Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Carbon dioxide levels rose at record pace for 2nd straight year


"significant divergences between models and observations - "

Could you be more specific.

Mar 22, 2017 at 3:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


I think the Eric Swanson piece and comments at WUWT provide some reasonable specificity :-) there's a few wild ones in there -but -

As I understand it the locations of sources and sinks, the timing of changes and the mixing of gas are all fairly novel compared to GISS NASA modeling. Considering the vast scale of the data set I believe it is safe to assume that some basic model parameters / plugged in assumptions require re-visiting.... It's the mundane iterative cycle of much science.

Things have been even quieter on the "second instrument" on board which targets photosynthesis - but I can understand that the interpretation of those results might take longer and be subject to the sort of inertia you alluded to earlier for a variety of very sensible reasons.

As an aside... subjectively there seems to be loads more algae growing on things at northern latitudes these days than I recall being the case 25+ years ago. Stuff in my garden that hasn't moved for a year or so is carpeted in the sort of green that I don't recall being the case years back.

Mar 22, 2017 at 3:29 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Supergroup, tomo

"All models are wrong, but some are useful."

Of course the models are wrong. They are a simplified version of the actual reality and should not expected to be a perfect match. That is what the satellite data is for, to provide ground truth and detail which is beyond the capacity of the models!

Forgive me for my dubious response, but I do not accept either Swanson or WUWT as a reliable source. Do you have a source which both of us might regard as reliable?

Fialing that, could you summarise the problem yourselves. I keep hearing complaints from sceptics about SIGNIFICANT differences between models and observation. When examined, the differences are within the published confidence limits. Is this another straw man of yours?

My garden in Northern Ireland is doing the same. Our "warm wet westerly winds in winter" are getting warmer and wetter.

Mar 22, 2017 at 6:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


I see little to criticise in the OCO-2 data as presented by Swanson. There are mebbe 100? professionals who are working on data that has been being recorded for 30 months without dropping comparison snapshots on us is a mystery - no?

He wrote code to extract the geo referenced XCO2 from the NASA repository and gives what looks like honest commentary on the processing steps.

When examined, the differences are within the published confidence limits.

Would those be the GISS NASA confidence limits? - I'm intrigued ... care to share? On the basis that Gavin's crew had staged some CYA stuff - I did go on a couple of fruitless hunts ca. 18 months back - maybe I was simply looking in the wrong places?

That said - the coarseness / sparse data for the model inputs would mandate absolutely huge confidence limits so I feel that that line of defence is quite redundant and it's quite possible to argue that we aren't comparing like with like .... I'd just comment that the GISS NASA models are proclaimed as accurate and truthful until one brings their feet a bit closer to the fire when all sorts of wriggling starts.

I'd assumed that the algae are opportunistically responding to increased nutrient in the air .... a white van grows a lawn in <3 months now

Mar 22, 2017 at 8:00 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Experts at NASA.

UK schoolboy corrects Nasa data error.

It turned out that Miles had noticed something no-one else had - including the Nasa experts.
Nasa said it was aware of the error, but believed it was only happening once or twice a year.
Miles had found it was actually happening multiple times a day.

"This underscores - I think - one of the values of the IRIS projects in all fields with big data. I'm sure there are interesting things the students can find that professionals don't have time to do."

Mar 22, 2017 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered Commenterhusq

Entropic Man - welcome back. I hope you're feeling better.

Mar 22, 2017 at 8:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

"Forgive me for my dubious response, but I do not accept either Swanson or WUWT as a reliable source. Do you have a source which both of us might regard as reliable?"

Mar 22, 2017 at 6:39 PM | Entropic man

As you, and 97% of Climate Scientists, cannot admit any problems with Mann, Gergis, Cook's 97% Consensus, etc, yet the likes of WUWT, Climate Audit etc find the problems that you Deny, don't you think that your concept of "reliable" is somewhat unreliable? Presumably 97% of Climate Scientists would deny your hypocrisy, which would confirm why they are not considered reliable either.

If Climate Science had used reliable scientific and statistical methods, and had it checked by reliable Peer Reviewers, it would not now be looking so uncertain about the future of funding.

Mar 23, 2017 at 1:47 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I do not accept (...) Swanson (sic) (...) as a reliable source. (...)
Mar 22, 2017 at 6:39 PM | Entropic man

Mr. Erik Swenson co-founded Skyfire Labs, Inc. in April 2006 and serves as its Chief Technology Officer and Chief Architect. Mr. Swenson is the Technology Visionary and Chief Architect at Skyfire. He has more than 15 years of experience in ASIC development and systems design. Prior to Skyfire, he served as the Director of ASIC design and an Original Member of the ASIC design team at Extreme Networks. Prior to Extreme, Mr. Swenson served as a Staff Engineer in the advanced development group at National Semiconductor. He serves as Director of Skyfire Labs, Inc. He is the holder of six U.S. patents. Mr. Swenson holds a B.S. degree in Physics from California State Polytechnic University in Pomona, Calif. and an M.S. in Computational Physics from San Jose State University in San Jose, Calif.

Mar 23, 2017 at 8:48 AM | Unregistered Commentersplitpin

Mark hodgson

Thank you, but I'm just lurking. This thread has been mostly sensible and enjoyable (apart from the usual suspects), but I was moved to comment by tomo's descent into conspiracy theory.

Mar 23, 2017 at 9:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


so, no GISS model confidence levels then? - c'mon .... tumbleweed.

Let me remind you that the OCO-2 spectrometer is calibrated (i.e. validated) against several ground stations and provides near global coverage and yet you seem to be choosing to believe a model - which is based on unsupported conjecture and extrapolation from a number of sparse points ? I wonder how many runs of the model they did before they got one result they "liked".

fool or troll ?

Mar 23, 2017 at 10:02 AM | Registered Commentertomo

This thread has been mostly sensible and enjoyable (apart from the usual suspects), but I was moved to comment by tomo's descent into conspiracy theory.

Mar 23, 2017 at 9:24 AM | Entropic man

Perhaps you can explain how conspiracy works in Climate Science, since you can find no fault in Mann, Gergis and Cook? If Climate Science is based on evidence and fact, then it will survive without Taxpayer Funding, just like gravity does.

Mar 23, 2017 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

......................... tumbleweed

Mar 23, 2017 at 11:43 AM | Registered Commentertomo

.................... tumbleweed

Mar 23, 2017 at 11:43 AM | tomo

There will be a rise in tumbleweed blowing through Climate Science offices in 2017, yet EM wants to blame conspiracies for the failure of Mann, Cook, Gergis and all the other Hockey Teamsters, to find evidence to support failed theories.

No one admits to knowing who met and agreed that CO2 was the only reason for Global Warming, having ruled out all other possibilities, which indicates Climate Science developed from a Conspiracy, and that all they have produced since, have been Dodgy Dossiers.

Mar 23, 2017 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I keep hearing complaints from sceptics about SIGNIFICANT differences between models and observation. When examined, the differences are within the published confidence limits.

You really shouldn't rely on SkS for your information, it's as unreliable as the IPCC.

"The effect [forcing] of man-made greenhouse gas emissions has fallen below IPCC projections, despite an increase in man-made CO2 emissions exceeding IPCC projections."

The growth rate of the greenhouse gas forcing has "remained below the peak values reached in the 1970s and early 1980s, has been relatively stable for about 20 years, and is falling below IPCC (2001) scenarios (figure 5)."

The airborne fraction of CO2 [the ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase to fossil fuel CO2 emissions] has decreased over the past 50 years [figure 3], especially after the year 2000.

The explanation for this conundrum is CO2 fertilization of the biosphere from "the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal."

"The surge of fossil fuel emissions, especially from coal burning, along with the increasing atmospheric CO2 level is 'fertilizing' the biosphere, and thus limiting the growth of atmospheric CO2."

"The rate of global warming seems to be less this decade than it has been during the prior quarter century"

Mar 23, 2017 at 5:41 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Mark Hodgson

Looks as though I'm not back.Note that tomo and golf Charlie respond to rational debate with rudeness rather than evidence. Adjust their credibility accordingly.

Mar 23, 2017 at 6:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Keep in touch EM and take care. I for one would welcome your take here on Irish matters as they arise. You might also try cliscep, they tend to be slightly more gentle, but I cannot guarantee it.

Mar 23, 2017 at 6:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

So, we aren't going to be treated to an explanation of GISS global CO2 model confidence levels and their relationship to observed CO2 then?

Mar 23, 2017 at 7:27 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Mar 23, 2017 at 7:27 PM | tomo

I think EM has just adopted the standard Hockey Teamster defence, complete Denial.

All they now have left, is Mann, Cook and Gergis. Planet Earth refuses to accept Climate Science as factual.

The RICO 20 even wrote to President Obama to prove how Climate Science has conspired to corrupt science and US Law.

If only Climate Scientists had ditched the Hockey Stick when they still had the chance to be honest, they would not have had to resort to perpetual conspiracy, complete Denial, and making false accusations.

Mar 23, 2017 at 11:50 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Just when dumb could not dumber

Everyone now knows it was not Climate Change that caused BREXIT, it was Climate SCIENCE, throwing away peoples livelihoods, for not reason at all.

Mar 24, 2017 at 2:40 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

GC: it is not just the Anglosphere who have the high priests of AGW; Herr Schellnhuber offers a seriously deranged view of where this charade should lead. Have a read, Entropic man, then try to convince us that this entire climate change scare is only about science.

Mar 24, 2017 at 11:58 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent



Been there and it's a weird place.

Mar 24, 2017 at 1:00 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Radical Rodent, I am wary of extremist fanatics being given a platform to preach from. Climate Science has been given Taxpayer Funding to build the tallest platform, and politicians have sacrificed human lives and dignity to appease their false Gods.

If 97% of Climate Scientists, including Entropic Mann, can't admit wrongdoing by any of their false Prophets such as Mann, Cook and Gergis, despite all the money they have taken, without anything credible to show for it, then their conspiracy does morph into fraud and corruption.

Research into Urban Heat Islands and micro-climates, could develop rapidly, centred on prison environments.

Mar 24, 2017 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Ravishing Rattie

The problem is that Herr Schellnhuber is probably correct, if one assumes that the alarmism is justified. One of my repeated problems with climate alarmism is that it simply enables a few people to make lots of money out of the rest of us, without achieving anything in real terms to satisfy the CO2-reduction agenda.

IF one assumes (and obviously I don't) that there is an urgent need to reduce man-made CO2 emissions to the levels these people talk about, then we probably do have to return to the stone age to achieve it. Most of the deluded masses think that a few wind turbines and solar panels should do it, and nobody will really have to change their lives very much at all.

Wrong. The real debate should simply be about whether the risks identified by climate alarmism are so great that we need to return to the stone age. If the answer is yes, then what we're doing now is no more than fiddling while Rome burns, and at the same time enabling the transfer of money from a lot of the poor to some of the rich. If the answer is yes, then a lot of people could be in in for a very big shock, because we need to do SO much more.

Needless to say, I think the answer is no, which is why I'm so ticked off with the whole thing. I also believe the politicians really think the answer is no, which is why they aren't pushing things hard enough to annoy the electorate sufficiently to vote against them.

Mar 24, 2017 at 7:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark Hodgson

I don't see anything that hints even at *any* skill in foretelling events from the Herr Professor - he has a hypothesis - and as far as I can see SFA of anything in evidence to support it - but really heavy on the doom and sustainability - and he purports to write scientific papers on sustainability...

"sustainability" is one of my all time trigger words (not in a good way)

Schellenhuber likes computer models - in fact he seems to do computer models of computer models. He also seems to set great store on hobnobbing with the elite and holding court for lesser beings....

I really do wonder if he's as haughty and peremptory as the web coverage of him seems to indicate?

His main achievement seems to be in barging his way to high academic status.

He's up there with Mann and has co-authored stuff with Gleick

Mar 24, 2017 at 9:19 PM | Registered Commentertomo

He's up there with Mann and has co-authored stuff with Gleick

Mar 24, 2017 at 9:19 PM | tomo

Many aspiring Climate Scientists regard them as role models, as they demonstrate that knowledge of genuine science is not actually required.

Mar 25, 2017 at 12:12 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie