a conference in Montreal and called out the United States on its climate change efforts.
The New Republic now describes Harper and Abbott as partners in an exercise to hamper carbon taxes, and other efforts to slow climate change.
This is not the first time Canada has been ranked poorly on environmental protection among OECD countries. The OECD placed it at the bottom of its list last year, citing "rising fossil fuel production and its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol," The Globe and Mail reported.
But other rankings aren't quite as harsh. Canada sits in 24th place on Yale University's Environmental Protection Index, ahead of OECD countries including Japan, France and the United States.
In that ranking, Canada scored highly in areas such as air quality and water, but faltered in categories such as forestry, fisheries and climate.
Harper Named World's 'Worst Climate Villain' After Damning Report
The Huffington Post Canada
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:41 pm EDT Updated: 10/22/2014 9:59 am EDT
Share
2499
Tweet
0
4
22
Comment
92
In a Thursday, May 29, 2008 file photo, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivers a speech on climate change in London. Canada was recently ranked the worst climate change performer by a pair of environmental organizations.
Canada does well at many things.
Earlier this year, Canadian cities were listed among the world's top places to live. The country ranks high with the best when it comes to wealth and it's been praised for emerging from the financial crisis in decent shape.
But there's one category in which Canada ranks dead last among industrialized nations: its efforts to combat climate change.
"The Climate Change Performance Index," published annually by Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe, lists Canada among the world's worst at no. 58.
climate change rankings
The report assigned scores to different countries based on factors such as emission levels, efficiency, renewable energy and climate policy.
And while the authors say that "no single country is yet on track to prevent dangerous climate change," they are especially tough on Canada, saying it "still shows no intention of moving forward with climate policy and therefore remains the worst performer of all [industrialized] countries."
Only Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia were ranked worse in the index.
The report is kinder to China, praising "the world's largest CO2 emitter" for slowing emissions growth, investing in renewable energy and holding a high-level debate on coal.
The New Republic noted Canada's position represents a complete reversal from its previous role as a champion of efforts to stop global warming.
The publication even went as far as to label Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Australian counterpart Tony Abbott the "earth's worst climate villains."
Twelve years ago, Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce emissions.
In 2005, then-prime minister Paul Martin stood up at a conference in Montreal and called out the United States on its climate change efforts.
The New Republic now describes Harper and Abbott as partners in an exercise to hamper carbon taxes, and other efforts to slow climate change.
This is not the first time Canada has been ranked poorly on environmental protection among OECD countries. The OECD placed it at the bottom of its list last year, citing "rising fossil fuel production and its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol," The Globe and Mail reported.
But other rankings aren't quite as harsh. Canada sits in 24th place on Yale University's Environmental Protection Index, ahead of OECD countries including Japan, France and the United States.
In that ranking, Canada scored highly in areas such as air quality and water, but faltered in categories such as forestry, fisheries and climate.
I don't have the experience in climate studies that this individual has but I do have over 100 peer reviewed publications of my own in fields ranging from chemical physics to biology.
That said, let's start with his statement "if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can." This statement is, as I said before, baloney. IMHO, no sensible individual (scientist or not) would make such a silly statement. Sub-sampling is commonplace in many fields of science and it is extremely useful. One need not measure the temperature at every single location on earth in order to be able to estimate the temperature at other locations. In fact, I'd be willing to be that most people on this board listen to the news each AM or look at a website to get the temperature for their area and use that as a reasonable estimate for the temperature they will experience when they go outside their own door. We do this in spite of the fact that the temperature being reported on the news may be for a thermometer at the nearest airport and not a thermometer just outside our door. There's a huge literature in climate science (and I do have access to this literature and have read some of it) dealing with how to interpolate results from temperature recordings and results get interpolated over both space and time to compute the global averages of surface temperature. So his statement that "thermometers cannot measure global averages - only satellites can" is plainly idiotic.
The other statement I quoted - e.g. "Besides, once you consider that there’s nothing substantial we can do about the global warming “problem” in the near term, short of plunging humanity into a new economic Dark Age and killing millions of people in the process" is also clearly idiotic. There are many things we can do in the short term and more in the medium term. We can reduce our dependence on carbon based fuels by making substantial shifts to alternative sources of energy. The EU has already made a substantial shift to renewable energy sources and in 2012 renewables were 14% of the total. The EU target is currently 20% by 2020. Some countries have move much more rapidly than others to increase the percentage of renewable energy. For example Sweden has gone from about 33% renewable in 1990 to about 60% in 2012. So when governments decide to invest properly and to set policies properly, it's possible to make very large changes in energy utilization in relatively short periods of time without "plunging humanity into a new economic Dark Age and killing millions in the process". So again, that statement is plainly idiotic.
Furthermore, the satellite data from University of Alabama in Huntsville (Spencer's group) was long in error due to a number of issues with the data and Spencer's interpretation thereof. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/ and the 3 Science articles referrenced within. Spencer himself, made a lot of hullaballoo about how his data showed global cooling during it's first decade of data collection and this was ultimately shown to be an error in the data sets and their calibration. So while he has a number of climate publications many of them were, in fact, wrong. He has gone on to publish 3 books:
Spencer, Roy W. (2008). Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor. Encounter Books. ISBN 1-59403-210-6.
Spencer, Roy W. (2010). The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists. Encounter Books. ISBN 1-59403-373-0.
Spencer, Roy W. (2010). The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda. Encounter Books. ISBN 1-59403-482-6.
In these books he presents himself as one who knows the truth in spite of what the vast majority of climate scientists say. My point is that he has an agenda and perhaps part of that agenda is selling books to right wingers who refuse to acknowledge what the most knowledgable and skilled in climate science have to say. In any field, it's possible to find a few whack jobs with Ph.D.'s and a record of publications. I've spent some time before writing about how one can go about recognizing or finding the best science and science knowledge when one is not an expert in the field and I won't repeat all of that here. But in short, one:
A) Identifies the experts in the field as judged by a number of factors including: Source of their degrees, total number of publications, quality of the journals in which they publish, total number of citations of their work by others
B) Seeks opinions from multiple EXPERTS
C) Doesn't latch on to only those expert opinions that agree with preformed notions of the inquirer
D) Looks for the broad consensus in the field
As I stated before in this thread (post #266), that work has been done before by many different groups and governmental panels. If you look at the qualifications of those in the National Academy of Science who contribute to the climate reports at NAS, you'll find that those folks are more qualified (as judged by the criteria in A) than Dr. Spencer. If you look at the qualifications of the scientists who contribute to the IPCC reports, you'll find the same thing.
That said, let's start with his statement "if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can." This statement is, as I said before, baloney. IMHO, no sensible individual (scientist or not) would make such a silly statement. Sub-sampling is commonplace in many fields of science and it is extremely useful. One need not measure the temperature at every single location on earth in order to be able to estimate the temperature at other locations. In fact, I'd be willing to be that most people on this board listen to the news each AM or look at a website to get the temperature for their area and use that as a reasonable estimate for the temperature they will experience when they go outside their own door. We do this in spite of the fact that the temperature being reported on the news may be for a thermometer at the nearest airport and not a thermometer just outside our door. There's a huge literature in climate science (and I do have access to this literature and have read some of it) dealing with how to interpolate results from temperature recordings and results get interpolated over both space and time to compute the global averages of surface temperature. So his statement that "thermometers cannot measure global averages - only satellites can" is plainly idiotic.
The other statement I quoted - e.g. "Besides, once you consider that there’s nothing substantial we can do about the global warming “problem” in the near term, short of plunging humanity into a new economic Dark Age and killing millions of people in the process" is also clearly idiotic. There are many things we can do in the short term and more in the medium term. We can reduce our dependence on carbon based fuels by making substantial shifts to alternative sources of energy. The EU has already made a substantial shift to renewable energy sources and in 2012 renewables were 14% of the total. The EU target is currently 20% by 2020. Some countries have move much more rapidly than others to increase the percentage of renewable energy. For example Sweden has gone from about 33% renewable in 1990 to about 60% in 2012. So when governments decide to invest properly and to set policies properly, it's possible to make very large changes in energy utilization in relatively short periods of time without "plunging humanity into a new economic Dark Age and killing millions in the process". So again, that statement is plainly idiotic.
Furthermore, the satellite data from University of Alabama in Huntsville (Spencer's group) was long in error due to a number of issues with the data and Spencer's interpretation thereof. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/ and the 3 Science articles referrenced within. Spencer himself, made a lot of hullaballoo about how his data showed global cooling during it's first decade of data collection and this was ultimately shown to be an error in the data sets and their calibration. So while he has a number of climate publications many of them were, in fact, wrong. He has gone on to publish 3 books:
Spencer, Roy W. (2008). Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor. Encounter Books. ISBN 1-59403-210-6.
Spencer, Roy W. (2010). The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists. Encounter Books. ISBN 1-59403-373-0.
Spencer, Roy W. (2010). The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda. Encounter Books. ISBN 1-59403-482-6.
In these books he presents himself as one who knows the truth in spite of what the vast majority of climate scientists say. My point is that he has an agenda and perhaps part of that agenda is selling books to right wingers who refuse to acknowledge what the most knowledgable and skilled in climate science have to say. In any field, it's possible to find a few whack jobs with Ph.D.'s and a record of publications. I've spent some time before writing about how one can go about recognizing or finding the best science and science knowledge when one is not an expert in the field and I won't repeat all of that here. But in short, one:
A) Identifies the experts in the field as judged by a number of factors including: Source of their degrees, total number of publications, quality of the journals in which they publish, total number of citations of their work by others
B) Seeks opinions from multiple EXPERTS
C) Doesn't latch on to only those expert opinions that agree with preformed notions of the inquirer
D) Looks for the broad consensus in the field
As I stated before in this thread (post #266), that work has been done before by many different groups and governmental panels. If you look at the qualifications of those in the National Academy of Science who contribute to the climate reports at NAS, you'll find that those folks are more qualified (as judged by the criteria in A) than Dr. Spencer. If you look at the qualifications of the scientists who contribute to the IPCC reports, you'll find the same thing.
Thank you CDNA!!! It is such a time commitment to research and write on these forums and elsewhere. I also commend the so-called climate change deniers for elevating the debate over precision of modelling - but denying that climate change is real, serious wrt consequences, largely caused by human activities and to some extent - avoidable: is worse than silly, or idiotic. It is downright irresponsible.
sammyslabber
Active Member
While we're arguing the point here;they're getting it done elsewhere...
Colombia to Launch World’s 1st Floating Gas Liquefaction Plant
BOGOTA – The world’s first floating gas liquefaction plant is due to begin operating next year off the coast of northern Colombia under a pact between Canada-based Pacific Rubiales Energy and Belgian shipbuilder Exmar.
Executives from the two firms signed the accord in Bogota in a ceremony that included Belgium’s Princess Astrid, leading a trade and investment delegation on a visit to the Andean nation.
Colombian Vice President German Vargas Lleras was also on hand.
The project will offer access to international markets for Latin American and Caribbean natural gas “and will ultimately generate an important impact on the development of the sector in Colombia,” Pacific Rubiales President Jose Francisco Arata said.
Besides providing an impetus for gas exploration, the initiative will foster an upgrade of Colombia’s maritime and port capabilities, he said.
The partners expect to export 70 million cubic feet of gas per day, according to a press release.
Pacific Rubiales and Exmar have already started work on a floating regasification plant set to enter operation in mid-2016, Arata said.
Colombia to Launch World’s 1st Floating Gas Liquefaction Plant
BOGOTA – The world’s first floating gas liquefaction plant is due to begin operating next year off the coast of northern Colombia under a pact between Canada-based Pacific Rubiales Energy and Belgian shipbuilder Exmar.
Executives from the two firms signed the accord in Bogota in a ceremony that included Belgium’s Princess Astrid, leading a trade and investment delegation on a visit to the Andean nation.
Colombian Vice President German Vargas Lleras was also on hand.
The project will offer access to international markets for Latin American and Caribbean natural gas “and will ultimately generate an important impact on the development of the sector in Colombia,” Pacific Rubiales President Jose Francisco Arata said.
Besides providing an impetus for gas exploration, the initiative will foster an upgrade of Colombia’s maritime and port capabilities, he said.
The partners expect to export 70 million cubic feet of gas per day, according to a press release.
Pacific Rubiales and Exmar have already started work on a floating regasification plant set to enter operation in mid-2016, Arata said.
Last edited by a moderator:
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Man after all this talk you should be listening to radio. Several projects may not go forward next year, and you can bet the pipeline may be affected.... Oil in Fort Mac needs to over 65.00 per barrel to be profitable... You may see some big announcement in next few months. With the US fracking and exporting and Saudis able to produce cheap oil to pull profits vs what we can we may be in a pickle.. This may be postponed for a while. Many projects may not go forward for next years budget. Some of my friends up there are getting some clear warning changes are coming.
I have been there during slowdown its not pretty.
I have been there during slowdown its not pretty.
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/weather-gone-wild/
Weather Gone Wild
Weather Gone Wild
Climate Change Adaptation Project: Canada
http://adaptnowcanada.ca/
http://adaptnowcanada.ca/
GLG
Well-Known Member
Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate
http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencer-braswell-unrealistic-inaccurate.html
[h=4]Posted on 21 October 2014 by John Abraham[/h]It’s hard to find a reputable scientist who denies that human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the planet and that there will be consequences for human society and the biological health of the planet. There are a few holdouts who, for various reasons, either think humans are not causing warming or that the warming will not have much consequence. Some members of this vocal minority spend a lot of time trying to convince the public that they are right. They write letters to newspapers, appear in slick movies, give press conferences, promote their views to Congress, and so on. Their high profile gives the public a false sense that there are two relatively equal-sized bodies of experts that cannot agree on climate change; this is not true. An even smaller subset also tries to publish their views in the scientific literature – the dueling ground for experts. Sometimes these contributions have been useful, adding some nuance to the discussion, but all too often they have proven to be of very poor quality when other scientists have had a chance to dissect them. A few months ago, I co-authored an article which charted the different quality in scientific output from the Dwindling Few contrarians compared to the majority of experts. My colleague, Dana Nuccitelli, summarized the article here. What we show is that the Dwindling Few have had a very poor track record – having papers rebutted time after time after time because of errors they have made. The low quality of their research has caused journal editors resign, and they have wasted the time of their colleagues who have had to publish the rebuttals to their work. Well, again this year, I’ve wasted my time (and my colleagues’ time) by rebutting a 2014 paper published by the darling of the Dwindling Few, Roy Spencer. Dr. Spencer wrote a paper earlier this year that used a very simple ocean model to suggest that standard climate models overestimate the Earth’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. You can see his manuscript here although it is behind a paywall so you will have to shell out about $40 to read it. Dr. Spencer and his colleague Danny Braswell made a number of basic math and physics errors in the article that call into question their conclusions. Before we get into the errors, let’s talk about what their model does. They basically treated the ocean like a non-moving fluid and allowed heat to diffuse into the ocean depths. They did allow some mixing in the upper layers through added terms in a one-dimensional equation. The model neglects down-welling or up-welling of waters which occur particularly at the poles. In the end, they end up with a bunch of tunable parameters, which they adjusted so that the model output matches the measured temperature history. So, what were the errors and poor modeling choices?
- The model treats the entire Earth as entirely ocean-covered
- The model assigns an ocean process (El Niño cycle) which covers a limited geographic region in the Pacific Ocean as a global phenomenon
- The model incorrectly simulates the upper layer of the ocean in the numerical calculation.
- The model incorrectly insulates the ocean bottom at 2000 meters depth
- The model leads to diffusivity values that are significantly larger than those reported in the literature
- The model incorrectly uses an asymmetric diffusivity to calculate heat transfer between adjacent layers
- The model contains incorrect determination of element interface diffusivity
- The model neglects advection (water flow) on heat transfer
- The model neglects latent heat transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean surface.
GLG
Well-Known Member
And then there is earth's temperature gauge that has no science or people to debate. It just is what it is and not one of the denial arm chair posters have an answer for. The Arctic Sea Ice death spiral.
<figure class="element element-image" data-media-id="e8419954be2b281ed245c2b29e2e384462de3839"><figcaption> Average July through September Arctic sea ice extent 1870–2008 from the University of Illinois (Walsh & Chapman 2001 updated to 2008) and observational data from NSIDC for 2009–2014. Photograph: Skeptical Science
</figcaption>
Reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent over the past 1,450 years, from Kinnard et al. (2011)
more info http://www.theguardian.com/environm...arctic-sea-ice-extent-6th-lowest-in-millennia
<figcaption>
</figcaption></figure>OBD why don't you explain to the members here why we should trust what your selling when the earth is telling us a different story?
<figure class="element element-image" data-media-id="e8419954be2b281ed245c2b29e2e384462de3839"><figcaption> Average July through September Arctic sea ice extent 1870–2008 from the University of Illinois (Walsh & Chapman 2001 updated to 2008) and observational data from NSIDC for 2009–2014. Photograph: Skeptical Science
</figcaption>
Reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent over the past 1,450 years, from Kinnard et al. (2011)
more info http://www.theguardian.com/environm...arctic-sea-ice-extent-6th-lowest-in-millennia
<figcaption>
</figcaption></figure>OBD why don't you explain to the members here why we should trust what your selling when the earth is telling us a different story?
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Weather Channel Founder John Coleman: There is no significant man-made global warming at this time
6 hours ago October 23, 2014
johncoleman_TWCJohn Coleman, the founder of Weather Channel, has written an open letter, in which he claims the theory of anthropogenic climate change is no longer scientifically credible. So far The Express, a major British newspaper, and the American news service WND, have provided favorable coverage of the letter. The Express article has also been linked to by the Drudge Report, giving it wide exposure. The full text of the letter is as follows:
_______________________________________
Dear UCLA Hammer Forum officials,
There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant “greenhouse” gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years. William Happer, Ph.D., Princeton University, Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard Smithsonian Observatory, John Christy, Ph.D., University of Alabama and 9,000 other Ph.D. scientists all agree with my opening two sentences.
Yet at your October 23 Hammer Forum on Climate Change you have scheduled as your only speakers two people who continue to present the failed science as though it is the final and complete story on global warming/climate change. This is major mistake.
I urge you to re-examine your plan. It is important to have those who attend know that there is no climate crisis. The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.
I am the founder of The Weather Channel and a winner of the American Meteorological Society honor as Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year. I am not a wacko flat Earther. Nor am I a “paid shill” (as has been claimed) of the Koch Brothers. I am a serious Professional. I am strongly urging you to reconsider your plan.
I can be reached at 858-xxx-xxxx (redacted by Anthony) and will be pleased the discuss this matter with you and answer questions. I will be happy to provide links to all of the points I have made in this email. As a quick scientific reference you may wish to look at the website of the Non-governmental Panel on Climate Change. http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
My best regards,
John Coleman
A copy of this email has been supplied to The LA Times, KCBS/KTLA and NBC4 Los Angeles
(h/t to Eric Worrall for the reminder. John sent me the text of the letter two days ago)
In The Express article they add:
Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman’s claims.
He added: “No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.
“The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.”
In 2010 a high-level inquiry by the InterAcademy Council found there was “little evidence” to support the IPCC’s claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had purposely emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.
6 hours ago October 23, 2014
johncoleman_TWCJohn Coleman, the founder of Weather Channel, has written an open letter, in which he claims the theory of anthropogenic climate change is no longer scientifically credible. So far The Express, a major British newspaper, and the American news service WND, have provided favorable coverage of the letter. The Express article has also been linked to by the Drudge Report, giving it wide exposure. The full text of the letter is as follows:
_______________________________________
Dear UCLA Hammer Forum officials,
There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant “greenhouse” gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years. William Happer, Ph.D., Princeton University, Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard Smithsonian Observatory, John Christy, Ph.D., University of Alabama and 9,000 other Ph.D. scientists all agree with my opening two sentences.
Yet at your October 23 Hammer Forum on Climate Change you have scheduled as your only speakers two people who continue to present the failed science as though it is the final and complete story on global warming/climate change. This is major mistake.
I urge you to re-examine your plan. It is important to have those who attend know that there is no climate crisis. The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.
I am the founder of The Weather Channel and a winner of the American Meteorological Society honor as Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year. I am not a wacko flat Earther. Nor am I a “paid shill” (as has been claimed) of the Koch Brothers. I am a serious Professional. I am strongly urging you to reconsider your plan.
I can be reached at 858-xxx-xxxx (redacted by Anthony) and will be pleased the discuss this matter with you and answer questions. I will be happy to provide links to all of the points I have made in this email. As a quick scientific reference you may wish to look at the website of the Non-governmental Panel on Climate Change. http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
My best regards,
John Coleman
A copy of this email has been supplied to The LA Times, KCBS/KTLA and NBC4 Los Angeles
(h/t to Eric Worrall for the reminder. John sent me the text of the letter two days ago)
In The Express article they add:
Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman’s claims.
He added: “No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.
“The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.”
In 2010 a high-level inquiry by the InterAcademy Council found there was “little evidence” to support the IPCC’s claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had purposely emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Our Initial Comments on the Abraham et al. Critique of the Spencer & Braswell 1D model
October 23rd, 2014
Our 1D forcing-feedback-mixing model published in January 2014 (and not paywalled, but also here) addressed the global average ocean temperature changes observed from the surface to 700 m depth, with the model extending to 2,000 m depth.
We used the 1D model to obtain a consensus-supporting climate sensitivity when traditional forcings were used (mostly anthropogenic GHGs, aerosols, and volcanoes), but a much smaller 1.3 deg. C climate sensitivity if the observed history of ENSO was included, which was shown from CERES satellite measurements to modulate the Earth’s radiative budget naturally (what we called “internal radiative forcing” of the climate system).
Abraham et al. recently published an open source paper addressing the various assumptions in our model. While we have only had a couple days to look at it, in response to multiple requests for comment I am now posting some initial reactions.
Abraham et al. take great pains to fault the validity of a simple 1D climate model to examine climate sensitivity. But as we state in our paper (and as James Hansen has even written), in the global average all that really matters for the rate of rise of temperature is (1) forcing, (2) feedback, and (3) ocean mixing. These three basic processes can be addressed in a 1D model. Advective processes (horizontal transports) vanish in the global ocean average.
They further ignore the evidence we present (our Fig. 1 in Spencer & Braswell, 2014) that a 1D model might actually be preferable from the standpoint of energy conservation, since the 3D models do not appear to conserve energy – a basic requirement in virtually any physical modelling enterprise. Some of the CMIP3 models’ deep ocean temperature changes in apparent contradiction to whether the climate system is being radiative forced from above. Since the 3D models do not include a changing geothermal heat flux, this suggests a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. (Three of the 13 models we examined cooled most of deep ocean since 1955, despite increasing energy input from above. How does that happen?)
On this point, how is it that Abraham et al. nitpick a 1D model that CAN explain the observations, but the authors do not fault the IPCC 3D models which CANNOT explain the observations, and possibly don’t even conserve energy in the deep ocean?
Regarding their specific summary points (in bold):
1. The model treats the entire Earth as ocean-covered.
Not true, and a red herring anyway. We model the observed change in ocean heat content since 1955, and it doesn’t matter if the ocean covers 20% of the globe or 100%. They incorrectly state that ignoring the 30% land mass of the Earth will bias the sensitivity estimates. This is wrong. All energy fluxes are per sq. meter, and the calculations are independent of the area covered by the ocean. We are surprised the authors (and the reviewers) did not grasp this basic point.
2. The model assigns an ocean process (El Nino cycle) which covers a limited geographic region in the Pacific Ocean as a global phenomenon…
This is irrelevant. We modeled the OBSERVED change in global average ocean heat content, including the observed GLOBAL average expression of ENSO in the upper 200 m of the GLOBAL average ocean temperature.
3. The model incorrectly simulates the upper layer of the ocean in the numerical calculation.
There are indeed different assumptions which can be made regarding how the surface temperature relates to the average temperature of the first layer, which is assumed to be 50 m thick. How these various assumptions change the final conclusion will require additional work on our part.
4. The model incorrectly insulates the ocean bottom at 2000 meters depth.
This approximation should not substantially matter for the purpose the model is being used. We stopped at 2,000 m depth because the results did not substantially depend upon it going any deeper.
5. The model leads to diffusivity values that are significantly larger than those used in the literature.
We are very surprised this is even an issue, since we took great pains to point out in our paper that the *effective* diffusivity values we used in the model are meant to represent *all* modes of vertical mixing, not just diffusivity per se. If the authors read our paper, they should know this. And why did the reviewers not catch this basic oversight? Did the reviewers even read our paper to see whether Abraham et al. were misrepresenting what it claimed? Again, the *effective* diffusivity is meant to represent all modes of vertical heat transport (this is also related to point #8, below). All the model requires is a way to distribute heat vertically, and a diffusion-type operator is one convenient method for doing that.
6. The model incorrectly uses an asymmetric diffusivity to calculate heat transfer between adjacent layers, and
7. The model contains incorrect determination of element interface diffusivity.
The authors discuss ways in which the implementation of the diffusion operator can be more accurately expressed. This might well be the case (we need to study it more). But it should not impact the final conclusions because we adjust the assumed effective diffusivities to best match the observations of how the ocean warms and cools at various depths. If there was a bias in the numerical implementation of the diffusion operator (even off by a fact of 10), then the effective diffusivity values will simply adjust until the model matches the observations. The important thing is that, as the surface warms, the extra heat is mixed downward in a fashion which matches the observations. Arguing over the numerical implementation obscures this basic fact. Finally, a better implementation of diffusivity calculation still must then be run with a variety of effective diffusivities (and climate sensitivities) until a match with the observations has been obtained, which as far as we can tell the authors did not do. The same would apply to a 3D model simulation…when one major change is implemented, other model changes are often necessary to get realistic results.
8. The model neglects advection (water flow) on heat transfer.
Again, there is no advection in the global average ocean. The authors should know this, and so should the reviewers of their paper. Our *effective* diffusivity, as we state in the paper, is meant to represent all processes that cause vertical mixing of heat in the ocean, including formation of cold deep water at high latitudes. Why did neither the authors nor the reviewers of the paper not catch this basic oversight? Again, we wonder how closely anyone read our paper.
9. The model neglects latent heat transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean surface.
Not true. As we said in our paper, processes like surface evaporation, convective heat transfer, latent heat release, while not explicitly included, are implicitly included because the atmosphere is assumed to be in convective equilibrium with the surface. Our use of 3.2 W/m2 change in OLR with a surface temperature change of 1 deg. C is the generally assumed global-average value for the effective radiating temperature of the surface-atmosphere system. This is the way in which a surface temperature change is realistically translated into a change in top-of-atmosphere OLR, without having to explicitly include latent heat transfer, atmospheric convection, temperature lapse rate, etc.
Final Comments
If our model is so far from reality, maybe Abraham et al. can tell us why the model works when we run it in the non-ENSO mode (mainly greenhouse gas, aerosol, and volcanic forcing) , yielding a climate sensitivity similar to many of the CMIP models (2.2 deg. C). If the model deficiencies are that great, shouldn’t the model lead to a biased result for this simple case? Again, they cannot obtain a “corrected” model run by changing only one thing (e.g. the numerical diffusion scheme) without sweeping the other model parameters (e.g. the effective diffusivities) to get a best match to the observations.
These are our initial reactions after only a quick look at the paper. It will take a while to examine a couple of the criticisms in more detail. For now, the only one we can see which might change our conclusions in a significant way is our assumption that surface temperature changes have the same magnitude as the average temperature change in the top (50 m) layer of the model. In reality, surface changes should be a little larger, which will change the feedback strength. It will take time to address such issues, and we are now under a new DOE contract to do climate model validation.
Posted in Blog Article | 11 Comments »
October 23rd, 2014
Our 1D forcing-feedback-mixing model published in January 2014 (and not paywalled, but also here) addressed the global average ocean temperature changes observed from the surface to 700 m depth, with the model extending to 2,000 m depth.
We used the 1D model to obtain a consensus-supporting climate sensitivity when traditional forcings were used (mostly anthropogenic GHGs, aerosols, and volcanoes), but a much smaller 1.3 deg. C climate sensitivity if the observed history of ENSO was included, which was shown from CERES satellite measurements to modulate the Earth’s radiative budget naturally (what we called “internal radiative forcing” of the climate system).
Abraham et al. recently published an open source paper addressing the various assumptions in our model. While we have only had a couple days to look at it, in response to multiple requests for comment I am now posting some initial reactions.
Abraham et al. take great pains to fault the validity of a simple 1D climate model to examine climate sensitivity. But as we state in our paper (and as James Hansen has even written), in the global average all that really matters for the rate of rise of temperature is (1) forcing, (2) feedback, and (3) ocean mixing. These three basic processes can be addressed in a 1D model. Advective processes (horizontal transports) vanish in the global ocean average.
They further ignore the evidence we present (our Fig. 1 in Spencer & Braswell, 2014) that a 1D model might actually be preferable from the standpoint of energy conservation, since the 3D models do not appear to conserve energy – a basic requirement in virtually any physical modelling enterprise. Some of the CMIP3 models’ deep ocean temperature changes in apparent contradiction to whether the climate system is being radiative forced from above. Since the 3D models do not include a changing geothermal heat flux, this suggests a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. (Three of the 13 models we examined cooled most of deep ocean since 1955, despite increasing energy input from above. How does that happen?)
On this point, how is it that Abraham et al. nitpick a 1D model that CAN explain the observations, but the authors do not fault the IPCC 3D models which CANNOT explain the observations, and possibly don’t even conserve energy in the deep ocean?
Regarding their specific summary points (in bold):
1. The model treats the entire Earth as ocean-covered.
Not true, and a red herring anyway. We model the observed change in ocean heat content since 1955, and it doesn’t matter if the ocean covers 20% of the globe or 100%. They incorrectly state that ignoring the 30% land mass of the Earth will bias the sensitivity estimates. This is wrong. All energy fluxes are per sq. meter, and the calculations are independent of the area covered by the ocean. We are surprised the authors (and the reviewers) did not grasp this basic point.
2. The model assigns an ocean process (El Nino cycle) which covers a limited geographic region in the Pacific Ocean as a global phenomenon…
This is irrelevant. We modeled the OBSERVED change in global average ocean heat content, including the observed GLOBAL average expression of ENSO in the upper 200 m of the GLOBAL average ocean temperature.
3. The model incorrectly simulates the upper layer of the ocean in the numerical calculation.
There are indeed different assumptions which can be made regarding how the surface temperature relates to the average temperature of the first layer, which is assumed to be 50 m thick. How these various assumptions change the final conclusion will require additional work on our part.
4. The model incorrectly insulates the ocean bottom at 2000 meters depth.
This approximation should not substantially matter for the purpose the model is being used. We stopped at 2,000 m depth because the results did not substantially depend upon it going any deeper.
5. The model leads to diffusivity values that are significantly larger than those used in the literature.
We are very surprised this is even an issue, since we took great pains to point out in our paper that the *effective* diffusivity values we used in the model are meant to represent *all* modes of vertical mixing, not just diffusivity per se. If the authors read our paper, they should know this. And why did the reviewers not catch this basic oversight? Did the reviewers even read our paper to see whether Abraham et al. were misrepresenting what it claimed? Again, the *effective* diffusivity is meant to represent all modes of vertical heat transport (this is also related to point #8, below). All the model requires is a way to distribute heat vertically, and a diffusion-type operator is one convenient method for doing that.
6. The model incorrectly uses an asymmetric diffusivity to calculate heat transfer between adjacent layers, and
7. The model contains incorrect determination of element interface diffusivity.
The authors discuss ways in which the implementation of the diffusion operator can be more accurately expressed. This might well be the case (we need to study it more). But it should not impact the final conclusions because we adjust the assumed effective diffusivities to best match the observations of how the ocean warms and cools at various depths. If there was a bias in the numerical implementation of the diffusion operator (even off by a fact of 10), then the effective diffusivity values will simply adjust until the model matches the observations. The important thing is that, as the surface warms, the extra heat is mixed downward in a fashion which matches the observations. Arguing over the numerical implementation obscures this basic fact. Finally, a better implementation of diffusivity calculation still must then be run with a variety of effective diffusivities (and climate sensitivities) until a match with the observations has been obtained, which as far as we can tell the authors did not do. The same would apply to a 3D model simulation…when one major change is implemented, other model changes are often necessary to get realistic results.
8. The model neglects advection (water flow) on heat transfer.
Again, there is no advection in the global average ocean. The authors should know this, and so should the reviewers of their paper. Our *effective* diffusivity, as we state in the paper, is meant to represent all processes that cause vertical mixing of heat in the ocean, including formation of cold deep water at high latitudes. Why did neither the authors nor the reviewers of the paper not catch this basic oversight? Again, we wonder how closely anyone read our paper.
9. The model neglects latent heat transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean surface.
Not true. As we said in our paper, processes like surface evaporation, convective heat transfer, latent heat release, while not explicitly included, are implicitly included because the atmosphere is assumed to be in convective equilibrium with the surface. Our use of 3.2 W/m2 change in OLR with a surface temperature change of 1 deg. C is the generally assumed global-average value for the effective radiating temperature of the surface-atmosphere system. This is the way in which a surface temperature change is realistically translated into a change in top-of-atmosphere OLR, without having to explicitly include latent heat transfer, atmospheric convection, temperature lapse rate, etc.
Final Comments
If our model is so far from reality, maybe Abraham et al. can tell us why the model works when we run it in the non-ENSO mode (mainly greenhouse gas, aerosol, and volcanic forcing) , yielding a climate sensitivity similar to many of the CMIP models (2.2 deg. C). If the model deficiencies are that great, shouldn’t the model lead to a biased result for this simple case? Again, they cannot obtain a “corrected” model run by changing only one thing (e.g. the numerical diffusion scheme) without sweeping the other model parameters (e.g. the effective diffusivities) to get a best match to the observations.
These are our initial reactions after only a quick look at the paper. It will take a while to examine a couple of the criticisms in more detail. For now, the only one we can see which might change our conclusions in a significant way is our assumption that surface temperature changes have the same magnitude as the average temperature change in the top (50 m) layer of the model. In reality, surface changes should be a little larger, which will change the feedback strength. It will take time to address such issues, and we are now under a new DOE contract to do climate model validation.
Posted in Blog Article | 11 Comments »
- Status
Similar threads
