Start here
) We've often been asked to provide a one stop link for resources that people can use to get up to speed on the issue of climate change, and so here is a first cut. Unlike our other postings, we'll amend this as we discover or are pointed to new resources. Different people have different needs and so we will group resources according to the level people start at.
For complete beginners:
NCAR: Weather and climate basics
Oxford University: The basics of climate prediction
Pew Center: Global Warming basics
Wikipedia: Global Warming
NASA: Global Warming update
Those with some knowledge:
The IPCC AR4 Frequently Asked Questions (pdf) is an excellent start. That covers:
- What Factors Determine Earth's Climate?
- What is the Relationship between Climate Change and Weather?
- What is the Greenhouse Effect?
- How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?
- How are Temperatures on Earth Changing?
- How is Precipitation Changing?
- Has there been a Change in Extreme Events like Heat Waves, Droughts, Floods and Hurricanes?
- Is the Amount of Snow and Ice on the Earth Decreasing?
- Is Sea Level Rising?
- What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?
- Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earth's History?
- Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities?
- How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?
- Can Individual Extreme Events be Explained by Greenhouse Warming?
- Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?
- Are Extreme Events, Like Heat Waves, Droughts or Floods, Expected to Change as the Earth's Climate Changes?
- How Likely are Major or Abrupt Climate Changes, such as Loss of Ice Sheets or Changes in Global Ocean Circulation?
- If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease?
- Do Projected Changes in Climate Vary from Region to Region?
We'll link to the individual pages once the report is available in html.
RealClimate: Start with our index
Informed, but in need of more detail:
Science: You can't do better than the IPCC reports themselves (AR4 2007, TAR 2001).
History: Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming" (AIP)
Art: Robert Rohde's "Global Warming Art'
Informed, but seeking serious discussion of common contrarian talking points:
All of the below links have indexed debunks of most of the common points of confusion:
- Coby Beck's How to talk to Global Warming Skeptic
- New Scientist: Climate Change: A guide for the perplexed
- RealClimate: Response to common contrarian arguments
- NERC (UK): Climate change debate summary
- UK Met Office: Climate Change Myths
- Brian Angliss A Thorough Debunking
- John Cross Skeptical Science
Please feel free to suggest other suitable resources, particularly in different languages, and we'll try to keep this list up to date.
22 May 2007 at 5:52 PM
Next, in my view, is what society chooses to do about the risks created by climate change. To help inform that discussion the American Meteorological Society initiated the ClimatePolicy.org project (http://www.ClimatePolicy.org).
22 May 2007 at 7:04 PM
Great idea…
Because so much of what we think may happen is based upon what we think has happened
perhaps a pointer to PAGES http://www.pages.unibe.ch/ might be helpful??
…FWIW…
22 May 2007 at 7:38 PM
I happen to be partial to reasic.com.
Shameful plug, I know, but I had to do it. The window was opened. Thanks for the link, btw, guys.
22 May 2007 at 8:09 PM
I don’t see NOAA or NOAA’s NWS mentioned. Does anyone feel they have enough courage, moral obligation and know how to stand up to two generals and a Vice Admiral? - to see that they are held accountable for their wrong doing on global warming?
http://twincities.indymedia.org/newswire/display/30421/index.php
22 May 2007 at 9:08 PM
At first glance it looks 100% biased/advocacy. I would have preferred all but one reference being that way to make it fair (though you certainly should not make it balanced.) But it looks pretty good and helpful; I’m looking forward to it. Good work (as usual).
btw, while we all can sympathize with “pat n” (#3), I don’t think lynching belongs.
22 May 2007 at 9:23 PM
One thing I’ve been looking for but haven’t found yet is a recommended list of peer-reviewed papers - i.e. for someone who isn’t afraid of the science, which papers would you recommend reading to get an overall picture of where the research is at?
22 May 2007 at 9:58 PM
What I’ve been looking for is a site that actively debunks Steve McIntyre’s ClimateAudit site. I’ve noticed that climate scientists rarely link to him. On his site, he appears to make some very serious allegations about the integrity of the IPCC process, and is still engaged in fighting the hockey stick (and now, spaghetti) wars.
Is there a definitive post somewhere that addresses his criticisms?
22 May 2007 at 10:12 PM
How about some climate first principles (pdf)?
22 May 2007 at 10:20 PM
Hi, I don’t mean to turn this into yet another sceptic thread, but I’ve read in another site that there apparently are doubts about current models assuming that climate sensitivity is constant. (Do they indeed assume this?)
Also, the individual asserts that control systems theory has not been properly addressed in the current models, and that some climate scientists who have properly accounted for this have doubts about the current models.
I’m not a climate scientist, just an interested layperson, and I thought I’d seen all the sceptic arguments, but this is a new one for me. Would appreciate any reply. Thanks!
22 May 2007 at 10:24 PM
Isn’t environmentalism the right thing to do regardless? On top of such a comprehensive listing of facts, I think we also need to broaden out the apeal.
Basically, you really don’t even need to believe in global warming to want to live more efficiently, right? I mean, it’s the right thing to do for many other critical reasons. Apart from improving our health:
Living more efficiently SAVES MONEY. Yeah, like you really need to twist my arm for that… To think how companies can save millions in just the efficient design of their office buildings. Economy cars can also save you like $16,000 in gas over the life of the car when figured at just $2.00 per gallon. Isn’t that worth it right there?
It improves our national security. Oil could spike to $5.00 a gallon tomorrow if something happened in the Middle East or a hurricane hit Huston. If that happened, the economy and our security would be greatly weakened, Duh!
Burning less fuel creates less smog, less air pollution, and less soil contamination. Go figure…
Living more efficiently ultimately lowers our impact on wildlife and forest areas in the form of less acid rain, fewer catastrophic oil spills, and less strip mining.
Finally, if we can become more energy self-sufficient on a very local level we become that much less vulnerable to region-wide disasters like Hurricanes or mass blackouts. In this regard, renewable energy, isn’t just good for the environment. It’s also the key to keeping the power on when everybody else is sitting in the dark.
Overall, isn’t wastefulness and carelessness “morally” wrong? We have to expand our thinking to find solutions that address the broadest possible array of problems. Being able to work productively at home or in our own communities would, to me, be the most ‘cut-to-the-chase solution’ of them all as it would eliminate the need for a daily commute in the first place while giving us five more hours of free time during the week! It’s exactly what LA is trying to do to curb the extraordinary amount of traffic they have: create consolidated communities where people live, work, and have great recreational facilities nearby! Got to think that’s smart at some level, right?
22 May 2007 at 10:24 PM
EdGCM! http://edgcm.columbia.edu lets you run a climate model on your laptop.
22 May 2007 at 10:33 PM
These links for “complete beginners” and the site for the IPCC reports are great, as are the Realclimate Index. Although I was aware of a couple of the websites I wasn’t aware of all of them and will post them to my on-line class on ecology. A lot of students will be clicking on those links in the next few months.
22 May 2007 at 11:20 PM
A couple months ago I was looking for a really simple graph showing the ice core CO2 measurements with the modern day rise superimposed on it to show to a contrarian. An easy resource for any of the simple but powerful graphs that the science has produced (some of which simply don’t appear within the IPCC reports in a way that is presentable to the public) could be useful.
22 May 2007 at 11:54 PM
Re #12: Balta
You need Global Warming Art.
23 May 2007 at 12:16 AM
A list for nspiration and humor?
example: http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2007/04/socialism-in-matchbox.html
(don’t miss the video there no matter what your politics)
23 May 2007 at 12:35 AM
Hey I was wondering what anyone thought of this article: http://thenewsroom.com/details/329988/Business?c_id=adm It’s kind of interesting and it makes you think about global warming from an economic standpoint. Do you think anyone in the United States government might be into this type of thing? How does stuff like this affect the energy crisis?
23 May 2007 at 1:30 AM
One thing which is confusing in all the commentary is the shifting baseline for temperature increases. The AR4 Summaries for Policy Makers from Working Groups 1, 2, and 3 sometimes use 1960-1990, sometimes 1980-99, and sometimes “pre-industrial”. Is there a place where one can see what the levels for these baselines are, so that translation is possible?
23 May 2007 at 1:57 AM
UK Met office, John Mitchell’s “Climate Change Myths” is a short one, but useful.
23 May 2007 at 2:22 AM
Since everyone stumbles on a *wealth* of websites, any commentary on other more dubiuous websites would also be a good starter. Just to avoid confusion. Perhaps under a header like like “Wat not to visit”? Make sure you provide some hints as to why these sites are not that good.
I recall vividly the comments the bloggers make in their inline responses when someone copies information from these dubious sites.
Thanks for all the good science blogs and comments. This is a great site! I am amazed you guys find time to maintain this site. Did you invent a parallel universe?
23 May 2007 at 3:34 AM
Great infomative site! Just heard of the huge chunk of the artic that recently broke off..bloody scary!! Hey guys..australia has invented new solar cell technology called ’sliver’ cells - 15x more efficient than the current ones and flexible too. In production within 18 months -2 years. What this means is that the avearage family house can be producing 30Kw+ at the same price as a normal 2Kw solar system. and it uses 99% less silicon than conventional ones as well! There are ways to reverse global warming..all it takes is people to be aware of their options and to apply the blowtorch to their respective governments. Just take a minute to think of all the possibilities that this new technology promises. Flexible–so the bonnet and hood of your car can be made of sliver cells and that will supply more than enough power to it’s electric motor for even the most blaze speed freak to raise a sweat over. It’s time to stop talking about what we are going to do and get in there and damn well DO-IT!!!! I know I am!! Hope this has been an inspiration.
23 May 2007 at 4:02 AM
Compend’s a good move, I think. Within the last few days I’ve read in news services of Dr. Mike Raupach ’s and Dr. Pep Canadell’s report for the Aussie CSIRO Global Carbon Project that emissions have intensified and carbon-loading of the atmosphere has increased near or beyond IPCC worst-case scenarios. No Hank Roberts-style adept at net linkages, I google Steve Rintoul and other ocean-sniffers from time to time. Thank you for permitting me to gum crumbs from the high table.
23 May 2007 at 4:56 AM
re: 5. Science links are not “advocacy”. That should be clear by now.
23 May 2007 at 5:18 AM
A lot of the links are compiled here:
http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/02/24/some-information-about-climate-change/
The AR4 isn’t there yet, but the TAR is.
Scepticism is also accounted for.
Regards,
23 May 2007 at 5:59 AM
One issue that has not been adequately addressed yet is the possible need to start planning and designing and building model polar cities and towns now, in the event that they are needed in the distant future, when building materials and transport fuel will be scarce. Anybody thinking about this yet?
23 May 2007 at 6:58 AM
Great post - thanks! One thing you could add to it and maintain over time would be a list of climate focused blogs. Many of us maintain links to other blogs with a climate change focus and this helps create community and spread awareness. Since you’ve got a good following and are well respected, maintaining a clearing house list of such blogs in this this post would be a great community service.
Here’s a list of those I’m currently following via RSS. Many of these I list in my blog’s blogroll and some of them I am cross-linked with (and would be pleased to be cross-linked with all of them):
http://climatedenial.org
http://climateprogress.org
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com
http://deconsumption.typepad.com
http://www.globalissues.org
http://globalisation-and-the-environment.blogspot.com
http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com
http://www.realclimate.org
http://reasic.com
Not all of these are single issue blogs but climate issues form a significant part of all of them.
Best wishes,
Dennis
samadhisoft.com
23 May 2007 at 7:25 AM
I find sourcewatch a goodun for finding out the background of sceptics.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
23 May 2007 at 7:28 AM
This is one of those pages that will be useful for years to come. You guys to great work on the site, thanks.
23 May 2007 at 7:57 AM
Rod B., what would you suggest to make the suggestions “fair and balanced”? I personally don’t know of any “skeptical” websites that deal in actual science. I mean, would you suggest that a biology department offer a course on creationism just to be “fair and balanced”?
I’m reminded of a scene from the play “Greater Tuna”, a very funny play that revolves around the only radio station in the town of Tuna, Texas. In one scene, the Station Manager is interviewing a “concerned citizen” who is advocating the removal of several books from the Library. One book that is subject to his wrath is “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. When asked why, he replies incredulously, “Why, it only presents one side of the slavery issue.” There are some issues that only have one side, and the science of climate change is such an issue.
There is still room for legitimate debate about how bad things are going to get, although I think the IPCC has mostly been quite conservative in their analysis. There’s lots of room for debate about how we handle the issue. I have yet to hear anyone present a coherent case for the so-called skeptic’s point of view on the science. Have you?
23 May 2007 at 8:18 AM
Re #20: Sliver cells solar panels:
Lawrence, that is bloody amazing. I found a good blurb on it here. 5 to 7 years to recoup the cost of your solar panel instead of 20 as is the case with current solar voltaic products on offer! And they’ll be mass-produced and flooding the market within a couple years.
That makes at least five new Australian kick-ass zero CO2 energy technologies that I know of that are all on the cusp of blitzing the energy market. Go Aussie!
It would be good to have section in the new resources page that is devoted to solutions.
Well done again RealClimate.
23 May 2007 at 8:20 AM
Re #20 –
Very unlikely. I recently priced 175 watt Solarworld panels that have a module efficiency of 24%. Being 15 times more efficient is just impossible …
One thing I’d like to see for the “Okay, so maybe you are right, but we’ll die without our fossil fuels!” crowd is links to alternate energy and energy savings. I know I’ve got to be the official ‘alternate energy’ poster child these days, but there are people who might “do something” if they thought they could have their cake and eat it too.
23 May 2007 at 8:24 AM
A beginner’s page shouldn’t use anacronyms like IPCC, AR4 and TAR without saying what they mean like International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
23 May 2007 at 8:38 AM
If you wanna see the latest MELTDOWN live via SATELLITE CAMERA on NORTH POLE ; visit www.globalwarmingcam.com and connect to SatCam weather satellite.
You will not believe your eyes.
23 May 2007 at 9:51 AM
Great list of resources, thanks. Here’s another one, which I guess could go under “Informed, but in need of more detail” - here at http://environmentalresearchweb.org we’re providing free updates on the latest research in climate change and other environmental change topics as well as on potential solutions such as renewable energy.
23 May 2007 at 10:15 AM
The Royal Society [UK] has: Climate change controversies: a simple guide at: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229 . New Scientist magazine has: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed at: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462 . Grist has How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic at: http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics . I particulalry like dthe entry explaining about the Vinland ‘grapes’. It is anecdotes like this which impress the non-scientists and make them think that perhaps the sceptics are on to something after all.
23 May 2007 at 10:45 AM
Someone mentioned the EdGCM model you can download and run. Perhaps better for beginners is Ben Matthews’ Java climate module, which is interactive and lets you play around with various parameters in realtime.
Also mentioned previously on this site is Kerry Emanuel’s Phaeton’s Reins, which is one of the best introductory essays on climate change I’ve read.
23 May 2007 at 10:50 AM
#24 is spot on…if we’re going to change hearts and minds (and harvest the resulting political will) of those currently interested but uninformed, let’s converse in a common language devoid of untranslated alphabetitus.
23 May 2007 at 10:53 AM
#6 seems peculiar: “One thing I’ve been looking for but haven’t found yet is a recommended list of peer-reviewed papers - i.e. for someone who isn’t afraid of the science, which papers would you recommend reading to get an overall picture of where the research is at?”
This is hard to understand. The IPCC reports fulfill exactly this purpose. They review the literature and provide references to it. You may follow up on just about any relevant current scientific issue from there.
Links to IPCC reports are provided in the current RealClimate article.
23 May 2007 at 10:55 AM
Grist mill for skeptics: http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
23 May 2007 at 11:41 AM
mankoff, that link is already in the post as Coby Beck’s How to talk to Global Warming Skeptic
23 May 2007 at 11:43 AM
Regarding #5, “btw, while we all can sympathize with “pat n” (#3),
I don’t think lynching belongs.”
How can confronting malfeasance in appointed office be construed
as a “lynching?”
NOAA and NWS have set back awareness of AGHG climate
change for decades. These retiring administrators should
be brought before Congress to explain to the American People
why and how they have compromised the welfare of the nation,
putting politics and job security before informing the population
of impending catastrophes due to climate change.
Pat was fired from the NWS for his insistence that the agency
broach global warming as an issue. The wrong person was fired.
Pat is the whistle blower. There should be an explanation. In the
end I suspect there will be - and Pat will be recognized as a hero
of the movement.
These two articles:
“Study: Worldwide carbon dioxide emissions soar.
http://newsletters.environmentalhealthnews.org/t/1344/175/1655/0/
Warnings about global warming may not be dire enough,
according to a climate study that describes a runaway-train
acceleration of industrial carbon dioxide emissions.”
“U.S. aims to stop G8’s tough push on global warming.
http://newsletters.environmentalhealthnews.org/t/1344/175/1656/0/
The United States is battling to stop next month’s Group
of Eight summit in Germany from pushing for urgent talks
on a new deal to fight global warming after the Kyoto
Protocol lapses in 2012.”
…make me fear for the planet - at least the current millennium.
What exactly _does_ belong?
23 May 2007 at 1:09 PM
Getting 15x the current 10% or more efficiency of silicon solar cells is, of course, impossible. This site claims 19% efficiency.
I would guess the 15x number comes from using one fifteenth the silicon, although I can’t find that exact number anywhere.
23 May 2007 at 1:57 PM
Well all this is, fine and dandy, preaching to the choir material. But you would be surprised just how effective the contrarian (so-called skeptic) rhetoric is - as applied to real world events (actual debates by scientists, actual debates in person or on the web, with, or between laypeople). I think the members/creators of this website can attest to that.
See end on page 78 of transcript, as a testament to the truth of this:
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/TranscriptContainer/_GlobalWarming-edited%20version%20031407.pdf
Also, many people I know, that are reasonable and intelligent, but not necessarily interested in the details of Global Warming were easily swayed by the Swindle Show (”The Great Global Warming Swindle”). Their comments were along the lines of: “very powerful” or “more controversial than I thought” or even “opened my eyes.” All that happened was a few of the usual suspects (the same handful of skeptics) were paraded about, more or less, they made they same tired old (or debunked) arguments, displayed a graph or few, and correlated environmental-ism, as an -ism, that is actual “junk science” that can hurt the impoverished world (like Africa, etc).
I am a little confused and disheartened by the fact that - a few hands can be waved about, a few spurious arguments can be made, and one only needs say “it’s actually too complex a system and the debate over what is driving the Climate is still wide open to debate, at this time.” Why is the rhetoric of claiming it is more, or too, complex, and it is still wide open to debate - so effective?
23 May 2007 at 1:59 PM
i don’t know much about NOAA’s history on global warming, but they have some good info nowadays.
Global warming FAQ’s: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
A Paleo Perspective on Global warming: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html
23 May 2007 at 2:17 PM
Ray (28): Actually I said “fair” but explicitly said I was not looking for “balance”. I think it would be nice to have, say, one reference to the skeptical side (probably along with the links giving the opposite arguments), but balancing the two sides on RC would be silly.
Actually, I do think an aspect of creationism (something along “intelligent design”, except the fundamentalists have co-opted that phrase — now I don’t know what to call it) should be taught, or at least mentioned — but probably in Physics, not Biology. Just like I think Fred Hoyle’s et al version of the “start” of the Universe ought to be mentioned along side the Big Bang theory. Just like I think meterology and climatics (neat new word?!) courses out to at least describe the skeptic side.
23 May 2007 at 2:29 PM
Are there any links to sites with a differnt viewpoint?
23 May 2007 at 2:33 PM
Tim, (40), call it what you may, but “confronting malfeasance ” is a lynching, albeit with a Committee instead of a rope. Your description of the situation with pat n, NOAA and NWS could be right on, and I do sympathize. I simply meant that the lynching (or confronting malfeasance, if you like) ought to be done with your Congressman or some such; it’s not RC’s job.
23 May 2007 at 3:57 PM
Some prefer books. I recommend recommending
W.F. Ruddiman
Earth’s Climate: Past and Future
for the complete beginners…
23 May 2007 at 4:31 PM
A long overdue and much needed compendium. Thanks RealClimate!
23 May 2007 at 4:46 PM
Those acronyms are not under the section ‘For complete beginners’, they are used in the section ‘Those with some knowledge’, which you would presume would be covered by any meaningful introduction to the topic (thats up to date).
23 May 2007 at 5:02 PM
Good points Tim. Nearly everyone in here has known for years that climate change is happening in the Upper Midwest. NOAA NWS supervisors told the public, for many years, that global warming wasn’t happening or was not a problem. They were ordered to tell national media during the summer flood of 1993 not to bring up global warming while doing national interviews. Would we be better off if NWS did make global warming an issue in 1993 and afterwards? I think so.
23 May 2007 at 6:27 PM
The EPA has a decent starter page for beginners:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
These two sites document the effects of climate change:
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/
http://www.canary-project.org/
23 May 2007 at 7:02 PM
re 44
“Just like I think Fred Hoyle’s et al version of the “start” of the Universe ought to be mentioned along side the Big Bang theory.”
I think the only good reason to mention Hoyle’s name, aside from the fact he coined the term “Big Bang”, is that in his efforts to figure out the progression of the creation of elements in stars he stumbled across the proof that shot down the “steady state” theory and largely showed why the Big bang model was the more compelling argument. To Hoyle’s credit, he did not try to hide this discovery, nor did he try to ignore it.
In fact, Hoyle offers us an excellent example of all that can be right with science, and why there is no such thing as “fair” in terms of the climate skeptics.
He was honest.
If you are interested, you can read an entertaining account of the story in Simon Singh’s “Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe.”
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Origin-Universe-P-S/dp/0007162219/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-7879121-2235324?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179964770&sr=1-2
It is one of the more accessible books in terms of learning about the subject. The thing I enjoyed about it most was Singhn’s discussions on how science works and how it changes/evolves with new information, at one point using as an example how, at a certain time in history, something like a geocentric model of the universe had more validity from a scientific standpoint than a heliocentric model.
23 May 2007 at 7:55 PM
Rob B, I posted my comment after Paul Higgins in #1 which was about
one way to wake up society to what’s happening is to go after those in government who need to be held accountable.
My comment in #5 was written with #1. in mind.
23 May 2007 at 8:00 PM
Interesting recent (May 2007) update on CO2 emissions..
“…The strong global fossil-fuel emissions growth since 2000 was driven not only by long-term increases in population (P) and per-capita global GDP (g) but also by a cessation or reversal of earlier declining trends in the energy intensity of GDP (e) and the carbon intensity of energy ( f ). In particular, steady or slightly increasing recent trends in f occurred in both developed and developing regions. In this sense, no region is decarbonizing its energy supply.
“…Continuous decreases in both e and f (and therefore in carbon intensity of GDP, h = ef ) are postulated in all IPCC emissions scenarios to 2100 (8), so that the predicted rate of global emissions growth is less than the economic growth rate. Without these postulated decreases, predicted emissions over the coming century would be up to several times greater than those from current emissions scenarios…This has meant that even the more fossil-fuel-intensive IPCC scenarios underestimated actual emissions growth during this period.
Found at:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0700609104v1
23 May 2007 at 8:04 PM
Re: #45, “Are there any links to sites with a differnt viewpoint?”
No, because the other viewpoint is wrong.
23 May 2007 at 8:07 PM
re:30 The 15x came directly from the team which invented it. Not only that but it’s near optimal efficiency over an 100degree arc of sunlight.
instead of the cell being totally flat as is the case now. it uses many thousands of small perpendicular slivers to collect the light 3 dimensionally dramatically inceasing it’s surface area.
23 May 2007 at 8:07 PM
Re# 44: I disagree. The references provided should be pertinent to the science and all good attempts at making that science accessible to non scientists. The so-called skeptic side usually does not do that (actually almost never does).
As BPL has often pointed there are a lot of similarities between the sates of understanding of climate and evolution.
In either, there is no credible scientific “skeptic” side that explains reality better or even nearly as well. In fact, nothing comes close.
There are areas of lower level of understanding, there are unknowns. The only scientifically ethical skeptic thing to do would be to present them, but not without placing them in context, i.e. how they relate to the general picture and the stuff that is well understood and well known. The few skeptics with scientific background who thread here spend seemingly endless hours picking on these very few points and attempt to demonstrate that they can invalidate almost everything else, and the RC contributors do a good job of addressing that.
However, in the wide world, what we see is downright fraud (like in the Swindle), underhanded peer-review (Legates and the Soon-Baliunas fiasco), selective picking of facts given much more significance than they have, the list is endless.
Then there are people like Pat or all the scientists reporting that they don’t dare to speak their minds on the subject for fear of retaliation. Meanwhile, the mind-conditioning machine of the so-called skeptics screams that contrarians scientists are being suppressed by the evil scientific community, who is out on a conspiracy to keep the billions in grants flowing (Hey Gavin, I hope you’re stacking those in your secret Swiss account).
I wish there were more sites like RC and that they could be as vocal as the contrarians screamers. The last thing we need is RC giving them even more undeserved credibility.
As for your comment on creationism and Physics, I’m not sure what to make of it. There are plenty of areas that examine that kind of questions (Philosophy) and it is irrelevant to the science itself. Anyone can make an argument for or against whatever version of creation by using Physics. In fact, it is a very good exercise to do one and then a contrary one. If done sincerely, they can come out equally valid. But in both cases, they are irrelevant to the science and will not contribute to improve the purely scientific understanding of reality.
23 May 2007 at 8:56 PM
We need to start moving New York, Maimi, Houston and new Orleans immediately.
At the very least, no new building permits should be issued.
23 May 2007 at 9:19 PM
sal, the intro in FAQ from your link in #43 by NOAA says:
NOAA should be telling people that the debate on global warming is over - and has been for some time.
Besides, my comments were directly mainly on the National Weather Service (NWS) director and deputy director who are retiring next month (links below). NWS staff of about 5500 makes up nearly half of all employees under the NOAA umbrella. Problems on global warming are specific to NWS and headquarters administrators in NOAA. There are some NOAA people not in NWS and not in NOAA headquarters who have been trying to do decent work on global warming but they, like me, have met resistance from NOAA and NWS management. Unlike me, they succeeded in not getting fire for climate change research and discussion but are they happy about what they have not done since 2000?
23 May 2007 at 9:26 PM
Links mentioned in previous comment.
http://www.miamiherald.com/509/story/111876.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/114488.html
23 May 2007 at 9:59 PM
Re 20, 29, 30 & 41 - Sliver Photovoltaic cells:
It interesting to compare the information you get from the scientists at the Australian National University who invented the technology, with that provided by Origin Energy - the company that is commerialising it.
A powerpoint from the scientists is here.
Origin Energy’s Sliver Cells website is here.
The scientists estimate that it should be possible in ‘mature’ high volume production facility to use 1/10th to 1/30th the amount of silicon as required by conventioal PV. Origin Energy, says that their high purity silicon use in product from their pilot plant is 3 to 4 grams per watt compared to 10-14 g/W for conventional cells.
Both the scientists are claiming that the efficiency per square meter of Sliver cells is %20 compared to 10% for conventional PV. On aper watt basis, this drops both the fabrication costs and the instillation costs.
According to the scientists Sliver PV has the potential to cost US60c/watt in comparison to US$3/watt for conventional PV. This would make it very competative with all other electricity generation technologies - including coal. However, the manufacturer, Origin Energy, intends to initially sell the product at ‘competative market rates’, i.e. just a tad cheaper than competitor products.
The scientists estimate that a rapid drop in PV electricity costs will occur as Sliver Cells and other PV technologies mature. This will intersect the current Daytime retail electricity price of around US12c/kWh in about 2014.
Origin Energy says that once they get finance agreed for a full scale production facility, it will be at least 18 months before Sliver PV panels begin to hit the market.
But they will sell them ‘competitively’ at market prices with an intent to slowly drop prices over time to keep just ahead of the market (in which demand is increasing by 30% per year). They currently have 35 employees employed in their prototype production facility and hope to have 50 people working on it by 2012. It’s high tech and production is highly automated, but realistically, unless there is a significant injection of funding, it doesn’t sound like production volumes will be high enough to have a significant impact on energy/CO2 production, in a economy-wide context, until the middle of next decade.
23 May 2007 at 10:01 PM
Fine, John (53), just keep them away from the midwest — don’t want to spoil the heighborhood!
23 May 2007 at 10:45 PM
Thomas (#41) wrote:
It helps, especially if it is posted every now and again.
This website gets a fair amount of traffic. Sure - most won’t go looking that hard, but they don’t have to come to this website to be affected by it. Especially if the people already here learn what they can and pass it on.
However, whenever responding to a show or article, it is good if the focus isn’t simply on the science. That should be the primary focus - mostly in nutshell form.
But I would also include news items. Things that are pretty undeniable - like the melting of the arctic icecap over the past forty years - which is undeniable - at least until the contrarians get good with PhotoShop Adobe. But then you should also expose the contrarians for what they are - honestly. (There are resources - but I don’t expect that to be the focus of this website - which should be almost exclusively on the science.) Likewise, it is important to point out the consequences of inaction and the things that can be done.
It is called the “big lie.”
If someone skilled in the art says something truly outrageous, people are often very likely to believe it. This has a long history, probably about as old as humanity iteslf. Creationists use it all the time. And yes, it is very effective. So are many informal fallacies - if neither the speaker nor the audience are all that concerned with the truth. Conspiracy theories. Etc. “Us vs. them,” which seems especially effective in many circles. When you aren’t concerned with the truth, you don’t have to qualify - and you can appeal to the worst in people.
However, perhaps “The Great Global Warming Swindle” could play to our advantage.
Libel laws can be extremely effective, particularly under British law. Not sure who would make the charges, though. But it would be very high profile. Dover helped undercut the creationists a fair amount, at least in the view of many papers.
Incidently, I understand that the contrarian scientists who actually participated in the swindle were themselves rather unhappy with how charts and the like were doctored by the producers. Perhaps they could be persuaded to show up in court as well.
23 May 2007 at 11:10 PM
I believe that scientists themselves are inadvertantly partly responsible for the growth of contrarian viewpoints, especially among the public. It seems that much of scientific literature is moving away from one of the basic principles of preserving reliability in scientific writing, and that is that each scientific article contain a discussion on how the scientist looked for, but couldn’t find, evidence that contradicted the scientific conclusions that were reached. To call for more study is certainly part of the answer, however, a more robust discussion of the search for “contrarian” evidence, in each scientific article, would positively contribute to enhancing reliability in scientific publications.
24 May 2007 at 1:44 AM
I found these links good. Mostly for beginners.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/causes.htm#solarcause
^^FAQ
http://people.aapt.net.au/~johunter/greenhou/home.html
^^debunks the site ’still waiting for greenhouse’
24 May 2007 at 2:03 AM
Curt Schroeder (#64) wrote:
I can agree with much of your setiment - but the above bit seems somewhat problematic. If the scientific article were discussing, say, the role of LINEs and SINEs in the evolution of evolvability and the contrarian views were either “intelligent design” or “young earth creationism (evolution vs. creationism), this would get rather silly - and lend creationism an air of respectability it most certainly does not deserve. Any time anyone mentions intelligent design in the peer reviewed papers, the Discovery Institute says, “See there! We told you there was a controversy!”
At this point, the contrarian views to anthropogenic climate change are no longer a scientific phenomena, but a political phenomena driven by financial interests and ideology. The focus of science should be the phenomena. This is what should drive it and its focus, particularly in the technical papers.
However, in more popular venues it still makes sense to keep knocking over the weeble-wobble.
24 May 2007 at 2:37 AM
Re:61 Craig Allen,
Thanks for getting more info than I was able to do. This will depend on whether respective govs are serious enough about Global warming issues. If they were they would fast track the production of sliver cell tech and put pressure on origin energy to replace it’s existing technology with sliver cell. Or if enough people as I said were aware of the huge potential of this new innovation they would put pressure directly onto Origin. The cost/Kw should on paper at least be considerably less than single plane PVs as you said putting in in the frontline of the CO2 war. Origin should put the planet before profit!!
24 May 2007 at 4:11 AM
Re: 67
Lawrence, this issue is a little more complicated than this. Although sliver cells offer an ideal reduction in silicon (which is even more ideal in the current silicon shortage periods..) they require a more complicated manufacturing process with more high temperature steps leading to more chances of contamination etc.. Coupled with the difficult issue of putting thousands of little slivers into a module makes this the transition from lab to manufacuting plant a little difficult.
Origin have had their pilot construction plant built for a couple of years, but the modules keep being delayed. (Another factor is it uses silicon grown in a different orientation to all other solar cells, making supply of cheap silicon an issue. As it gets bigger this of course will no longer be a problem.) I believe the current plan is to find an overseas partner with more experience in semiconductors and better supply of silicon (I dont think Australia has any plants producing high quality silicon, may be wrong there).
And yes the modules are most definitely not 15x more efficient, unless the measure is energy produced compared to silicon used. The theoretical limit for single band-gap silicon isn’t going anywhere just yet…
24 May 2007 at 4:59 AM
[[Flexible–so the bonnet and hood of your car can be made of sliver cells and that will supply more than enough power to it’s electric motor for even the most blaze speed freak to raise a sweat over.]]
I don’t think that will work, actually. Daytime illumination averages 240 watts per square meter over the entire globe, but even if you were getting the full 1370 w/m2 of the solar constant, and had ten square meters of car surface to work with, and had perfect efficiency, that would only be about 14 kilowatts. I don’t think that’s enough energy to accelerate a car significantly.
Take a 1000-kg car that you want to accelerate to 60 meters per second in one minute (60 seconds). Kinetic energy at the top speed is (1/2 m v^2) 1,800,000 Joules. To get that much in 60 seconds is 30 kilowatts. And again, this assumes perfect mechanical efficiency.
A very light solar car might be possible, but as a routine power source for cars I don’t think it will work.
24 May 2007 at 5:35 AM
[[We need to start moving New York, Maimi, Houston and new Orleans immediately.
At the very least, no new building permits should be issued. ]]
You may well be right. But my guess would be that even if sea level starts rising rapidly, we won’t do anything about it until there is actually a foot of water in downtown Manhattan. Humans tend to react to crises rather than to anticipate them.
24 May 2007 at 6:48 AM
Re #68:
More to the point, there are only so many watts per square meter available to be captured. With module efficiencies already in the 12 to 24 percent range (and that’s module efficiencies — cell efficiencies can be higher), dramatically huge increases are limited.
Re #61:
While current production volumes are inadequate to meet demand, power reduction from gains in personal and commercial efficiency and waste reduction are more than sufficient to greatly reduce fossil fuel consumption and the resultant CO2 emissions. Those areas can be tackled while waiting on renewable energy sources to be commercialized.
There’s no reason we need to be lighting up cities so they can be seen from outer space, nor is there any reason we need to use 19th century technologies for general illumination, or 20th century conveniences whose sole purpose is making sure the TV turns on in less than a second, but which suck gigawatts from the grid 24 hours a day. Simple changes in AC adapter design could greatly reduce the power consumed by those little vampires. There are literally tens of gigawatts of demand that can be reduced in the States just by turning off “conveniences”, unplugging cell phone and other AC adapters, switching to compact flourescent lights, mandating out of existence lower efficiency A/C and refrigeration products, and treating light pollution the same way we treat raw sewerage dumped on our beaches.
Free market capitalism is a great idea, but it leads to products that can be wasteful because the added cost of some minor power savings device makes the product’s initial price higher than a more efficient device. We need people to start thinking longer term, and including the lifetime power wasteage in their purchasing decisions. One watt of continuous base load over a one year period is 8,760 watt-hours, or about $1.30 where I live. Energy consumption labels should be on more products. A $50 do-dad with a $100 power consumption label might suddenly seem less inexpensive than a $100 do-dad with a $20 power consumption label.
24 May 2007 at 7:46 AM
Re: 68 Riley D
Good food for thought there. It’s amazing how fast progress can be if enough willpower and $$ are pumped into it. Just take the innovations during WW2. Unthinkable feats of engineering and innovation and invention were accomplished in extremely little time.
b.t.w the worlds purest and best source of silicon is found in Tasmania, an island on the south eastern end of australia.
24 May 2007 at 9:59 AM
Re: #45, “Are there any links to sites with a differnt viewpoint?”
To what end? While it definitely is important to “know thine enemy” (and climate change deniers very much ARE the enemy), the links to sites debunking their arguments point-by-point fulfill that function, without giving them credence that they simply do not deserve.
24 May 2007 at 10:47 AM
But we digress.
(’sliver cell’ search in Google Scholar — they’ve been around quite a while, not news)
I hope Contribs will — for the “Start Here” post — prune the Comments completely and often, keeping only what gets promoted to the top article. Else, well, we do go on and on and off track.
24 May 2007 at 11:27 AM
Re #67: [If they were they would fast track the production of sliver cell tech and put pressure on origin energy to replace it’s existing technology with sliver cell.]
Then what of the research into other photovoltaic technologies, as for instance organics? (Which IIRC are less efficient per unit area, but have the potential to be manufactured really cheaply?) It’s the old command economy problem again: government fiat locks all the research & development funding onto one track, and what happens? Either you miss out on a better alternative, or the better alternative gets developed anyway, and your R&D dollars have gone for nothing.
24 May 2007 at 11:28 AM
DeSmogBlog, on your “Other Opinions” list, focuses on the public relations techniques and tactics used by the contrarians. It discusses current news reports and keeps an eye on well-known contrarians and contrarian astro-turf groups such as Friends of Science (FoS) and Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).
24 May 2007 at 11:51 AM
Regarding the discussion of “sliver cell” PV, WorldWatch Institute has a very encouraging update on the prospects for even more rapid growth of photovoltaic electrical generation capacity in the next few years, due to expanded polysilicon manufacturing capacity, China’s emergence as a major PV manufacturer/exporter, and the commercialization of new ultra-low cost thin film PV:
24 May 2007 at 11:55 AM
Re 66 (Tim Chase)
The problem with those dratted weeble wobbles is that they don’t fall down. Contrarians always fall back on their ’science’ even when their arguments are, as you correctly point out, entirely political. That’s why RC is so important: by undercutting their ’science’ it is possible to get them to finally admit their arguments are ideological. Then it’s a different ball game.
24 May 2007 at 1:11 PM
Thanks to the Realclimate team.
I’m in the UK and looked at the UK Met Office site.
The statement on the Myths page “While the arguments used might have been regarded as genuine areas of sceptical enquiry 20 years ago, further observed warming and advances in climate science render these out of touch.” from a senior British civil servant, who usually do things quietly and discretly, and usually in understatement is damning!
24 May 2007 at 3:24 PM
Almost all recommendations are to web-sites. I saw only one about books. so here is another book that I think does an excellant job. It is ” the Rough Guide to Climate Change” by Robert Henson, published by Rough Guides in September 2006 and distributed by the Penguin Group. I found it in a bookshop in Dublin, but I dont know how widely it might be found in the US
24 May 2007 at 3:36 PM
Re 70 and books.
I’ll add Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Field Notes from a Catastrophe” which, although it works more as a survey of the state of Global Warming in 2005-2006 and the reaction to it, remains a solid survey that covers some of the more hot-button talking points.
For someone wanting to get a general sense of the state of the climate science and what it is telling us, it works very well.
24 May 2007 at 5:49 PM
re: #70 Book
Regardless of the extent to which the various hypotheses in Ruddiman’s “Plows, Plagues & Petroleum” get confirmed/disconfirmed, it’s one of my favorites for giving to people who are new to this because:
- it has reasonable discussions of basics.
- the writing is good, accessible to people with nontechnical backgrounds, and well-illustrates real scientific processes of building hypotheses, responding to critiques, and the general difficulties of extracting signals from complex, noisy time-varying data.
- it offers a possible hypothesis (the Plague part) capable of explaining at least part of the CO2/temperature jiggles that have often been used as anti-AGW arguments. I prefer “Here’s a plausible mechanism that might help explain this” to “Temperatures jiggle all the time, and we can’t know why, so don’t worry.”
- it is calmly written.
I’ve given copies to a bunch of people, including high-schoolers, and it’s generally been well-liked.
24 May 2007 at 9:03 PM
Curt Schroeder #64 and Timothy Chase #66
In theory including a brief discussion of contrarian claims to disprove them in each article in the scientific literature sounds like a good idea. In practice it would be playing into the contrarians hands.
I could easily see contrarians cherry picking quotes from the scientific papers to boast how much attention their claims were getting by scientists and saying that all this attention must mean their claims are valid.
Adding these extra sections to papers would also divert time and resources from furthering climate science which is something contrarians want to do.
Countering contrarians is something that should be done, but in the public sphere, like popular media and scientific outreach programs like RealClimate.
24 May 2007 at 10:42 PM
I should know this as an old EE and electronics buff, but it just never occurred to me (SLAP! SLAP!) How do the PV systems convert their DC output to AC? Some massive switching regulator of sorts (which strikes me as major power consuming)? Or is the AC transmission rectified to DC for distribution and use in the house (which would yield some really interesting benefits but cause major compatibility problems…)? How does that interface/connection work, anyway?? A short simple response will do nicely. Thanks.
Sorry this is slightly off point, but there’s been a fair amount of interesting PV stuff on this thread.
25 May 2007 at 1:03 AM
All you guys responses to the sliver cell PV can of worms I opened has been very illuminating..pardon the pun! Still once the cost of manufacture is down to comparable levels and reliable sources of polysilicon are found is is set to revolutionise how countries generate power. I was wondering if the reflective nature of huge numbers of solar arrays could benefit the greenhouse effect by directing more sunlight back out into space. With the ice sheets around the north pole shrinking by 14-16%/10 years maybe the mainstream use of solar cells could reflect back enough sunrays to buy us more time to concentrate on cutting emissions. Just a thought..what do you guys think???
25 May 2007 at 1:19 AM
Re: John Wegner 58
Had to smile about what you mentioned about relocating many cities such as new york. I totally agree with you as that is the logical thing to do…but….you know and i know that wont happen….city councils and governors will just keep building higher and higher walls to keep the water out. My wife’s family live in the philippines and I am trying to get them to australia in the next few years before the rush starts and immig policies are tightened even further. The Phils will be very hard hit once the greenland ice cover starts breaking up big time.
25 May 2007 at 2:21 AM
Anyone care to comment on this contrarian approach?
25 May 2007 at 6:35 AM
In Re #84:
The entire process is fairly convoluted, since PV output voltage isn’t constant. Converting DC to AC is fairly simple — think about RLC circuits, radios, music players, etc. The only difference is that for a PV system inverter, the frequency is fixed at 50 or 60 Hz and the power is much greater.
If you’re curious about some products on the market, this URL will take you to some of the power components used in PV systems (I have no financial connection with that manufacturer).
25 May 2007 at 7:09 AM
#84 Rod B.
Basically, they use an inverter (basically a rectifying scheme) to get AC and if necessary synch it with the grid. You can find some info here:
http://www.pvresources.com/en/inverter.php
25 May 2007 at 8:54 AM
While I buy into the climate change theory, I must be missing something with how optimistic the worst case scenarios are.
If you create a spreadsheet with a 3ppm increase per year as a base and increase this at some rate per year between 1-10% (not unrealistic given growth rates over the last 5 years) and also assume that we see a 3C increase in temperature per doubling of concentration per ppm then it looks to me like the increase ought to be between 3C by 2080 some (at a 3ppm per year + 1% increase in this rate per year) or something venus-like by the end of the century at a (3ppm + 10% increase per year).
Can someone point me out to where my math is wrong?
25 May 2007 at 9:09 AM
Lance Drager (#87) wrote:
Did you forget anything?
Or is this a Zen contrarian approach?
Come to think of it, Zen would be for not doing nothing, which for each individual would effortless because it would be doing without doing, since the individual empties himself so that the doing would be what acts through the the individual, when the individual does not act, and thereby true excellence is achieved.
Incidently, Zen originated in Japan, and it appears that Japan is offering to let the world act through it:
Excellent, but Japan appears to be ambitious in its schedule.
25 May 2007 at 9:18 AM
I have nominated RealClimate for a Thinking Blogger award. I consider your site to be among the best for putting out high quality content on this topic. You can read about the nomination here which also includes a link to the originator of the award.
http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2007/05/25/thinking-blogger-award/
25 May 2007 at 9:55 AM
Rod B wrote in #84:
PV systems use an inverter to convert the DC output from the PV panels to AC.
The California-based company Real Goods has an online catalog of alternative energy (PV, wind, etc) equipment — take a look at their catalog page for inverters to learn more.
Rooftop PV systems with utility intertie (for net metering) are a mainstream technology now. I understand that even Home Depot sells and installs them.
25 May 2007 at 9:57 AM
RE # 69 Barton, that was a very useful comment and the sort of thing one comes to expect and respect at RC.
25 May 2007 at 10:23 AM
Re: 84 Um..I’ll try to make the reply as concise as possible. It uses very little power to convert from DC to AC. A semiconductor crystal that ocillates at a very high freq in MHz is divided again and again by logic circuits until it is roughly the same as your country’s mains freq. In Australia it’s 50Hz. So no bulky transformer at all. Then passed through capacitors to smooth the waveform out and Bob’s your Uncle.
25 May 2007 at 10:37 AM
Re:88 Sean O
I just found the site recently and actually found it was populated by a diminishing demographic of society…intelligent and thinking people. Somebody should write a book including all the great insights and ideas found here. Real Climate is for people who give a shit and want to use what they learn here to help there household..town..state clean up their act. FANTASTIC SITE INDEED!!!
25 May 2007 at 10:38 AM
Re:88 Sean O
I just found the site recently and actually found it was populated by a diminishing demographic of society…intelligent and thinking people. Somebody should write a book including all the great insights and ideas found here. Real Climate is for people who give a shit and want to use what they learn here to help there household..town..state clean up their act. FANTASTIC SITE INDEED!!!
25 May 2007 at 10:52 AM
Re #85: [I was wondering if the reflective nature of huge numbers of solar arrays could benefit the greenhouse effect by directing more sunlight back out into space.]
You might want to think about that one a bit
There’s only so much energy in sunlight (about 700 W/m^2 in temperate latitudes, IIRC). If you want to convert that energy to power you can use, you can’t be reflecting it back out. The fact that current cells are a bit reflective simply reflects (my apologies) the fact that they aren’t very efficient: a perfect solar cell would be completely black.
Seriously, comments like this and the one in #20 about how […the bonnet and hood of your car can be made of sliver cells and that will supply more than enough power to it’s electric motor for even the most blaze speed freak…] make me more than a bit skeptical about renewable energy claims. So you buy a bunch of these hypothetical 100% efficient solar cells, and cover the surface of your car with them - what’s that give you? In full sun, maybe 5 horsepower?
25 May 2007 at 12:13 PM
Regarding solar research and development, a lot of the basic science has already been done, and what is needed is more engineering and applied material science work. This also applies to novel energy storage systems for intermittent sources like solar and wind - hydrogen conversion, for example.
Funding is critical for this - you could have one scientist trying to characterize a few hundred materials for optimal solar production, or you could have a hundred scientists doing this - in which case it would proceed much faster.
Look at the billions that Japanese auto companies poured into internal combustion engine development, and the resulting gains in efficiency. A similar strategy is needed for solar development. In such an effort, the basic research should be carried out at public universities so that basic patents are not restricted, but the engineering optimization is really a job for private industry - and both approaches need funding.
A very good discussion of how to do this is available: Change the Rules, Change the Future: New energy rules could unleash an economic boom and help quash climate change
By Timothy E. Wirth, Vinod Khosla and John D. Podesta
22 May 2007
A hefty carbon tax for all fossil fuels would lead to rapid changes in energy production, as the above article shows.
25 May 2007 at 12:46 PM
Response to Tony (#7)
I can provide a quick refutation of one of McIntyre’s main arguments against Mann. McIntyre claimed that he could generate “hockey-stick-shaped” leading PC’s from random noise using Mann’s data-centering convention. McIntyre used that argument to claim that Mann’s “hockey-stick” was not much more than an artifact fished out of random noise.
It is true that one can generate “hockey-stick-shaped” leading PC’s from band-limited random noise (red noise) if Mann’s data-centering convention is used. However, there is a show-stopping flaw in McIntyre’s argument. McIntyre didn’t bother to look at the singular-value magnitudes associated with the leading PC’s. Had he done so, he would have seen that there was no equivalence between Mann’s “hockey-stick” (with a big singular-value magnitude) and McIntyer’s “noise hockey-sticks” (with *small* singular-value magnitudes).
When you use the SVD to compute principal components (PC’s), the first thing you should do is look at the singular values before you proceed any further with the analysis. A PC with a small associated singular value is in no way equivalent to a PC with a large singular value (even if the PC’s have the same “shape”).
McIntyre’s failure to consider the singular value magnitudes in his attack on Mann was an astonishing oversight. (Well, maybe not so astonishing for a global-warming denier).
25 May 2007 at 2:09 PM
> Thinking Blogger Award Comment by Sean O � 25 May 2007 @ 9:18 am
Suggest the Contribs Google strings from that; it looks like it’s yet another “Search Engine Optimization”thing.
The link shows up on some clueless “climate” sites and appears to be a Ponzi/pyramid linking idea.
Technorati pans the whole idea of this kind of thing: http://technorati.com/weblog/2007/02/283.html
25 May 2007 at 3:58 PM
The link to the IPCC AR4 FAQ is broken (part of the filename is missing). The correct link is:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf
No need to post this as a comment; correcting the original post would be fine.
25 May 2007 at 5:11 PM
re 86:
“My wife’s family live in the philippines and I am trying to get them to australia in the next few years before the rush starts and immig policies are tightened even further.”
Jared Diamond, in the book “Collapse”, has suggested that Australia’s long-term population carrying capacity is half of the continent’s real ability to support its current population. And this doesn’t even take into consideration the ongoing drought that has the government giving serious consideration to halving the area of land they will allow agriculture production upon due to lack of water.
If Diamond’s is a fair assessemnt, then I’m not sure increasing population is an option.
25 May 2007 at 6:06 PM
More re: 84: Lawrence Coleman is right. But there’s some loss, so some off-the-grid renewable energy users maximize their efficiency by running DC lights and appliances. Googling “dc light bulbs” will bring up several relevant sites.
25 May 2007 at 8:25 PM
Re #99: [Look at the billions that Japanese auto companies poured into internal combustion engine development, and the resulting gains in efficiency.]
Consider, though, that all that money produced only marginal gains. Fuel economy today is what, maybe twice that of the Model T? (For comparable size cars: I believe today’s average fleet economy is less.) Certainly not an order of magnitude better. What’s more, they’re asymptotic. You’re up against basic thermodynamics: an internal combustion (indeed, any heat engine) can only be just so efficient.
I suppose I’m a skeptic (in the general sense, not the AGW one). I keep thinking worst-case: suppose the world puts all its energy eggs into the solar cell basket, then in 20 years or so discovers that there really isn’t a pony in that pile of horse manure? Suppose solar, especially silicon-based solar, is fairly close to being as efficient as it can be; that there aren’t any dramatic cost reductions to be had; that all feasible energy storage systems do add large costs, and have significant losses. What then?
25 May 2007 at 10:24 PM
Further to my recent query. This contrarian thinks that the
language in the IPCC report:
“Found on: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf
Quote located: Page 4, third paragraph, fifth sentence.
Quote: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”
indicates that the science will be changed to match political opinions.
He also doesn’t think anyone has measure the IR absorbtion
of CO2.
“the entire purpose of the article, the final argument made specifically, was that there has been no effort whatsoever to determine in a controlled laboratory environment the temperature impact of carbon dioxide as a variable in a gaseous mixture. And that’s a fact.”
I’m beyond my expertise here and would appreciate comments.
25 May 2007 at 10:52 PM
Here’s a simple video clip explanation of exponential growth as a contributing factor to our global warming dilemma: Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast?.
26 May 2007 at 12:49 AM
Re:98 James, what I was saying is it might not quite yet be feasible for those scales of efficiency to be delivered en-masse. But with intensive research to iron out all the bugs it can be a very viable source….electric motors are also very inefficient as well, a lot of incremental work can be made to make the windings less lossy, reduce friction which in turn reduces heat..etc..etc. Don’t forget that most motors or anything in particular have artificial obsolescence built in..bearings are designed to wear out..etc. I’m still regularly using a AEG (German) spin dryer which our family has had when I was born 41 years ago..still hasn’t missed a beat..you see before the capitalist doctrine had brainwashed us all. So even as you say a car generates 5Hp given a motor built to high quality and ultra low loss standards..who knows..the car mightn’t be such a slug after all. We were quite happy riding on the backs of 1 horsepower for thousands of years..haha!
26 May 2007 at 1:43 AM
Lance Drager (#105) wrote:
It reminds me of a “General Acceptance” build in software development.
Programmers always want to slip something in at the last minute. Some little improvement, something they forgot, or have suddenly decided absolutely has to be put in. But putting something in at the end simply slows down the release of the software and makes it more likely that it will contain grave errors - because these will be rushed changes.
No doubt the same thing is true here: you have a very large organization with some pretty intense personalities (perfectionism, egos, etc), and everyone is going to want to change something at the last minute - which will only result in others wanting to change something more. Everyone in their own area of expertise wants things to be perfect. This is, afterall, going into the history books - for as long as there will be history books, whatever the outcome.
Typos? consistency? Not that much of a problem. The most recent, cutting-edge results? There will always be the most recent, cutting-edge results - which will probably be scrutinized by peers for the next several months or years - prior to tossing someone an award or smacking them with a tomato.
At some point, somebody has to say, “No more! Now be sure to get it into the next release.”
Just about the only thing you can do - particularly with something this big.
We’ve got the spectra - on that and other gases. As for measuring the effects of a miles high column of CO2 on IR absorbtion and the effects on temperature, probably not directly - under laboratory conditions…. Most labs are a little too small for that sort of thing.
On that point you can tell him that he is probably right - but be sure to let him know why afterwards.
26 May 2007 at 3:34 AM
Re: Timothy Chase, It seems to me that only the variables that are understood have been including in those climate models. Items such as the release of tundric methane and the consequences that will bring. Also the structual make up of the ice sheets over Greenland, Antartica and the Artic are beginning to be more understood and are more like swiss cheese than anyone previously realised. I dont think you can say well if 14-16% of the artic ice cover is disappearing every 10 years then…um..it will be such and such year based in a linear interpolation. I feel the ice structure is far more fragmented and complex than they realise and i wouldn’t be surprised if very soon ice hundreds of thousands of years old from within the mass will soon be breaking up. the speeding up of glaciers seems to indicate that fact. Hope I’m wrong. The IPCC is just using the hard data it understands with 100% certainty. There is a heck of a lot that it does not understand fully.
In a way I hope the great ocean conveyor does stop and the temerate latitudes do get plunged again into a snap ice-age..at least with all the extra ice reflecting the sunrays back into space it should theoretically cool us down again. What do you think?
26 May 2007 at 6:09 AM
[[If you create a spreadsheet with a 3ppm increase per year as a base and increase this at some rate per year between 1-10% (not unrealistic given growth rates over the last 5 years) and also assume that we see a 3C increase in temperature per doubling of concentration per ppm then it looks to me like the increase ought to be between 3C by 2080 some (at a 3ppm per year + 1% increase in this rate per year) or something venus-like by the end of the century at a (3ppm + 10% increase per year).
Can someone point me out to where my math is wrong? ]]
The 3 K for doubling of CO2 refers to doubling the entire amount in the atmosphere, say from the preindustrial 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv. The amount of heating per single ppmv increase is very small.
26 May 2007 at 6:11 AM
Re #94
Thanks, John.
26 May 2007 at 6:16 AM
[[I suppose I’m a skeptic (in the general sense, not the AGW one). I keep thinking worst-case: suppose the world puts all its energy eggs into the solar cell basket, then in 20 years or so discovers that there really isn’t a pony in that pile of horse manure?]]
Suppose we invest in aviation, then find that heavier-than-air flight is impossible?
We already know solar cells work. At worst, if we switched to all solar cells (not that anyone in his right mind is advocating that), energy would be more expensive and we’d have to depend on cars driven by hydrogen fuel cells or some such.
26 May 2007 at 6:18 AM
[[He also doesn’t think anyone has measure the IR absorbtion
of CO2.
“the entire purpose of the article, the final argument made specifically, was that there has been no effort whatsoever to determine in a controlled laboratory environment the temperature impact of carbon dioxide as a variable in a gaseous mixture. And that’s a fact.”
I’m beyond my expertise here and would appreciate comments. ]]
I believe John Tyndall first measured the infrared-absorbing qualities of carbon dioxide in 1859. Since then we’ve advanced to the USAF HITRAN and HITEMP databases. The person doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Greenhouse gases must have been directly measured in tens of thousands of laboratory experiments by now.
26 May 2007 at 10:27 AM
Re #108: […it might not quite yet be feasible for those scales of efficiency to be delivered en-masse. But with intensive research to iron out all the bugs it can be a very viable source…]
Well, there’s the problem. You’re assuming that the limitations are “bugs” that can be fixed; I think they’re more likely to be reflections of basic physics & economics. You seem to be expecting order of magnitude jumps in price/performance; I think improvements will be incremental, and asymptotic.
[…electric motors are also very inefficient as well…]
Not so. IIRC typical efficiencies are well over 90%.
[So even as you say a car generates 5Hp given a motor built to high quality and ultra low loss standards..who knows..the car mightn’t be such a slug after all.]
(Sigh) I drive a Honda Insight. Honda pretty much pulled out all the stops in trying to make an efficient car - aluminium body, special low rolling resistance tires, aerodynamic shape giving it the lowest CD of any production car, etc. It still takes roughly 17 HP to go 65 mph on level ground (with no headwind). So to get the same performance from your 5 HP (which you are only going to get in bright sunlight, remember), you have to make your hypothetical solar car at least 3 times as efficient.
26 May 2007 at 10:39 AM
Re #113 [Suppose we invest in aviation, then find that heavier-than-air flight is impossible?]
Suppose we find that heavier-than-air flight is possible, then immediately predict a future full of supersonic transports and skies full of commuters using personal helicopters to get to work?
[We already know solar cells work.]
Sure, within their limitations. What I’m arguing against is the view that solar cells are some sort of magic wand, so that all we need to do is iron out a few bugs in the spell to have them produce endless supplies of free power.
[At worst, if we switched to all solar cells (not that anyone in his right mind is advocating that)…]
Oh, ah? (Recalls numerous previous threads, but wisely decides to withhold further comment :-))
26 May 2007 at 10:40 AM
Re: 99 Ike Solem, I totally agree with you. And it is by these means that we will untimately save our planet. By Govs taking the initiative and not waiting for every conceivable option to miraculaously drop at their feet which our PM John Howard is fond of doing..it’s his excuse for not take any action…he just keeps repeating We’ll see what every other country in the world does in regards to a certain action and then make a careful and thorough study of it’s pro’s and con’s, then present the more economically less damaging condenders before umteen committees and that’s still only the beginning of the process. By the time he’s finalised a plan of action the only way in and out of Canberra (our seat of gov) will be by rowboat. Gov have to take quick and bold initiatives like the German and UK gov of setting hard limits for CO2 emissions and stick by them. Govs have to put billions of dollars into research and production facilities NOW. I dont believe for a minute we have reached optimal efficiency for petrol engined vehicles or solar technology. The orbital engine was just one of many examples where a different rethink of the combustion process yielded huge gains of weight and efficiency. What universities as you said need desperatly is the funding to hire more scientists and an open patent system. This is a global problem and ideas and innovations should be shared globally and not be held up by selfish protective policies.
26 May 2007 at 10:52 AM
Re 98:
Don’t knock 5 horsepower. Check out these guys before concluding this is all a pipe dream.
What matters with something like, say, solar powered transportation, isn’t the full-sun power, as if that’s all you’ve got to work with, so there. It’s how much power you need when, where and for how long. Travelling at a constant speed, on level terrain, takes a remarkably small amount of power. It’s the speeding up really, really fast that demands power in large amounts. Slowing down, by the way, can generate power back into the system through regenerative braking, which is already in use on many hybrid vehicles.
Fortunately, it requires it for short periods of time. Zero to 60 MPH in 10 seconds (not quite a race car, but still pretty nice) is only 10 seconds worth of high power consumption. You need 50 horsepower to do that (electric motor horsepower is more efficient than gasoline motor horsepower)? Okay, 50 HP is 745 watts / horsepower * 50 horsepower = 37.2 kilowatts. 10 seconds @ 37.2 kilowatts = 103 watt-hours. 103 watt-hours @ 12 volts = 8.6 amp-hours. That’s, like, a motorcycle battery’s worth of energy. For a 1,500 watt array, like the UT SVT vehicle’s array, that’s about 4 minutes (no, really 1500 watts * 4 minutes = 100 watt-hours).
This is where a lot of criticisms of solar (and wind) go wrong. The peak isn’t what determines the system, it’s the total. You want A/C? You don’t start with the inrush current, you start with the daily consumption. How many hours a day? How efficient is the unit? Then you size things like the inverters for the inrush current.
Here’s a worked example: My A/C unit — about 3 tons for my house — has an inrush current in the range of 60 to 80 amperes at 240 volts, or 14.4 to 19.2 kilo-watts, and that lasts for about 3 seconds. That’s 16 watt-hours (19,200 watts * 3 seconds / 3600 seconds/hour = 16 watt-hours). 16 watt-hours on a 3KW residential PV system (15 200 watt panels taking up about 250 square feet of roof) is 20 seconds (19,200 watts * 3 seconds / 3000 watts = 19.2 seconds). That massively huge amount of power — nearly 20KW — is fully replaced after 20 seconds of array operation. Since it takes less than 3KW to operate the A/C, that PV array can operate it just fine during the daylight hours when needed most. Surplus power is stored for overnight in batteries, or net-metered to the grid during the day, and taken back at night.
Far from unfeasible, solar is very feasible. And you get to keep the A/C unit.
26 May 2007 at 1:07 PM
On the topic of access to climate information - from:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/05/no-comments.html#comments
The IPCC promises that
All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to reviewers on request during the review process and will be retained in an open archive in a location determined by the IPCC Secretariat on completion of the Report for a period of at least five years.
Does the following sound like the response of an organization that wants to share information?
“Please note that I have the material only in print form. If it is impossible for you to visit the archives, I can provide a photocopy of up to 100 pages for research purposes only (not republication) for a fee of $34 plus 40 cents per page.”
26 May 2007 at 2:18 PM
This site is worth watching, though not for this “start here” list.
It’s interesting as a resource,and seems to be well tied to good science references.
http://firstpulseprojects.net/Strange-Weather-mt/
a resource hub about climate change for artists, writers and activists
It came up when I did a search: greenland glacial icequake timing location
The site had the relevant info I wanted, illustrated (source: Arctic Impacts of Arctic Warming, Cambridge Press, 2004) — which would have been further down in the Google list somewhere else.
Notably, it also has an amazing collection of links to art, writing, gallery shows, and other current work that the public is seeing in many places. Fascinating.
26 May 2007 at 3:48 PM
Lawrence Coleman (#100) wrote:
I completely agree.
There are positive feedbacks which they obviously have not taken into account. So far we have been in what is essentially a linear regime, but things are changing. The ice quakes in Greenland demonstrate this, as does the reduced ability of the antarctic ocean to absorb carbon dioxide, or plants to do the same during periods of drought. Likewise, we know that the permafrost is melting in the near-polar regions, and we are seeing melts in the Antarctic interior which we weren’t expecting to see.
The methane hydrates are what worry me the most - except possibly the loss of albedo if, due to the affects of climate change upon the world economy, we see a downturn in economic activity leading to reduced aerosols. At this point we do not know the extent to which aerosols have masked the effects of carbon dioxide upon the climate. In was only a few weeks ago that we were able to detect the largely invisible parts of clouds that extend for kilometers beyond their visible boundaries.
Without the aerosols, we will see less nucleation and the diffuse extensions of the clouds which result, leading to a reduction of global dimming. However, aerosols can mask the effects of carbon dioxide only for so long anyway. When someone suggested earlier that we might want to increase the level of aerosols, Gavin pointed out that among other things, we would need to keep pumping in greater and greater levels of aerosols to counteract the effects of carbon dioxide as they are washed out by the rain shortly after they are released.
Currently what i