Wednesday, September 02, 2015

If the Foo Shits

Stefan Rahmstorf has been having fun analyzing Bjorn Lomborg's scientific publication record.  Stefan has not been impressed, 20 publications, 54 total citations and an h index of 3 using the Thompson Reuters Web of Science.  Eli gets about the same with Elsevier's Scopus data base.  Both WoS and Scopus only look at articles published in peer reviewed journals, so popular pot boilers like Lomborg's Sceptical Environmentalist are not tracked.


For giggles Eli went and looked up Chris Monckton's record.  Chris has been bragging on how he is " the author of numerous peer-reviewed papers on climate change" in the Augusta Free Press.  That Chris writes a lot on climate change and other things like miracle cures for everything is not under question.  How much of it appears in the peer reviewed scientific literature is another.  The answer is not a drop, or maybe one.  Here is the Scopus report.
Legates, D.R., Soon, W., Briggs, W.M., Monckton of Brenchley, C. Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (2013) Science and Education, pp. 1-20. Article in Press. Cited 1 time. DOCUMENT TYPE: Article in Press SOURCE: Scopus  
Monckton Brenchley, C. Global Brightening and Climate Sensitivity (2011) Evidence-Based Climate Science, pp. 317-333.  DOCUMENT TYPE: Book Chapter SOURCE: Scopus  
Monckton, C.W. Free speech about climate change (2007) Society, 44 (4), pp. 14-17.  DOCUMENT TYPE: Note SOURCE: Scopus  
Sawyer, N.E., Monckton, C.W. 'Shoe-fit' a computerised shoe print database (1995) IEE Conference Publication, (408), pp. 86-89.  
One cite Chris.  Oh Foo

Friday, August 28, 2015

Dear Bishop Hill: read your links. Also, take a look at this graph.

Bishop Hill thinks they've caught Nicholas Stern in a contradiction, saying one thing in 2009 and another in 2015. So let's take a look, using BH's own links.

Stern 2009:

Lord Stern said that although robust expansion could be achieved until 2030 while avoiding dangerous levels of greenhouse gas emissions, rich nations may then have to consider reining in growth...."At some point we would have to think about whether we want future growth. We don't have to do that now."

(Emphasis added.) That would be the second sentence of the article BH linked to.

And Stern 2015:
...Professor Stern, the chair of the Grantham research institute on climate change and the environment, said that it was a false dichotomy to posit growth against climate action. “To portray them as in conflict is to misunderstand economic development and the opportunities that we now have to move to the low-carbon economy,” he said. “To pretend otherwise is diversionary and indeed creates an ‘artificial horse race’ which can cause real damage to the prospects for agreement.” Green parties in Europe have often argued that decarbonisation requires an end to the model of economic growth “at all costs”. But Stern said that there was now “much greater understanding of how economic growth and climate responsibility can come together and, indeed, how their complementarity can help drive both forward”.

(Emphasis added.) In both cases Stern appears to be focusing on the short to medium term, and in both cases saying there's not a conflict between economic growth and addressing climate change.

In BH's telling, Stern said in 2009 they had to stop growing (BH gave no time frame so one would assume it was immediate) but that Stern in 2015 is saying grow away. Alarmist hypocrisy!!!

As for whether there's a difference over what to do in 2030, who knows - Stern wasn't being asked recently about policies 15 years from now, but I don't see a necessary difference in his statements. Even if there was a difference, BH somehow finds it unforgivable that someone could change their mind on a peripheral issue (what policies should be in place in 2030, as opposed to policies today).

Finally, BH might want to take a look at a graph at renewable power prices. Any graph really, but here's one:



This is new information available to Stern in 2015 and not in 2009, and I could see it having an effect on someone thinking about long-term compatibility of growth with limiting carbon emissions. I remember the debate 5 years ago over whether the long-term decline in solar costs would continue. Now we have the result.

Inability of denialists to adjust opinions to new facts is matched only by their inability to accept long-established ones.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Mother Nature is Not Sitting Idle

She doesn’t do politics — only physics, biology and chemistry. And if they add up the wrong way, she will take them all down.
Here’s my bet about the future of Sunni, Shiite, Arab, Turkish, Kurdish and Israeli relations: If they don’t end their long-running conflicts, Mother Nature is going to destroy them all long before they destroy one another.
Tom Friedman (and Eli usually has not much use for Tom Friedman, the definition of conventional wisdom being what Friedman hallucinates in cabs), has noticed that physics, biology and chemistry have the last word and the ecological soup of sciences has been quite poisonous lately in the Middle East, thanks to the global cooks.

Friedman has been reading the news, and notes that this summer has brought unprecidentedly high temperatures and humidity, approaching the 37 C heat stroke barrier, above which all die, and that coupled with bad generation and distribution of electricity has made air-conditioning a rumor in Iran, Iraq and other places.  The heat killed more people in Pakistan this year than terror attacks

Ministers have been fired, riots in the street have happened. and it is the water supply too
see Syria: Its revolution was preceded by the worst four-year drought in the country’s modern history, driving nearly a million farmers and herders off the land, into the cities where the government of Bashar al-Assad completely failed to help them, fueling the revolution.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Brother Tap


Coal collapse and the first burst carbon bubble

The last few months have seen major bankruptcies among American coal companies and the near-elimination of the market value for the rest over the last 5 years (another Hockey Stick, except mirror-imaged and with the stick part also tilted down). What hasn't changed much is the amount of coal reserves these companies have. To the extent that these companies had been valued based on the reserves they own, usually the major component of their value, then the climate divestment argument that fossil fuel stocks are overvalued by a carbon bubble gets a lot of support. The market appears to be saying that a lot of that coal these companies own is now worthless and will stay in the ground.


I shouldn't overplay that argument as it applies to climate divestment. A number of these companies took on a lot of debt several years ago buying other coal companies and their reserves in a bet that there would be a major expansion in coal usage - a bad bet. The low-to-negative valuation reflects that debt in part, not a market assessment that all of their reserves are staying in the ground. OTOH, even before these purchases the coal companies had a much higher valuation, so if you assume that the recent coal acquisition is balanced out by recent debt, you still have to explain why the all the coal owned by the companies from prior years is valued so low.

Some parts of the bankrupt companies are still profitable under current law that allows them to impose pollution costs upon neighbors and the entire planet, so some of their reserves will get used. We might have a better idea based on the valuation when they emerge from bankruptcy and can see then whether the carbon bubble in coal bounces back.

This is a pretty useful example for climate divestment. Six years ago no one could have predicted it. While natural gas had started its expansion, everyone expected unabated demand in China and India. Now it's much more up in the air, and meanwhile the bankruptcy papers are shaking out some interesting connections between climate denialists and previously undisclosed coal funders.

During the years that natural gas got primary credit for driving out coal, the renewable industry grabbed nearly half as much away from coal (see page 3, and good reference on coal's problems in general). That trend can accelerate.

One other question is whether climate divestment played a role in coal's trouble. You hear zero credit given to the movement, which I think is slightly unfair. When I'm watching a random business cable channel and see a discussion of the carbon bubble, I think divestment helped highlight that. And while I'm no stock expert, I don't see a lot of opportunistic buying of the still-standing companies even though you can get them over 90% cheaper than they used to be - as divestment grows and increasingly focuses on coal, it can help create uncertainty that blocks funding for the companies.

What Climate Change Adaptation Looks Like



Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Rick Piltz's Legacy


Eli's friend Rick Piltz passed away last fall.  In keeping with his wishes that Climate Science Watch continue it's work, his heirs, both family and professional have worked with the Government Accountability Project to launch his successor site the   Climate Science and Policy Watch.  His wife, Karen Metchis put it plainly

 "Among Rick's last wishes was his hope that his fight for the integrity of science against the climate deniers would continue. He recognized the need to protect our children's future from those who would sacrifice it for short term gain by denying the coming calamities if climate change goes unaddressed. It is gratifying to me to see Rick’s work continue. He always believed that GAP’s mission helping others reveal the truth fills an essential role.”
Michael Termini who worked with Rick at CSW and GAP is the interim director
"Rick was crystal clear about his expanded vision and where the effort needed to go, given the high-ground he and his team had achieved over the years with Climate Science Watch. After months of preparation by a team of contributors, composed of experts and colleagues Rick had mentored and worked with, today's launch is the first step in realizing that vision. Following his precise guidance, it is my privilege to lead the charge Rick sounded."
CSPW sees the continuing Climate Science Watch as its outreach to the public, but its primary work as within the government to oppose the obscurantists and highlight the contradictions within the current administration's policies.

 Welcome back

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Open Thread - Meta Climate Division

Some things which caught Eli's Eye, but, it being summer, only a few comments from the meadow are likely.

- Andy Revkin don't take criticism lightly and is not above manipulating a few words to benefit his self image.  As the bunnies may remember, Andy blog posted an unsolicited review of the Hansen, et al we (or at least our grandkids) may die unless we do something paper, and both Eli, and Hansen, et al, had some comments on Andy's review.   

We were aware of those papers but included in our discussion only those mechanisms that could plausibly account for the relevant geological features. Our overall objective, improved insight about the threat of sea level rise and storminess posed by global warming, requires integrated analysis of information from paleoclimate and geologic studies, global modeling, and observations of modern climate change – together constituting a substantial undertaking. Thus we limited marginally pertinent material to avoid an unacceptably long paper. 
Which pretty much aligns with dsquared's comment on Twitter:  "devastating critique" is my word for when half-bright self-appointed science police get on the case of actual researchers.  Not that there aren't issues with this paper.  Hansen's POV is that Weitzman was right and what bunnies should be concerned about are the outliers, and here they are.  One may argue that he doesn't balance enough (on the other hand, that maybe Gentleman Jim is leaving this for others like Matty Hoerling).

Of course, Andy Revkin is defined by his control of NYTimes real estate, and he is not one to leave sleeping bunnies lie on the the beach when he can control the dialog.  In a rather meandering apologia he highlights his piece, buries the first submitted solicited review from David Archer, in the 10th paragraph or so, and highlights in the first a later, more critical review from Peter Thorne in the first paragraph.  Make, no mistake, both the Archer and Thorne reviews were professional and useful to both the handling editor, the authors and current and later readers of the paper.

Archer's bottom line is that there are warts, but "This is another Hansen masterwork of scholarly synthesis, modeling virtuosity, and insight, with profound implications".  Both Archer and Thorne have problems with the sprawling nature of the paper.  Archer concludes " Due to its important conclusions, primarily about the ice sheet melting climate feedback, I expect this paper will be widely read, but it will make its readers work for it".  Thorne, OTSH is really uncomfortable with the food fight that broke out and the length of the paper "The paper is of inordinate length closer to a thesis than a scientific paper in nature", and really really uncomfortable with the voice of the paper and the blog post like advocacy that he sees.

Both reviews, as well as the paper, deserve serious discussion.  On balance (there Eli goes again), Thorne has a strong argument that the paper may fit Climate of the Past better.

But the best part of Andy's review of the review, is his "re-outing" tamino and walking it back
One last thought. Perhaps Tamino can step out from behind the shield of anonymity (which too often fuels vitriol) and confirm if he is indeed Grant Foster (quoted on Climate Central).* Foster has published quite a bit on climate, including with Stefan Rahmstorf, a leader of that 2014 review of experts on sea-level rise that is a far cray from what the new paper is projecting. 
And we are both musicians, it seems. Although that perhaps doesn’t go well with the rigor “Tamino” requires in paper reviewers. 
Footnote, July 30, 11:30 p.m. | * I added a link to an Open Mind post in which the blogger known as Tamino acknowledges he is Grant Foster.
From this Eli concludes that Andy Revkin will defend his position in the nomenklatura to the last barrel of ink.

Open Thread - Science Division

Some things which caught Eli's Eye, but, it being summer, only a few comments from the meadow are likely.

- A really interesting paper in Climate of the Past Discussions, a collaboration between the PAGES2K (turbo proxy reconstructions) and PIMP3  PMIP3 (modeling of the past) groups "Continental-scale temperature variability in PMIP3 simulations and PAGES 2k regional temperature reconstructions over the past millennium" which will not bring smiles in certain quarters.  Warning, it is another Hansen, et al seventy pager.  To quote from the abstract:

Here, the recent set of temperature reconstructions at the continental scale generated by the PAGES 2k project and the collection of state-of-the-art model simulations driven by realistic external forcings following the PMIP3 protocol are jointly analysed. The first aim is to estimate the consistency between model results and reconstructions for each continental-scale region over time and frequency domains. Secondly, the links between regions are investigated to determine whether reconstructed global-scale covariability patterns are similar to those identified in model simulations. The third aim is to assess the role of external forcings in the observed temperature variations. From a large set of analyses, we conclude that models are in relatively good agreement with temperature reconstructions for Northern Hemisphere regions, particularly in the Arctic. This is likely due to the relatively large amplitude of the externally forced response across northern and high latitudes regions, which results in a clearly detectable signature in both reconstructions and simulations. Conversely, models disagree strongly with the reconstructions in the Southern Hemisphere.
It is not clear whether one should trust the models or the reconstructions, if for no other reason than there are fewer proxy's from the South.  Get busy.

- And indeed some have.  In a related development Sigi and about twenty others, settle the issue of when volcanic  eruptions took place in the past by aligning ice core proxy records.   "Timing and climate forcings of volcanic eruptions for the past 2,500 years"(no open source at the moment) provides a huge lever for the paleoclimate types to move their work forward on both the physical and historical levels.
Volcanic eruptions contribute to climate variability, but quantifying these contributions has been limited by inconsistencies in the timing of atmospheric volcanic aerosol loading determined from ice cores and subsequent cooling from climate proxies such as tree rings. Here we resolve these inconsistencies and show that large eruptions in the tropics and high latitudes were primary drivers of interannual-to-decadal temperature variability in the Northern Hemisphere during the past 2,500 years. Our results are based on new records of atmospheric aerosol loading developed from high-resolution, multi-parameter measurements from an array of Greenland and Antarctic ice cores as well as distinctive age markers to constrain chronologies. Overall, cooling was proportional to the magnitude of volcanic forcing and persisted for up to ten years after some of the largest eruptive episodes. Our revised timescale more firmly implicates volcanic eruptions as catalysts in the major sixth-century pandemics, famines, and socioeconomic disruptions in Eurasia and Mesoamerica while allowing multi-millennium quantification of climate response to volcanic forcing.
Variation in timing smears out and diminishes the effects of large eruptions and disappears that of smaller ones.  This new work, and aligning it with PAGES2K certainly requires a re-evaluation of Maas and Portman who in 1989 concluded that only the effects of the larges eruptions could be seen in the climate record records.



IEHO comparison of PAGES2K regional reconstructions using the Sigi et al chronology will allow major progress in identifying the sites of the smaller (and some of the larger) eruptions as well as refining estimates of global and regional volcanic forcings.  This, in turn will drive progress in paleoclimate modeling as well as estimation of immediate and equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Consider this an open thread.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Time Series Homeopathy


Recently Doug Keenan has again taken up the cudgels against the Met Office with backing from the usual suspects and indeed, the Met Office has taken a decision not to engage further.  While the Met Office thinks that some things Keenan says are interesting and very brave, with the greatest respect and they will hear what he says and bear it in mind, well, they choose not to devote further time to dealing with him.  A feature of these attacks are Keenan's claims that the best time series analysts tend to be in finance (see comment).  This, of course, is something that Richard Tol also firmly believes, giving rise to an hilarious disputation over at ATTP.

Eli has thought about this for a while and concluded that Keenan's claims about time series analysts in the financial industry are a clear reference to chartists, which happen to be the homeopaths of stock pricing.  There is no there there, only a few lucky winners when they roll up the sidewalks