[T]he really important question is to know how much warmer it will be and how fast this is likely to happen as this determines a realistic and sensible cause of action. In spite of all research and modelling experimentation we are actually less sure what will happen than what might appear from all reassuring reports that dominates the media. – Lennart Bengtsson
Die Klimazwiebel has published an essay on climate change entitled Lennart Bengtsson: Global Climate Change and its Relevance for Climate Policy. This is a very good essay, but the greatest significance of the essay is the reputation of its author – Lennart Bengtsson. From the Wikipedia:
He was Head of Research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then Director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He is now a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading.
In 2005 he was awarded the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research[1] together with Prof. Ola M. Johannessen and Dr. Leonid Bobylev from the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre in Norway and Russia for the Climate and Environmental Change in the Arctic project. In 2006 he was awarded the 51st IMO prize of the World Meteorological Organization for pioneering research in numerical weather prediction.
Excerpts from the article published at Die Klimazwiebel:
Over the last two decades climate change has evolved into a key worldwide issue with major involvement of media,the political community at different levels and the public at large not the least on Internet. The views vary widely but the dominant opinion is that climate change is genuine and a potential challenge to the world community at least in the longer perspective. This is also an opinion shared by a majority of leading scientists in the field. At the same time there is an increasing tendency towards a polarization in the opinion on climate change with on one hand a preference for dramatic and extreme consequences such as so called tipping points and on the other hand a tendency to even question basic aspects of the physics of climate change.
However, because of the strong public interest we are now facing a dilemma as the public and the political community have become too much involved in the climate change debate influencing the actual science and this not necessarily in a positive way as it implies an arbitrary selection of priorities and preferential issues.
Natural processes drive climate and practically all kinds of extreme weather have always been part of the climate and are practically unrelated to the modest warming we so far have had. The effect of increasing greenhouse gases is a slow but relentless process that will have to be dealt with but will require more time and better insight in key processes.Some events are seen as very dramatic as the reduced Arctic summer ice, others, even more puzzling, such as the surprising lack of warming in the tropical troposphere is hardly discussed.
The global temperature has not increased steadily but in irregular intervals. Typical features are a distinct warming trend 1910-1940, a slight cooling trend 1945-1970 followed by the sharp warming trend until the end of the 20th century and finally the last 15 years without any clear warming trend. The lack of any significant warming in the tropical troposphere since the beginning of space observations in 1979 is particularly intriguing in particular as present models show a warming trend over the same time of 0.3-0.4°C in the average, figure 2. Such results, scientifically very puzzling as they are, have hardly received any media attention but instead the public has been overwhelmed in recent years by excessive reports of a rapid and threatening global warming very soon running out of control, unless the most drastic steps are taken to stop it. If there are no obvious global signals available, suitable arguments are created from an endless number of extreme weather events. The fact that similar extreme weather has been found to be a property of the present or undisturbed climate is not recognized. The global warming has been taken out of the hands of the meteorologists and traditional climatologists and is now run by professional media experts and different well-recognized members (political or otherwise) of the general public that have found the present climate hype to be a suitable way to remain or be obtain a place in the media limelight.
In the very emotional climate debate today is it hardly possible to have a sensible and balanced exchange of views. If you do not support climate catastrophes as the one recently from the World bank, you are placed into a deniers box and accused to support the interest of the oil industry or alternatively that you are a man in a senior age and therefore unable to understand the concerns of the younger generations. Some of our colleagues are exposed to a powerful group pressure or that of a politically correct boss. The real genuine interest in climate and climate processes is fading away as the interest is confined to the concept of climate typical of the general public or rather I shall say the predominant or politically correct concept of climate.
However, the observational records are clear and the global warming is proceeding much slower than generally is anticipated.
Instead of being grateful for this comforting result the reaction is rather the opposite. In the almost hysterical climate hype of today a less dramatic warming is not very well received as all political correct members of the public would prefer to hide this uncomfortable fact by following the popular maxim of letting the ends justify the means. From the standpoint of the green movement all political efforts, even extreme ones, are required as they wish to abandon fossil energy as well as nuclear energy and this at a time when the world population is increasing and where the lack of suitable energy is a primary obstacle towards a better life.
We do not yet know how to best solve the Earth’s energy problems but many thing may happen in the next 100 years. A modest climate sensitivity that is supported by observations combined with a transition from coal to natural gas will provide the world with a waiting time of half a century or so but not very much longer. This will make it possible to avoid unnecessary and highly expensive panic-type subsidized investments driven by political whims and the expectations of quickly earned money and instead invest available means in a well thought through long- term energy research programs.
JC comments: The entire essay is worth reading. The one statement that really struck me as exceptionally well said is this:
The real genuine interest in climate and climate processes is fading away as the interest is confined to the concept of climate typical of the general public or rather I shall say the predominant or politically correct concept of climate.
I am immensely concerned by the overemphasis on climate model taxonomy, whereby scientists write papers analyzing the output of the IPCC climate model simulations, and infer future catastrophic impacts, and it seems far too easy for this kind of research to get published in Nature and Science. In the meantime, the really hard research problems are all but ignored, such as fundamental research into ocean heat transfer, multi-phase atmospheric thermodynamics, synchronized chaos in the coupled atmosphere/ocean system, etc. Not to mention the more manageable problems such as careful consideration of the attribution of climate variability during the period 1850-1970. Hopefully the ‘pause’ will stimulate research into natural internal variability of climate; here
In the EU apparently the Germans seem to be bailing on the idea of AGW whereas the UK is still playing with the EU-UN’s AGW house of cards.
That house of cards will soon collapse if the public continues to get reliable information on the Sun’s irrefutable domination of the entire Solar System:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/solar-flare-strongest-2013-radio-blackout_n_3265358.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green
As the pulsar core of the Crab Nebula controls that entire astronomical system [1]
1. A.A. Abdo et al. (>17 coauthors worldwide), “Gamma-ray flares from the Crab Nebula,” Science 331, 739-742 (2011):
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/739.abstract
Omanuel,
Can you please tell me what the Sun is made of?
The Sun is the pulsar remains of the supernova that birthed Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago. The Sun’s most abundant element is iron (Fe). Hydrogen (H) is discharged from the top of its atmosphere. The same energy source that powers the cosmos and the Crab Nebula is hidden in the Sun’s iron-rich mantle: Neutron repulsion made our elements, birthed the Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago, exposed meteorites to cosmic radiation, and then continued to initiate a series of nuclear reactions that generated solar energy, solar neutrinos, and hydrogen and helium that accumulated in the photosphere and moderated high-energy radiation from the solar core until discharged by solar eruptions, flares and the solar wind. Early solar radiation spiked when H-fusion ignited in the early Solar System and then became less energetic and eventually supportive of life ~3.5 Gyr ago. The solar pulsar core strongly influences individual atoms over a vast region of space (15-20 billion kilometers) that filled with solar waste products after the Solar System’s birth. Material retained inside the photosphere exhibits violent heliospheric avalanches of solar eruptions from self-organized criticality. Solar cycles and nuclear reactions at the base of solar flares sporadically heat the solar corona and have a far greater impact on changes in Earth’s climate than do combustion products, like carbon dioxide (CO2), that accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere.
This report on the discovery of rocky Earth-like planets orbiting neutron star, PSR B1257+12, in 1990:
http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/alex/pulsar_planets_text.html
And the drawings in this 2006 NASA news story may help readers visualize the early Solar System, when the iron meteorites that formed near the pulsar were exposed to more “cosmic” radiation than the stone and carbonaceous meteorites that formed further from the pulsar.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/05apr_pulsarplanets/
Peter Lang:
1. The Sun’s tiny, compact core is made of neutrons (n).
2. The top of the Sun’s diffuse atmosphere is an expanded form of the neutron, the hydrogen atom (H-1).
3. Solar material between these two layers is filled with the most stable combination of neutrons and hydrogen atoms, iron-56 (Fe-56).
If Peter Lang is a publisher of textbooks, he should be aware that fear and loathing that humans might destroy the world with forbidden knowledge of the energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 Aug 1945 have instead destroyed the integrity of:
_ a.) Public education,
_ b.) Government science, and
_ c.) Civilian control of government
Wag, from bishophill, “Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, with reference to the Answer of 15 April 2013, Official Report, column 261W, on climate change, what statistical models were used in any analyses done to calculate significances. [153909]”
Well, at least the House of Commons is asking more interesting questions.
With Peter Lilley having closer access to Cameron, it is to be hoped that the anti-renewable MPs will get a stronger hearing. Who knows, some actual facts may be put in front of the PM.
One problem is Cameron’s wife; she seems to hold the position of key policy czar and is a fervent green lobbyist. Her Dad makes a bob or two from his wind farm, which doesn’t help, of course.
Wagathon
I have a suspicion that the German “cooling off” on “fighting the war on climate change” has more to do with the fact that the (post Fukushima) hysterical fear of nuclear power is greater than that of CAGW, and that the realization has set in that windmills aren’t going to solve the problems of the “Energiewende”. So it’s back to coal-fired power plants (seen by the pols and the public as the lesser evil).
Max
If the public have a position it is based quite unsurprisingly on the notion of whether the planet is warming or not. For the partisans it goes beyond that to entrenched positions based on denying science. One sides denies the ocean data – the other the TOA radiant flux data. Both deny sychronised chaos.
Can you explain a bit more in detail, what you are meaning Chief, to a confirmed fence sitter such as myself. I believe I am understanding what you are meaning from your past posts, but further clarification would be appreciated greatly.
Judith said;
‘Not to mention the more manageable problems such as careful consideration of the attribution of climate variability during the period 1850-1970.’
Or the even bigger question as to what we attribute climate variability during the period 1538 to 2013
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0028.jpg
tonyb
Tony,
As CET shows, ups and downs of temperature, 1530
a good year fer serfs, 1630 likewise before we were hit
with the Maunder Minimum brrrr! A dearth of warmth
and sunspots and not too much in the cooking pot fer
us serfs either. (
Beth the serf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
Does Bengtsson believe that a better understanding of the role of the Sun might be necessary for a better understanding of climate change? Apparently not. Why?
Thanks for posting this essay. I am glad, for his sake, that the author is old enough to not need future employment in the field. I hope he appreciates that this essay will leave him forever outside the circled wagons.
So, the climate scientists pour their best knowledge into climate models, not to mention billions in tax dollars collected at the point of a gun, and this is the best they can come up with?
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/gistemp-trend-since-jan-2001-may-2013/
Jim2
As yer show, its not easy fer
them climate scientists …
Modellers in cloud
towers whiling away
their tenured hours
predicting future climate
have trouble with
clouds. It’s difficult
with misty crystal balls
to view the future
of Earth’s oh – so
– variable – and
– frisky weather.
Beth.
no love for modelers.. cruel beth.
Me other persona … cruel beth
Beth and Mosh
Since he was just a wee toddler
He had one goal: to become a modeler
But his girlfriend objected
Because she suspected
He’s no longer have time to coddle ‘er.
Max
Max,
Perhaps his girlfriend was a model.
Serf
There was a young man who loved models,
and could never admit they were twaddle.
He would turn a blind eye,
“Oh such beauty,” he’d sigh,
cause his love was essentially caudal.
From the standpoint of the green movement all political efforts, even extreme ones, are required as they wish to abandon fossil energy as well as nuclear energy and this at a time when the world population is increasing and where the lack of suitable energy is a primary obstacle towards a better life.
Translation: Environmentalists are more interested in bilking little old ladies — i.e., wealthy surviving spouses of evil capitalists — out of millions in donations to save polar bears than in actually making serious and meaningful contributions to humanity.
Sadly, the one and only contribution to humanity that Environmentalists want to make is to destroy it.
See, this is the kind of trash talk that gets negated by examples of coordinated environmental action, like getting the toxin lead out of our environment. This has resulted in around 40% reduction in crimes of aggression in every country strict regulations against lead as an additive have been put in place.
Many climate skeptics hate the environment and would rather see a lake filled with mercury than water. sad.
No, the sad part is that there are some idiots that actually believe that garbage. Fortunately not many, and they usually are easy to spot by their stupidity.
lolwot: Come on, you know you’d pay to see a whole lake of mercury. Actually, I think that’s something to put on my science-fiction bucket list.
In my benighted youth, mercury was a critical ingredient in a popular toy, a sealed plastic maze where you had to coax a blob of Hg from start to finish. My fourth-grade teacher brought a large amount of the liquid metal to school in a mayonaise jar and it sloshed up and out and all over the hallway when she forgot how much it inertia it had on the upswing. We kids got down on the floor with sheets of notebook paper and scooped up all the little beads for return to the jar. Nobody died.
I doubt many of today’s children are allowed to experience this fascinating element directly. Too bad.
srp
Yeah.
And dentists gave their young patients a little blob of mercury to take home as a reward for sitting quietly and not crying.
Max
Web
Elimination of harmful pollution? Yes.
Reduction of waste? Yes.
Problem is, the environmental movement got hijacked by the climate crowd.
Wonder why that would be?
Follow the money (and power) trail, Webby – CAGW has become a multi-billion dollar big business (has nothing to do with the environment anymore). Big bucks => big power.
Read Bengtsson’s essay again.
Max
Climatists promised warming and it didn’t happen. Their Line-of-the-Day method of propaganda is all petered out: there are only so many ways come with a non-problem in a way that frightens people. We’ve all heard it before already: Catastrophic, Calamitous Runaway Global Warming and Extreme Climate Change Weather Disasters to Kill All Life—Marxism Only Hope.
web & lolwot,
There is a difference between wanting to ensure clean air and water along with limiting the release of known toxins into our environment and environmentalism. Too many of the latter appear to believe that humans are a plague that needs to be eliminated. What I find so amazing is their willingness to flatly state what the think. Whenever you hear someone speaking about carrying capacity, you can be assured you are listening to someone who would gladly see two thirds of the world’s popoulation disappear. Whenever you hear people talk about caring for future generations, you are most likely listening to someone thinks the number of folks in the current generation is too many and needs to be reduced.
(Just not themselves, mind you.)
With good reason did we remove all references to environmental from our educational material. It carries very negative baggage. Of course environmentalists and self identified greens don’t see it that way.
Who do you think does more for the environment, someone helping kids get interested in the sciences, discover the scientific method and develop their critical thinking skills or some yahoo protesting oil pipe lines and coal terminals because of their believe in the global warming armageddon?
Here is a hint – it ain’t the protesters.
SRP, metallic mercury is ‘relatively’ safe and you can drink it to clear an intestinal blockage. However, it is quickly mobilized, oxidized and converted to organomercury in the lungs and in soil/aquasphere.
Organomercury is really nasty stuff and our brains are at risk of permanent damage from relatively small amounts.
DocM, the mental image of a slug of metallic mercury making its massive, quicksilvery way down the alimentary canal to clear a “blockage” will haunt me forever. I would still like to see a lake of metallic mercury, however.
Of course, mercury poisoning is a real risk if it gets into bio-available form. Almost very element can be included in some poisonous compound or other (even restricting ourselves to things toxic at “small” doses). I don’t think that’s a good reason for stoking hermephobia. Didn’t workers in infectious disease labs used to routinely dip their hands in mercurochrome?
A modest climate sensitivity that is supported by observations combined with a transition from coal to natural gas will provide the world with a waiting time of half a century or so but not very much longer.
He seems to be unaware of the fact that OPEC killed the inventor of the secret process for turning locusts into fuel and when it is rediscovered, Iran will start WWIII.
The fundamental problem is the focus on who is causing change to climate systems,and not what is causing them, the anthropocentric belief in that the models are true representations of natural processes of which they are clearly not.
“The really important question is to know how much warmer it will be and how fast this is likely to happen as this determines a realistic and sensible cause of action.”
Chief, thanks for entering the lions den on your sea surface estimate recently, I hope it does go as high as you say but it might need a year longer
Apropos this topic it explains why no one side can win an unwinnable argument.
The really important question is when will we take a cold downturn and for how long.
the facts are that it will take a number of numbers [3 only] to move in the direction of global cooling for a small number of years [4 definitely but even 2 would be great] to shift the weight of the public to a mainstream sceptical view [right or wrong] despite all the good arguments on either side
.
While the surface temperature and sea heat content rise and the Arctic Sea ice extent remains low all considered sceptical arguments fail and if it cools all AGW arguments fail.
History shows such a downturn will occur at least 3 times in a century and it may well happen now and is much more likely the longer we go [inevitable] which makes being on the denier side the better place to be this year, this decade and this century.
It seems that if we have a downturn in temperature, the recently warmed oceans would supply more water vapor, causing snow, in turn then a sea level decrease – with a concomitant cooling of the oceans, both from evaporation and the lessened insolation.
The march out of an interglacial to a glacial maximum takes tens of thousands of years. The melt happens almost instantly in comparison. Albedo change from snow cover doesn’t require a mile-thick glacier. Just a thin covering that survives the summer does just as much. It’s unlikely IMO that we’d notice it going down before we noticed rapid temperature decline over the continents. There’s been no trend at all in sea-level for at least the past couple thousand years it’s flatter than a pancake:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png
That said the flattening out of sea level rise in the past 2000 years is a change in trend from the slow increase of the 5000 years prior to that. The Holocene appears to be atypical in that the melt was cut short and the start of decline in temperature out of not yet begun even after more than 10,000 years. Hopefully this happy situation will continue indefinitely. The ice age has to end sometime. They all do. Perhaps the Holocene marks the end of this one.
Darn, forgot my emoticons and to make mention of Mosher
This ( climate becomes ‘global warming’ not the temporal and spatial variation of atmospheric phenomena ) was the complaint of LeRoux. LeRoux didn’t offer much physics behind his conceptual model, but his model does provide a coherent model across time scales.
Of course, before climate got hi-jacked by ‘global warming’ it was dominated by describing the glacial cycles.
…make it possible to avoid unnecessary and highly expensive panic-type subsidized investments driven by political whims and the expectations of quickly earned money and instead invest available means in a well thought through long- term energy research programs.
How? Easy! Admit we we’re idiots to continue to pay Leftists to destroy the economy because that is what has gotten us into the dilemma we face today: non-Westerners that are eating our lunch.
Wagathon
Who is “eating your lunch”?
Well, wasted government spending is probably doing a big chunk (let’s say you pay 30% taxes and half of this is being wasted). So that’s 15%
But the OPEC price-fixing bandits are also getting a big chunk.
The average US family spends 11% of its income on energy today.
http://www.americaspower.org/sites/default/files/Energy_Cost_Impacts_2012_FINAL.pdf
There is no doubt that OPEC is the key factor in (and benefactor from) setting the energy price high.
But now let’s say the government is going to tax energy to make it twice as expensive as it was, in order to promote “green energy” projects.
This would add another 11%.
You could call it “higher energy cost” or “higher taxes resulting from a government power grab”. Either way, you pay.
Max
… and, the lawyer tax.
Where are all the guffaws of the classy consensus advocates accusing the author of senility?
The new consensus appears to be that we’ve got another 50 years and then we’re doomed.
We have 10-20 years. The AMO will go negative with 10 or so years and the sun is approaching a minimum.
1979 will appear balmy around 2030.
Sunshine, I fear you are correct. When the AMO flips, look out below.
What’s the difference between a Co2 alarmist and a new little ice age alarmist? The latter sincerely hopes he’s wrong.
Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and every Leftist in town will eat his catch.
Gary M
Hang on to your hat, Gary – they’ll come.
Max
GaryM
The “guffaws” you predicted have arrived (from our Okie teenager, that has the same name I do).
http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/13/lennart-bengtsson-on-global-climate-change/#comment-321810
Max
max
Asses will bray.
nice Find Judith.
I too was struck by this
“I am immensely concerned by the overemphasis on climate model taxonomy, whereby scientists write papers analyzing the output of the IPCC climate model simulations, and infer future catastrophic impacts, and it seems far too easy for this kind of research to get published in Nature and Science. In the meantime, the really hard research problems are all but ignored, such as fundamental research into ocean heat transfer, multi-phase atmospheric thermodynamics, synchronized chaos in the coupled atmosphere/ocean system, etc. Not to mention the more manageable problems such as careful consideration of the attribution of climate variability during the period 1850-1970.”
Money doesnt change the answers. Money changes the questions that get asked.
Steven ” Money doesnt change the answers. Money changes the questions that get asked”
One of your most insightful comments. Thanks
Yup Mosh, that is right. Ask any consultant what is needed, and the answer as almost always going to be “more consulting”. Same with climate modelers.
For a time I worked for my Dad’s engineering consulting firm (commercial nuclear generation). He always told his employees that his expectation was for them to work themselves out of a job. He also said that we should never hesitate to take on work outside the scope of the project, if it was something that needed to be done. We were not expected to spend time lobbying for the next contract.
The result, companies and project managers that wanted to make sure we stayed on site. They always had more work and preferred to assign it to someone who they could count on to get it done well and on time. Another result was more than half of his employees getting hired away by the client.
Regarding JC’s close:
“I am immensely concerned by the overemphasis on climate model taxonomy, whereby scientists write papers analyzing the output of the IPCC climate model simulations, and infer future catastrophic impacts, and it seems far too easy for this kind of research to get published in Nature and Science. In the meantime, the really hard research problems are all but ignored, such as fundamental research into ocean heat transfer, multi-phase atmospheric thermodynamics, synchronized chaos in the coupled atmosphere/ocean system, etc. Not to mention the more manageable problems such as careful consideration of the attribution of climate variability during the period 1850-1970. Hopefully the ‘pause’ will stimulate research into natural internal variability of climate”
This is both a very concise and easily understood comment on a what a realistic program should entail and a very real warning on that such a program may never realized given the current context. It is in plain English.
——————————————-
Before that JC stated:
“The one statement that really struck me as exceptionally well said is this:”
The real genuine interest in climate and climate processes is fading away as the interest is confined to the concept of climate typical of the general public or rather I shall say the predominant or politically correct concept of climate.
I wonder whether decline in interest (and visibility) may be the best thing that could happen under the present less-than-perfect circumstances. Cooperation in a smaller community dedicated to the science in quieter waters may make significant progress. However, there is the risk that a decrease in ‘interest’ and certain lower prioritization could impact funding crippling the effort. In reality our perception of AGW may be correcting (or not) but certainly the larger political forces that that have now become so entangled in the issue are not changing. I go back to Mosher’s observation: “Money changes the questions that get asked”. Implicit in that thought: politics changes the money. Again, JC is right to be concerned.
Now about the essay…. My initial impression is that it hits a good tone and develops thoughts well as far as it goes. I found myself wanting more discussion on more topics but had to credit the author to sticking to his game. Perhaps others will note the example set here and produce similar essays. It is a refreshing approach and result.
Steven Mosher: Money doesnt change the answers. Money changes the questions that get asked.
That’s a good comment.
“Money doesnt change the answers. Money changes the questions that get asked.”
I agree with Dennis Adams. Very insightful.
It is a great point, let’s dig into it. Don’t forget that there is a policy tipping point. Industrialized nations set it at 2C
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121274647
If CS is at or below 2C, then the issue is over policy-wise. The grant funding goes away, the subsidies go away, the partisan cudgel goes away, the media attention shifts.
At or below 2C means we have time for wind and solar to make it on their own -which the greens should be happy with because they say that’s easy. It also allows time for the inevitable switch to nuclear.
There is a lot riding on keeping CS above 2C
“If CS is at or below 2C, then the issue is over policy-wise.”
No, because total warming will be greater than 2C if CS is 2C. Also 2C is a guess. Big Trouble ™ could begin before 2C.
lolwot
To JeffN’s statement:
You responded:
Let’s do a sanity check on your response.
“total warming will be greater than 2C if CS is 2C” fails the sanity test because
– The ECS is base on equilibrium climate sensitivity, and “equilibrium is expected to take centuries to reach.
– In addition, a doubling of today’s CO2 concentration of 394 ppmv (788 ppmv) is highly unlikely to occur anytime this century (640 ppmv by 2100 with no Kyoto-type climate initiatives seems more likely).
“2C is a guess” is correct, because the impact of natural factors has been “guessed”, is it was also “guessed” in the earlier estimate of 3.2C. So this part of your response passes the sanity check.
“Big Trouble ™ could begin before 2C” is a highly doubtful uncorroborated conjecture. Smells of “fear mongering”. Fails the sanity test.
So you missed two out of three, lolwot.
And Jeff is right. If IPCC acknowledge all the recent studies, which suggest that 2xCO2 ECS is below 2C.(rather than 3.2C as previously estimated), the “fear factor” is removed from CAGW and “the issue is over policy-wise”.
Max
Max
that’s 2C above pre-industrial levels
did you not realize that?
Iolwot
Hurray! So we are exactly at that point of being 2 degrees c above pre industrial levels and temperatures have stopped rising even as co2 increases, so we seem to have reached saturation point.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0028.jpg
Good news. What are we all going to do now the scare is over?
Tonyb
lolwot | May 14, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
‘that’s 2C above pre-industrial levels
did you not realize that?’
That would make it about 1 to 1.3 C above “normal” or do you consider the pre-industrial/ LIA period normal?
Captain Dallas
What are you going to do with yourself now that we have reached 2 degrees c above pre industrial and the scare is over ?
Learn a language? Write a novel? We will all have a lot of spare time
Tonyb
tonyb, I’m going to Disney World.
“that’s 2C above pre-industrial levels
did you not realize that?”
Not going to happen lolwot, due to the logarithmic nature of CO2 effects. Since your baseline of 290 ppm CO2 has increased 110ppm to 400ppm and temps increased .8C. This includes all feedbacks since that we are talking of global temps which include all forcings and feedbacks. The next 180ppm which will get us to the magic doubling or 580 ppm will be lucky to generate even .8C of additional increased temps. Also happening at the same time as the .8C increase has been a maximum of solar activity which appears to have now subsided and many are predicting a sharp decline which could even cause temps to go down.
So your 2C or greater sure doesn’t look very likely to me based upon what has happened in the past 100 years.
Tonyb,
1) CET is not global temperature.
2) Why have you scaled CO2 axis on that graph so that the CO2 trend is so squashed? 0-800ppm?
Lets look at what’s happened here:
JeffN mistakenly conflated the 2C limit with 2 CS.
Manacker mistook the 2C limit as being 2C above today.
lolwot corrected them both (lolwot has also corrected TonyB’s conflation of CET with global temperature).
Other skeptics jump in. Rather than defending manacker and jeffN (they can’t because they were wrong) they throw up new and similarly weak “challenges” to lolwot.
Perhaps they are hoping no-one will realize skeptics are so ignorant and lolwot has been resoundingly correct.
must be embarrassing!
lolwot, 2C is the target the climate campaigners set. Reach it, and governments can declare victory and concentrate on the stuff voters want them to concentrate on.
I didn’t say the issue was over, I said the policy was. There are many people who will lose many dollars over that (not to mention credibility). Coal will be replaced with something better. It just wont be done tomorrow by governments doubling taxes on stuff that works in order to write blank checks to solar and wind and the farrago of fraud that would be a UN climate fund.
lolwot
Sure the 2C limit is “above today”, rather than “above some hypothetical pre-industrial period in our past”.
We’ve already seen that warming (arguably around 0.8C) and are doing just fine, thank you.
It would take a fool to worry about the warming we’ve already seen without any negative consequences whatsoever.
Are you that “fool”, lolwot?
Max
Iolwot
It was slightly tongue in cheek but let’s look at the proposition more closely
Cet is reckoned by many scientists to be a reasonable but not perfect proxy for global temperatures. I have quoted them by name several times.
We are looking at the anomaly not a specific local temperature therefore we can see trends over long and short time scales
Secondly co2 is a Well mixed gas so the temperature in Britain would react the same as anywhere else in the world
The co2 line is not squashed. It only goes from 280 to 400ppm so not sure where your 800 ppm comes in. I did say in the article that it was difficult to know where to put the co2 line but it’s to scale.
By all means you have my permission to use the data and graph it yourself. The facts remain that we are currently 2 degrees c above pre industrial temperatures and that throughout the 350 year instrumental record plus my additional 120 years of reconstruction, temperatures have varied greatly no matter the co2 levels and consequently the effects of additional co2 are difficult to discern.
Perhaps the logarithmic effect means that concentrations above 280/300 ppm have little effect or perhaps it does and temperatures will start rising sharply again. I don’t know the answer I merely make the observation that we have reached the temperature increase specified.
Tonyb
Lolwot writes: “Lets look at what’s happened here:
JeffN mistakenly conflated the 2C limit with 2 CS.”
Ah this, of course, is because sensitivity has nothing to do with the limit- which industrial nations were supposed to avoid by changing CO2 emissions. Well, if I “mistakenly conflate” the importance of CS to the limit, at least I’m in good company. NASA tells us “the earth will warm” almost exactly as much as the range of CS (shocker that) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php
Here’s Andy Revkin commenting to Gavin Schmidt on the impact of CS on the limit after the latter claimed that everyone had always said CS could be low and the “hot tail” estimates were known to be unlikely:
“In policy circles, including popular calculations of emissions trajectories necessary to avoid a high chance of exceeding 2 degrees C. of warming, the hot tail has not been trimmed (unless I’m missing something?). To me, that says the climate science community — including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change science working group — has not adequately conveyed the reality you state here.”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/a-closer-look-at-moderating-views-of-climate-sensitivity/
Hi Steven
You might like to comment
Illustrated on this set of graphs
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-CO2.htm
are CO2 and SST annual oscillations, with correlation R2=0.8.
The SST annual oscillations are controlled by insolation
…any comment on CO2
***POP QUIZ***
If it’s fossil fuels on Earth, explain why Mars temperature is rising.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Reason? Money Money money to control the people people people
Besides the info on the National Geographic story, one has to realize that the Martian atmosphere is very thin. The day to night temperature transitions are severe and the P-T profiles are very wiggly due to the amount of convection as the atmosphere is constantly re-adjusting, I think that made it a challenge to land the probes on Mars. Here are some traces:
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/2126/lapsevenusmars.gif
The other point is that on Mars the constant convective motion kicks up lots of dust, which I believe increases the albedo and the dust storms can last for long periods of time.
The greenhouse effect is there but is like 6C as I recall.
Fans of the Pathfinder mission and other missions can chip in, as I have only been recently interested in the topic.
Web
I think the GHE on Mars is almost zero (maybe you’re right with 6C, but I’ve seen even lower estimates).
This despite the fact that the mass of the CO2 in Mars’ atmosphere is 24 times the mass of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Max
Manacker,
Perhaps that explains why Mar’s oceans boiled off (c.f. Hansen’s predictions for earth’s oceans if humans continue their evil ways). :)
Manacker said
That is the top end. Other more “real” skeptics such as Clive Best have tried Mars out for themselves
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4374
Bottomline, Mars is a lot colder so that it absorbs less energy and the relative warming is much less. Remember radiation goes as T^4.
Get “real”, Manacker. NO SALE.
“In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.”
So given Earth’s poles have been losing ice year on year for the last few decades this means global warming on Earth continues uninterrupted. No pause.
lolwot
Yeah.
But it’s only the North Pole that’s losing ice, and that’s only in the summer.
Max
both ice caps on earth are losing ice
Well, we sent that robot up there, didn’t we?
The warming must be anthropogenic.
Max
Judith Curry
Excellent essay by Bengtsson.
Reasoned, logical and not alarming.
I’d second your comment (plus Steven Mosher’s add-on)
Lots of money being spent, but is it being spent to answer the right questions (or simply to provide grist for the politically motivated AGW hysteria mill)?
Max
Thank you for this. Dr. Bengtsson. It’s bad enough when random nut case blog commenters call skeptics “clowns” and “denialists” (which is quite a silly word in any case.) But when politicians and worse, scientists and academics do it, it’s despicable. Of course in the end they only hurt themselves.
I’d say there’s something Dr. Bengtsson leaves out when he talks about precipitous and potentially ruinous attempts to substantially reduce fossil fuel dependence. That is, there’s an increasing sense among not a few scientists and long term forecasters that we’re on the cusp of a significant cool down. It would be a cruel irony if that were to happen as at this moment we’re completely unprepared. Another little ice age in the world we now live in would likely be nothing short of apocalyptic for much of mankind.
Here is good news for you, Judith Curry!
A search of the last fifteen major Science climate-change articles yields these (most recent first):
• Global Leaf Trait Relationships: Mass, Area, and the Leaf Economics Spectrum
• Pliocene Warmth, Polar Amplification, and Stepped Pleistocene Cooling Recorded in NE Arctic Russia
• Clarifying the Dominant Sources and Mechanisms of Cirrus Cloud Formation
• Climate Change Hansen’s Retirement From NASA Spurs Look at His Legacy
• Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable
• Climate’s Dark Forcings
• Reorganization of Southern Ocean Plankton Ecosystem at the Onset of Antarctic Glaciation
• Global Charcoal Mobilization from Soils via Dissolution and Riverine Transport to the Oceans
• Archaeology Archaeologists Say the ‘Anthropocene’ Is Here—But It Began Long Ago
• Annually Resolved Ice Core Records of Tropical Climate Variability Over the Past ~1800 Years
• Denial of Catastrophic Risks
• A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
• Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming
• Recent Changes in the Ventilation of the Southern Oceans
• Global Warming Climate Study Highlights Wedge Issue
Conclusion There is no evidence that Judith Curry’s feared “overemphasis on climate model taxonomy in Science” is objectively real. Neither did Lennart Bengtsson’s essay provide any verifiable evidence to justify his (similar) worries.
The main problem is pretty obvious: there’s so much great research being published, and the pace of new discoveries is so rapid, that it’s hard to grasp how overwhelming strong AGW science is becoming!
One of Fan’s links had this title
‘Archaeology Archaeologists Say the ‘Anthropocene’ Is Here—But It Began Long Ago’
Here is a longer ref to it.
http://www.academia.edu/3368967/Archaeologists_Say_the_Anthropocene_Is_Here-But_It_Began_Long_Ago
Far from ‘The Anthropocene’ starting recently (R Gates where are you?) many argue it started thousands of years ago, or in the case of this group that it can be dated to 1750. ie the Industrial revolution. If that is so it is clear that mankind can not live on this earth without drastically shaping it. I would argue for a start date for the current bout of warming dating from 1660
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0028.jpg
But the relationship to co2 at high concentrations is not obvious as the graph shows. Perhaps Fan can clarify where the relationship is and why Dr Hansen insists on perpetuating the idea of warming starting at his Giss record in 1880 when it is clearly ‘a staging post and not a starting post.’ (these words now the registered trade mark of Tonyb)
tonyb
” it is clear that mankind can not live on this earth without drastically shaping it”
I think that a defining characteristic of humans, and a major factor in the success of our species, is the capacity to adapt our environment to serve our needs (as well as to adapt ourselves to different environments). We are a natural species, and this is natural behaviour, seeking to maintain and extend the species and look to its welfare.
Of course, this brings consequential changes, just as beaver dam building and wildebeest grazing do. Fortunately, we also have the capacity to see the consequences of our behaviour and some capacity to modify it in the light of broader considerations. But we need good reasons and worthwhile options to do so, which I haven’t found in the CAGW case.
===]] This is a very good essay, but the greatest significance of the essay is the reputation of its author – Lennart Bengtsson. From the Wikipedia: [[[===
Heh. Once again, we see Judith’s selective concern about “appeal to authority.”
> Who is Lennart Bengtsson ? Oh just one of the most intelligent, qualified and experience climate scientists alive today.
http://thisbluemarble.com/showthread.php?t=51474
There’s a link to this:
> Top Swedish Climate Scientist Lennart Bengtsson Says Warming So Small, Not Noticeable Without Meteorologists!
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/03/top-swedish-climate-scientist-lennart-bengtsson-says-warming-not-noticeable-without-meteorologists/
Notice the date.
A correction:
http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.ca/2013/02/award-winning-top-swedish-climatologist.html
the reputation of the scientist is of great significance. Had she argued that his reputation made his position correct, you might have a point.
By the way, you butchered a quote of his in a very selective manner. I expect a full Peter Lang accountability statement from you
Dagnabit.
Let me pretend that the real reason I’m re-posting is to fix the formatting (and not because I stuck it in the wrong place the first time).
Finally, Steven –
While we’re at it, how ’bouts you comment on this passage that I excerpted above and will excerpt again below:
Keep in mind, as you comment, Judith’s opinion that
——————————
———————————-
Now when I read that excerpt, I see rather shallow reasoning, unsupported statements, and simplistic attribution of cause-and-effect to very complex phenomena.
Now maybe you disagree, and think that the statement is well-reasoned and based on a careful analysis of validated data? If not, then do you overlook a possible rhetorical over-reach because of the “reputation of the author?” If that is the case, would that be a fallacious “appeal to authority?”
Joshua
Now you accuse Judith of resorting to “argument from authority” in praising Bengtsson’s past achievements and qualifications.
But, hey, if the essay had been written by “Joe the plumber”, you’d be the first one to scream that the authors is not qualified.
Double standard?
Max
yes, if judith fails to disclose an author’s political affiliations, she is selective. If she notes their accomplishments, she appeals to authority.
And if she hosts nic lewis, he is no scientist. Joshua has a trick for whatever Judith does or doesn’t do. He’s not alone in this. Oliver manual is just a Joshua of a different order. Once you see that no matter what move she makes, Joshua has a rehearsed stupid pet trick, you begin to realize that he doesnt read to understand or to find common ground or to reason together.
All I have ever seen Joshua do is disagree, pick fights, nitpick, take a small detail he disagrees with and derail a thread with it, tire, bore, nag and above all criticize Dr. Curry every chance he gets, however trivial.
,The lack of any significant warming in the tropical troposphere since the beginning of space observations in 1979 is particularly intriguing in particular as present models show a warming trend over the same time of 0.3-0.4°C in the average, figure 2. Such results, scientifically very puzzling as they are, have hardly received any media attention but instead the public has been overwhelmed in recent years by excessive reports of a rapid and threatening global warming very soon running out of control, unless the most drastic steps are taken to stop it. If there are no obvious global signals available, suitable arguments are created from an endless number of extreme weather events. The fact that similar extreme weather has been found to be a property of the present or undisturbed climate is not recognized.
Amen.
Thank you Lennart.
Science is returning to the climate debate.
Vintage 2010:
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.ca/2010/02/lennart-bengtsson-climate-change-as.html
Vintage 2009:
http://energy2050.se/uploads/files/bengtsson.pdf
The double negatives show the mark of an award-winning, top scientist.
@ willard (@nevaudit) | May 13, 2013 at 10:30 pm
Is a double negative unredundant?
That is not an unimportant question, jim2.
They are perfectly fine, ask any student of shakespeare.
Moreover, its in a slide deck for a presentation. rhetorical situation is everything. If he’s a native swedish speaker I’m recalling that swedish doesn’t have double negatives unlike enbonics.. Grandma Johnson is dead otherwise I would ask her– about the swedish that is.
jim2, it’s not unlikely. I am not intolerant of their usage myself.
people who are sensitive about them are racists.
Mosh
You meant “not insensitive” , didn’t you?
Thanks max.
Now that willard has pointed out the “double’ negative, I’m finding them all over the place in science.. WTF it’s all corrupt
Finally, Steven –
While we’re at it, how ’bouts you comment on this passage that I excerpted above and will excerpt again below:
Keep in mind, as you comment, Judith’s opinion that
Jim 2
Give the guy some slack.
If you are referring to Lennart Bengtsson, while he is a native of Sweden, he has spent a lot of time in a German-speaking environment.
In German the “double negative” is (to use a example) not uncommon. [I don’t know whether this is also the case in Swedish.]
In fact, it is used frequently in scientific reports and papers.
Max
Despite what some here are implying, a double negative isn’t illegitimate in English. Besides, with the advent of the singular ‘they’, English doesn’t have any more rules. Completely unruly language it be.
Judging the use of double negatives should not be exempted from paying due diligence to specific examples. Looking at specific examples never hurts. Not that it always helps, mind you.
***
The “implied” point (H/T Harold) is not grammatical, but logical:
> Double negative elimination is a theorem of classical logic, but not of weaker logics such as intuitionistic logic and minimal logic. Because of their constructive flavor, a statement such as It’s not the case that it’s not raining is weaker than It’s raining. The latter requires a proof of rain, whereas the former merely requires a proof that rain would not be contradictory. (This distinction also arises in natural language in the form of litotes.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative_elimination
We de not deemphasize the bolded claim.
This is the figure of speech known as litotes (lie-TOE-tees): deliberate understatement. It’s not impossible that it’s more frequently used in British than American English. Examples from Wikipedia:
“He was not unfamiliar with the works of Dickens.” (He was acquainted with the works of Dickens.”)
“She is not as young as she was.” (“She’s old.”)
“He’s no oil painting.” (“He’s ugly.”)
“Not unlike…” (“Like…”)
“You are not wrong.” (“You are correct.”)
My personal favourite:
“Economical with the truth.” (“Lying by omission”)
> This is the figure of speech known as litotes.
It could be bit more than that:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/34253462351
Monty Python on Doug Piranha
Interviewer Doug?
Vercotti Doug. I was terrified of him. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I’ve seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug.
Interviewer What did he do?
Vercotti He used sarcasm.
He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire.
Seriously…
Well, that is true if you completely ignore Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, etc., etc., etc. Except for where it has received attention, it hasn’t received any attention.
Heh.
It really is surprising when well-respected scientists state opinion as if it were fact,without any attempt to validate or verify their perspective.
I wonder whether, if Bengtsson didn’t have the scientific “authority” that so impresses Judith, she might consider such invalidated opinion expressed as fact to be unscientific (dare I say tribal) in nature?
Perhaps even “normative?”
Or perchance “advocacy?”
Joshua I read this article as the guys ‘coming out’ speech. As such it covers many topics . The science as well as the wider political context. The idea that every point is going to be worked through as if it’s a paper would be ridiculous. Michael Mann and others tweet about climate science, are you going to tell me they fully encapsulate a scientific argument in 140 characters? You can see when he touches on subjects that are closer to his professional experience he elaborates well. It’s always struck me as rather pointless to be arguing about what isn’t in an article than trying to understand what is.
Think on Joshua this is what consensus science is all about. You are asking thousands of scientists to have an opinion on subjects that they have no in depth experience about when their expertise is only in a small slither of the subject. Sweeping, less than well-informed opinion about everything is the norm for climate scientists in the present circumstances. So the guy is playing the game everybody else is, big deal.
Joshua you seem to read this article in order to identify debating points rather than to try and better inform yourself. If you were truly interested in getting more detail on a particular subject you could go ask a question over at Die klimazwiebel, he seems to be responding there but I suspect that really all your interested in is trying to discredit this article,
Sorry – I should have said “unvalidated,” not “invalidated.”
Joshua
he wrote:
“.Some events are seen as very dramatic as the reduced Arctic summer ice, others, even more puzzling, such as the surprising lack of warming in the tropical troposphere is hardly discussed.”
you wrote:
“Well, that is true if you completely ignore Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, etc., etc., etc. Except for where it has received attention, it hasn’t received any attention.”
The IT he was referring to was the lack of warming in the TROPICAL TROPOSPHERE. so, you see as a modeler he would interested in that because its one of the predictions that hasnt really panned out.
I think you didnt read carefully because discussions of the missing fingerprint ( warming in the tropical troposphere are a speciality
discussion on the web .. not MSM )
Check fox news..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html
hmm 2007.
So, lets talk about your selective editing, honestly.
Opps sorry Joshua. you were worse that I thought
“The lack of any significant warming in the tropical troposphere since the beginning of space observations in 1979 is particularly intriguing in particular as present models show a warming trend over the same time of 0.3-0.4°C in the average, figure 2. Such results, scientifically very puzzling as they are, have hardly received any media attention ”
This is your peter lang moment. You selectively edited his comment which was about the TROPICAL TROPOSPHERE, something you have probably never heard of, and made the claim that this has been discussed in MSM, at NYT, fox news etc. Now, the recent lack of global warming HAS been discussed in the MSM, but his complaint was about the missing fingerprint in the tropical troposphere.
Why did you edit his text the way you did?
Do you know what the tropical troposhere is?
Are you aware of the debate and papers about this ( douglas, santer, mcintyre, etc )
Did you check NYT and Fox before you made your comment.
Discuss your selective reading and I want to to be fully accountable, Mr Lang
Mosher you must have missed the memo sent out by loltwat. The IPCC doesn’t talk about fingerprints. The official term is ‘signature’ or the long version ‘spatial and temporal patterns of response to different forcings’.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
I suppose you wish they’d just stop talking about different kinds of forcings. Forcings is forcings, eh?
You slay me, Mosher. You really do.
Steven Mosher, you also edited out the sentence before that which mentions the pause, and then “Such results…” could equally be argued to refer to both previous sentences, being plural.
Springer
I saw your handbag fight with lolwot. now your down to losing fights to no names
Jim D. Very true. Lets look at the entire quote
The global temperature has not increased steadily but in irregular intervals. Typical features are a distinct warming trend 1910-1940, a slight cooling trend 1945-1970 followed by the sharp warming trend until the end of the 20th century and finally the last 15 years without any clear warming trend. The lack of any significant warming in the tropical troposphere since the beginning of space observations in 1979 is particularly intriguing in particular as present models show a warming trend over the same time of 0.3-0.4°C in the average, figure 2. Such results, scientifically very puzzling as they are, have hardly received any media attention but instead the public has been overwhelmed in recent years by excessive reports of a rapid and threatening global warming very soon running out of control, unless the most drastic steps are taken to stop it.
So, you want to find me the Fox news report that discusses these results.. noting the plural
A) the distinct warming trend in 1910-40.
B) the cooling trend in 1945-70
C) the pause
D) the missing hotspot.
If you want to live by the plural “Such results” then you get to die by the plural. Of these only C has been discussed.
Of course Jim, you can overlook the the fact that he
Fox only reports about the ‘hoax’. I don’t see any science there, just politics as usual.
Sorry Jim D.
Of course you can over look the fact that he draws specific attention to the tropical troposhere, and refers to a figure, before he writes “the results”. Now, here is your choice
A) He is referring to the nearest antecedent and he speaks the truth
about the MSM coverage of these results referring to figure 2
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NMKXNpDhUzw/UT-ciP2Pb9I/AAAAAAAAAaw/irIEkfQEpMI/s320/bengtsson-2013.fig2.jpg
B) he is referring to all the previous sentences in “these results”
and speaking falsely.
Please stop by willard and ask him for charity lessons.
WSJ and The Mail do however report the pause and give skeptics room to write letters on their worldview about such things. Perhaps Fox gives air time to some of these types too, but I don’t watch it enough to see.
The ‘hot spot’ debate was a long time ago, and has faded recently, if not gone away, so he needs to catch up a bit. Tropical oceans have not warmed as much as the models, but the Arctic has warmed more as has the deep ocean and land.
JimD, “The ‘hot spot’ debate was a long time ago, and has faded recently, if not gone away, so he needs to catch up a bit. Tropical oceans have not warmed as much as the models, but the Arctic has warmed more as has the deep ocean and land.”
If the “hot spot” is sound physics, what would cause, the warming from 1900, Arctic Ice melt, OHC increase, reversal of the diurnal temperature trend with no noticeable hot spot in the tropics?
If your sound physics miss on several points, do you focus on the only one that seems to fit, one that it completely missed but is convenient and one that it almost predicted and call it a win?
At what point would you go, “Oops, this is just plain wrong on so many levels.”
Jim D | May 14, 2013 at 12:48 am |
“Steven Mosher, you also edited out the sentence before that which mentions the pause, and then “Such results…” could equally be argued to refer to both previous sentences, being plural.”
Jimbo is right. In that instance, being plural, it’s clear Bengtsson was discussing more than one thing not mentioned by mainstream media. However in the paragraph immediately preceding he singles out lack of tropical troposphere warming.
It would appear then Bengtsson is particularly concerned about the lack of signature warming in the tropical troposphere not being discussed by the MSM having mentioned it not once but twice. For anyone wondering that signature can be seen here, figure 9.1, panel (c):
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
Further, “the pause” doesn’t get anywhere near the attention in the MSM that linkage to severe weather gets and Arctic sea ice is used like the proverbial “Look Squirrel!”. The plain fact of the matter is that the climate boffins got that wrong too. Arctic sea ice loss is far faster than they anticipated and the signature CO2 warming in the tropical troposphere is simultaneously missing in action. The long and short of that combined is that what’s happening in the Arctic is likely unrelated to anthropogenic CO2.
And by the way, yours truly wrote about this back in 2007 saying the Arctic melt appears to be due to black carbon not CO2.
IPCC Ignores Studies of Soot’s Effect on Global Warming
May 22, 2007 Posted by Dave S. under Global Warming
Here is an article from Fox News that discussed humidity over the ocean – i.e. the hot spot. The article asserts the hot spot was found. The article cites no other than Ben Santer. (I’m guessing the writer was afraid to write anything contrary to Santer’s view, knowing his volatile nature :) )
“Gillett’s study followed another last month that used the same technique to show that moisture above the world’s oceans increased and that it bore the “fingerprint” of being caused by man-made global warming.
Climate scientists have now seen the man-made fingerprint of global warming on 10 different aspects of Earth’s environment: surface temperatures, humidity, water vapor over the oceans, barometric pressure, total precipitation, wildfires, change in species of plants in animals, water run-off, temperatures in the upper atmosphere, and heat content in the world’s oceans.
“This story does now fit together; there are now no loose ends,” said Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Lab and author of the September study on moisture above the oceans. “The message is pretty compelling that natural causes alone just can’t cut it.”
”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300877,00.html
jim david et al.
This is all about Joshua’s selective reading and selective editing.
The generous reading of the author says that he was refering
to the nearest antecedent ( the figure 2 ) when he writes “these results”
On this reading, the man tells the truth.
To turn him into a liar Joshua has to selectively read.. and to make his point he selectively edits. Even on that selective reading Joshua is wrong
as “these results” is plural and you wont find Fox news discussing’
both the pause and the hotspot. The last they talked about the hotspot
was 2007.
So to make his case he has to read selectively, edit selectively, and still its wrong.
When trying to identify to what “such results” refer, we may not wish to exclude any result mentioned not far above that expression:
(1) The global temperature has not increased steadily but in irregular intervals.
(2) Typical features are a distinct warming trend 1910-1940, a slight cooling trend 1945-1970 followed by the sharp warming trend until the end of the 20th century and finally the last 15 years without any clear warming trend.
(3) The lack of any significant warming in the tropical troposphere since the beginning of space observations in 1979 is particularly intriguing in particular as present models show a warming trend over the same time of 0.3-0.4°C in the average, figure 2.
In its response to David Rose’ untowardness, the Met Office may not have seem to have missed addressing (1) and (2):
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
Had the Met Office followed the KISS principle (H/T Cap’n), it might not have seemed that they have not missed addressing (1) and (2).
Damned if they did, damned if they did not.
Willard said, “(3) The lack of any significant warming in the tropical troposphere since the beginning of space observations in 1979 is particularly intriguing in particular as present models show a warming trend over the same time of 0.3-0.4°C in the average, figure 2.”
It is very interesting. It is probably the strongest evidence that there is significant long term persistence in the temperature response, aka recovery. If “most” of the warming during that period was due to GHG effect, the “hot spot” would be more evident, since the GHG effect is ERL down. Recovery is surface up, which would proportionally impact the atmospheric layers. The Stratosphere, mid-troposphere and lower troposphere indicate proportional warming not CO2 related warming.
Once that recovery is complete, then the “warm” spot should appear, since “sensitivity” appears to have been over-estimated by at least a factor of two because estimates were base on a natural upslope. Oops! Back to Monty Hall :)
Cap’N,
That’s very not uninteresting. But please do not disregard that our Top, Award-winning, Emeritus guest was using (3) as an example of what the media was not talking about, or enough, or else. I don’t disbelieve that this is what Joshua was not condoning.
Hey guys.
The dreaded “tropical hot spot” AGW “fingerprint” DID appear!
(But only in the IPCC reports, not in real life.)
Max
Willard, It can be difficult to tell what Joshua is or is not implying when he uses the Steig quote context methodology. Since his attempted point appears to be related to the last sentence of 3) and not the full context of 3) I thought pointing out why 3) in full should be worthy of more discussion in and out of the media might be of interest.
Then again, it might be more interesting to let David Rose point it out and watch the responses.
Sure Cap’n.
In case you do not lack the need of some other Hot Spot:
Steven –
Interesting points.
It is certainly true that I should have been more careful in my post. There is no secret about my “motivations” when reasoning about these debates, and as such it would be ridiculous for me to pretend that my analysis doesn’t suffer from biasing influences. As such, I will happily acknowledge that when I initially read the excerpt, the pattern I (thought I) recognized was one of “skeptics” hand-wringing about how they are such unfortunate victims of media bias. This was, essentially, the conclusion I was biased to confirm.
As such, my primary reference by the excerpt I provided was to a larger argument being made – related to the public debate about the relatively short period of time over which there has been no trend of increased surface temperatures: you know, the phenomenon which “skeptics” claim means that “global warming has stopped” or “paused.”
So as to your point, I will agree that while there was some ambiguity in the excerpt I posted, and it is certainly valid to interpret the focus of the excerpt to be either wholly or partially on the question of warming in the tropical troposphere (my reading was that partially is more likely). It is clear that the “such results” reference was not exclusively to the 15-year trend – and accordingly, my reaction, which was focused on that issue exclusively, reflects my own confirmation bias.
On the other hand, I will say that it is a weak argument to assert “surprise” about a lack of media attention to a relatively specific question of “hot spots,” or lack thereof. Seems more like a rhetorical posturing than a serious argument, to me.
Combatants on both sides of the junior high school lunchroom food fight/climate debate claim bias at the hands of “the media” left and right. I don’t find those claims persuasive, and see them more as evidence of the reflexive need of combatants to feel vindicated by virtue of claiming victimhood. “The media” are very complex phenomena, and simplistic attribution of cause-and-effect as given in the article seem to me to be unworthy of a comprehensive, and scientific analysis.
Oh, and btw, Steven.
A coupla threads back, I took the time to write a rather long post in response to you – even though rather typically, much of your criticism of my arguments in that thread were mixed with some rather obsessive arguments about me, more personally.
At any rate, it seems that you failed to respond. Now I considered waiting to respond to this criticism of yours in this thread until you responded to that previous comment of mine – but since this criticism was appropriately focused on my argumentation and not me personally, and since the points you made were (mostly) valid (for a change), and since we should all reach for more reasonable dialog and your comments in this thread were consistent with reasonable dialog, I decided that I should not wait to respond in this thread.
Still, I would appreciate a good-faith response to my comment in that earlier thread. If you choose to do so, drop me a pointer in this thread.
Joshua
You didnt answer all my questions.
But lets start with your statement of accountability
Interesting points.
“It is certainly true that I should have been more careful in my post. There is no secret about my “motivations” when reasoning about these debates, and as such it would be ridiculous for me to pretend that my analysis doesn’t suffer from biasing influences. As such, I will happily acknowledge that when I initially read the excerpt, the pattern I (thought I) recognized was one of “skeptics” hand-wringing about how they are such unfortunate victims of media bias. This was, essentially, the conclusion I was biased to confirm.”
You attribute your mistake to carelessness. This would not do for peter lang, so it wont do for you. Next, your motivations are ‘no secret”. Really, what are all your motivations? we want full accountability here.. Further how can you read the man as a skeptic?
perhaps your bias runs depper and you think anyone Judith likes or recommends must have something wrong with them. Your bias isnt restricted to skeptics. Clearly you have to see and acknowledge that.
###################
As such, my primary reference by the excerpt I provided was to a larger argument being made – related to the public debate about the relatively short period of time over which there has been no trend of increased surface temperatures: you know, the phenomenon which “skeptics” claim means that “global warming has stopped” or “paused.”
You certainly didnt make that clear. you read the whole quote. you had to actively supress what the words actually said to spin this into an attack on the man. you didnt check the NYT, you didnt check fox news.
you attacked. because you could. now, given a choice between trying to understand someone and attacking you religiously refuse to engage in any behavior that could be construed as seeking consensus. Why? I want full accountability here ala Peter lang.
#####################################
So as to your point, I will agree that while there was some ambiguity in the excerpt I posted, and it is certainly valid to interpret the focus of the excerpt to be either wholly or partially on the question of warming in the tropical troposphere (my reading was that partially is more likely). It is clear that the “such results” reference was not exclusively to the 15-year trend – and accordingly, my reaction, which was focused on that issue exclusively, reflects my own confirmation bias.
here is the thing. to turn him into a liar and confirm your bias you actually had to ignore the most obvious reading where the indefinite reference is resolved by the closest antecendent.
############################################
On the other hand, I will say that it is a weak argument to assert “surprise” about a lack of media attention to a relatively specific question of “hot spots,” or lack thereof. Seems more like a rhetorical posturing than a serious argument, to me.
HUH? Look at his history. Look at what he studies. Confirming The hot spot would be a very important result for modelers beacuse the hotspot is an emergent phenomena.. not tuned.. not programmed in.
Of course he is interested in it and surprised that other are not.
###########################
Combatants on both sides of the junior high school lunchroom food fight/climate debate claim bias at the hands of “the media” left and right. I don’t find those claims persuasive, and see them more as evidence of the reflexive need of combatants to feel vindicated by virtue of claiming victimhood. “The media” are very complex phenomena, and simplistic attribution of cause-and-effect as given in the article seem to me to be unworthy of a comprehensive, and scientific analysis.
Huh? nobody is claiming victimhood. Noboy is playing the victim. Is every complaint “playing the victim” You think that when the AP complains about Holder spying on them that they are playing the victim? Are the stupid tea party folks who are complaining about the IRS playing the victim? Are the people blow up by boston bombers, playing the victim? There is factual claim. deal with it.
This modeler who is fascinated by the hot spot, notes that its not covered in the news. fact. He’s not playing the victim.
Joshua
‘Still, I would appreciate a good-faith response to my comment in that earlier thread. If you choose to do so, drop me a pointer in this thread.”
Sure thing. link
Heh.
Please read more carefully, as just as I should have been more careful. I did not attribute my mistake to carelessness. I said I should have been more careful in my post, and talked about my biasing influences. You are conflating my comments inaccurately.
Fact: I should have been more careful.
Fact: I talked about my “motivations” (as in motivated reasoning), so as to see a pattern that was not validated in the excerpt I quoted. My argument was based on the excerpt referencing the putative “pause” exclusively. In fact, that was an invalid reading of the excerpt – which in reality either referenced two phenomena ( a reading I think more likely), or tropical tropospheric warming exclusively.
I already stated all of this. Methinks your motivated reasoning is showing once again, Steven, although it is possible that the inaccuracy of your interpretation was due to a lack of clarity on my part.
As for the response to previous comments – I’m not going to go digging to find it. You wrote a long comment to me. I responded. I would appreciate a response to my response. It seems to me to be something of an obligation in these debates. Respond to responses, or at least explain why you’re not responding. None of us live up to that obligation all the time – but when asked, specifically for a response, I think one is called for, and the work necessary to do so is called for also. Your decision. I consider this to be something of a question of your good faith – which based on your habit of personalizing our dialogs, seems to me to be in need of some reinforcing.
heh redux.
So I take it that you are “surprised” that the media has not focused on that issue, specifically? And you attribute a cause-and-effect there as he described?
Please note, in his attribution of cause-and-effect, no discussion of uncertainties. No estimation of probabilities. Just a confident description of cause-and-effect. No validate data to support his reasoning. No actual evidence supported.
Should I just look the other way, since Judith is so impressed with the authority of his reputation?
Of course I acknowledge that my bias runs both directions. To try to distinguish the one direction of bias from the other would be nonsense. It would be as nonsensical as dismissing the role of “motivated reasoning” in these debates, as a fundamental attribute that affects how we all reason, by definition, as humans.
You wouldn’t know anyone who might have made such a nonsensical argument, would you Steven?
heh redux, redux.
Heh.
Steven’s interpretation of syntactical ambiguity = “the most obvious reading where the indefinite reference is resolved by the closet antecedent.”
Funny coincidence, that.
Joshua
I don’t have a dog in this long and extremely bemusing fight between you and Mosh (who seems to be carrying out an equally long and bemusing one with Willard.)
However you say;
“As for the response to previous comments – I’m not going to go digging to find it. You wrote a long comment to me. I responded. I would appreciate a response to my response. ”
Surely the onus is on you to find a link? Mosh may not have seen the original comment and he can hardly be expected to search for it if you won’t can he? It is VERY easy to miss a comment as threads can get very long, very convoluted then suddenly switch to a brand new room with a brand new topic.
tonyb
tony –
If somehow I were demanding a response, then I would say yes. He wrote a long comment to me. It seems unlikely that he would have taken the time to do that and then not look for a response. If he had looked for a response, I think it likely that he would have found it; it was there.
This is not the first time that that this has happened. I’m kind of tired of the pattern. I spoke of a “kind of obligation,” before. I should have been more explicit. It is not an obligation in some moral or legalistic sense, but I think it is a kind of obligation in the context of good faith debate. That pattern is certainly understandable once or twice, but as a pattern fairly often repeated – long attacks, to which responses net no response in kind, I think it suggest a lack of good faith. So maybe it’s only in my own mind and not in some objective sense, I think he has a kind of obligation to respond to that comment in the previous thread – and to do the work necessary as a demonstration of good faith.
As you, yourself have noted (if I recall correctly), steven’s reactions to my comments are rather oddly personal (paraphrasing). He tends to personalize the discussions. It’s his prerogative – and it’s just part of blogospheric banter, so I am not claiming some kind of victimhood here – just stating that IMO, in the name of good-faith dialog, I have an expectation that he would demonstrate some good faith here. Its’ up to him.
You will note that steven is rather frequently accused of drive-by commenting where he drops comments and disappears (no doubt, you have seen that at WUWT?). In fact, I recall one time when I defended steven in that context (with bad Andrew? as I recall), when someone made an assumption as to why steven did not respond to a comment. I am not attributing a reason here. I am merely stating that in my opinion (a qualifier I should have used earlier), I would appreciate a demonstration of good faith on his part.
It’s up to him. If he feels a demonstration of good faith as requested is not appropriate, so be it.
I will also note, tony, that steven took the time to find out my last name, and post it in one of these threads without asking me first.
There’s something oddly personal about that. It doesn’t matter in any particularly significant sense – as no harm done. I am not a victim there, either. But it seems to me that someone exchanging views in good faith would not have taken it upon himself to make the decision to post my last name. In a good faith exchange, that decision should have been left to me. Thus, another reason why I feel that steven is in a “good faith deficit” here. It’s up to him to rectify that as he chooses.
Anyway – given that I’ve nearly achieved a solid string of “Joshua” comments in the “recent comments” section, I think it’s time for me to give it a rest.
Joshua
Mosh is renowned for his drive by shoutings, often so cryptic you are left scratching your head at its meaning. He also has a habit of not returning to an old thread as he has invariably moved on to other things. I cant say if he deliberately fails to see responses but certainly he has not answered quite a few of mine, its just one of those things.
I try to be diligent and will look for a reply to a comment I have made in case it warrants a response. However there are numerous times when I only see something by chance many days after the event and it has therefore gone unanswered.
All I am saying is that if you want a reply Mosh has offered to give you one if you provide a link. If it was a comment that was good enough to warrant a reply after the event surely it is worth your spending a bit of time in looking for it?
tonyb
Joshua
You said;
“I will also note, tony, that steven took the time to find out my last name, and post it in one of these threads without asking me first.”
I don’t like it when people do this. I know R Gates last name and I think Fan’s, but its their business if they want to post anonymously and I respect their confidentiality. If someone attacks another denizen personally though in an unpleasant manner, using an assumed name, that is uncalled for and something we used to see a lot here from certain people. They seem to have been better recently so perhaps our hostess had a quiet word with them
tonyb
Mosher,
I know he practically begs for it, but your taking apart Josh is akin to Tim Duncan and the Spurs taking on the Holy Trinity girls jv team.
Minus their best player.
Almost forgot – w w (me waving my pom poms).
“So I take it that you are “surprised” that the media has not focused on that issue, specifically? And you attribute a cause-and-effect there as he described?”
Wrong.
If you asked me how to respond to his comment I would say this.
Lennart Bengtsson makes note of the media’s failure to cover two problematic issues in climate science: the first is the so-called “hot spot”
in the tropical troposphere; the second is the hiatus in warming over the
past 15 years. In the second instance he was wrong as the press did cover the issue, perhaps not to his satisfaction. In the first case he is correct, but the reason why this issue, important to people in his field, is not covered probably has more to do with its highly technical nature rather than any media bias.
If you ask me to blue pencil his entire post there would be a lot of areas for criticism. I tried to pick out the the area where I could find agreement with him
Steve
You sure whine a lot. Must suck to be you.
From a 2004 interview:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/bulletin_en/interviews/bengtsson_en.html
Let’s hope we’re not dealing with a Marxbot infiltrator.
This statement does sort of stand out to me as one I don’t agree with as much as the others. However, we should always remember that the traditional European meaning of the word “liberal” is closer to the American “libertarian” than “liberal”. The closest traditional European equivalent to the American “liberal” is something like “radical”. All of which has been smeared around by a decade and a half of the Internet.
Anyway, I wouldn’t call willard an “infiltrator“, just part of the local population. (I was tempted, but I restrained myself.)
An editorial comment:
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9133-3.pdf
I doubt the emphasized sentence may be described as a double negatives, but I may not be against the idea to call it a one-and-a-half negative.
Instead of being grateful for this comforting result the reaction is rather the opposite. In the almost hysterical climate hype of today a less dramatic warming is not very well received as all political correct members of the public would prefer to hide this uncomfortable fact by following the popular maxim of letting the ends justify the means. From the standpoint of the green movement all political efforts, even extreme ones, are required as they wish to abandon fossil energy as well as nuclear energy and this at a time when the world population is increasing and where the lack of suitable energy is a primary obstacle towards a better life.
It is because of the most successful pseudoscientific propaganda (AGW) of our time.
Girma- It is because of the most successful pseudoscientific propaganda (AGW) of our time And I would add that all rhe mathematical models supported by the IPCC (see Christy’s report to the US Senate) show large and continuing ncreases in post-2000 global tempoatures – an obviously wrong prediction.
I agree with your summing up.
However, the observational records are clear and the global warming is proceeding much slower than generally is anticipated.
Here is the graph:
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/17/dailymail_rose_tempgraph.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg
Maybe Lennart Bengtsson is surprised but I’m not. :-)
Here’s a good line: Some events are seen as very dramatic as the reduced Arctic summer ice, others, even more puzzling, such as the surprising lack of warming in the tropical troposphere is hardly discussed.
Joshua is convinced that the missing hotspot is all over the NYT and Fox news.
Its his peter lang moment
Cause the general public is just gagging for more stories about the ‘trophospheric hotspot’ in their daily news.
I’m rolling my eyes.
Michael
In the grocery store it was all the customers were talking about.
tonyb
cute.
I was interested in Willard’s references to previous statements by Bengtsson and the obvious inference that he seems to have changed his mind, as others have, in recent times.
Possibly the current “pause” is causing many to rethink their position on AGW, but to do this just based on short term trends seems be oversimplistic in my view.
Peter Davies,
You’re welcome, although I’m not sure what would warrant the claim that Lennart Bengtsson changed his mind when he published his op-ed in 2010 at Hans’. The You Kids Get Off My Lawn overtones are just a bit clearer.
“he global temperature has not increased steadily but in irregular intervals. ypical features are a distinct warming trend 1910-1940, a slight cooling trend 1945-1970 followed by the sharp warming trend until the end of the 20th century and finally the last 15 years without any clear warming trend.”
This is almost the same as I have been saying in these colunms for years. I would ony add that the fall in emperature between 1945-1970 was a bit more than slight. I havr critiisised the IPCC for ignoring climate change before 1961; the 1910-1940 increase of near 0.5C was certainly caused by human burning of fossil fuels, but what reversed it in 1940? It is hard for a scientist skilled in signal tracing to not conclude that the 1940 temperature was a permenent heat source working its way through the oceans.
The problem remains: what governs the on/off nature of climate change?
He equivocates on several things here. Lower sensitivity is possible, or the oceans may be gaining the heat. A carbon tax is bad unless imports from non-carbon-tax countries are also taxed in which case it is an effective way to reduce emission. Investment of these revenues in short-term subsidies is bad, but in long-term alternative energy is good. On the one hand, extremists talk about tipping points, but on the other side they question basic physics.
Also, wherever he lives, his media doesn’t report on the pause, but it looks like he sees some scary policies from the greens. Perhaps he doesn’t get on the internet much. Hard to know what to make of this, but I agree that politics should not enter science either from the ‘green-fuel’ or the ‘black-fuel’ extremes.
Jim D
Bengtsson is simply being honest when he concedes that we do not know whether the current pause is an indication that earlier models had overestimated climate sensitivity or whether some of the missing heat really is going into the ocean (or both). Refreshing to hear a climate scientist say, “I don’t know”, isn’t it?
He generally believes that GHGs do cause warming but it is not known today how much, and this is the question that must be answered before any mitigating actions are undertaken. He seems to have concluded that earlier climate models have exaggerated AGW and its impacts.
As to the carbon tax, I’d agree with you that he is out of his area of expertise here, so his statements do not carry as much weight, the same goes for green investment policies.
He is strongest in his criticism of the calls for immediate action from a hysteria-driven CAGW movement, advising us to take advantage of the current pause to clear up some of the many uncertainties that still exist and develop a long-term research program addressed at solving possible future energy shortages, rather than charge off to solve a AGW problem that may not even exist:
Makes good sense to me.
Max
As I mentioned, I don’t know where he gets his perception of hysteria. Perhaps Sweden is in hysteria about climate change more than the US where the public mostly don’t care, and the mainstream media don’t press on it all the time. If I saw a national hysteria about tipping points, I might even complain too, as the science doesn’t emphasize near-term damage, but does suggest ways to avert too much long-term damage, and these are already being heeded to some extent. Science has made the problem known, at least.
Jim D
Agree with you that the general public in most places (probably Sweden included) are not “hysterical” about AGW. In fact, most polls show that they are much less so than the “consensus” team (or the media reports).
Bengtsson has spent a lot of time in Germany and now spends time in Switzerland. Climate hysteria does not appear to be a big problem in Germany any more – the politicians still give the “war on climate change” lip service, but new lignite based power plants are planned to fill the gap left by mandated decommissioning of nuclear plants. Switzerland hasn’t gotten that far yet, but is also planning to shut down nuclear power some day, without a real clear idea of what is going to be the replacement. But the Swiss public is pretty lukewarm on AGW today.
The polls I’ve seen seem to show that the US general public is also not so worried about AGW today.
So you’re right – there really isn’t a “hysteria”, as far as the general public is concerned.
Max
Yes, these countries are just going ahead with the greener policies as best they can. Common sense is winning out, but is it fast enough? We will find out.
The hysteria has been waning for some time now and that’s good.
Jim D | May 14, 2013 at 2:26 am said: ”Yes, these countries are just going ahead with the greener”
For green environment needs CO2 and water vapor; the deviates like you are against the two most essential molecules for green = back to front!…
To what extent can the global warming consensus be challenged without fear of reprisal from government, even if there could be “no possible justification” under the laws of this land? In the news today is as follows:
The Department of Justice used a secret subpoena to seize two months of Associated Press journalists’ phone records without notifying the news organization, a senior department official told NBC News. That admission came after the AP said earlier Monday that the government had seized records from its offices’ phone lines in 2012 in what it called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion.” The news agency’s chief executive said in a letter on the service’s website that there could be “no possible justification” for such an “overbroad” seizure of dozens of phone lines’ records, but the official who spoke with NBC News called the step necessary to avoid “a substantial threat to the integrity” of an ongoing leak investigation. The letter a U.S. Attorney had sent to the AP didn’t give a reason for the seizure, but the AP noted that he is already conducting a leaks probe to determine how the AP learned about an al-Qaeda bomb plot it reported on before the government made it public last year. Get More at NBC News
Waggy tries fear mongering.
Big gubmint alarmism and hysteria ?
“If you do not support climate catastrophes as the one recently from the World bank, you are placed into a deniers box and accused to support the interest of the oil industry or alternatively that you are a man in a senior age and therefore unable to understand the concerns of the younger generations.” – Lennart Bengtsson
Bengtsson was born in 1935. He is either age 76 or age 77. I doubt he is able to understand the concerns of the younger generations. His views on global warming may be influenced by his knowing he won’t live long enough to be affected by it.
Max_OK
Oops!
You just fell into the logic trap, which Bengtsson himself pointed out.
Ouch!
Max_CH
Senior politicians from the DemocRAT party understand the gullibility of the younger generation that’s for sure.
On the other hand, those that even mention tipping points are accused by him of being greenies just trying to raise funds for themselves. Not a double standard at all.
Max_CH, what is wrong with you? I quote him, then you repeat the quote as if I never saw it before? If you were younger, I would suspect you suffer from an ADD.
Max_OK
Just wanted to make absolutely sure you not only read it, but also understood it.
Max_CH
David Springer said on May 14, 2013 at 12:54 am |
Senior politicians from the DemocRAT party understand the gullibility of the younger generation that’s for sure.
_______
Thanks, David. Let’s consider what GOP could really mean.
Go On Polluting
Gas Our Planet
Greedy Old Phonies
Geezers On Pills
Goofy Old Poots *
* My favorite
ADD is not confined to younger people. I’m 56 and OMG did you see the size of that squirrel just now?
Max_CH, it is pointless. OK clearly did not understand it.
Everyone is already negatively effected by the irrational panic. Well everyone except climate scientists and wind turbine manufacturers I guess who are positively effected by the irrational panic.
And Al Gore. Let’s not forget the profits that POS raked in.
Rather than climate change there is a far greater causal connection between the global warming alarmism of the Left and a moribund economy, staggeringly high real unemployment, and the Left’s war on everyone and everything from William Gray, George Bush, Gov. Palin and anti-Americanism.
Yes, Waggy, you got it right when you said the Left is at war on anti-Americanism.
Did Bengtsson appear in your recent list of climate change denier oldies Max_OK? I can’t remember but suspect that you may be keeping score.
No, he’s not an American, and I concentrated on the Americans.
Actually, from the WSJ letter there were a few who were’t Americans, and I added them to the list,
Max_OK
So you’re not only gerontophobic, but also xenophobic?
Tsk, tsk!
Max_CH
max,
I think the correct diagnosis for your evil doppleganger is veritaphobia.
” His views on global warming may be influenced by his knowing he won’t live long enough to be affected by it.”
Of course his views are affected by it. We know that unlike Gore he is not young enough to plan on getting rich by scaring people.
Worse than the old are the young who selfishly want their golden years to be better than the golden years of their elders. ungrateful brats.
What we need to do is find somebody with no interest
Mosher, given the American population’s top-heavy age distribution, old timers on Social Security and Medicare better hope the brats don’t get fed up with subsidizing aging.
What can they do when outvoted by aging baby boomers?
Yeah well like I tell my kids … I made you and I can unmake you too.
Chief
‘What can they do when outvoted by aging baby boomers?”
Max never thinks things through to the end game.
> I made you and I can unmake you too.
Saith Chronos to Zeus.
If Chief and Mosher would look at the projected age distribution of the U.S. population they would see the older population is never in the majority.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p25-1138.pdf
Max you are full of simplistic adolescent nonsense.
Chief, if that’s your way of saying you don’t understand Figure 1 in the linked Census Report, I will explain it to you if you like.
Let’s assume that hose under 20 don’t really count and those over 50 are looking to the future. As a 15 year old that leaves you in the don’t really count – can’t really count in fact – camp.
willard (@nevaudit)’ | May 14, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
>> I made you and I can unmake you too.
>Saith Chronos to Zeus.
A quote from a fantasy world. How not unexpected.
Max,
B
E
A
T
I
N
G
T
H
A
T
H
O
R
S
E
A
G
A
I
N
You should be worried about someone calling the SPCA.
But is beating a dead horse quite the same as beating a not-undead horse?
Barry,
Damn if I know.
Speaking of undead – if zombies could type, would they sound like Max?
No, Max_CH, I’m not xenophobic, just lazy. I couldn’t easily find the ages of the foreigners who signed the letter to the UN. I got Google fatigue, and quit.
OK, maybe a little xenophobic about Australians, but who wouldn’t be?
That’s not surprising Max – the Aussie rhyming slang for Yanks is septic tanks. Listening to you it is easy to see why.
Chief Hydrologist | May 14, 2013 at 2:13 am | Reply
“That’s not surprising Max – the Aussie rhyming slang for Yanks is septic tanks. Listening to you it is easy to see why.”
American rhyming slang for Australians is dickheads. I know it doesn’t rhyme but we are more concerned with accuracy than with alliteration.
Of course for you springer septic tank is the perfect metaphor because you are full of it.
”However, because of the strong public interest we are now facing a dilemma as the public and the political community have become too much involved in the climate change debate influencing the actual science and this not necessarily in a positive way”
Reason in the 80’s they went from global cooling to global warming; was easy – not very many people were involved in the debate. Before that, for 150years, the shonks were presenting every minuscule imprint from the past, as GLOBAL. Was no scrutiny; sky was the limit; in those old lies now the fake skeptics are stewing… Warmist have now big problem; because their lies are fresh; too many people are involved.
Earth promised to heavens: there is no such a thing as a permanent lie on the whole earth. Warmist are looking for backdoor exit Fakes are creating plenty exits for the Warmist; so they are taking their time… delaying… delaying – until the more prudent ones start spiting the dummy, to avoid jail
JC
Enjoyed reading it. Thank you.
Judith,
Thank you for posting another interesting article. The articles you post present a balance and variety, not available on other sites I have visited. They cover climate science, climate economics, UN negotiations, policy and politics.
For evidence of the fading interest see the ‘Activity’ charts here.
• Climate change: http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?
• Carbon credits: here: http://carboncredits.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?
These charts show the interest is waning world wide since the peak at Copenhagen in 2009. The charts show the interest in climate change and carbon credits in the English speaking media world wide.
Click on the headings at the top of the page to see the activity charts for alternative energy, biofuels, geothermal, solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, natural gas and oil.
Further evidence of the declining interest is the collapse of the EU and Chicago carbon markets:
EU carbon price has sunk from €25 in 2009 to €3.37 today.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/02/carbon-trading
Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX) tanked from a peak of $7.40 in 2008 to $0.05 in 2010. Then the CCX was closed.
https://www.theice.com/ccx.jhtml
Taken together, the above provides persuasive support for the statement quoted from the Lennart Bengtsson article
All the doomsayers have achieved by advocating irrational policies that would not be acceptable to rationalists is to delay progress by twenty years.
The next step will be for the rationalists to take over.
+1
Except that rationalists should simply test hypotheses and allow the intuitives to take charge! :)
Happily, I’m an intuitive rationalist. And available.
As Steve Mosher wrote money changes the questions being asked. At least it changes the balance of questions by adding questions of immediate interest for the money – or the politicians.
Climate scientists may dream of the situation where their science has as much funding and is considered as important as it’s now, but would still be free to choose the questions based on their scientific interest. That’s, however, as unrealistic as it would be for physicists to think that the get all the money going to engineering to support their basic research that tries to resolve the most fundamental questions.
Counting by volume the climate science may presently be more an applied science than basic science. It gets a major part of its funding to answer questions of immediate economic or political relevance, but it’s not as clearly divided to two parts as engineering is of physics – or as making routine weather forecasts is from basic atmospheric science.
Many of the posts on this site are directly connected to the lack of separation between basic climate science, and using the existing basic knowledge about the Earth system to offer support to decision making in political and economic arenas. Physicists doing fundamental science do not, in general and with some exceptions, offer advice for engineering or economic decision making. They know that their lack much of the needed competence for that. In the interface between climate science and climate policy the situation is not the same although the lack of relevant competence may be equally important.
Pekka,
You may have missed my response to your comment @ http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/#comment-320371, so I’ll repost it here since it is relevant to your new comment:
“Pekka,
I think I understand what you are advocating (more specifics and some example would help), but it strikes me to be a pie-in-the-sky-idea and not at all realistic. We’ve had 20 years of UN climate conferences with grandiose aims but they have been totally unrealistic as history has shown so emphatically. I think your aim is even more unrealistic. I can’t imagine how you could expect that the governments of the countries of the world, their politicians, policy advisers, economists, economic analyses organisations, systems, academia, media and public can be persuaded to change from a mostly cost-benefit approach. [As an aside, nor can I see that anyone outside academia will accept the low discount rates that the alarmists want to use in their analyses.] I can certainly see how a “Robust Analysis’ approach can make a significant contribution and can be persuasive. But the policy decision will require economic cost benefit analyses that show net benefits for most people in all countries over the decade ahead (from when the policy is to be implemented). This is the reality we have to face.
I don’t see that scientists can make much contribution to “development of the “policy formation process””. I think we have to run with what we have, or we’ll go nowhere. Policy is not something scientists understand or are comfortable with. They have negligible understanding of it, other than rare people, like Roger Pielke Jr. – and also Lord Monkton and Nigel Lawson. The fact that climate scientists are so dismissive and derogatory about people who do have policy expertise, such as Lord Monkton and Nigel Lawson, demonstrates that scientists don’t have any understanding of policy development.
Politicians have to make decisions and announce policy to meet deadlines. The deadlines range from hours (e.g. the media news cycle and the 5 pm deadline for the evening news) to the election cycle (3 years in Australia). In between those two extremes is the annual budget cycle and international events they have to attend and make a policy announcement at. Then there is the bad news policies they release when they will not get much press because the media is distracted by other news stories. Policy development is influenced by all this and much more, especially the ideological leanings of the party in power at the time.
For a policy to survive and achieve its goal, it will have to last until the job is done. In the case of cutting global GHG emissions, it will have to provide benefit to nearly everyone and every country at nearly all times. If we accept this, it becomes clear that top down policies like the UN has been trying to negotiate have little chance of succeeding. Richard Tol explained it in this one page article: http://www.voxeu.org/article/global-climate-talks-if-17th-you-don-t-succeed
Therefore, I believe any policy has to be good for nearly every country and most people in every country or it cannot survive. The failing EU ETS and Australian carbon tax and ETS demonstrate what will happen to all such schemes that damage economies with no obvious benefits.
For a policy to survive it has to be removed from politics. It has to be removed from bureaucratic control. Free enterprise and free trade are example of policies that survive without political or bureaucratic intervention. It is why they succeed. We can achieve the goal we seek, I believe, by removing bad regulations that are preventing the goal from being achieved, not by adding more regulations and more politically and bureaucratically controlled market distortions.
I repeat my suggestion, the first take we need to undertake is to define the requirements. What does the policy have to achieve? What are the constraints? I posted two suggestions; do you have anything to debate about them or anything to add?”
Peter,
I noticed the comment but concluded that I had already written what was ready to write. In an answer I would have said only things that could be inferred from my earlier comments, and perhaps the following point:
I understand that what I’m proposing is not likely to lead anywhere, but neither are any other comments that I write. Pushing for something not discussed by many others may actually have a little more chance of having influence than supporting something discussed already extensively by others.
Pekka,
I understand. I am more focused on pragmatism and trying to influence people to seriously consider pragmatic policy options. If the discussion could be held, progress could be made. CE followers could then go and spread the word instead of continually arguing to retard progress.
Engineers are pragmatic. They get things done. that is their entire training and culture. That is not the training and culture of science and scientists. That is why I am advocating that people start off by defining the requirements. What does policy have to achieve?
I suggested (http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/#comment-320223) two requirements to get the ball rolling:
1. The policy must have a high probability of achieving the requirements (the specified outcomes.)
2. To be able to be implemented it will need to be able to demonstrate it provides benefits (e.g. economic or other benefits) almost immediately and throughout the duration of the policy for all countries and most people in each country.
Peter, good posts.
Peter Lang, your position seems to contradict itself. The requirements you would impose would, almost by definition, invalidate any policy. And not just on climate change. No policy has ever met them.
So when you say we should “seriously consider pragmatic policy options,” you pretty much contradict yourself. Your standards would require rejecting any policy you say we should consider.
Brandon,
You’ve made some empty assertions but you’ll need to be more specific. I am wondering of you actually have any experience in policy advice or development?
Brandon,
Examples of policies that have been implemented where nearly everyone wins (i.e. overwhelming majority of winners):
– Floating the currency
– Privitising government assets that can be better run by the private sector
– Implementing Goods and Services Tax
– Free Trade agreements
– Removing protectionism
– Reducing unnecessary regulation
There’s just a few quickies off the top of my head.
And if you’ve followed my posts on previous threads you’d know I’ve been advocating for policies that, IMO, would be ‘No Regrets’ for reducing global GHG emissions. Just ask me. :)
Peter Lang, “more specific”? I was quite clear when I said no policy has ever met the requirements you listed. How could I be more specific? You came up with some pie in the sky requirement that could never be met. There’s nothing more to it.
And are you really going to stoop to discussions of our persons the moment I disagree with you? Shouldn’t you at least wait until you’ve pretended to address what I’ve said?
Brandon,
As written it is such a stupid and ignorant statement I was offering you the chance to explain what you meant. However, I now realise my first assessment was correct. It’s dumb and ignorant. I gave you a list of some examples. Many many more. In fact few polices can be implemented in democracies that do not create more winners than losers. And certainly, nearly every country has to be a winner or it will not play. That is exactly what Richard Tol explains here: http://www.voxeu.org/article/global-climate-talks-if-17th-you-don-t-succeed
I (wrongly) expected you might know something about the matter.
Peter Lang, if what I wrote is such a “stupid and ignorant statement,” why is it not a single example you provided actually meets the requirements you listed? The fact you’re stuck offering false evidence seems to support my point.
If you disagree, show how even one of those examples meets your requirements. Then maybe you can justify insulting language.
Peter L You suggested then
…….”Back to requirements for policy, I’d suggest the following for starters and ask other to join in:
1. The policy must have a high probability of achieving the requirements (the specified outcomes.)
2. To be able to be implemented it will need to be able to demonstrate it provides benefits (e.g. economic or other benefits) almost immediately and throughout the duration of the policy for all countries and most people in each country.
That’ll do for a start. I hope others will contribute (constructively).”
Policy advice and development IMO is invariably a creature of the economic circumstances of each decision-maker’s country and it seems that because each country’s economic circumstances usually differ (often significantly), costs and benefits of adoption of any policy must also be different in each country.
In the context of the above listed requirements it would seem that any benefits that may accrue to one country from the implementation of a policy may not necessarily be felt to the same extent in other countries and may even impact negatively.
The Chief has often mentioned land conservation measures as a means of carbon sequestration and water retention and this seems a policy that could satisfy the above requirement that a majority of people in all countries could benefit from its introduction.
By the way, I find it funny you offer “floating the currency” as an example. There are a number of countries that would have been better off if they had never done that. The devastation it helped cause in Asia was only one of the most severe economic crises in modern times.
Peter Davie, you actually understate the problem. Not only may some countries be impacted differently than others by any policy, such is inevitable. There has never been any policy that has helped all countries at the same time, ever. Even if one doesn’t view that goal as impossible (though it is), the fact it has never happened before clearly indicates it is an unreasonable requirement.
The simple reality is any global policy implemented to combat global warming will have to be forced upon some* because the policy will harm them. The only way to make it happen is to convince them some greater harm will befall them if they don’t accept the policy.
*Given the inability to force things like basic human rights and a halt to genocidal practices, that’s clearly never going to happen on a global level. Just another reason Lang’s requirements could never be met.
Lang you’re so full of crap your eyes are probably brown.
List some specific examples of those generalities and describe how everyone won.
Free trade? You mean that giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the country from NAFTA?
Relaxed regulations? Like what allowed BP to spill a billion gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico?
Get specific or get lost.
Branden, I thought that I stated the problem not understated it but notwithstanding this I still consider that there may still be some policies that could be of benefit to all countries, such as land conservation measures that the Chief advocates.
Brandon,
I can’t respond to assertions like this:
I haven’t a clue what is going on in your brain on this. All the policies I listed do meet those requirements.
I am assuming you know nothing about the subjects. It’s pointless me trying to respond to totally baseless assertions.
I suggest you stick to what ever it is you know something about.
Sorry Brandon another typo but this was matched by yours :)
David Springer, I don’t agree with your attitude or language, but you’re right that Peter Lang is using gross generalities. However, you miss a bigger point: Not one of his examples has ever been implemented at a global level. Even if we accept them as perfect policies, they aren’t examples of what he’s talking about.
All policies are made with the aim of shifting harm. The harm is usually shifted to people not involved in making the policy. Quite often, the harm is indirect (such as harming a country by devaluing its exports by increasing trade with another country). But it always exists. Somebody always gets screwed over.
Of course, even ignoring that, his requirements are impossible to meet. We can’t bring ourselves to stop genocide in various countries. There is no chance we’ll be able to force countries to go along with a policy to combat a largely intangible threat when we can’t force them to stop the whole institutionalized rape, torture and murder thing.
Peter Davies, I bet you made that typo just to make me feel better about mine. Thanks!
Peter Lang, rather than being rude and repeatedly saying I have no idea what I’m talking about, why not do as I said and show how one of your examples meets the requirements you listed? If I’m being as stupid and ignorant as you suggest, it should be easy. And it would a way of trying to have an actual discussion.
If you’re right, there would be no downside to showing you are. The only reason not to do it is you’re wrong.
Peter Davies,
Thank you for your constructive comments and for contributing positively.
I agree. But we need to separate whether we are talking about a policy for a country versus talking about international agreements that will affect all participating countries. Free trade agreements, or agreements to reduce trade restrictions, benefit the vast majority of people in the participating countries. That is an international agreement. An example of a single country policy is floating of the currency, and Australia”s implementation of its Goods and Services Tax. In both case there was very significant gain for Australia’s economy, and it is a sustained benefit. Nearly everyone gained and continues to benefit. there are many other examples. Removing unnecessary regulations that add cost to business is another. Virtually everyone gains.
I disagree. Freeing up trade provides benefits to both sides. Both economies grow as a result. They specialise in what they have a natural advantage at. Most people in both countries gain, although there are always some losers in the short term. But the winners far outweigh the short term losers.
What I am proposing for climate change is that everyone would gain if USA, for example, loosened the regulations and regulatory constraints that are making nuclear so expensive. By doing so, they could provide the catalyst for the world to move from fossil fuels to nuclear energy. That would facilitate roll out of clean cheap electricity to all those people who don’t have it as well as provide cheaper energy for the manufacturing economies. [not immediate of course.]
[For those readers who are about to go apoplectic, save your energy. I recognise many people just don’t get any of this. My suggestion to you is ask genuine questions, or keep your thoughts to yourself and just follow and see if anything starts to dawn on you. My apologies to those I offend.]
Peter Davies –
This is interesting to me, both because I haven’t seen solid arguments in opposition and because I don’t know of large-scale policies to implement these measures.
Assuming the benefits as described, why do you suppose such initiatives have not been implemented on a large scale?
[reposted; previously posed in wrong place]
Brandon,
I can’t be bothered replying to your baseless assertions, so I’ll just respond in similar vein to some of them.
Rubbish. The many rounds of the World Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provided major benefits to all countries and to the peoples of those countries. More could have been achieved of course if they had gone further.
Rubbish. Baseless assertion.
Not true. How would you expect to force a policy on another country; with military intervention? Policies will only succeed and last if all parties gain. If the policy provides benefits to all countries, as is the case with what I’ve been proposing for a long time, then everyone gains. No losers. (see these two comments and the sub threads that follow:
1. To decarbonise the global economy:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313509
2. Alternative to carbon pricing: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313514
Yes, of course. These are blog comments. I can’t write a treatise in blog comments. And you do need to read the links (including on the comments I’ve linked to).
Brandon, you have issues!
Peter Lang, if you can’t be bothered to try to have a reasonable discussion, that’s your call. You made specific claims, and when challenged on them, you ran. That, combined with your rudeness, hostility and insistence on making things about the individuals, shows how little you have to contribute.
That said, if you’re going to criticize me for supposedly saying stupid and ignorant things, you should watch your examples more closely. The GATT never provided benefits to all countries. At its largest, it didn’t even include all countries. And like all international agreements, it caused harm. The Multi-Fiber Arrangement it produced is one of the classic examples of how international agreements can be unfair and damaging (the damage is still being felt by several countries, decades later).
If you want to have a reasonable discussion, I’m game. However, you’ll have to try some new things. For example, you’ll have to read what I write. That means not doing things like… saying I’m wrong to claim global agreements would have to be forced because we can’t force them when that is exactly the point I made – I said such would be necessary but impossible. You said I was wrong because it would be impossible.
That’s not being coherent.
Brandon,
Yes. I made specific claims. They are accepted basic facts to economists. No point debating them. You made assertions and gave no explanation of what you meant or your basis for those assertions. When asked what you meant, you said nothing accept to repeat them.
Since, apparently, you don’t know the most fundamental concepts there is no point us getting into a discussion. We don’t have even the most basic common ground to build on. Your assertions are the sort of economics you’d learn in the pub. Clearly you know little about the subject, and your smart arse, arrogant attitude from your first comment suggest there is no basis of common understanding for us to build on. So we might as well just agree to disagree I am not interested in getting down to the level of trying to explain to you why policies such as free trade are beneficial to all.
If you want to start quibbling about what is meant by “beneficial to all” the argument would be equivalent to arguing we shouldn’t advocating wearing seat belts because you know of some person who got trapped in a car and died, but if they hadn’t been wearing their seat belt they would have survived. As another example, we shouldn’t make nuclear power cheaper and available to more people because, although it is far safer and cleaner than coal fired generation, and would save millions of lives per year by rolling it out, there are occasions where it has accidents and causes some fatalities.
How can you have a rational discussion with someone who makes baseless assertions like you did?
Read the links I provided to the previous comments, and if you want to discuss further, try a different approach. Your first, arrogant comment set the tone for this exchange:
This is the key statement: “The requirements you would impose would, almost by definition, invalidate any policy.”
Those requirements are essential for any policy to succeed. And, IMO, are achievable for global GHG emissions reductions and, in fact, essential for any policy to succeed. If they are not achieved there will be little progress (as has been the case for the past 20 years of UN climate negotiations). So we need to accept these requirements and then start considerign what policies could be implemented that would meet the requirements.
However, for polices to achieve these requirements for reducing global GHG emissions we will need to ‘think outside the box’ of ‘top-down’, prescriptive policies like carbon pricing, Kyoto agreements, targets and timetables with penalties for not achieving commitments, etc.
[Did you read the Tol article I linked: http://www.voxeu.org/article/global-climate-talks-if-17th-you-don-t-succeed ?]
Joshua, a reasonable question. The implementation of such measures does not seem to have been given much priority except in the case of individual farmers and rural restoration groups.
It is something that should be considered by governments interested in the mitigation of the effects of the steady CO2 build-up over the past half century as opposed to the tree planting and windmill farming subsidies currently in play in Australia and other western countries.
Peter Lang, I’ve made multiple points you’ve hand-wavingly dismissed without making the slightest effort to address them. Instead, you’ve false examples and insulted. Even when your examples were specifically called into question, you refused to discuss what I argued. Put simply, you have avoided every opportunity to have a reasonable discussion, choosing instead rely purely on personal attacks.
Amusingly, while insisting I know nothing, you accuse me of arrogance. You hand-wavingly dismiss me as ignorant and incompetent. You promote yourself as knowledgeable without offering any reasoning for what you say. Calling me arrogant is pure projection.
Joshua, unless I’m mistaken, I think a primary reason conservation projects like that aren’t being widely adopted is it provides a one-time benefit as far as CO2 is concerned. Biomass can only absorb so much CO2. Once it does, there is no further sequestration. That means there is little long term affect (on CO2 levels).
Brandon,
Yes, I dismissed your hand-waving and baseless assertions. What you accused me of is what you did yourself from your first comment. I answered you and provided links. You’ve given no indication you’ve read or understood. You responded with more hand waving and baseless assertions. So, no point in continuing.
Brandon Shollenberger | May 14, 2013 at 9:41 am |
“David Springer, I don’t agree with your attitude or language, but you’re right that Peter Lang is using gross generalities.”
As far as jarheads go my attitude is tame and my language like a choir boy’s. It takes all kinds to make the world go round. Write that down.
“However, you miss a bigger point: Not one of his examples has ever been implemented at a global level. ”
Nothing is implemented on a global level except death and taxes. You’re a bit of dimwit. You and Lang are like dumb and dumber. Write that down too.
Peter Lang, we’re at the point where two people point fingers at each other and call the other crazy. You’re probably right that there’s no point in continuing.
I will say I think any fair minded individual reading this exchange will favor me. If nothing else, your insistence on making things personal is all sorts of lame. That, plus the fact you offered policies of a single country as proof it is possible to make international policy that benefits all countries (then ran away from the point when called out) should be enough for me to be the “winner.”
Or at least to make you look like the crazy one!
Wow Springer, it’s amazing you aren’t in moderation. Contentless insults, time and time again? It’s almost like you’re trying to get yourself banned.
You could at least try to be clever or funny with your insults. Or is this you trying?
You’re passive aggressive, Brandon. That’s like me only no balls.
Brandon,
Your comments have been meaningless babble from the start. You accuse me of all the things you do yourself and did from the first comment. If you’d wanted to have a rational debate, you would not have begun as you did, nor continue as you have.
The only way I would be interested in engaging with you is if you are prepared to show you genuinely understand the policy approach I’ve been advocating – i.e. state in your own words what you understand I have been advocating. If you did that honestly, and demonstrate you understand, then we may have a basis to begin a discussion.
Once you have demonstrated you understand what I’ve been advocating, I might be interested in moving to the next stage where you clarify what I was seeking from the start, which is:
1. Can you state whether or not you accept requirement #1 and if not, please explain why not.
2. Can you state whether or not you accept requirement #2 and if not, please explain why not.
But that is a later step.
[If you want to argue about basics economic concepts such as free trade and the other examples I gave of polices where ‘everyone’ is a winner (more correctly the overwhelming majority are winners), then please accept that I am not interested in discussing what I see as basic concepts here.]
Peter Lang, I thought we agreed there was no point in continuing this exchange. As in, it would be over. There is such a fundamental disconnect in this exchange nothing will come of it. All that’s left is for viewers to decide for themselves. The fact is one of us looks like a complete buffoon. Repeating yourself ad nauseum in what you’ve already admitted is pointless will just encourage the view that it’s you.
You’re free to keep shouting, “I’m right you moron!” for as long as you like. It won’t convince anyone, and you’ll look foolish, but that’s a prcie of free speech.
David Springer, it takes no courage to behave like you do. You behave like a coward. It’s pahetic, and you disgrace this site. The fact you’d take pride in such shameful behavior sayd more about you than I could ever want to know.
Yea, Brandon, whatever.
brandon –
I think you missed a rather obvious alternative possibility.
Joshua, not at all. One of us looking like a buffoon doesn’t preclude the other from looking like one.
Brandon,
I can’t be bothered replying to your baseless assertions, so I’ll just respond in similar vein to some of them.
Rubbish. The many rounds of the World Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provided major benefits to all countries and to the peoples of those countries. More could have been achieved of course if they had gone further.
Rubbish. Baseless assertion.
Not true. How would you expect to force a policy on another country; with military intervention? Policies will only succeed and last if all parties gain. If the policy provides benefits to all countries, as is the case with what I’ve been proposing for a long time, then everyone gains. No losers. (see these two comments and the sub threads that follow:
1. To decarbonise the global economy:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313509
2. Alternative to carbon pricing: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313514
Yes, of course. These are blog comments. I can’t write a treatise in blog comments. And you do need to read the links (including on the comments I’ve linked to).
Brandon, you have issues!
“The views vary widely but the dominant opinion is that climate change is genuine and a potential challenge to the world community at least in the longer perspective. This is also an opinion shared by a majority of leading scientists in the field.”. Do people get paid for writing such anodyne drivel? No sceptical scientist or other climate sceptic that I’m aware questions the reality of climate change and its obvious that in the longer perspective the world community has to consider how to adapt to the next glacial period.
People continue to discount the effect of the heat released by the combustion of fossil fuels. The amount of heat released by fossil fuels and nuclear energy in 2008 was 50x10E16 btus. That is enough to raise the atmospheric temperature by 0.17*F. Why didn’t it? Because almost all of that heat melted one trillion tons of glaciers. The glaciers provided cooling and masked the real potential threat of global warming. Where else can this heat go? This heat was not used to heat the earth or water. The geothermal heat flow of 44 terrawatts is more than enough to maintain the temperature gradient between the earth and the atmosphere. Surely it must be obvious that correlating temperature with carbon dioxide does not begin to reflect the real potential damage of global warming and the consequences of ignoring heat emissions. If CO2 has any effect on global warming it must be minor.
This is an example of a commenter that POKERGUY doesn’t like us calling a “clown”. It apparently offends his sensibility to point out someone’s math and science deficiencies.
You see, whut, even you can say something I agree with.
I keep track of these clownbots such as Haddad. They re-appear sporadically to make their comments and then go back into hiding, waiting long enough in the hope that people reading forgot the counter argument.
In this case, Haddad uses the argument of transient heating, also a favorite of The Chief Hydrologist. Of course the heating is real, but fairly small and one that does not have a cumulative effect, in contrast to that of the GHG effect. So the value of 0.17F that Haddad gives does not accumulate year to year, and would quickly dissipate as radiative losses should all human FF and nuclear consumption cease.
Note how Haddad applies the heating as a value in Fahrenheit and not Celsius, to artificially inflate its significance.
There is an art to the pseudo-science.
the dweeb continues to be profoundly unscientific – and to rant and rave nonsense insults. He has an idea that carbon dioxide molecules absorb and emit IR at different frequencies. Utter nonsense – emission and absorption happen with the same discrete quanta of energy – which is related to frequency in the quantum idea. Is there ultimately a shift in frequency in a warmer world in accordance with Wein’s Displacement? Perhaps but it is a miniscule effect in any realistic temperature range.
Warming from combustion and radioactive decay is of the same order as warming from additional greenhouse gases. With additional greenhouse gases there is a reduction in the mean free IR photon path. Perhaps if we had a bucket with water flowing in the top and out through the a hole in the bottom. With some combination of inflow and outflow you can maintain a constant level in the bucket. Stick some gum in the hole and you can reduce the outflow such that the level and pressure increases until there is a new equilibrium of inflow and outflow.
Same with the atmosphere – the atmosphere warms until it again as a whole emits the same amount of energy to space – all other things being equal. Which they of course never are. It is a very fast process which is helped along as CO2 is emitted at very high temperatures. These extra gases are cooling to local equilibrium rather than warming in the atmosphere.
It is a very simple idea – but the dweeb has difficulty with the basics. Too busy prattling and preening.
Webster, “In this case, Haddad uses the argument of transient heating, also a favorite of The Chief Hydrologist. Of course the heating is real, but fairly small and one that does not have a cumulative effect, in contrast to that of the GHG effect. So the value of 0.17F that Haddad gives does not accumulate year to year, and would quickly dissipate as radiative losses should all human FF and nuclear consumption cease.”
You are right, if we eliminate all human use of any form of energy we can nip this sucker in the bud!
That 0.17F or about 0.1 C though is about 25% of the global increase temperature above the instrumental period mean Heck it i almost as large as the margin of error in the GMT anomaly. Of course his estimate is likely high and that energy is mainly emitted over land areas near fairly dense populations anyway. Globally, it doesn’t amount to much.
dweebman and his sidekick geekboy? I guess they hang out together in Wilma’s basement.
I told you people that the Chief Hydrologist is a krankpot, but would you believe me, noooo.
I double-checked Haddad’s numbers and 50x10E16 btus in one year across the planet works out to 0.03 watts/m^2. Tell me how important this sounds to you, eh????
I also like how you fake skeptics with the authoritarian sounding names such as Chief and Captain are lazier than sloths.
So what do you think the forcing from CO2 is in a year? Something like 0.04 W/m2. You are a simplistic buffoon.
Just stop it. Get the heck away from here. You are a criminal manipulator of knowledge. CO2 forcing builds up year-after-year because it does not readily sequester out. Have you not learned anything in the waste that is your life?
This is the kind of bizarre double-talk that Chief subscribes to
Note how in the first sentence the Chief is certain that the world will not warm, but by the third sentence, he calls it “fundamental uncertainty”. That is the sign of someone that is either drunk or bereft of any reasoning skills. A prankster at best and maybe schizoid at the worst.
I am only happy that he resides on the other side of the planet.
Same a charming little space cadet – wouldn’t want you to change.
The forcing doesn’t accumulate. The atmosphere warms and emissions increase. In fact – the CO2 is superheated and cools to a local thermodynamic equilibrium.
I am far from being a sceptic. I believe the IPCC.
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
It is of course this coupled non-linear chaotic system – about which I have talked often enough – that caused the 1998/2001 climate shift. These tend to last 20 to 40 years in the long proxy records. Beyond that things are a bit uncertain for exactly the same reason.
But this seems a little deep for a knob who believes in control knobs.
I understand there’s a fair number of clowns running around at BAE wasting time on blogs calling other people clowns. Would you know anything about that?
The CO2 accumulates so that the forcing grows.
@Chief Hydrologist…
I don’t understand how somebody could say this in a discussion of the greenhouse effect without proving he doesn’t have the faintest idea what he’s talking about. Perhaps you could explain?
AK | May 16, 2013 at 8:04 am |
@Chief Hydrologist…
“In fact – the CO2 is superheated and cools to a local thermodynamic equilibrium.”
I don’t understand how somebody could say this in a discussion of the greenhouse effect without proving he doesn’t have the faintest idea what he’s talking about. Perhaps you could explain?
——————————————————————————-
Well what with running computer models all day on his laptop whilst diving on the great barrier reef (gag me with a spoon) I’m thinking nitrogen narcosis might have explanatory power.
Symptoms of nitrogen narcosis include impairment of judgement, multi-tasking and coordination, loss of decision-making ability and focus, vertigo and visual or auditory disturbances, exhilaration, giddiness, extreme anxiety, depression, or paranoia, overconfidence, and tunnel vision.
Ostensibly nitrogen narcosis is reversible with no long term brain damage but the evidence here would argue against that.
The marxbot (me) agrees with AK that there is something peculiar about Chief’s thought processes. I have just been aware of it for a lot longer.
The Chief is considered in very high regard by the other skeptics, which is also very puzzling … until you think about it.
Using the principle of sympathy, perhaps he’s working on an assumption that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are entirely due to temperature changes. It would have to be something more complex than global average temperature, since the curves only (approximately) fit since 1970, but if so he ought to say so, and ideally point or link to some sort of study that proves it.
Not to say that there doesn’t seem to be a correlation of short-term (1-3 year) changes with el nino, but just because there’s a correlation on one time-scale doesn’t prove causation on another.
I mean ENSO.
The atmosphere warm very slowly – all other things being equal (yeah right) – and emissions increase such that warming stops.
In fact it seems that there were other sources of recent warming.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC 3.4.4.1
The warming from combustion is about 0.03W/m2/year and from carbon dioxide ‘forcing’ 0.04W/m2/year. CO2 enters the atmosphere superheated and cools down to new warmer state caused by additional CO2.
Complex idea I know dweeb – if you burn it it’s hot – year after year. Do you think this somehow makes a difference? The higher energy state is maintained as a result of the reduced mean IR photon path with added CO2.
I am so far from being a skeptic – and you are so far from having a clue.
Chief Hydro says:
This is intentional obfuscation by the Chief. We have explained over and over again that CO2 GHG forcing ACCUMULATES year-after-year while the heat from CO2 combustion DISSIPATES every year. He is in so deep in this charade that he comes up with this preposterous idea that the CO2 molecule acts as a dample-and-hold latch in the way it traps heat.
The reason for this intentional obfuscation is complex. The Chief has used this argument ever since I was aware of his (and his sockpuppets) existence here, and is the initial reason for my suspicion that he is a fake skeptic. Why he does this, I have no clue. It could be that Larrikin urge to prank that he just can’t control.
What’s W/year? J/s/year?
“We have explained over and over again that CO2 GHG forcing ACCUMULATES year-after-year while the heat from CO2 combustion DISSIPATES every year.”
That’s nonsense!
and on cue, the contrarian Edim has to step in to act as a knee-jerk contrarian.
The excess CO2 in the atmosphere does in fact accumulate.
Webby, what’s CO2 combustion? Some kind of perpetuum mobile? Furthermore GHG forcing and excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not the same.
if you burn it it’s hot Chef Hydro
I meant fossil fuel combustion which creates the CO2. You try to be as concise as you can but often you slip up when using shorthand.
In any case the heat from the combustion does not linger, as it is dissipated as radiation to space.
The CO2 does linger and a substantial fraction accumulates year to year.
Webster if there’s water available it’s the atmosphere not the surface that gets the heat. Theoretically anyway according to IPCC which ostensibly is the consensus on the physics. Meteorologists are all taught that the troposphere is largely heated by rain, or rather by condensation prior to precipitation. So, you see, non-condensing greenhouse gases, rather than raise temperature of ocean, raise the evaporation rate, more clouds condense and you get the signature tropospheric hotspot. Past the emission altitude the same non-condensing GHGs make the atmosphere radiate more efficiently giving you the concurrent stratospheric cooling above the tropospheric hot spot.
I agree with this in principle and even harp on it all the time that this is what happens when DWLIR illuminates the ocean. But the fact of the matter is that the bleeding signature appears to be MIA. My thesis about the missing signature is that clouds have negative feedback such if DWLIR forces more clouds then the negative feedback from shading the ocean surface reduces evaporation and hence reduces clouds for a net effect of zero. Over dry land the situation is different of course because rocks don’t evaporate at all and ice just barely.
‘ In the almost hysterical climate hype of today a less dramatic warming is not very well received as all political correct members of the public would prefer to hide this uncomfortable fact by following the popular maxim of letting the ends justify the means’
I have never fully understood why the Catastrophists – rather than dancing in the streets with joy at the news that the dreaded warming has markedly slowed down and that climate sensitivity may be much lower than feared – spend their energies trying ever harder to persuade us that ‘its really worse than they thought’
One might even think that though the claim to fear catastrophe, they have a symbiotic relationship with it. If it were to disappear, so would their raison d’etre. And then nobody at all would listen to them…rather then just the decreasing few who still do now.
After all – if you have spent your life predicting the End of the World and it stubbornly doesn’t happen – what on earth do you do for an encore?
Thoughts?
Latimer
You will enjoy this listing of catastrophist concerns through the years. CAGW is the latest in a long line of unfounded concerns. Related pollution is another thing.
http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm
tonyb
Cuz I am a systems thinker.
Lennart sez:
Can you not read the lines, notwithstanding between the lines?
Webby
You have been much more agreeable recently, which has greatly improved the quality of your posts. Please do not spoil things by reverting to silly name calling.
Can you give me a sensible answer as to when solar power become cost effective in real world circumstances?
In our part of Britain we get some 1700 hours of sun a year. (sadly, thats just about the sunniest place in Britain) Light levels are much poorer in the winter of course and sunshine hours much more limited. Have you done any studies as to the cost of panels versus their effectiveness in such circumstances?
tonyb
Tony, why are you so negative about the prospects of humanity?
Perk up, lots of little alternative technologies will spring up, each contributing a few percent to make up for the growing gap resulting from the UK’s depletion of North Sea fossil fuel reserves. Smart men are working the problem.
Webby
But I’m not negative at all. However I do believe in ‘horses for courses’ and sometimes we are asked to follow inappropriate energy technologies, hence my genuine question to you.
Britain is a small island-wind farms tend to be at their most effective (but not necessarily cost effective) when sited on uplands which coincide with our finest landscapes and cause visual and noise pollution. The former amplified when transmission lines have to be built. You don’t save the environment by trashing the countryside..
As for solar panels, I have been using them on a small scale for 20 years. They stop working around the end of October as light levels fall. There are some vast, highly subsidised solar farms being thrown up around here on prime farmland, but they can’t escape the reality that the meagre 1750 hours of ANNUAL sunshine we get is much reduced in intensity and quantity in the winter when we most need it.
At what point is such a technology practicable even in our climate?
Most frustrating of all is that as a small island nowhere is further than 70 miles from the sea. I live 100 yards from it and the waves and tides could be a key source of renewable energy but have been side lined by onshore wind turbines.
tonyb
tony and WEB,
Somewhat related to your discussion:
A bit back I was surprised to see Mercy Corps turn up high in a google search on climate change. I was concerned that an organization I’ve supported for a few years now and whose mission is tangendental at best to the topic of climate change might be headed down the road that so many other ngo’s have taken – looking for issues to justify their existence instead of keeping to their original mission.
I letter to them was answered with some interesting links to programs they are sponsoring. I was pleased to discover that they have not strayed from their original purpose and are stilled focused on bottom up solutions. As an example, their “solar” program does not look to develop solar generation or supply solar panels to meet electrical needs. Rather it looks to identify and provide every day items that people use which can be recharged in the sun. Additionally, they also try to make sure the items can be dual use, for example serve to charge a cell phone or computer.
I personally believe in such small scale ventures, working from the bottom up and involving invention and entreprenuership (one feature of the program was to identify items that local store owners would be interested in stocking), rather than large scale government subsidized efforts.
That said, I’m not as critical of the subsidizing of renewable technologies as some others are. The US has lots of examples of industries that have been or are subsidized to some extent. Think of the industries that depend on an interstate highway system. And as a proponent of nuclear generation, I’m well aware of the role the federal government in getting a nuclear powered commercial generation industry started.
Ain’t we all, Webby?
Most of the FAKE skeptics are also REAL hypocrites. They are all for individuality when it comes to making free market decisions, but the minute that suggestions are made for off-the-grid solutions that may harm the big centralized power providers, they suddenly change their tune.
Face it, the government is providing subsidies in research that may turn the tables on the major providers. The utilities are running scared:
“Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities | Grist.” [Online]. Available: http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/. [Accessed: 11-May-2013].
The article of David Roberts seriously misrepresents the case, or at least one central aspect of it. He writes
That’s all his invention, nothing along that line is written in the EEI report that he uses as his source and that’s the opposite of the truth. Providing peak power causes the highest cost to the utility but does not lead to similarly higher income with the present tariffs. The EEI article is discussing the need for changes in tariff structure and the whole idea of those proposed changes is to make the tariff more cost-representative, i.e. to add to the fixed part as payment for the service of providing power as needed, ant to take off from the part proportional to the energy sold.
This is exactly the point a wrote about in a recent comment here. Noticing this obvious error, I first checked the report and found out that it’s not from there. Then I looked at the discussion and found a comment making the correct point (written by Rosemarie Radford).
This is all too typical. People have totally false thoughts about the energy system. They don’t understand at all what’s required to get energy at the right time and the right point and reliably enough. Batteries may, one day, change the situation, but that’s not near, and there may be problems in securing raw materials to all those batteries.
As usual, I won’t get into an opinion discussion, just relating the facts. The EEI utility-sponsored report said:
” While tariff restructuring can be used to mitigate lost revenues, the longer-term threat of fully exiting from the grid (or
customers solely using the electric grid for backup purposes) raises the potential for irreparable damages to revenues and growth prospects. This suggests that an old -line industry with 30-year cost recovery of investment is vulnerable to cost-recovery threats from disruptive forces.”
I only wonder why would they print that and risk creating a bandwagon effect of more customers going off the grid?
‘
Thank you for the link, although I agree with Pekka that “[T]he article of David Roberts seriously misrepresents the case“. It’s also important to read the follow-on piece, where he says:
As always, the situation’s always less simple (simplistic) the more you dig into the details.
For me, however, the key takeaway, and the reason I’m grateful for the link, is this from the original report:
Assuming their “2008” represents a mid-year point like their “mid-2012”, this adds up to a price decline of 0.475 in two years, roughly equivalent to cutting the price in half in two years.
Now, many people are familiar with Moore’s”law”, which can be paraphrased that “the price of computing power is cut in half every 18 months”. Can we project a similar law (with perhaps a 2 year period) for PV? Off the top of my head I’d say yes. Of course, I haven’t checked the ref in the paper, nor yet dug into the relevant technology in detail, but the primary cost of bulk semiconductor is ultra-pure silicon, and AFAIK that purity is achieved with zone-refining, which is certainly a technology that could respond to strong R&D, either from subsidies or market-driven investment.
Given such a “law”, in 20 years we could expect the cost of PV to be around a dollar a kilowatt (in today’s dollars). Is there really any need to temporarily raise the price/cost of energy if the problem’s going to be solved in 20 years anyway?
Also, as is typical of established industries, especially captive-market monopolies, they’re responding only to what they see, even as they criticize investors for not looking until their bottom line is impacted.
What I can foresee is this: distributed PV is small potatoes compared to distributed gas-fired generators. Why stay connected to the electricity distribution system, when methane is available to almost all homes, and the price can reasonably be expected to keep decreasing. The technology to switch from methane-fired to, say, butane-fired generation would be straight-forward, probably very cheap with economies of scale. So customers with access to distributed gas could use bottled butane as a back-up, in case something goes wrong with methane distribution.
That’s a much bigger threat to electrical utilities, IMO.
My doctoral research was essentially semiconductors and solid state physics, so keeping up with PV topics is no sweat for me.
What is intriguing is the progress made in coaxing PV properties out of the most horrendously disordered semiconductors. They can be amorphous or organic with poor efficiencies, but if the production costs are low enough, that may make up for it.
This is an informal blog post on dispersive transport in photovoltaic material and a glimpse into the research that went into a book
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2009/06/dispersive-transport.html?m=1
Notable for what the uncivil engineer Chief Hydro calls babbling and space cadet science.
But hey, it’s a science blog, right?
@whut…
I followed your link, and the links to illustrations are broken (404’s). Still trying to get an idea what it’s about, but it’s pretty hard without the illustrations. I don’t suppose you could arrange for them to be fixed?
Since you’re an expert on semi-conductors, what do you see as potential obstacles to touching off an exponential price decrease (a la Moore’s “law”) in bulk crystalline PV?
Well, you get what you pay for with a free blog.
Everything is published elsewhere so I am not concerned that all the work I did has disappeared, temporarily or not.
Interesting that I am applying the precautionary principle, applying redundancy by first publishing material on the web via a blog, and then cleaning the information up and using markup to get all the equations rendered in a formal publication.
Like everything else, we are in a transformative regime, where all the previous rules do not necessarily apply. You can’t predict everything but you can certainty add to the knowledgebase, risk mitigate, and adapt.
Climate change no problem, says futurist Ray Kurzweil
[…]
[…]
Monday 21 February 2011 06.04 EST
@webster
I trust that you are not counting me among the ‘Fake Sceptics’
I have no objection whatsoever to anybody investing their own money in daft renewable power sources and themselves off the grid. They’re very welcome.
Just so long as they don’t ask me directly or indirectly to pay for their little venture
Come to think of it – I have never heard of anyone objecting to somebody else removing themselves from the grid. Perhaps there are no fake sceptics at all..a concept I have always struggled to understand anyway.
> Ray Kurzweil famously and accurately predicted that a computer would beat a man at chess by 1998
That was prescient:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–computer_chess_matches
@WHUT
From Wiki:
So the writer of the article was sloppy. Are you back to your knee-jerk nit-picking?
It is pretty funny. I can predict all sorts of things if I know they have already happened.
The book making the prediction was published in 1990. It came true in 1997.
Pekka Pirila,
Well said and dead right. Of course neither do you, or I or just about any fully understand all the complexities at all levels. Some people understand more than others, of course.
You comment made me think you and other readers may be interested in this recently publishes, excellent paper on the real costs of residential solar PV (that is the costs to the community). I’d urge people who like to discuss renewable energy to read it.
Using his method for calculating the CO2 abatement cost and defensible assumptions, I calculate the CO2 abatement cost with residential PV in Melbourne at >$600 per tonne CO2. [He calculates a lower figure but he is being intentionally cautious and understating it. Abatement cost is not the main point of his paper; it is an aside for completeness].
Graham Palmer (2013) Household Solar Photovoltaics: Supplier of Marginal Abatement, or Primary Source of Low-Emission Power? http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/4/1406
It’s a long paper but contains an enormous amount of valuable information.
Thanks to Peter Lang for the recommended paper. I went through some of it and intend to go back because there is a wealth of relevant information.
WebHubTelescope (@whut) | May 15, 2013 at 10:42 am |
“My doctoral research was essentially semiconductors and solid state physics”
Given how much you know of the subject I can only presume you were one of Farraday’s students and he flunked you.
Build an ark and fill it with THE goats and sheep
That was my response to Latimer’s request for “Thoughts?”
Latimer Alder
You seem perplexed that climate doomsayers were not overjoyed by the fact that the dreaded warming has slowed down – and, even more, that earlier estimates of future warming were probably exaggerated by a factor of two or more.
Let me propose an explanation to this seemingly strange reaction.
First, you make the point that doomsayers enjoy predicting doom and gloom, and when this doesn’t materialize, they are disappointed because there is no act to follow “doomsday”.
But I think an even bigger reason is simply economic. CAGW has become a multi-billion dollar (tax-payer funded) big business, and promises (with a global carbon tax) to become a trillion dollar plus business.
That’s a lot of money to shuffle around and deal to the worthiest bidders, so lots of power for the politicians and government bureaucrats. And it follows the natural instinct of politicians to create “imaginary hobgoblins” in order to gain control (Mencken).
It’s a lot of profits for the environmental lobbying groups, like WWF, Greenpeace, etc. and also for industrialists (including energy companies)jumping on the “green industries” bandwagon or for big-time farming groups cashing in on the corn ethanol boondoggle.
And then there are the climatologists, themselves. They need tax-payer funding to pursue their work – but this is only available if the research work supports the political agenda.
It is clear that IPCC, a political body from the start, needs a viable CAGW threat for its very existence. No more CAGW threat => no more IPCC. Almost never does a powerful bureaucratic committee disband itself voluntarily.
And the media are having a ball, squeezing the maximum profit out of every imagined future catastrophe.
Then there are the “media darlings”, who can get publicity (and increase their earning power) by jumping on the green bandwagon in the “war against climate change” (while generating the same carbon footprint as a small city).
Not to mention the self-proclaimed “saviors of the planet”, who are cashing in left and right.
This is by no means a “conspiracy”, as some apparently believe.
It appears to me to simply be a collusion of interests of several independent power groups who all stand to gain from CAGW hysteria.
No wonder they are not happy that there is no warming and that their bubble is about to burst.
Just my thoughts on this, Latimer.
Max
Manacker
Very clearly explained. Its so obvious, I just don’t understand why so many people just don’t seem to get it.
@manacker
Thanks fo your excellent explanation.
And you’ll probably not be too surprised to know that I wasn’t quite as perplexed in fact as I chose to appear. I believe it is called a ‘rhetorical question’ :-)
But next time rejoicing does not break out among the alarmists as another piece of CAGW-negating good news comes out, ask them why not?
Thanks, Latimer.
I knew (deep down inside) that you really weren’t all that “perplexed”.
Max
MAx_OK
The notion that “old people” as a group are so selfish as to be unconcerned about future generations is staggeringly ignorant. Also convenient, inasmuch as it allows you to sweep all skeptical arguments from anyone with grey hair into the MaX-OK intellectual trash heap, which as we all know consists of any and all ideas that are unsupportive of your own world view.
I take care of my mother. She lives with us. She’s 89. In high school she was the class valedictorian. Today she would be a red bird.
.
MY mother has dementia too, at 91. I’ve devoted 5 long years to making sure her needs are met. Which is fine. It’s what a person does for his parents. At a certain point in my experience anyway. it’s not so much an act of love…her personality is simply not “lovable” any longer, but of responsibility. People do things….sometimes profoundly onerous things….out of a sense of responsibility. In Max_OK’s distorted view of the world, that apparently just can’t be,,,
Pokerguy – kudos to you.
Yes, one day it just became obvious it had to be done. Fortunately for us, Mom is still a witty and wonderfully entertaining guest to have. I had no idea Big Bird runs the CIA, but he does, and that’s okay. She still does arithmetic fairly well, and her vocabulary is amazing, but Big Bird is ever present in her thinking. I’ll never forget the moment I realized she was being serious. It’s now 5 years ago. I recently had an analysis prepared to value the level of care we provide for her here in our home, which is 24 and 7, and they said at least $131,400 per year. A nursing facility for people with dementia would be somewhat less expensive, but she does not want to be in one. I do not think most people have any idea what this stuff costs. A lady who lives a couple of doors down is 104 years old. These ladies can live a long time. By that age I will be both bankrupt and dead.
Pokerguy, kudos to you. That’s love.
http://blairrockefellerpoll.uark.edu/5292.php
JCH,
Funny about vocabulary. It’s one of the last things to go. In fact, it’s one of the ways they diagnose brain damage. They give you a vocabulary test which is used as a proxy (fairly reliable in this case) for “premorbid IQ.” Then they compare that to the results of an actual IQ tests. Of course if there’s a big discrepancy, it begins to look like dementia, or some other form of brain damage is at work.
As to cost, it’s unbelievable. I know of a few people who’ve bankrupted themselves. It’s a terrible thing really. Now with baby boomers getting to retirement age (my cohort), it’s going to be socially ruinous in my opinion.
Edim: thanks for the kind words. My wife has been a huge help.
My Dad will be 88 this year. I’ve been told that loss of short term memory is one of the early signs of dementia. Dad still takes care of himself, is in good health and still relatively independent. He no longer drives as much as he gets confused as to where he is at, except for those places he is used to going to at least one a week. He no longer reads books, but still does crossword puzzles everyday. Says reading is no longer enjoyable because he can’t remember anything he read from the previous day. The only serious problem to arise was his starting to fall for phone scams. My brother found him sending checks to people who called him up saying he had a sum of money coming to him. That is most certainly out of character for my dad. I figure that as long as he remembers who I am, the rest is gravy.
I want you to know, tim, I stopped calling your dad as soon as I found out you are his son.
JCH –
Your comments remind me of a powerful approach for dealing with people with dementia/Alzheimer’s that I found very interesting and quite useful (I take care of an Aunt who is increasingly loopy, and my sort-of father-in-law – who will soon be moving with his wife in to an in-law apartment we are building in a new house we just bought – has an increasingly impactful cognitive impairment/Alzheimer’s)
http://www.sahp.vcu.edu/vcoa/newsletter/ageaction/agefall11.pdf
Josh,
You don’t strike me as the sort to rip people off. Based on what you’ve revealed about yourself, you seem to be more of the caring for others type.
Then again, the calls were coming from someplace in Jersey.
pokerguy, I didn’t say “old people as a group are so selfish as to be unconcerned about future generations.” I didn’t say if AGW deniers/skeptics tend to be older people, then older people tend to be AGW deniers/skeptics.I don’t know what proportion of the older population are AGW deniers/skeptics. It may be very small.
It does look like a lot of the vocal AGW deniers/skeptics with science or engineering backgrounds are older people.
Why is that? Well, one reason is their views may be influenced by the fact they won’t live long enough to be affected by AGW.
You’ve tried to push this one before.
Where’s your evidence that people change their views when they get old?
phatboy, if you want to believe people do not change their views as they age, believe what you want, and stick to your views as you age.
Max_OK
People change their views as they gain knowledge, not necessarily as they gain age (although the two may go together).
Max_CH
I’ll ask again – where’s your evidence?
Max,
OK, that’s your hypothesis. Now how are you going to test it?
phatboy,
You are asking the wrong question.
I am pretty sure one can find evidence of people’s opinions changing as they get older. I can attest to the fact that my opinion of asparagus (and a host of other foods) has changed significantly. (On the other hand, my opinion of peas and lima beans has not moved one iota from what it was as a kid.)
The question to pose to Max is to have him show how he would test his hypothesis. If he can’t do that, ignore him. He doesn’t belong in the conversation.
Ok, I’ll put it differently – how many climate scientists started out as alarmists, but subsequently changed to sceptics once they had attained an advanced age?
Max,
Struggling with the simple science concept of testing hypothesis?
My observation is scientists and engineers who are vocal climate contrarians are older than scientists and engineers as a group. My evidence is the signatories to the UN and WSJ letter and NSF data on the age distribution of scientists and engineers, which I have presented previously at Climate, Etc.
I don’t know why the contrarians are older. It could be for a number of reasons. One hypothesis is because of their advanced age they won’t live long enough to be adversely affected by slow occurring global warming, and therefore are less inclined to be concerned about the warming than younger scientists and engineers.
I don’t know how I could test this hypothesis other than asking the contrarians if the above is a reason for their skepticism, and I am skeptical they would admit it.
I wonder if any of the older climate contrarians here at Climate, Etc are skeptical about the consequences of global warming because they know they won’t live long enough to suffer the consequences. May I have a raise of hands?
Max_OK, Have you ever considered that those aging sketpical engineers where in their prime when the AGW media releases started? Since then they may have been pondering AGW, adaption, energy conservation, clean fuel combustion systems, innovative SYN-fuel applications for mixed feed stocks while watching EPA limits change to the point they are nearly immeasurable?
Max_OK
You are beating a dead horse (as Bengtsson has explained).
Try something more productive (shills for big oil or coal?).
Max_CH
Absolutely not. I’ve followed the CAGW debate since the late 1980s as an issue of potentially serious concern, and the more I’ve learned, the less I see any reason to take expensive and ineffective measures to deal with something which has not been demonstrated to be a serious threat. Your “Won’t live long enough to suffer the consequences” thought is nonsense. The older contributors here (and elsewhere) tend to be people who have demonstrated their bona fides in seeking the well-being of others rather than selfish ends, and can see the harm being done by premature and mis-guided emissions reductions programs, as well as the great uncertainties in climate projections and the lack of comprehensive understanding of climate systems.
I’m 70, I might live another 30 years, my kids are 25-31 so will be around for a long time, but I’m not driven on public policy issues by personal or family considerations. Your immaturity and lack of understanding are such that I generally ignore your posts and the associated threads, but your nonsense has prompted me to “raise my hand.” My 29-year-old has similar views to me on CAGW, my 25-year-old works in policy at the Dept of Climate Change and has drafted much of the legislation I rail against, the third finds it of little interest compared to his medical career and music. So I am not unacquainted with the views of younger people, assuming that you don’t regard 25-31-year-olds as oldies.
Max,
There is a Denizens page. People often state what got their attention on the AGW issue. Do a little leg work.
Max_OK
The obvious reason is they are wiser. They’ve accumulated more experience. They’ve seen more instances of scare campaigns, fear mongering, doomsaying, group think, herd mentality, and extremist religious like cults. So they are wiser. The young are more gullible. They are quicker to clutch onto the latest fad, and fall hook, line and sinker for the last scam.
You’ve made this same point many times before. It seems like it might be a pet hate. Despite getting the same answer every time, you seem to forget it. Why would that be?
Here you go Max,
My entry, explaining how I became interested plus some background info. Does the data suppport your hypothesis?
BA History
MS Environmental Science & Engineering
MS management of Science & Technology
6 month intership with USGS
4 years US Navy, (submarine qualified)
10 years commercial nuclear power industry
15 years wireless communications industry
20+ year volunteer involvement with education (from Head Start to TA’ing grad students)
16 years as science mentor and Board member of science education non-profit
Not sure if I can recall the exact moment I became interested in the climate debate, but An Inconvienent Truth was what most likely kick started it. Along the way things like finding out the EPA lists only one reference on the subject – the IPCC – being told the debate was over and the science was settled when I was taught that one continuosly questions one’s assumptions and conclusions (not to mention having read just enough papers to know that most researchers rarely make flat out declarations), and seeing how people who disagreed with the moderators of the “real” climate sites were talked down to or deleted, helped me to the conclusion that something more was at play than a discussion about climate.
I am nominally an engineer – albeit a fairly soft hydrological type. I have as well a Masters in Environmental Science – with of course a specialty in water quality. I am at the top of my game and earnings and in the sweet spot where I have vast experience and a depth of knowledge that only comes with time, confidence, maturity, stability and a flexible and curious mind.
But the world is not warming for a decade to three more at least. This is because the so-called internal climate variability is a complex dynamical system that shifted mode again after 1998. This in itself creates fundamental uncertainty.
Society can’t work without a certain altruism – towards both the current generation and the future. Sustainable development is defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’
Realising in practice what that means is the challenge. It means first of all framing a positive agenda for the future for all of peace, prosperity and freedom. We can deal with uncertainty and build for the future at the same time.
Max_OK
I can give you several possible “reasons” for your observation that older engineers and scientists are more likely to be skeptical of the CAGW premise as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report and which is known as the “consensus” position.
First (the most obvious): as these individuals gained experience they also gained knowledge and wisdom. As a result they arguably “know more” than their younger, less experienced, colleagues.
Second (also obvious): many are retired or are no longer dependent on a full-time job, which gives them time to dig into the subject matter and assess it objectively, a luxury that many of their younger colleagues do not yet have as they pursue their busy careers.
Third (also related to #2): Since they are no longer dependent on income from a full-time job, they can think independently and are not required to tow the political party line for funding, etc.
Fourth (and this one may be age-related, as you propose): Rational skepticism is something that is developed over the years. The infant accepts everything it hears from parents as absolute truth, young people tend to be more gullible than older, more experienced ones. I believe this is partly a result of having seen many crazes, fads and hysterias come and go and developing more of a “show me” attitude over the years.
And, finally, fifth: CAGW has become politically “in”. It is the “PC” premise. Most educators embrace it. Many teachers in schools and universities are teaching CAGW as part of the standard science or engineering curriculum. As a result, many younger engineers and scientists have been brainwashed into believing that CAGW is sound science and represents a real threat to them personally. It often takes decades (if ever) until they are even able to look at CAGW objectively and skeptically.
These are my thoughts on this.
I’d like to read yours, Okie (and I mean this seriously).
Max_CH
Manacker,
+100
I want to thank everyone who responded to my request: captdallas 0.8 or less, manacker(aka Max_CH), Faustino, timg56, Peter Lang, and Chief Hydrologist.
No one disputes it’s rational for an older person to be unconcerned about AGW that’s too far in the future to harm him. Because of his advance age and remaining life expectancy, he can dismiss it’s danger to him with certainty. Yet, none of the climate contrarians who responded to my request gives that as even a secondary reason for his belief AGW is nothing to worry about. I am left with the impression these contrarians have no appreciation for what is rational and certain.
Instead I am told older contrarians believe AGW is innocuous because their aging has given them wisdom.
Well, that belief is no surprise. Regardless of the issue, the elderly attribute their opinions to their wisdom. Even older people with opposing views attribute their opinions to their wisdom.
Wisdom is accumulated learning, implying the older you are the wiser you are. Unfortunately, people don’t accumulate learning as easily as they accumulate birthday, and there may be an increasing tendency to resist learning new things as one gets older, or as the saying goes, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”
a : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning
The last line in my previous post is one of Webster’s definitions for “wisdom.” I was going to cite it but forgot.
Being far from elderly – but neither am I a child like 15 years old max. The child with no book learning – little wit and less imagination.
I am not much older than Barack Obama – and I haven’t been president. But this incessant debate about age is a strawman from a silly adolescent. The objections to neo-socialist green overreach are quite strong in the large number of young scientists I know. It is really just the dregs of thoughtless buffoons appearing here for some God only knows reason. It is not to discuss science – because none of them are capable of that.
Re post by manacker | May 14, 2013 at 8:35 pm |
Max_OK
I can give you several possible “reasons” for your observation that older engineers and scientists are more likely to be skeptical of the CAGW premise as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report and which is known as the “consensus” position……
I’d like to read yours, Okie (and I mean this seriously).
______
Max_CH, the reasons you gave have occurred to me as well as other reasons I have considered and mentioned previously.
One thing I have thought about but not talked about much is “loss.” Aging means fear of loss and loss in just about every way you can imagine. I’m not sure how this relates to AGW skepticism among older people, but it may. One possibility is loss of standing and self-esteem. Older scientist and engineers, particularly those retired, may feel they are no longer as important as they were and may miss the attention and recognition they once enjoyed. An easy way for them to regain some self-estem is to start thinking they know more than the scientists and engineers who are a part of the “consensus.”
There may be other ways age-related loss could factor into becoming a climate contrarian and shape the way contrarians think. Fear of loss is a powerful motivator, accepting loss is painful, and there is a tendency to deny loss is occurring.
Adolescents like Max have so little understanding of science that Dunning-Kruger barely covers it. The dregs of the space cadets left babbling away.
I am so not a sceptic. I believe the IPCC.
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
Faustino +1
Third assessment report is a bit dated isn’t it?
Chief Hydrologist | May 14, 2013 at 7:58 pm |
“I am nominally an engineer – albeit a fairly soft hydrological type. I have as well a Masters in Environmental Science – with of course a specialty in water quality. I am at the top of my game and earnings and in the sweet spot where I have vast experience and a depth of knowledge that only comes with time, confidence, maturity, stability and a flexible and curious mind.”
24/7 commenting on a blog is the top of your game?
Wow. What’s the bottom like then?
I rather dislike being labelled in any way and I don’t think that I could be deemed “contrarian” (except only when I talk about investing – which I don’t do on this page) so on to answer your question Max_OK.
I have absolutely no fear of dying and hence global warming hysteria leaves me cold. Sure, future generations (including our grandchildren (6 in total) aged 20 to 2 years could be affected by climate change, but as I watch the sea level markers, I just cant see any immediate cause for alarm.
I have been a farmer for many years and weather/climate is important to me because it can be either a blessing or a curse, depending at what stage of the crop cycle that is being affected.
My scepticism is about the scientific credibility of the alarmist prognostications being peddled to the decision-makers. Its human nature to ignore such warnings because they are not actually being affected.
Sure, if I am living on a coral atoll that is only a few feet above sea level, I would be naturally concerned, and if I were to wake up with wet feet, I would make a sensible decision to move to safer ground.
Not exactly life threatening stuff!
Max_OK | May 14, 2013 at 6:48 pm | Reply
“Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”
~ Winston Churchill
Write that down and stop wondering about it.
How about simple arithmetic?
Up until about 3 decades ago there were comparatively very few people in climatology and associated disciplnes, and that number has mushroomed since.
So the young guys are going to outnumber the old guys by a long way
Max OK
Having myself retired a couple of years ago and knowing well many older people I cannot accept at all the idea that it would be typical to elderly to rationalize that they do not need to worry what’s coming at the time they are probably dead.
You may think that such a behavior would be rational, but do you really think that people follow such a rationale?
I would rather think that the elderly have a tendency of putting more weight on the long term issues than younger. Perhaps the perspective is roughly proportional to the length of own personal history.
The main differences come, however, certainly from attitudes little related to the age of the person.
David Springer said on May 15, 2013 at 6:08 am
“Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”
~ Winston Churchill
Write that down and stop wondering about it.
________
HA HA! I suggest David Springer write this down.
As they say,
when the age is in, the wit is out.
Much Ago About Nothing (3.5.31-2)
Re post by Pekka Pirilä May 15, 2013 at 8:06 am
Max OK
Max OK
“Having myself retired a couple of years ago and knowing well many older people I cannot accept at all the idea that it would be typical to elderly to rationalize that they do not need to worry what’s coming at the time they are probably dead.
You may think that such a behavior would be rational, but do you really think that people follow such a rationale?”
______
Pekka, I hope you are enjoying your retirement.
Not worrying about something that can’t hurt you after you are dead is rational behavior. Being concerned about what could hurt your children and grandchildren after you are dead also is rational behavior, if you love them. Would it be just as rational for the elderly to be concerned about what could hurt their distant descendants, people they will never know? I’m not sure, but I doubt many older people concerns extend that far into the future.
I
Max_OK
At your request, I have listed several reasons why I could imagine that older scientists/engineers would be more rationally skeptical of the IPCC CAGW claims than younger ones.
Leaving aside any absurd suggestion that senility is a cause for a higher level of CAGW skepticism among older scientists/engineers than younger ones, your argument seems to be that the older ones are less concerned about future warming because they are less likely to still be alive when it allegedly occurs.
Think about that for a minute.
IPCC has projected warming of 0.2C per decade.
It hasn’t happened yet (as has been discussed here at length), but let’s say it actually does happen in the future, as IPCC has projected.
This means it will take 100 years to arrive at 2C warming, the figure that some say is the “breakeven point” where AGW begins to have more negative than positive consequences.
Others put this “breakeven point” lower, but even they conclude that 2C is a maximum level, beyond which we should not allow AGW to proceed, because we are not sure of any possible serious negative consequences beyond this point.
So the “bad news” will happen in 100 years.
Now, whether you are 30 or 70, you are not going to be around in 100 years. Period.
So your argument fails apart upon closer scrutiny.
Max_CH
One way I can imagine that age may enter is when it’s joined with willingness to be vocal on the issue on the internet. In all age classes those being vocal may differ strongly from the rest. This effect might be age dependent as well, and might work very differently depending on the age.
Pekka
Your argument goes into the same direction as the argument that older (retired) individuals have more time for blogging than younger fully-employed individuals.
There may be younger exceptions like Max_OK, who are either “trust fund babies” or living off their investments, rather than working somewhere full-time, but most younger folks just don’t have the time.
Max
Max,
I guess those who provided a serious response to your question are the fools here. After all you have stated you are more interested in annoying certain segments of the commentors that participating in an adult discussion. This would explain your taking your own hypothesis, stating it as THE rational position, and wondering why none of the respondents listed it.
Or it could be you being an idiot.
I think that Max’s hypothesis about causality in the association between “skepticism” and age is pretty weak, but it interesting to see the intensity with which our much beloved “skeptics” argue against his theory.
I wonder what the average age might be of those “skeptics” who seem to need so much to establish the faultiness of Max’s theory?
Hmmmm.
Maybe his theory isn’t so weak after all?
Max_CH says:
So the “bad news” will happen in 100 years.
Now, whether you are 30 or 70, you are not going to be around in 100 years. Period.
So your argument fails apart upon closer scrutiny.
______
Max_CH, you aren’t a very good scrutinizer. There is no certainty AGW will not cause problems before a 100 years from now. But if you are a real real old guy( i.e., age 70 +) you can be damn certain it’s not likely to harm you in your remaining lifetime, and if you are a real old guy ( at least age 60-70) you can be certain.
Re post by Joshua May 15, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
Yes, Joshua that occurred to me too.
Remember Queen Gertrude’s Law: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
timg56 said on May 15, 2013 at 5:18 pm
“Max,
I guess those who provided a serious response to your question are the fools here. ”
_____
timg56, I don’t think people were fools for responding to my requests, and I appreciate their efforts.
Your bio information made we wish I had experienced what you have done. You have had a rich life.
Max_OK
It appears that you are a slow learner.
Let’s see if I can help you out.
Several recent studies have shown that the 2xCO2 ECS estimates previously cited by IPCC in AR4 were exaggerated by a factor of 2, and that this is very likely to be around 1.6C, rather than the previously estimated 3.2C. As we know, time marches on and scientific knowledge increases. This is just one example.
The newer estimates were made using actually observed data, rather than simply climate model estimates, which were the basis for the earlier higher estimates.
There is still uncertainty regarding the natural forcing values assumed in establishing these new 2xCO2 ECS estimates; natural forcing is very likely to have been underestimated, so the newest 2xCO2 ECS figures are likely to be on the high side.
But let’s accept them at face value as sort of an upper limit.
IPCC estimated in AR4 that CO2 could rise to somewhere between 580 and 790 ppmv by 2100. Based on projected population growth rates and past increases in per capita CO2 generation, it is reasonable to assume that it could rise to around 640 ppmv.
And, as we know from WEC estimates on the remaining inferred recoverable fossil fuels on the planet, this is constrained to somewhere around 980 ppmv when all the fossil fuels are 100% gone, and that these would last us 150+ years at expected future global consumption rates.
So we have a range of 640 to 980 ppmv over the period 2100 to around 2160 (a time period when most everyone over 30 years old today will be “resting in peace”).
At the most recently established value for 2xCO2 ECS this represents warming of 1.1C to 2.1C over today’s temperature.
Most estimates show that a modest warming will be beneficial for humanity, but if warming exceeds 2C there could be more negative effects than positive ones. One study estimates that the “breakeven point” is at 2C.
But this will only happen in the second half of the 22nd century, a time when we are all long gone, no matter what age today.
And it may never happen if new technologies are developed over the next 100+ years to replace fossil fuels with something more economical that also releases no CO2 (a very likely event)
So you can stop worrying, Okie, it’s gonna be OK for you. Don’t by a scaredy-cat. Dont let the alarmists get you all hysterical. The threat is not real. It’s an imaginary hobgoblin, so you don’t need to be afraid.
And don’t start coming up with silly half-baked ideas about why people of certain age groups may feel different about the CAGW threat than you do.
Max
My take on older skeptics is that someone who has lived 3/4 of a century and not really seen any climate change yet, may well believe in a steady-state climate theory (like the now proved wrong steady-state universe). However younger people and tomorrows world leaders will be growing up in a period when climate change will be second nature and always in the same direction, so they will enact policies that extrapolate the change rather than believe in the steady-state idea. It is only a matter of time before this new generation gets a say in planning, and then, finally, policies should take a more proactive course on resilience, adaptation and mitigation.
Max,
I’d have to chalk some of it up to volunteering. The rest is due to having been laid off 4 times.
Josh,
Nice try, but well short of the hoop. How you get “intensity” out of the replys to Max’s hypothesis is puzzling. Well not really. Since you need it to make your point, poof, there it is.
At first glance, Max’s hypothesis about age is at least worth a look. Since he is the one putting it forth, it is reasonable to ask him for supporting evidence. What we most often get are unsupported arguments. Basically Max presents the single theorem of old people don’t care about the future because they won’t be around to see it. But no evidence to prove that theorem. He then argues it is because they are fixed in their ways. But that sounds like a theory based on the cliche of can’t teach an old dog new tricks. The dead horse beating comes from him bringing this up repeatedly, with no improvement in his supporting arguments. If his pet hypothesis is to hold up, provide real evidence.
Judith: Great article by Lennart Bengtsson. Thanks for bringing to our attention.
Your closing sentence dangles with a semicolon and the word “here”.
“Hopefully the ‘pause’ will stimulate research into natural internal variability of climate; here”
It looks like you missed or forgot a portion of your closing comment.
Regards
There is no pause according to Habibullo Abdussamatov
can you say that three times, fast?
I can’t say it once slowly.
Is that the cousin of Iben Jerkinoff?
Max
thought you’d all recognize the name
I have great difficulty putting into words what I feel about this paper. From the skeptical side of the discussion, it says the right sorts of things. My disappointment is that it needs to have been written at all, and was written by someone who, hopefully, has an adequate retirement income. The fact of the matter is that the natural leaders of the scientific community, the learned societies led by the RS, the APS and the WMO, abrogated their responsibility when they unreservedly endorsed CAGW. Until these natural leaders start, once again, writing science instead of propaganda, articles like this are going to be essential.
One minor issues. It is disappointing to see Arctic sea ice once again highlighted. It just so happens that Arctic sea ice is one of the few remaining credible “Vinerisms” left.
A Fox News article featuring Dr. Curry …
“”We are just seeing a lot more Categories 4 and 5 globally than we have ever seen,” said Judith Curry, chairman of Earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Tech. “The years 2004, 2005 and 2007 are quite high. We’re just seeing more and more.”
”
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug31/0,4670,SCIGustavWarming,00.html
Jim2
The date is 2008. I think that Judith has become a lot more reflective and questioning since then don’t you?
tonyb
You are a bit touchy, CR. I wasn’t stating she believes this to be true now. But, she said what she said and Fox News reported it. It seems to me people make all these unwarranted assumptions about Fox News. They apparently never read on the web site. Fox News has been reporting the alarmism along with the NYT, and did have an article that touched on the “hot spot.” Although they used plain English, since they are attempting to communicate with the “common man.”
Jim2
Not touchy at all. It just demonstrates that good scientists revise their viewpoints if evidence dictates they do so. This is in contrast to the dogmatic scientists who are well dug into their respective climate trenches. I certainly would not call Judith a sceptic, but she is certainly more sceptical than she used to be.
tonyb
“Historic Snowstorm Records; Climate Change to Blame?
While the debate as to whether climate change is responsible for the rare May snow across the Plains and Upper Midwest continues, there is no question that the snowstorm is historical with numerous records broken.
”
http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2013/05/03/historic-snowstorm-records-climate-change-to-blame/
Nobody ever doubted that Fox News was not presenting itself as fair and balanced:
http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2013/05/03/historic-snowstorm-records-climate-change-to-blame
Fumbled my double double negatives:
> Nobody ever doubted that Fox News was not
presenting itself asdenying it was “fair and balanced”.Willard
Is IPCC AR4 “fair and balanced” in your mind?
Max
Fox News is a bastion of truth, fairness, and balance compared to the IPCC. The IPCC cites Greenpeace – idiots all ’round.
I’m not unimpressed by your comparison, jim2.
Please tell me more about it.
Definition of IDIOT
1
usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation
2
: a foolish or stupid person
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiot
Name a news channel that doesn’t provide spin or bias of one sort or another. Even NPR has joined the party. * I may have to go back to subscribing to the Christian Science Monitor, as they seemed to be by far the least spin influenced.
* it was laughable to listen to them try to perform a 180 after running a story on a Stanford research article showing no decernable health benefits from eating organic foods. God forbid they alienate all of the organic loving subscribers, who just “know” that organic = good for you and good for the planet.
I wonder what the ratio is of people who believe climate change is a major threat and organic products are good for you?
How interesting, jim2.
Please continue.
Fox New – Climate Alarmist HQ:
People here say they have been watching the sea eat away at their shoreline in recent decades, a result of destructive practices such as a practice known as sand mining and ferocious storm surges that researchers say have been made worse by climate change. Scientists and government officials worry that this swath of Grenada could preview what’s to come for many other areas in the Caribbean.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/07/rising-seas-in-southern-caribbean-offer-dark-preview-future-amid-climate-change/#ixzz2TH8OpVVD
More alarmism from Fox News:
For Tangier, the future appears particularly grim.
“We have a pretty high degree of certainty that things are going to get wetter and wetter,” said Carlton J. Hershner Jr., a climate-change scientist at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and co-author of a report on its impacts in coastal Virginia. “Not to be a bearer of bad news for Tangier, but that would suggest that sometime in the next 50 to 100 years the island would basically be under water.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2013/04/23/as-bones-tangier-island-past-resurface-chesapeake-bay-islanders-fret-about/#ixzz2TH8wpGug
I am pleased that adults have finally taken an interest in the climate debate
+1
The climate debate would be an academic exercise if it wasn’t for the advocacy pushing for a political response. This is where the problems start. The ideology that successful men, and industry in particular, succeed at the expense of others is rife on one side of this debate. This feigned altruism that cries for government intervention to stop the evil doers and the harm that they do to the less fortunate makes up the cornerstone of this debate. They are demonizing the science that these industries use to make our lives better while calling anyone who dares to disagree with them on the catastrophic effects of CO2 a science denier. Dr. Bengtsson has it correct. This has turned into a political battle and the science has been harmed by it which is sad because there are brilliant minds on both sides of the issue that could be busy with the science and not bogged down trying to be right about their politics.
Hey, who woke up the sun?
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/14/hyperactive-sun-fires-off-3-major-solar-flares-in-1-day/
A coronal mass ejection if happening now and if aimed at Earth could in as soon as about 17 hours send us all back to the dark ages PDQ…
Wagathon
Another Carrington event or the human made equivalent, deliberate hacking into our computer systems/infrastructure, worries me far more than CAGW. Not tat either causes me any lost sleep
tonyb
Cyber-espionage between countries. Check.
True, true, why worry about that when government cyber-espionage on the people, control of capital and energy and a jihad on capitalism, science and individual liberty is happening now.
Wagathon, you write “A coronal mass ejection if happening now and if aimed at Earth could in as soon as about 17 hours send us all back to the dark ages PDQ…”
Let us put this in perspective. There were two flares magnitudes X 3.2 and X 2.8. See
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/cism/papers/Tsurutani05.pdf
Quote “Some of the most intense solar flares measured in 0.1
to 0.8 nm x-rays in recent history occurred near the end of
2003. The Nov 4 event is the largest in the NOAA records
(X28) and the Oct 28 flare was the fourth most intense
(X17). The Oct 29 flare was class X7.”
So in 2003 we had three flares nearly 10 times stronger than the two just reported, and we were not sent back the the dark ages.
Did you know a solar flare can make your toilet stop working?
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/21jan_severespaceweather/
Civilization received an incremental ingestion of the neurotoxic metal lead over the span of several decades. By passing laws which prohibited lead as additives to gasoline and house paint, the damaging effects of lead have been massively curtailed. Crimes of aggression due to lead-induced brain damage have decreased by about 40% in every country that has invoked anti-lead regulations.
Wangathong hates the idea that citizenry can make changes for good through governmental action.
Wangathong hates the idea that governments can fund research that can isolate causes of potentially bad outcomes.
Wangathong may have ingested too much lead as a child which has resulted in his anti-social outlook.
and hates the idea of syphilitic-induced ad hom attacks from brainless government bureaucrats in public-funded classrooms.
Unlike CO2, lead is an actual toxin, like mercury. I don’t have any problem enacting regs to exclude those from human exposure, within reason. CO2 is in the air. Plants have to have it. It is as far from a toxin as you can get.
> [L]ead is an actual toxin.
Citation not unneeded here for the “actual”.
Willard
So you understand it better:
Lead is a toxin. Causes severe neurological disorders to death if ingested by humans.
CO2 is natural trace gas in our atmosphere, absolutely essential for all life on our planet.
Got the difference now?
(It’s really not all that complicated, if you try.)
Max
Williad – this may come as a shock to you, but it is the speakers of a language that create it and decide how to use it. In this case, actual was used to highlight the fact that some characterize CO2 as something to be regarded as a toxin, when in actuality it isn’t.
Knee-jerk anti-science attitudes permeate. No one knows the potential global effects of doubling the concentration of an essential component.
Just like the knee-jerkers complain that the AGW theories can not be verified, the same holds true for potential negative side effects. Since we don’t have a control, we err on the side of caution.
That is aalso why we invest in research. We could find ways of turning a negative or neutral outcome into a positive, as in more efficiently harnessing the power from our environment.
Humans have the rare ability to predict and formulate strategies to adapt, but not all of these are based on individual decisions. Many require a collective effort.
Wangathong is relentless in his call for every man for himself.
… and, you don’t believe Al Gore is for himself?
Willard and Jim 2
CO2 is a pollutant?
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5262/5821041152_8efb25aaf2_b.jpg
Max
Web
You’re finally admitting it!
– They could be slightly beneficial, on balance.
– They could be imperceptible.
– They could be slightly negative on balance.
As our hostess has emphasized, the mechanism is well understood, but the uncertainties regarding its magnitude are great, and AGW is not likely to become an existential problem in this century, even in its worst incarnation. So we’ve got time to figure things out.
It’s a toss of the dice right now, Webby, until a whole bunch of major uncertainties are cleared up.
So let’s clear them up.
Glad you agree.
Max
C02 as pharmakon
“In Plato’s Phaedrus, the Egyptian god of writing—Theuth or Thoth—offers King Thamus writing as a “remedy” (“pharmakon”) that can help memory. Thamus refuses the gift on the grounds that it will only create forgetfulness: for him, it is not a remedy for memory itself, but merely a way of reminding. Writing is thus a “poison” (“pharmakon”). In his reading of the Phaedrus, Derrida focuses on the “pharmakon”—which can also mean philtre, drug, recipe, charm, medicine, substance, spell, artificial colour, and paint—as that which produces a flickering and disorienting play in conceptual/ philosophical oppositions: remedy/ poison, good/ bad, true/ false, positive/ negative, interior/ exterior. According to Derrida, the pharmakon of writing itself cannot be reduced to the series of oppositional concepts that it precedes and produces (see Dissemination 103).
The pharmakon is thus particularly useful for thinking about writing as something that is essentially ambivalent and irreducible to simple conceptual/ philosophical binary oppositions: ironically, having dismissed writing as a mere image, Socrates in the Phaedrus tries to counteract the pharmakon of “writing” with his most effective medicine (pharmakon teleotaton)—the living word of knowledge that is “graven in the soul.” Socrates can counteract pharmakon with pharmakon, says Derrida, only because of the essential ambivalence of the pharmakon of writing which already bears its own “opposite” within itself (since it is already both poison and cure): “The ‘essence’ of the pharmakon lies in the way in which, having no stable essence, no ‘proper’ characteristics, it is not, in any sense (metaphysical, physical, chemical, alchemical) of the word, a substance…It is rather the prior medium in which differentiation in general is produced” (Dissemination, 125-6).”
I hope that’s clear
It is clear that CO2 is every bit as much a poison as DHMO.
> Lead is a toxin.
Again, a citation might not be unneeded.
Why couldn’t lead be Earth food?
Derrida. People get paid for the damnedest pastimes.
No, jim2, Derrida’s more Moshpit’s turf, though I could Husserlianize a bit if you pay me.
Here’s what I have in mind:
> Scientific disciplines divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping or ordering that does not depend on humans. We tend to assume that science is successful in revealing these kinds; it is a corollary of scientific realism that when all goes well the classifications and taxonomies employed by science correspond to the real kinds in nature. The existence of these real and independent kinds of things is held to justify our scientific inferences and practices.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/
You’re basically dead, jim2.
Metaphysical – an oxymoron embodied in a single word.
I consider the word natural to mean “of nature.” As such, man is natural. Any attempt to set man apart from nature has failed from the start.
Its obvious manaker. C02 is pollution. remove all of it!!. we have lead free gasoline, lead free paint …surely we can work toward a c02 free atmosphere. !!
[ insert squirrely emoticons ala FOMD]
Willard…lead as earth food?
look, lead is essential to blocking kryptonite rays and as such is essential to supermans life. jeez, do I have to explain all the science for you guys
Waggy and Webby dispute top down group action versus individual freedom and choice.
Waggy doesn’t understand that it is immoral for him not to do exactly what Webby has scientifically and intellectually figured out is the “right” thing everyone should join in and do.
This reader goes with Waggy, because of nagging suspicions that Webby may not have considered everything in his justification for the group action he proposes.
After all, Webby is just human.
Max
True, true, if not for the fact that the ‘hockey stick’ by Michael Mann was put forward with an imprimatur of credibility by government and EU/UN-approved scientists it would be a humorous caricature of science-based alarmism. In calling CO2 a poison the EPA proves climatology is not just a caricature of science it is a science-based tragicomedy.
Husserlianize ..? really
you would have enjoyed James Edie. delightful thinker
‘”It is said that one’s self-presentation is rendered more palatable if one mentions some weaknesses. Well, though I am not as apolitical as Husserl, nor, I hope, as lacking in common sense, questions of social and political philosophy, of value theory in general, and principally theoretical ethics leave me cold. I once told a colleague, who was pressing me: if I ever write on ethical theory, it will be posthumously.”
I bet WHT has is working on a giant differential equation that he one day will reveal – it will explain the entire UNIVERSE!
… something like turning wine into piss?
jim2,
The point is that you’re not disagreeing with Web because lead is a toxin. Or at least you should not, since that lead is a toxin is irrelevant to Web’s point:
> [C]itizenry can make changes for good through governmental action [and] Governments can fund research that can isolate causes of potentially bad outcomes.
The toxicity of lead has very little to do with that. Lead was toxic before some of its uses were regulated.
You simply disagree that CO2 is a pollutant anyway, a concept that does not subsume the concept of toxicity.
As I said, you’re dead, jim2.
But if you do wish to continue, I emphasized where this might lead.
Willard
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web2/Patel.html
Max
The citizenry can also make changes for bad. The citizenry also get laws they don’t want crammed down their throats by the government. WHT makes it sound like this is something the citizens want, it isn’t. And to make a very small point, I’m both dead and alive. So there.
Manacker of Dow Chemical is one to talk.
He apparently had the freedom to create any hellacious compound he wanted and unleash on Western Europe.
How is that for an anti-impression of Wangathong?
What global warming alarmists find Impressive seems to be influenced a lot by the urban bullcrap effect.
> Lead is a toxin.
This ain’t a quote from this page:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web2/Patel.html
No hit for the string “toxin”.
***
Should we not say that seat belts are toxic?
Eating seat belts might not be advised.
Sometimes this site represents nothing more that the game of “telephone.”
But, if we are going to devolve into semantics….
Lead is not a toxin. Toxins are poisons emitted by plants or animals as a result of biological processes.
And anything can be a poison. It’s all about the dose.
Drink enough water, and it will lower your electrolytes and kill you.
A little potassium is necessary, too much….
Petroleum is a pollutant if it seeps into your river. It is a beneficial product when refined into usable products.
Words are grand things, but they don’t help much if you redefine them every time you write a new sentence.
Studies will be needed to determine whether environmentalism is an illness brought on by childhood ingestion of the lead that the environmentalists later campaigned against.
The timing is more than suspicious.
My impersonation of the logic of fake skeptics.
A lot of environmentalists are stuck in the 1970s and continue to promote a strain of leftish romanticism about
idyllic rural village life powered by windmills and solar panels. They idealize poverty, seeing it as a noble
way of life, and oppose all large developments. James Cameron, the multimillionaire producer of the most
lucrative movie in history, Avatar, paints his face and joins the disaffected to protest a hydroelectric dam in
the Amazon. ~Patrick Moore
Effects of lead deficiency on lipid metabolism
The ‘new approach to environmentalism’ – according to Dr. Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace who authored “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout) — ‘requires embracing humans as a positive element in evolution rather than viewing us as some kind of mistake.’ Patrick has essentially outed Leftists as perpetrators of the anti-humanist and anti-capitalist agenda of the Eurocommies.
Have you found any researches on the effect of seat belts on lipid, AK?
The danger of premature graduation to seat belts for young children
Nice catch!.
I already knew lead was required for several enzymes, though I didn’t remember which. And I already knew seat belts are dangerous for children smaller than a certain size. So I knew what to look for.
I was just making the point that things are almost never as simple as they look.
BTW, a report by Theda Skocpol goes into some detail regarding how the late effort to pass cap-and-trade differed from previous campaigns as well as from the health bill. I was surprised to discover that there’s nothing new about cap-and-trade, its been used quite successfully before.
WebHubTelescope (@whut) | May 14, 2013 at 5:26 pm |said: ”Studies will be needed to determine whether environmentalism is an illness brought on by childhood ingestion of the lead that the environmentalists later campaigned against”
Studies has being done, THERE IS NO LEAD IN MARIJUANA!!!
Steven Mosher @ 14/o5 i.45pm writes that Derrida
considers writing as pharmakon, ironic somehow that
Derrida is writing about ‘writing’ as ‘poison.’
Herewith me usual impetuous response.
Who can argue that ‘writing’ is not a medium that is
irreducible to simple conceptual philosophical binary
opposites? Writing can harm memory, seduce, charm,
be used ter propogandize, … as can oratory.
But ultimately, statements of such and such taking place,
written theories, critical arguments and explanation as
written record are ‘there’ as historical record, ‘this
happened,’ ‘he said this,’ ter be critically argued but
not expunged like historical events sent down the
memory hole in Orwell’s fictional1984. Plato’s
arguments are ‘there’ in The Republic, Socrates more
open ter controversy because he did not write them
down so subject ter Plato’s purposes. There’s the
ambiguity of good/bad binary oppositions fer yer !
But as a positive fer writing, it is the basis fer western
open society critical thinking and evolution of science .
Written records enabled ideas and hypothesis to
engender and stimulate other ideas and hypotheses,
some of which may possibly correspond ter aspects
of reality or human hehaviour. And here terday, on
the record, Steve Mosher in masterly fashion, using
writing ter argue a case fer writing as pharmakon
Beth the cowgirl who likes ter play with words.
No, just atmospheres. Like this one I just wrapped up:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-homework-problem-to-end-all.html
All you fake skeptics think that this stuff is a big joke. Well, I don’t.
Only 3 citations on a medical article? Must be really important ground-breaking stuff, ha hah
garyM likely made a fortune providing legal defense for industrial polluters. He knows all the talking points needed to get off scott-free.
The perturbations caused by the Left’s disruption of the free market system and their bridges to nowhere are far more destructive of society than a cigarette smoker.
Beth,
I’ll suggest you go back to Phaedrus and read it again.
@WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 15, 2013 at 2:48 am
Looks like you arbitrarily picked n = 5 for the polytropic term. Care ‘splain that, Ricky?
This is a misplaced comment but the polytrophic index n=5 derives from f=3/2*(1+N/2) and f=n+1.
For Venus, CO2 is the major gas and that is a molecule with 6 degrees of freedom at this range of temperatures. So N=6, f=6, and therefore n=5.
For Earth, N=5, f=5.25, and n=4.25.
As far as I know, no one has given a satisfying derivation of the lapse rate and polytropic index for Earth and Venus. If you find one, please point me to it, as this would be as fundamental as Ohm’s law in my opinion. How simulations can be constructed without this foundation is puzzling .. the average lapse rates are off by 50%.
Can a pressurized dust-filled miasma on the surface of a planet like we see on Venus ever be compared to a gravitationally supported ball of gas like we see on Earth by anyone other than an ideologically blinded sheik of nihilism with a suitcase bomb in a crowded café?
Wang-a-thong, you are a nasty one, approaching cwon14 in venom.
Is that what the government scientists of climate catastrophe say about Steve McIntyre?
Sh*t Mosher, it was all Greek to me.
Just imagine what Plato would think of the Internet:
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~dabrent/webliteracies/platowri.htm
w w
Plato plateaued a couple of millennia ago.
Thank you willard.
W. See SECTION 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Note that is isn’t titled POISONALOGICAL INFORMATION. (What’s that? You think I like to argue? Nahhhh.)
http://www.teck.com/Generic.aspx?PAGE=Teck%20Site/Products%20Pages/MSDS&portalName=tc
> Note that is isn’t titled POISONALOGICAL INFORMATION.
Indeed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicology
Nearly all pharmaceutical products, ethical and otherwise, poison some eukaryotic physiological process, dose dependent in most cases. A few, target prokaryotic physiology. It’s no wonder that these drugs work so well, it’s a wonder we don’t suffer in net excess from all the deranged physiology.
======
Steven Mosher | May 14, 2013 at 1:59 pm : ”Its obvious manaker. C02 is pollution. remove all of it!!. we have lead free gasoline, lead free paint …surely we can work toward a c02 free atmosphere. !!”
Remove CO2 from beer and champagne… have you ever tried flat beer without CO2 in it? You are using CO2 when exhaling; for you vocal cords – to badmouth CO2; you can be so unfair to the essential molecule…
Poe’s law
It is good to see that I am not the only person who does always notice when Mosher is trying to be funny.
Rob Starkey | May 15, 2013 at 5:05 pm said: ”It is good to see that I am not the only person who does always notice when Mosher is trying to be funny”
Mosher is only funny, when he thinks that he is serious, that’s the fun part. Roger and the chief I’ve declared as the biggest cowards – when I confront them with real proofs – both of them run for cover, or insult; but avoid to touch on the subject
WebHubTelescope (@whut) | May 16, 2013 at 1:12 pm said: ”For Venus, CO2 is the major gas and that is a molecule with 6 degrees of freedom at this range of temperatures. 2] . If you find one, please point me to it, as this would be as fundamental as Ohm’s law in my opinion. How simulations can be constructed without this foundation is puzzling”
Crackpot, here it is; if you have a stomach for the truth::: Lets get to the bottom of why Venus is hotter than the earth. There are 4 different reasons:
1] Venus is closer to the sun = bigger concentration of sun-rays, simple logic; the closer to the fire – the hotter it is / rays concentration – the further away, rays disperse more, simple geometry.
2] everybody overlooks the laws of physics… Venus HAS about 2000 feet of oxygen – which is close to the ground during the day; because CO2 has advantage of intercepting the sunlight and becoming warmer than that oxygen. B] during the night, CO2 loses the benefit of warming by the sunlight -> instantly drops down and pushes the oxygen on the top. Therefore: that 2000feet of oxygen as perfect insulator traps the heat down into the CO2.
3]because the sun is much larger body – the close you get to it; the more aluminates around the curvature of Venus, than of the eats – on the earth is 12h daylight / 12h dark. In other words: about 54% of the Venuses’ surface is under permanent light / 45% is in darkness = 8% surface area more warmed PERMANENTLY by the sunlight. That’s accumulative heat! Plus, on Venus both polar caps are permanently under sunlight, because the large sun is closer to Venus / on the earth one polar cap is in always in darkness.
4]because oxygen & nitrogen are opaque / transparent – the sunlight goes through the corona of the earth; and gets out from the other side, wasted. Venuses’ CO2 atmosphere intercepts the sunlight in the corona.
So he implicitly agrees that skeptics were right to be skeptical.
However, the hysteria and rancour are not due to the public. The fault lies with the more enviro-activist members of his own profession, the funding agencies and journals that encourage their zealotry and the institutions that award prizes just to the pessimistic.
James, I have the same perception which makes it hard to look at the science without expecting bias.
I looked to see where Bengtsson might be referring to Al Gore. This would be it: the dominant opinion is that climate change is genuine and a potential challenge to the world community at least in the longer perspective. It’s no wonder the EU awarded Al a Nobel. Al Gore is even smarter than Bill Clinton. They also awarded the Nobel to Obama so he obviously is smart too. Maybe the next Nobel should be awarded to the entire US Senate.
Excellent article. It is both concerning and telling that almost none of his ‘observational discrepancies appear to have made it even into serious discussion in AR5 SOD WG1. That would seem to show the continued ‘corruption’ in the IPCC process documented previously in The Arts of Truth for AR4.
it’s the science scandal of the age, and a compelling object lesson in what happens when you mix politics and science.
Indeed:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/25/congressional-hearing-on-policy-relevant-climate-issues-in-context/
Rud Istvan
Sadly, it appears from AR5 SOD that your fears will come true.
But I do believe that IPCC now faces a dilemma:
– It can include all the new observation-based studies, which show that 2xCO2 ECS is around half the previously model-estimated values in AR4, and modify its projections for the future accordingly, thereby essentially losing the “fear factor”
OR
– it can “hang tough” with its high predictions for ECS and future warming, by “sweeping the new data under the rug” (as our hostess put it on another thread), and thereby lose any remnant of credibility it still has left.
Not a very comfortable spot to be in, as I see it.
Max
.
“It can include all the new observation-based studies, which show that 2xCO2 ECS is around half the previously model-estimated values in AR4”
But YOU don’t accept these studies, because you don’t believe the human greenhouse gas forcing can be calculated: A key premise of these studies is that it can. If it can’t then CS cannot be constrained.
Yet you demand the IPCC accept what you do not!
Interesting!
lolwot
Your logic is goofy.
Sure, the impact of doubling CO2 in our atmosphere on “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” can be constrained.
The most logical “constraint” is that imposed by actual physical observation.
This is the constraint that is showing a long-term CO2 temperature response from doubling CO2 concentration (= 2xCO2 ECS) of around 1.6C, or half the earlier mean of model estimates cited by IPCC in AR4.
Max
You can’t constrain it if you don’t know the anthropogenic forcing.
The constraint you talk about (1.6C) is based on calculating the anthropogenic forcing.
Ie how many wm-2 forcing has the CO2 rise from 280ppm to 390ppm produced.
Climate science shows that can be calculated with accuracy, based on 3.7wm-2 per doubling of CO2.
YOU on the otherhand deny it can be calculated.
Therefore there’s no constraint on climate sensitivity for you.
lolwot
It can be calculated, or it can be estimated, but there is no assurance that any number is correct. We do not yet sufficiently understand all the impacts of the different forcings. That is a good reason to base estimates on observed conditions.
It’s not possible to observe the forcing. It has to be estimated or calculated.
lolwot,
If, as you assert, ECS can be calculated accurately, why is there such large uncertainty on our estimates of ECS? Why the long fat tail in our estimates of ECS? (Box 12.1, Figure 1, page 12-153: http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch12_long-term_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch12_All_Final.pdf
I didn’t say ECS can be calculated accurately.
“Just like the knee-jerkers complain that the AGW theories can not be verified, the same holds true for potential negative side effects. Since we don’t have a control, we err on the side of caution.”
Thank you. A moment of clarity. This is what it comes down to for you alarmists and luke-warmers who clearly have a clue, isn’t it? The precautionary principle. And yet the truth is you simply have no idea Web, whether or not the cure will be worse than the disease. Or whether in fact there really is a disease. As a matter of fact within limits, any warming might be a significant benefit.
I simply cannot fathom your certainty. The real world doesn’t seem to be supportive of your worst case scenarios to say the very least, and yet you remain as sure of yourself as ever. What makes you so certain that we wouldn’t be causing more harm than good?
Sorry, above meant for WHT. Poor placement on my part.
That’s ok, it stands on its own.
You’ve correctly (in my opinion) pointed out what those invoking the precationary principle either ignore or try to brush off as not important. Yes it is true that we really don’t know effects a 2C increase will bring about. But we also don’t know what impacts the actions being proposed will have. Or worse, we can get at least some idea and it isn’t looking all that good – the “cure” being worse the “illness”.
the actions proposed are under our control and can be easily throttled
the dangerous manmade alteration of climate is not so easily throttled given factors such as the long lag time in the system
You made a statement that is not true: “the dangerous manmade alteration of climate”. For the faithful, I am sure that is a belief. For the scientists, that has yet to be proven.
“easily throttled”
I for one would gladly contribute to air fare for lolwot to go to China, Russia and India and throttle their economies for them. Maybe cameras could follow him to the gulag as he gets a taste of the type of centralized authority he wants to impose on the rest of us.
lolwot, your laughably shallow understanding of the world is almost hard to believe. I sometimes get you mixed up with the equally intellectually bereft Max_OK.
I do logic. Take two outcomes with some range of probabilities and independence. These are oil depletion and AGW. If the prbability is that there is an 80% chance of some oil depletion criteria being met and a 50% chance of an AGW threshold being exceeded what is the probability of neither.
Those are the elements of risk assessment and quantitative risk assessment in particular. Pardon me if I don’t necessarily dwell on the soft sciences and never discuss doomerism, but the hypocrisy on the fake sceptic side boggles the mind.
So how does the recovery of sea-floor methane hydrate factor into your projections?
webster, “I do logic. Take two outcomes with some range of probabilities and independence. These are oil depletion and AGW. If the prbability is that there is an 80% chance of some oil depletion criteria being met and a 50% chance of an AGW threshold being exceeded what is the probability of neither.”
Well, if you DO logic, try it instead of meaningless babble.
There is 100% chance of “some” depletion and a 100% chance that “some” threshold will be exceeded. You have made a completely useless statement that would undoubtedly impress the dihyrogen monoxide groupies.
Cappy Dick, do you understand what a criteria or threshold is when applied to probabilistic decision making?
webster, “Cappy Dick, do you understand what a criteria or threshold is when applied to probabilistic decision making?”
Of course I do. Do you understand how artificially inflated or deflated thresholds are used to manipulate discussion making? How assumptions of linearity can lead to foolish decisions?
The Dihydrogen monoxide groupies worship the linear no-threshold model. Take you for example.
Web
You say
So do most bloggers here, Webby.
You do not have the monopoly on “logic”, nor are you by definition the most “logical” of the bloggers here.
Now let’s go to the two premises to which you apply your “logic”, “oil depletion and AGW”.
But let’s expand “oil depletion” to “fossil fuel depletion”, because we know that oil, gas and coal are readily exchangeable with existing technology.
We know from WEC estimates, that there are enough inferred recoverable fossil fuel resources left on our planet to last us ~300 years (at present usage rates) or ~150 years (at anticipated future rates). But we also know that fossil fuels are a physically limited resource, as they are not being created at anywhere near the rate that they are being consumed.
AGW is not quote so clear, Webby. We have a mechanism by which CO2 (along with a bunch of other GHGs, principally H2O) absorbs IR leading to a greenhouse effect. We are unsure, however, of the magnitude of this effect on our planet’s global climate. There are major uncertainties regarding the relative impact of natural factors. However, several recent studies based on observed CO2 and temperature record, but with assumptions for the natural impact, suggest that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is likely to result in a long-term temperature response (2xCO2 ECS) of somewhat around half of earlier model-based estimates of 3.2C – or 1.6C.
From these data we can begin to apply “logic” to constrain the likely maximum impact of AGW.
The WEC estimates tell us that around 85% of all the fossil fuels that were ever on our planet are still in place and recoverable.
Since the first 15% got us from an estimated 280 ppmv “pre-industrial” CO2 level to 385 ppmv (on the date of the WEC study), the remaining 85% will get us to around 980 ppmv when they are all used up.
So here we have a “logical” constraint to CO2 level caused by human fossil fuel combustion.
Applying these two “logical constraints”, we arrive at a maximum possible warming at equilibrium from human fossil fuel combustion of 2.1C.
And, if this ever did occur, it could do so in 150+ years.
My “logic” tells me that this is not alarming and that there is plenty of time to develop alternate energy sources long before fossil fuels are all used up. And, after looking at humanity’s past record in coming up with new technical solutions to potential problems, my “logic” tells me this will certainly occur.
So, by applying “logic” to the data that are out there, my “risk assessment” tells me that neither fossil fuel depletion nor AGW are likely to become a serious problem for humanity.
You may wish to tell me where my “logic” is flawed in your opinion..
Max
PS I also don’t like hysteria, “doomerism” or “hypocrisy” on either side of the debate, so we are in agreement on that.
The flaw in your logic is revealed on the last thread where you disputed the 3.7wm-2 forcing per doubling of CO2. You said:
You have to ASS-U-ME that the mechanism, which has been validated in the laboratory, results in the same net overall forcing in our climate system as was estimated based on the laboratory measurements.
And that’s a major leap of faith, Mosh.
If it’s a leap of faith then why are you now claiming: “we arrive at a maximum possible warming at equilibrium from human fossil fuel combustion of 2.1C”?
That number is based on knowing the forcing per doubling of CO2 is 3.7wm-2. If you don’t know that then all bets are off.
On the last thread you even said: And if you ASS-U-ME that this is 1.0 instead of 3.71 W/m2 you get a different figure for 2xCO2 ECS.
Yes you do. Which begs the question why you are arguing there’s a constraint on 2xCO2.
If you really believe 2xCO2 forcing could be 1wm-2 then you must entertain 5C or higher for 2xCO2 ECS.
Your logic is flawed because current observational data puts global warming at 3C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
Manacker,
When I see ‘impact‘ mentioned in context of AGW, I sit up, take notice read attentively looking for the estimates or projections of “impacts’, or of the damage function. But you don’t say anything about what the impacts of AGW might be. You talk about temperature change as if we know what the impact of a global average temperature change would be. We we haven’t a clue.
I make this point (again) because I think it is very important that we distinguish between our uncertainty in ECS and our even greater uncertainty in the damage function.
It seems to me it is likely that the very few studies that have been done on impacts – that can be used in economic analyses – have enormous uncertainty and, importantly, probably significantly overstate the net damages from AGW
I’d urge you to emphasise the difference between projected temperature change and projected impacts of such temperature in your otherwise excellent comments which are doing so much to clarify the issues and focus the debate on the really important issues.
lolwot
There is absolutely NOTHING in the “logic” of my comment above to Web that has AYTHING to do with the 3.7 W/m^2 theoretical GH forcing of CO2, as estimated based on laboratory determinations of the IR absorption characteristics of CO2.
If you read my comment to Web, you will see that it is based on the recent (partly) observation-based estimates of the 2xCO2 temperature response at equilibrium, which show this to be around 1.6C.
I accept these provisionally, until better empirical data can be obtained.
So don’t change the subject.
Apply “logic” instead.
Max
“the recent (partly) observation-based estimates of the 2xCO2 temperature response at equilibrium, which show this to be around 1.6C.”
Those recent (partly) observation-based estimates rely on the 3.7 W/m^2 theoretical GH forcing of CO2.
As a first step they convert CO2 rise (ppm) into forcing (wm-2).
If you don’t think they can do that, then you shouldn’t be promoting their results.
Web
It may have missed your attention, but there have been seven (7) new studies since AR4, many of which are based on actual physical observations of CO2 and temperature (with estimates for natural factors), which ALL conclude that the earlier model-based estimates cited in AR4 for 2xCO2 ECS (the 3C, which you cite) are too high by a factor of around 2:1.
You should get up-to-date, Webby, if you want to discuss something “logically”.
Max
Peter Lang
You are talking about “step 2”.
In order to arrive at any estimates (or rather, guesses) at what the net positive or negative impact of AGW could be, one must estimate, based on the data that are available, how much warming humans could cause from using up all the fossil fuels that are estimated to still be left on our planet.
That’s what I have done.
And I come up with a figure of 2.1C, which could be reached asymptotically.
This could theoretically be reached within about 150+ years, provided no new technologies are developed within that period (an assumption. which I find absurd, based on the past).
So the 2.1C would in all likelihood NEVER be reached.
Now let’s let someone else make a WAG what the net positive or negative impact could be from a warming of 2.1C occurring over 150+ years.
My WAG is that the net overall impact is likely to be neutral to slightly positive for these reasons:
a) the absolute warming is most likely constrained to less that 2C because of new technologies that will make it unnecessary and uneconomical to use up all the remaining fossil fuels,
b) the rate of warming from human GHG emissions will be relatively slow, so adaptation measures (if any) will be relatively easy to install if and when they appear to be needed,
c) the net impact of higher CO2 levels plus slightly higher temperatures will result in increased global crop yields, a positive impact that will more than offset the negative impacts of adaptation costs.
d) the projected cooling trend resulting from a less active sun, as predicted by many solar scientists, or from cyclical factors that are now entering a cooling cycle, could be partly offset by GH warming
What’s your WAG?
Max
lolwot
Let me put it to you straight: you are talking gibberish.
I have told you that I (provisionally) accept the results of the many recent studies on 2xCO2 ECS because they are (at least partially) observation based, with estimates for the natural factors.
Got it this time?
Max
Based on observational data the climate sensitivity is approximately 3C for doubling of CO2. James Hansen predicted this value for no ocean heat capacity back in 1981 and it still holds up.
Manacker,
@ May 15, 2013 at 7:33 pm
The main point I was trying to make is we should not say or imply that temperature change is a measure of impact (damage or benefit).
Secondly, I don’t agree we should delay focusing on determining the damage function until after we have reduced the uncertainty in ECS (which is what I interpret your apparent lack of interest in the damage function implies). We are not making much progress on reducing the uncertainty in ECS, so we need to know if there is a significant issue even if ECS is high. We’ve discussed this issue previously.
I can’t say whether I agree with your projections of ‘worst case’ temperature increase this century because I haven’t checked the assumptions and calculations. I’d need to check various authoritative sources for estimates of the amount of fossil fuel available (not just WEC). Nordhaus assumed 6000 Gt C for total resources if fossil fuels (Table 7-1, p127 http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf )
Tol used 3600 Gt C (Figure 3.5, p44 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz17rNCpfuDNRml2dVA4T0xvdkk/edit?pli=1 ) . he based that on WEC. Figure 3.5 also says if all ‘possible’ were burnt the implied atmospheric CO2 concentration would be about 1700 ppm (my eyeball addition of the bars).
Nordhaus’s other significant variables are listed in his Table 7-1. He used central estimate of ECS = 3.0 C and projects global mean temperature change of 3.06 C above 1990 levels in year 2100 for the BAU scenario (i.e. no controls) (Table 5.8, p106). If I understand correctly what you have done, Nordhaus’s projection of 3.06 C increase from 1990 is about the same as your projection of 2.1 C increase from now. Nordhaus’s projections are calibrated to the main GCMs (see here: http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Accom_Notes_100507.pdf)
He then goes on and to estimate net damages. As does Tol.
Nordhaus has changed some inputs since 2008 and updated the projections. The updated figures can be viewed in the charts in the 2013 Excel version of DICE which can be downloaded here: http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/ .
I use Nordhaus and Tol’s projections for my starting point until I can be persuaded there is something better I should use. However, having read Tol’s book recently and also looked at how Professor Ross Garnaut and Australia’s Treasury cherry picked the damage estimates to the high side, I am fairly strongly of the opinion that the damage function may significantly overestimate the damages of a given amount of warming. Both Tol and Nordhaus point out we have very few studies to base the damage function on. For example Nordhaus says:
P24 http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Accom_Notes_100507.pdf
Webby
Get serious.
You should know that Hansen’s 1988 estimate of warming was twice too high (because he used a 2xCO2 ECS estimate in his computers that was twice too high).
This has now been corroborated by several new studies, all concluding that the ECS is around half of the previous estimates used by Hansen and the IPCC.
Get up-to-date, man. You’re lagging behind, Webby.
Max
It’s up to date, it’s historically accurate, by gosh, it’s invariant!
http://imageshack.us/a/img802/3918/hansen1981.gif
Hansen’s prediction of 3 C per doubling of CO2 is holding up really well. It will take a much longer duration of negative compensation of the global temperature anomaly before that observational value needs to be reduced.
You should get up to date with how heat sinking by the ocean works. It is explained right there in the 1981 paper.
Correction: “1990” should read “1900” in this:
Manacker: “I have told you that I (provisionally) accept the results of the many recent studies on 2xCO2 ECS because they are (at least partially) observation based, with estimates for the natural factors.”
But those results RELY on the 3.7wm-2 CO2 forcing. If that is wrong then the results ARE WRONG.
So if you don’t accept 3.7wm-2 CO2 forcing, you can’t accept the results of the studies you mention. You just can’t. It makes no logical sense.
He can proviosionally accept 3.7 W/m2. Duh.
Peter Lang
I always prefer to go back to the root source of information, rather than rely on someone else’s “rehash” of the data.
Richard Tol’s study is a “rehash” of someone else’s data that then goes into lengthy economic estimates and conclusions.
You referred me to page 44, Figure 3.5 of Tol’s study, which shows “Fossil fuel reserves and resources as estimated for 2010, their carbon content, and implied carbon dioxide concentrations”.
WEC 2010 appears to be the basis for Tol’s estimate (as it was for mine). Tol uses estimates of “all possible resources” (including those that are not estimated to ever be recoverable), and my estimate is based on “inferred total recoverable resources”. Adjusting for this, the numbers are close to those I got from WEC 2010.
One exception is shale oil, which he estimates at 700 billion tons (5.4 trillion bbls) of recoverable shale oil. WEC estimates that of the 5 trillion bbls, “over 1 trillion barrels may be technically recoverable”. I have used a higher estimate of 3.3 trillion barrels recoverable, based on optimistic country-by-country estimates in the WEC report. But the difference here is minor.
The major problem with Tol’s estimate is not in the estimated remaining fossil fuel resources, per se, but (if I understood it correctly) in his conversion of carbon content to added CO2 concentration in ppmv.
Let’s take two examples from his Figure 3.5:
Shale oil is estimated to represent 590 billion tons of carbon (GtC).
Tol’s estimated increase in CO2 concentration from this shale oil is around 280 ppmv.
But let’s calculate the added ppmv CO2 resulting from burning 590 GtC.
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt
Roughly half of the CO2 emissions “remain” in the atmosphere, so this is 295 GtC
295*1,000,000 / 5,140,000 = 57 ppm(mass) * 29 / 44 = 38 ppmv added CO2
Tol shows a figure of 280 ppmv added CO2, a figure that is 7 times too high!
Bituminous coal is estimated to represent 705 billion tons of carbon (GtC).
Tol’s estimated increase in CO2 concentration from this coal is around 330 ppmv.
But let’s calculate the added ppmv CO2 resulting from burning 705 GtC.
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt
Roughly half of the CO2 emissions “remain” in the atmosphere, so this is 353 GtC
353*1,000,000 / 5,140,000 = 69 ppm(mass) * 29 / 44 = 45 ppmv added CO2
Tol shows a figure of 330 ppmv added CO2, a figure that is again 7 times too high!
So the Tol study is flawed.
Whether Tol has used these flawed estimates of future CO2 levels from fossil fuels for his economic study, or whether he has used the IPCC estimates of future warming on page 42 is unclear to me.
Elsewhere he estimates costs to restrict CO2 to below 650 ppmv by 2100, although this is the level estimated by IPCC AR4 for business as usual cases with “no climate initiatives”.
So the whole exercise seems a bit dicey to me.
As pointed out, based on the data I’ve seen (WEC on fossil fuels, population growth forecasts by UN, past increases in pc fossil fuel consumption, latest estimates of 2xCO2 ECS, etc.), I could see a temperature increase of a bit more than 1°C from today to 2100 and a bit more than 2°C some day in the far distant future, when all fossil fuels have been completely used up.
And IMO this amount of warming does not justify any CO2 curtailment schemes, carbon taxes, or any of the other silly things being discussed in the ivory towers of this world.
Max
PS I’ll take a look at the Nordhaus study you cited to see if there are any glaring errors in the bases (don’t expect to find any).
Peter Lang
Oops! Mea culpa.
Tol’s conversion is only exaggerated by 2X (not by 7X).
I forgot to convert C to CO2.
So Tol’s error is probably that he ASS-U-MED that ALL of the emitted CO2 would remain in the atmosphere, rather than only half.
So his CO2 estimates are exaggerated by a factor of two.
Max
Hi Manacker,
Are you sure he has made the error you assert, or are you just assuming that?
I haven’t gone back and checked, but I think he has doen it correctly. As he builds up his model, an d takes his students through every step, one of the early chapters takes you through the carbon cycle where the CO2 is moved into and out of five ‘buckets’ (oceans, vegetation, etc). My assumption, without checking, is that it is highly unlikely he has made such an obvious error.
Manacker,
I’ll go with the figure for “all possible resources” not what we now estimated as being possibly recoverable. We have not a clue about what may be recoverable in the future. I suspect Tol and Nordhaus have been in this game for over 20 years and these sorts of arguments haven been disc used to death. They both try to use the most authoritative ans defensible information they can. I am happy to be persuaded, of course. However, I’d like to see a discussion that had been had about this with Tol, if I am to be persuaded. I am sure it will have been argued to death in the litterature before.
Tol writes about the Figure 3.5 (emphasis mine)
“At once” means that no time is given for the removal. Thus 100% remains in the atmosphere. That seems to be the way the Figure is calculated by purpose, but without the purpose of implying that all that carbon would stay in the atmosphere for long.
Pekka,
Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn’t looked carefully. So Manacker is correct that the maximum atmospheric concentration that would be reached if all available fossil fuels were burnt over a period centuries would be much lower than shown in Figure 3.5.
Nordhaus projects the concentrations of 686 ppm in 2100 and 1183 in 2200 for the BAU scenario (i.e. “No controls‘):
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf , Table 5-7 and Figure 5-7 pp103-105)
Those readers who choose to look at this Table and Figure, may notice that by far the best policy would be the PL modified ‘Low Cost backstop‘ policy. :)
[‘Low-cost back stop’ means ‘cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels‘. The figures quoted throughout Nordhaus assume immediately available, cost competitive alternative for all fossil fuels. The PL alternative allows for a period of transition to replace 50% of emissions from fossil fuels by a cost competitive alternative (e.g nuclear electricity, and electricity replaceing some gas for heating and some oil for land transport). More on the PL policy approach here (and following comments): http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313514 ].
Peter Lang | May 16, 2013 at 7:29 pm said: ”Nordhaus projects the concentrations of 686 ppm in 2100 and 1183 in 2200 for the BAU scenario”
Peter, those scenarios are just for fear-mongering that CO2 regulates the temp. Which is completely wrong. Oxygen & nitrogen are regulating the overall temperature. Even if is 5 000ppm of CO2, still O&N are 995000ppm; those two gases by shrinking when cooled / expanding when extra heated, they are 100% controlling the overall heat in the troposphere to be always the same. Wasting your life on hypothetical scenarios that have nothing to do with the reality; is not very prudent!….
Peter Lang
You can easily calculate it yourself using Tol’s Figure 3.5.
The two examples I showed were:
Shale Oil
Tol uses the WEC 2010 estimate for all possible shale oil deposits as “probable”. His estimate of billion tons of carbon equivalent (middle curve) shows around 590 GtC.
Tol’s estimated increase in CO2 concentration from this shale oil (lower curve) is around 280 ppmv.
But let’s calculate the added ppmv CO2 resulting from burning 590 GtC (590*44/12 = 2164 GtCO2).
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt
Roughly half of the CO2 emissions “remain” in the atmosphere, so this is 1082 GtCO2
1082*1,000,000 / 5,140,000 = 210 ppm(mass) * 29 / 44 = 139 ppmv added CO2
Tol shows a figure of 280 ppmv added CO2, a figure that is 2 times too high!
Bituminous coal is estimated to represent 705 billion tons of carbon (GtC).
Tol’s estimated increase in CO2 concentration from this coal is around 330 ppmv.
But let’s calculate the added ppmv CO2 resulting from burning 705 GtC (2588 GtCO2).
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt
Roughly half of the CO2 emissions “remain” in the atmosphere, so this is 1294 GtCO2
1294*1,000,000 / 5,140,000 = 252 ppm(mass) * 29 / 44 = 165 ppmv added CO2
Tol shows a figure of 330 ppmv added CO2, a figure that is again 2 times too high.
So Tol’s estimates of CO2 increase are exaggerated by a factor of 2..
Tol’s error is that he assumes that all of the CO2 generated from burning a certain fossil fuel will “remain” in the atmosphere. In reality only around half of the emitted CO2 “remains” in the atmosphere, with the balance disappearing into the ocean and biosphere.
This is an easy mistake to make. After all, Tol is not a physicist, meteorologist or climatologist, and has no way of knowing that half of the emitted CO2 disappears and does not end up in the atmosphere. But that’s the way it is in real life.
It only shows me, Peter, that you have to check everything – even by renowned economists. If they get the technical basis wrong at the start, the whole study becomes suspect.
Max
Peter Lang
You write:
Making a projection to year 2200 is absurd, so I won’t even respond to that, except to say it will have to come from something other than fossil fuels.
686 ppmv by 2100 is in the ballpark but on the high side, as far as I can see. It is the same as one of the higher IPCC AR4 “scenarios and storylines” (A1B).
Population growth is expected to slow down sharply (to around one-fourth the rate we had from 1970-2010). This slowdown has already started and UN estimated a population of 10.5 billion by 2100.
Since 1970 the per capita use of fossil fuels has increased by 20%.
If we accept the UN population forecasts over the remainder of this century and assume that per capita fossil fuel use will increase by 30% by 2100, we arrive at 640 ppmv.
If we follow your “no regrets” proposal to maximize future nuclear power plant construction in place of coal, this could be reduced by around 80 ppmv. This approach seems like a likely one for the future, although the timing may be delayed because of lingering fear from past WWF and Greenpeace fear mongering and political uncertainty regarding nuclear power.
So I’d say that a more reasonable BaU estimate for 2100 would be 580 to 640 ppmv (this happens to be in the range of IPCC “scenario and storyline” B1, A1T or B2, all of which are BaU without Kyoto type climate initiatives).
So I’d see Nordhaus’ starting point as somewhat exaggerated but not totally off the wall. (But the estimate for year 2200 is poppycock.)
Max
‘This is interesting to me, both because I haven’t seen solid arguments in opposition and because I don’t know of large-scale policies to implement these measures.’ Joshua
‘The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.’ http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation
It is a genuinely bottom up green revolution.
Chief
What a wonderful film. Farming is complex; traditions persist; yet, direct observation of Conservation Farming benefits yields converts.
It’s not really strange how ordinary people will integrate what they learn, see, and do to further their own and other’s benefits.
Do you have another flick on Conservation Climate?
Lots of videos – lot of documentation.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBEF3D2246A9D0DEC
http://renewablesoil.com/dr-christine-jones.html
It commenced in the 1930’s in the US. ‘Franklin D. Roosevelt – ‘The Nation that destroys its soil destroys itself’.
The secret of success in the terms of Elinor Ostrom is ‘multi-centric’ forms of social organisation.
http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostrom-outlines-best-strategies-managing-commons
This is especially beautiful.
Excuse me – polycentric.
Chief,
Thank you for the films which you showed before and
which I found inspirational re small bottom up movements,
( the kind serfs like,) and which I am using as a basis for
a little talk I am doing at my Soroptimist Club :) next month.
Beth.
Don’t forget to mention Elinor – a most inspiring woman.
Speaking of the government and whistling through the grave yard. It has now come out that the Obama administration was spying on the Associated Press. I wonder if the press will, all of a sudden, begin to care about the Constitution? So far, it hasn’t raised a finger as our Constitutional rights go down the socialist drain.
On the political spectrum, where as we see the most support for fixing the non-problem of AGW is coming from the Left. There’s your cause and effect relationship. It has nothing to do with CO2. The EPA has become so politicized the obvious thing to do is simply eliminate the agency altogether. Iraq should be the model for government downsizing–e.g., start with those who stand up and cheer the razing of Americanism and pull the plug.
jim2
Not to get into a USA conflict, but (based on observations elsewhere) the press will very much care (and moan and groan) about governments trampling human rights – as long as it is their human rights.
Max
“At about the same time, as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore explains on-camera, environmentalism became more extreme. By the mid-1980s,” says John Ray, “environmental goals —e.g., clean air and clean water — had become so mainstream that activists had to adopt more extreme positions to remain anti-establishment.” And then, “the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended,” which is when Ray says, “many peace-niks and political activists moved over to environmental activism, bringing their neo-Marxist political philosophy with them. As Moore puts it, environmentalism became the new guise for anti-capitalism. Global warming alarmism was thus borne… political opportunism by unemployed left-wing political activists.”
This quote, ““This is good news” for those who have feared sharper rises, David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey who led the ice2sea project, told Reuters in a telephone interview.” Is more like I would think you would expect from any climate scientist that find any legitimate reason for reducing the “Fear Factor”.
Now I am Sure Willard will be along to find something either Dark or Gray in David’s past. That is not unlikely, btw
You have a link for this quote, Cap’n?
http://news.yahoo.com/ice-melt-sea-level-rise-less-severe-feared-180245411.html
There is one
Arrr!
Here you go, Cap’N,
http://www.sciencepoles.org/articles/article_detail/david_vaughan_on_ice2sea_providing_the_ipcc_with_sea_level_rise_projections/
Here’s a related almost non-philosophical point:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neurath/
Hope you’ll like this,
w
And to echo a point AK made earlier:
> In a wide ranging talk covering many aspects of climate change and its significance to Antarctica and the rest of the Planet, David Vaughan will try to cast some light on these issues, which may turn not to be as simple as the sound bites would lead us to believe.
http://www.esi.utexas.edu/k-12-a-the-community/hot-science-cool-talks/lecture-archives/come-ice-or-high-water
Vintage 2009:
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.ca/2009/03/david-vaughan-tad-pfeffer-jason-lowe.html
OMG! The man is waffling?
Chief Hydrologist commented : ”dweebman and his sidekick geekboy? I guess they hang out together in Wilma’s basement”
Chief, if you read ALL the comments on this post; it all sounds as coming from a person half a sleep and mumbles, just to say something…
Be a good sport and lets analyze the desert dome effect; why the hotter it gets – the more is cooling – so you can see that all those prolong GLOBAL warmings are a 24 carat crap
what’s not clear enough for you: 1] the first 100m from the ground in the desert warms up tremendously – that air expands and doubles in volume – because is not as heavy – zooms up ”above” the upper edge of the troposphere / into the stratosphere as a dome / as a nuclear mushroom. In Sahara every day extra heat is created equal to 50 nuclear bombs.
2] that air (O&N) being into the stratosphere during the day – cools down / becomes colder than any air below – shrinks because of that and becomes heavier than any air below – falls down to the ground as shotgun pellets and makes nights colder than, where is vegetation on same latitude.
That’s why: if planet warms up, for any reason; volcanoes heat, or nuclear bombs, or anything warms it up extra – troposphere instantly increases in volume more than normal -> releases more heat and equalizes in a jiffy, no need 100years. BECAUSE THIS IS all CORRECT, come to the wining side; don’t be a born loser. Stop suffering from ”truth-phobia”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stefan – CO2 causes varicose veins and deep vein thrombosis – http://articlesofhealth.blogspot.com.au/2009/08/carbon-dioxide-causes-varicose-veins.html – as well as baldness and impotence. Just cause you are already bald and … It is like Max says – you Just don’t care.
It causes heart attacks and cancer and increases asthma – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103135757.htm
Oh my God – we are all going to die. Think of the emus – Stefan – the emus.
Chief Hydrologist | May 14, 2013 at 8:56 pm said: ”Stefan – CO2 causes varicose veins and deep vein thrombosis – as well as baldness and impotence”
Chief, i believe you; your snake oil is top quality, but i have no need for it.
The fact remains: when you are presented, to face the truth / reality = you are as cowered as Mosher; RUNNING FOR COVER and changing subject, shame, shame, shame. is your / their drivel rational?
I do think of the emus.. I have seen them, eating rocks the size of a fist; imagine if they were flying…
They eat rocks cause they don’t have no teeth you idgit – and if they were flyin’ we’d all have to run for cover as pellets the size of cannonballs rained down.
Many quite rational people would surmise that measurably changing the composition of the atmosphere carries with certain – if nebulous – risk. In a coupled, nonlinear system the risks are amplified, unpredictable and uncertain. Some response is warranted but the quality of response matters.
The best option all round is for the right of politics to take the opportunity created by the errors and overreach of the left – and seize the agenda for the future. Domestically – in terms of energy and carbon innovation. A multi-gas policy. Efficiency objectives and methods. Farmland and ecosystem restoration and conservation.
Externally though moving to lift aid to what has already been agreed to – and using that aid in focused ways to deliver the health, education, development and conservation objectives of the Millennium Development Goals.
Yes, the nebulousness is the nebulosity. Always has been. Always will be.
While once upon a time I could agree with you that rational arbitration could result in a reasonable compromise, politically and ironically, scientifically, I am afraid that time has passed.
Now the complete and utter humiliation of the straw-man flinging monkeys is likely going to be required. The Merchant of Doubt was that big of a politicization of science coup. Any demographic of society that doubts the veracity of the science of climate is an irrational foe.
I was just watching a video posted on Bishophill;
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw?feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360%5D
The real train wreck is yet to come, IMHO.
Hell – I am not suggesting compromise with pissant progressives. I am suggesting a victory dance on their metaphorical kneecaps. Let’s make sure they never arise again.
http://aliceinwonderland.wikia.com/wiki/The_Lobster_Quadrille
Chief the Coward May 14, 2013 at 9:04 pm said: ” Hell – I am not suggesting compromise with pissant progressives. I am suggesting a victory dance on their metaphorical kneecaps. Let’s make sure they never arise again”
you are calling them ”progressives” because you are clasefying yourself with the pissants; as a ”Fake specimen”
So chief Coward doesn’t have any Braves / followers; because he is not only spearing himself in the foot, but in the kneecaps, also
manacker commented on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change : ”There is no doubt that OPEC is the key factor in (and benefactor from) setting the energy price high”
Bull, Arabs are getting ripped-off .for cheap crude oil; non renewable commodity. IF it wasn’t for the western oil exuberant taxes on fuel… even now bottled water costs more than a liter of fuel down on the gas station
Edit ‘who can argue that writing is a medium that is reducible’
… ter simple conceptual binary opposites? Fergit the profusion
of negatives that lead ter confusion.
My hat’s off Beth. You’re one brilliant serfer gal to be reading and understanding Derrida. That stuff I have to confess, makes my one eye cross. (Which is something to behold, by the way.) Beauty, brains, talent. Founder and editor-in-chief of SU-g. And a cowgirl besides.
If Climate Etc was the Junior Prom, I’d be voting you queen hands down. Mosher likely fancies himself king, but he’s going to have to fight for it.
pokerguy,
Who says I understand Derrida lol ? Must tell the truth …
I’ve hardly read two pages of the guy, iN SM ‘s league I aint.
Jest one of them serfs that like ter hav a go at the cult of
expert – opinion – is – sac – ro – sanct. How’r yer comin’
along with ‘Tolstoy and the serfs,’ pokerguy dear.
Somehow we will get the SU-g first edition inter print.
A serf.
Well hell Beth, at least you knew who he was. I had to look him up.
As to Leo and his friends, not sure you caught my last progress report in answer to an earlier query. Copied and pasted below just in case (with a correction or two):
“I’m honored to be writing for SU-g in any capacity, and in preparation am reading all the Tolstoy I can find. Except “War and Peace.” I want to get this written before the next ice age kicks in after all. Fortunately I read Anna K. last year, so we’re covered there. Levin should play a big part it seems to me, in all such matters. To get myself in an even better frame, I’ve been running around town looking for someone dying of a mysterious kidney ailment, who wouldn’t mind putting his legs up on my shoulders.
(In answer to your question about geography)..We’re just outside Boston, Beth. And we don’t see enough theater. That must be corrected. I need to stay sharp if I’m going to remain a serf…”
Yer don’t need ter read ALL of Tolstoy, Pokerguy,
yer a gambler and yer a deep guy, yer know the
odds ..use that intuition yerv’e used on the circuit .. .
jest wing it .You are the lead article in the first edition
fer the lit -er -ary section… think of all those composers
like Mozart, living through inclement weather, years
of epidemics, plague and famine, pre Industrial
Revolution, life expectancy 30 years ,… who had ter
come up with the goods pronto.
Beth the serf.
You missed the argument.
Socrates argues for the superiority of speech over writing, for example, by
pointing out that in speech the speaker is ‘present’. ( note the setting of the dialogue in which the speech of Lysias who is absent is read)
So, speech for example, is prioritized because the speaker is present and
can answer questions, whereas at written text cannot answer for itself.
Then note the metaphor for knowledge.. we dont really learn things, Socrates argues, we remember thing that are “graven in the soul”
hmm maybe this piece in indterminacy will help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)
Socrates has a good point. Hey, he’s Socrates. On the other hand, a written text has certain obvious advantages as well. And written texts of a certain quality can I’d say, answer for themselves. Certainly some fiction can… writers who in their stories explore realms that are beyond the reach of the kind of questions that can actually be answered..
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archi-writing
Notice the mention of the debate between Derrida and Searle at the bottom of that page.
I am going away so I don’t have time ter consider
the arguments on indeterminacy but will do so. I
note in the article that it is not Socrates ‘speaking,’
Steven, but Plato. ‘In the Phaedo Plato writes of a
fictionalised conversation with Socrates in which
Socrates tries to convince the student that writing
is inferior to speech.’ CB
I’m sorry, but this seems to be a (or should I say another?) totally silly argument. Without writing, civilization would depend on stories to pass down knowledge – a clearly inferior mechanism. Speech and writing each have their role to play. This reminds me of the argument of telecommuting vs working at the physical work location. In telecommuting, the worker isn’t face to face with the boss and co-workers. Some parts of human communications is lost. Speech, however, still comes into play. Maybe Socrates should have been a stone mason.
Still waiting for Web to take a crack at my question re precautionary principle. You out there Web? I see you’ve been doing your thing, floating like a clever butterfly and stinging like a witty bumblebee well after my query was posted. So I have to suppose you’ve seen it…(Time stamped 1:43 pm 5/14)
It would be great if he had the courage of a Patrick Moore and campaigned against all of the environmentalist bullcrap that he’s ingested.
I think what we have left is the dregs of the dweebs – can’t really expect too much of them.
Max_OK and the dweeb? What a joke.
The AGWeebs are part and parcel of the 47% head start the Left counts on to push its liberal fascist socioeconomic agenda against the productive sector.
The Precautionary Principle — As the Left Defines it: Nuclear energy is so dangerous, preventing the construction of nuclear power plants should be made as easy for the Left and as expensive for the energy industry as devilishly possible. And, the secular, socialist pinkonomy of the French is what we should emulate in every state in the Union… except that no state in the Union should be permitted to emulate the French nuclear-energy-production model.
OT, but a bit of bad news for all the free-market advocates who frequent Climate Etc.
North Carolina GOP and auto dealers throw free-market under the bus.
The N.C. Senate just passed a Republican sponsored bill blocking Tesla’s plan for selling its cars directly to consumers.
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/auto-dealers-push-law-blocking-tesla-sales-north-194223800.html
So in a conflict between free-market principles, which the GOP is supposed to uphold, and the interesest of a group of capitalists, the auto dealers, the Republicans decide their principles take back seat to the capitalists.
Oh well, principles don’t make money anyway, and at the end of the day money is all that counts.
Comparing Tesla to free-market principles is like comparing Chicago politics to the Ten Commandments.
Waggy lays an egg.
Tesla is a typical example of a crony capitalist firm, whose profits derive in large part from government subsidies. That being said, there are plenty of progressive Republicans who engage in their own crony capitalism. The legislators in North Carolina in this instance being a case in point.
This is not a matter of capitalism vs. statism. It is a contest between multiple crony capitalists who are fighting their battles in the legislatures, rather than competing in the market.
The Republicans in NC are not acting as proponents of the free market. They are acting like rest of the GOP’s “me too” progressive, sorry – moderate, leadership.
Even so I am sure that North Carolina is a den of corrupt communistic practices – going down the same road as North Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Venezuela or California.
Chile – now there’s an economy. I understand Hayek had good things to say. Must be good.
Clarification Max – republicans are not free market. Conservatives are. Republicans CAN be free market. But as we see, often are not.
We should not conflate conservativism with neo-liberalism:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
It might be tough to be and not to be a little conservative.
All of those in favor of the conservation laws, do not raise your hands.
philjourdan, I like a free-market when I’m buying. Sellers competing for my dollars benefits me. I don’t care for a free-market when I’m selling. My competition doesn’t benefit me. Some probably wish I didn’t exist.
So I’m a 50% free marketer.
YOu also correctly identified why “Big” business is not republican, but “small” business overwhelming is.
What kind of small business owner likes competition, and wants more competitors?
I think there might be two kinds.
1. One who isn’t in business to make money.
or
2. A sap.
Small Business IS the competition. Big Business is the status quo.
Microsoft was not microsoft when it took on IBM. And it had a lot of problems getting its foot in the door (it did so through the back door – accounting).
‘When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I
have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society
which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.’ Hayek – ‘Why I am not a conservative’.
I might mention in passing that Max’s adolescent fantasy about the market bending to his will is simply that. There is no sense in which the numbers of people selling in the market – farm goods for instance – is influenced by other than price and demand or distorted by subsidies.
Pro-market and pro-business are two different things. Both parties in the US tend to favor auto dealers, who are well-heeled campaign contributors found in most electoral districts, over direct-sales alternatives. Ford and GM would have started selling cars directly years ago were it not for state-level restrictions. Booze distribution is even worse in the US. It’s trivially easy to find Republican politicians favoring particular businesses over market freedom–no shock to the more-populist and more-libertarian members of its own base. Heck, Bush 43 put in some egregious “emergency” steel tariffs that got the US cited by the WTO after a Brazilian complaint.
I keep reading that wind and solar electricity cost has dropped to that of the grid, but I don’t see supporting calculations for levelized costs. The Lazard study below does not include backup power for intermittent wind and solar installations and factors in subsidies. Even with subsidies, wind and solar look iffy. If anyone knows of more recent studies, I would like to read them.
http://votesolar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lazard-June-11-Levelized-Cost-of-Energy-and-proj-to-2020-copy.pdf
The EU is an actual case study. They’re returning to coal. Or, there going down. One or the other.
The EU is already so weak only a strong US could bail them out of their dilemma — again. But, the US is now weak.
It’s looking like an intransigent and insatiable 47% will bring the socioeconomic system to the edge. The US does not give a dime to others that it doesn’t first steal from granny’s savings and the futures of the children or borrow from China.
On the premise that stock market valuation should correlate with the output of the world economy, I just did a chart of the S&P / World Gross Product in 1990 dollars. If I did the conversions correctly, for the last few decades the ratio has been around 0.04. In the ’30’s it was 0.08. Now it is 0.1. It would seem the market is valued at about twice what it should be.
Data and conversion site used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
http://stats.areppim.com/calc/calc_usdlrxdeflator.php
http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-price/table
The price includes “g” (growth) — even if it is an inflated price as the result of fiat dollars.
I have that backwards. I was looking at the wrong end of the chart. Blush. It has been around 0.01, now it is around 0.02 or so. Still a bit high.
The sort of ‘soft’ science that readily gets published is easily understood once the basics of commodotised science is appreciated. Oil is commodotised in units of barrels, wheat in bushels and science in LPU’s – Least Publishable Units. An LPU is the limpest, softest, shallowest and easiest paper to knock out that will a) get published and be get you a ticket to a conference. Your institution then gets funding allocated on a per LPU basis.
Pingback: Lennart Bengtsson på Klimazweibel | The Climate Scam
‘Third assessment report is a bit dated isn’t it?
David Springer | May 15, 2013 at 6:00 am |
Chief Hydrologist | May 14, 2013 at 7:58 pm |
“I am nominally an engineer – albeit a fairly soft hydrological type. I have as well a Masters in Environmental Science – with of course a specialty in water quality. I am at the top of my game and earnings and in the sweet spot where I have vast experience and a depth of knowledge that only comes with time, confidence, maturity, stability and a flexible and curious mind.”
24/7 commenting on a blog is the top of your game?
Wow. What’s the bottom like then?’
It is a lot funny coming from springer who quotes a 30 year old Mother Earth News article while insisting that science is science no matter how old.
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
This is in fact still the case – and I can quote any number of studies along these lines. e.g. McWilliams 2007 – http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long – Slingo and Palmer 2011 – http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
Sitting on a computer all day running models is what I do – with too few excursions into the field. So between models runs and whenever – this stimulates both actual reading in science and thinking about the issues. Springer insists on making things personal because that is springers mode of operation with just about everyone it seems. He suffers from what is technically known as the smartest git in the room syndrome – and needs to shout people down. Pathetic really.
Chief Hydrologist | May 15, 2013 at 6:37 pm | Reply
ds:Third assessment report is a bit dated isn’t it?
chief kangaroo skippy ellison: It is a lot funny coming from springer who quotes a 30 year old Mother Earth News article while insisting that science is science no matter how old.
I was being sarcastic, dopey. Too subtle for you?
ckse: “Sitting on a computer all day running models is what I do”
Yeah, we know.
http://tinyurl.com/ay6gt6r
Springer – there is little comparison between the TAR and a 1982 Mother Earth News article. If you expect me to pretend there is some sort of equivalence then you have rocks in your head. But we knew that already.
Got a problem running computer models? I can do it basically anywhere I have my laptop. That’s in between diving on the Great Barrier Reef of course.
Can anyone explain 13 inches of snow in the begining of May in Iowa, USA, followed by 108 F yesterday?
Or 42 C for the continentals
I think it is called Iowa weather. But look on the bright side, the month will be close to average :)
It is a little unusual, even record setting for Iowa, both snowfall and temperatures.
I think it is AGW causing the retreat of the arctic sea ice which is causing the jet stream to swing more north to south.
Bob, “I think it is AGW causing the retreat of the arctic sea ice which is causing the jet stream to swing more north to south.” I am sure AWG has some impact, but most of the recent arctic sea ice melt is likely due to natural variability. There is even an indication that the SSW events that shift the jet stream have a pseudo cycle related to the PDO and AMO.
Remember in the original AGW estimates, the AMO and PDO were not yet known, ENSO was first mentioned in 1969 I believe, AMO identified in 1994 and PDO defined in 1997 based on fish catch records. Since the models didn’t include these pseudo-oscillations and in fact cannot replicate these patterns, the Arctic sea ice change was not projected to happen as it has by the models. Climate science is still in a learning phase. Not ready for prime time if you get my drift.
Though if you want to ignore that, you could say it was caused by AGW, Unicorn farts or my favorite, butt launched flying monkeys.
Yet unicorn farts and flying monkees being real, when was the last time the Arctic was ice free? PDO, AMO and ENSO would have done it in the last few thousand years if they could have don’t you think?
I don’t think I am ignoring these oscillations, but if they could be the cause of the current trends in weather and climate, they would have done it before.
The SSW hit with equal probability at extremes of ENSO events – both La Nina and El Nino. As La Nina intensifies over the next decades – th suggestion is some cooling is possible and more ice as seems to have happened last century. Indeed as ENSO intensifies over centuries it seems who knows what might happen.
The first example is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The PDO is defined as the leading Empirical Orthogonal Function of sea-surface temperatures in the North Pacific (Mantua et al. 1997), and its temporal variability has been shown to correspond to variability in fish stocks and glacier mass balance, among other derivative measures of climate (e.g., Mantua et al. 1997, Bitz & Battisti 1999). … This is confirmed in Figures 7b and 7c, which are random realizations of a red-noise process with this best-fit τ . The similarity to the PDO index is visually obvious: Simply by chance, and given an approximately one-year memory, there are some intervals where the index is above zero for a few years. This visual effect is exaggerated when a five-year running mean is imposed on the data, as is often done with such indices, which imparts an appearance of whole decades in one phase or the other. …
That the spectral estimate of the PDO index lies largely within those bounds is a further indication that red noise is a consistent explanation of the data. The response time driving this spectrum is indicated by the arrow, and hence the figure empha- sizes how much variance occurs at long periods for a process that has a much shorter physical timescale.
By these statistical measures, the PDO should be characterized neither as decadal nor as an oscillation (but it is in the Pacific). – Gerald Roe
bob “I don’t think I am ignoring these oscillations, but if they could be the cause of the current trends in weather and climate, they would have done it before.”
Maybe they have. Perhaps not exactly 108F and 13 inches in May, but PD Close. You are comparing super high resolution hourly, to daily to monthly to annual to multi-year proxies the further you go back. The monthly of May in Iowa will be close to normal. In 100 years there may be a TOBs adjustment or reanalysis that filters that “outlier” out of the way. History tends to get revised.
JCH, “By these statistical measures, the PDO should be characterized neither as decadal nor as an oscillation (but it is in the Pacific)”
Kind of like the Holy Roman Empire. There are no true oscillations in the climate system. Day/night period varies by latitude, annual varies by latitude, There appears to be a 21 year solar variation but the solar variation isn’t big enough to cause that and for the past 100 or so years there has been a noisy trend in temperature that is smaller than the region standard deviation. By piecing together a “global” metric, there appears to a “global” rise in surface temperature of about .3 to .8 C depending on your choice of starting point. Depending on how you care to torture the data, you can get just about anything you like, except for a pure oscillation.
You have a whacked definition of oscillaiton if you think day/night isn’t an oscillation just because the period varies by latitude. You say the dumbest things sometimes.
David, “You have a whacked definition of oscillaiton if you think day/night isn’t an oscillation just because the period varies by latitude. You say the dumbest things sometimes.”
Possibly, but I said pure oscillation. Everything in climate is a coupled oscillation even day/night. JCH was making a point that the PDO is not an oscillation. It is an oscillation, it just doesn’t have a fixed period, so it is sometimes referred to as a Pseudo-cyclic oscillation or phenomenon. JCH has been pretty persistent pointing out that in his opinion the PDO was not properly named. Probably because it is not as predictable as day/night, seasons or the solar pseudo-cycle.
Capt – I just read stuff.
Natural variability is a cartoon roller coaster that rides on a rail called the GHE.
JCH and from the things you read, you form an opinion. Like natural variability is the cartoon train riding the GHE rails. Some people even preselect things to read based on a preformed opinions. Some people even help preselect reading to help others form an opinion like theirs :)
BTW, I tend to agree with Roe that the PDO is a poor “index” of climate. It is a pretty good indicator of “weather” only, since the climate portion is removed by detrending. Same with ENSO and detrended AMO, the climate portion is removed to isolate the “oscillation”. Once they are detrended they will have zero long term impact because the long term portion of the signal was removed. Then you can get into fun statistical games showing how removing the detrended portion of a signal from the signal doesn’t impact the trend of the signal.
Luckily, we do have the “known” portion of the GHE rails, ~0.8 to ~1.2 C per every 3.7Wm-2 of “atmospheric” forcing. If you avoid studies that use the noisiest data to force fit a higher “sensitivity” (something I am sure Roe also has an opinion on), the more current estimates indicate a rough overall “sensitivity” in the 1.6 C +/- 0.8 range, which still assumes there is no long term natural portion of the secular trend. “Globally” there has been ~0.4 C of warming above the mean of the instrumental period with a margin of error in the ballpark of 0.125C.
.
The PDO and ENSO are related phenomenon in the Interdecadal pacific ‘Oscillation’. This particular mode is seen in high resolution long term ENSO proxies (eg Vance et al 2012 – http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim&)
It involves upwelling or not of cold bottom water – it has a cause and effect – it is not red noise.
bob droege
You ask when the Arctic was last ice free.
You do not know the answer to this anymore than I do.
But let me guess: 2000 years ago: i.e. September 15, 13AD.
Or maybe it was 1100 years ago: i.e. September 18, 987 AD
Take your pick (each +/- 100 years).
Max
Chief said, “It involves upwelling or not of cold bottom water – it has a cause and effect – it is not red noise.” No, it is not red noise, but the PDO is very noisy. It is a good weather/fishing index for the US and Canada, but not a very good “global” climate index as it is defined. The AMO has an excellent correlation with “global” climate mainly because of its influence on the NH land surface temperatures and the polar amplification. ENSO could be a good climate index, but detrended it is more of a weather index. Figuring out how much of the secular trend from circa 1900 is “other than CO2” is pretty important it we are going to even get close with attribution.
Climate needs better indexes IMO.
The correct answer:
No.
Unfortunately, for some, that means they feel free to go to a default answer of “climate change”. Guess they have as much trouble understanding the meaning of “no” and Clintom had with “it”.
Can anyone explain to me why there’s snow outside my door on the 15th May in the UK?
Because you didn’t pay the kids to shovel it.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/loop-wv.html
I am pretty sure your weather will change this week.
Dr Jeff Masters’ WonderBlog has an explaination.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2407&page=3#commenttop
Can anyone explain to me why there’s snow outside my door on the 15th May in the UK?
The ice saints (the may singularities) have been around for a long time,would it rather be unusual if the singularities did not occur.
eg MARVIN
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/049/mwr-049-11-0606.pdf
I figure there’s snow in May in the UK to humiliate Dr. David Viner.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
If the chuckleheads running the show in England don’t get a clue children there just aren’t going to know what a warm bed and full belly is. Did you boys fire that Viner imbecile yet?
Chief Hydrologist commented on Lennart Bengtsson : ”“I am nominally an engineer – albeit a fairly soft hydrological type. I have as well a Masters in Environmental Science – with of course a specialty in water quality. I am at the top of my game and earnings and in the sweet spot where I have vast experience and a depth of knowledge that only comes with time, confidence, maturity, stability and a flexible and curious mind.”
Chief, are you talking about another chief that we don’t know? if you are an engineer – I must be the pope of Rome. Engineer would understand the ”dome” effect and realized that global warmings for more than a day are impossible
2]you are a typical environmentalist; with dophamine brains – water knowledge says: water is useful, when stays on the land, to improve the vegetation and climate and attract extra clouds from the sea – when drained into the sea during storms; is same as if never rained. In Brazil topography keeps the rainwater inland, in Australia can be substituted by dams on creeks and rivers Plus by turning the water from the short rivers that drain into the sea – water to be diverted into inland.
3] you must be profiteering from the misleading propaganda / reason you are creating confusion. You have ”vast experience and a depth of knowledge that only comes with time, confidence, maturity, stability and a flexible and curious mind.” what is that about Mr. Closed Parashoot Brains?!
.
Good evening your holiness. No dome effect – occasionally convection is strong enough to punch through the tropopause. Interesting – and adds moisture to the stratosphere – but not likely to make much difference in the scheme of things.
The dream of greening inland Australia is centuries old. Not worth my time worrying about.
Jim D on Lennart Bengtsson lied: It is only a matter of time before this new generation gets a say in planning, and then, finally, policies should take a more proactive course on resilience, adaptation and mitigation”
you are still dreaming your impossible dream. Because Gillard is mortgaging the young generation – to ”prevent the non-existent GLOBAL warming” they will one day make YOU, to look funny without testicles!
Brandon Shollenberger | May 15, 2013 at 11:53 am |
“David Springer, it takes no courage to behave like you do. You behave like a coward. It’s pahetic, and you disgrace this site. The fact you’d take pride in such shameful behavior sayd more about you than I could ever want to know.”
You accuse ME of name calling?
Physcian, heal thyself.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 15, 2013 at 3:49 am |
Paul P. if you’re going to be a monumental asshat running down others in that manner I’m going to insist it isn’t done under the veil of anonimity? You either have the stones to let your colleagues at BAE know who you really are and what you really do with your time all day or you gain some manners and humility and you do it in a hurry.
To repeat myself.
Same charming little space cadet – wouldn’t want you to change.
The forcing doesn’t accumulate. The atmosphere warms and emissions increase. In fact – the CO2 is superheated and cools to a local thermodynamic equilibrium.
I am far from being a skeptic. I believe the IPCC.
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
It is of course this coupled non-linear chaotic system – about which I have talked often enough – that caused the 1998/2001 climate shift. These tend to last 20 to 40 years in the long proxy records. Beyond that things are a bit uncertain for exactly the same reason.
chief, why do run off to your favorite excuse of a nonlinear chaotic system after you have committed such a monumental blunder in explaining how a GHG works?
Quoting the IPCC not good enough for you?
Stefan-Boltzmann not good enough for you?
‘That said, how does this visualization help us understand the issue of “CO2 sensitivity” which is the additional warming of the Earth Surface due to an increase in atmospheric CO2? Well, given a greater density of CO2 (and H2O) molecules in the air, there is a greater chance that a given photon will get absorbed. Stated differently, a given photon will travel a shorter distance, on average, before being absorbed by a GHG molecule and be re-emitted in a random direction, including downwards towards the Surface. That will result in more energy being recycled back to the Surface, increasing average temperatures a bit.’ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
You are seriously boring.
Notice how Chief takes everyone for a ride. I responded to Philip Haddad who claimed that just the heat from combusting fossil fuels is a more significant effect than the GHE effect of CO2.
I have seen that argument before and also have seen The Chief apply it here. So like clockwork, Chief shows up and says the same thing as Haddad.
When confronted, The Chief stars his usual evasive maneuvering ending with his Rainman-like stammering of nonlinear chaos and space cadets.
There is your nutshell in a nutshell.
This is a very simple idea – the heat of combustion is of the same order of magnitude as the ‘forcing’ from increased CO2. About 0.03 W/m2/year. This is an initial condition. The gases start off very hot for the most part. This is so seriously obvious that I can only conclude that we are dealing with a seriously compromised space cadet.
The other was a quote from the IPCC. He is obviously incapable of understanding this either.
This is very similar to the time that The Chief was pranking us that he couldn’t understand the difference between Energy and Power.
A year’s dose CO2 combustion is spread out over a year. That is the 0.03 value The Chief is talking about. The INCREASE in heat per year is about 1% of this or 0.0003. That is what you need to compare to if you choose to use the 0.04 value for CO2 increase.
Now The Chief will resume to calling me names, and then when it finally registers with him, blithely ignore the fact that he made a mistake.
It seems an odd inability to understand unit energy – X Watts x one second = X Joules. I had to call it power before he would shut up. And then someone suggested I was really talking about energy. I was really talking about average unit energy as J/s and not power as Watts. Just as we talk about the change of energy in the oceans as Joules/s.
The heat released by combustion is 0.03W/m2/year – the CO2 ‘forcing’ is 0.04W/m2/year. The source of the heat matters not at all in the scheme of things but all and more of the warming of the atmosphere can be put down to combustion and the release of energy from radioactive decay. This higher energy state is maintained as a result of a reduced mean free photon path in a CO2 enriched atmosphere. The simple point is that combustion is significant in the changing energy budget of the planet. Energy is after all conserved and not reduced to 1% by some convenient but incredible factor.
Webby’s has such a weird idea of how things work and has such a low level of self awareness that he complains that I call him a dweeb and a cult of AGW groupthink space cadet. The first is utterly mild compared to the nonsense he habitually throws at everyone. The second is my realistic assessment of his mentality. If he wants not to be a space cadet he will have to get deprogrammed. Admit to his errors – which are so profound and wide ranging that it seems likely that he will remain in the last dregs of the warministas even as the planet doesn’t warm and most others move on.
CH, the forcing is increasing, combustion isn’t (your units for it are wrong because it is W/m2). This is a big difference over 100 years. The forcing changes by 4 W/m2, combustion is still 0.03 W/m2.
The forcing is the nominal imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy. What happens is that the atmosphere warms and – all else being equal – the nominal imbalance is eliminated by increased emissions at a warmer temperature. While the warmth may accumulate – the forcing is constantly offset by the warming itself. This is baby physics. The system always tends to equilibrium at TOA.
All things are not equal and the flux at TOA can change by 5W/m2 in a season.
CH, the forcing is changing by 0.04 W/m2 per year, as you say. This is relative to the previous year. The temperature has to respond sooner or later to that step in forcing. Combustion contributes to the flow through the system and basically you add it to the solar W/m2 which is 10,000 times larger. It doesn’t change the temperature because it is not changing, just as a steady sun wouldn’t do anything to the temperature.
That a way Jim D !
I can see you were not cowed by Chief’s assertion of the nonsense that I “habitually throw(s) at everyone”
Unfortunately that makes you weak, as you may have been hypnotized into the “cult of AGW groupthink space cadet”.
Ooooh, scary, kids.
CH, the forcing is changing by 0.04 W/m2 per year, as you say. This is relative to the previous year. The temperature has to respond sooner or later to that step in forcing. Combustion contributes to the flow through the system and basically you add it to the solar W/m2 which is 10,000 times larger. It doesn’t change the temperature because it is not changing, just as a steady sun wouldn’t do anything to the temperature.
Nonsense – and the usual lies from webby. No self awareness obviously – or utter hypocrisy – when he throws egregious insults around in paroxysms of rage and then complains of dweeb and space cadet.
Combustion causes an immediate increase in temperature. This is the nature of combustion in releasing long stored energy in exothermic reactions. Energy added every time a carbon atom is oxidized. Remember I am only talking about initial conditions. The higher energy state is maintained with a decreased mean IR photon path in a CO2 enriched environment. How many times do I have to say that? Why is this such a difficult concept for space cadets?
Chief is mock-threatening like a second-rate Mojo JoJo.
Mock threatening? Are you insane?
It’s a joke. You are apparently culturally illiterate, not being aware of the character Mojo JoJo from the kid’s cartoon Power-Puff Girls.
What the hell has the Powerpuff Girls got to do with anything? Seriously – you are insane.
Chief, we are laughing at you and your “I am Mojo JoJo” pronouncements. So you don’t get it, big whoop,
CH, how is the heat from combustion different from the heat from the sun? It is 10,000 times smaller, so adds little effect. Also it is not changing with time, so there is no cumulative effect on climate comparable to adding CO2 continuously. The heat from combustion is removed from the system the way the solar energy is, via the IR.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 16, 2013 at 7:34 am |
‘Chief Hydro says:
“The warming from combustion is about 0.03W/m2/year and from carbon dioxide ‘forcing’ 0.04W/m2/year. CO2 enters the atmosphere superheated and cools down to new warmer state caused by additional CO2.
Complex idea I know dweeb – if you burn it it’s hot – year after year. Do you think this somehow makes a difference? The higher energy state is maintained as a result of the reduced mean IR photon path with added CO2. “
This is intentional obfuscation by the Chief. We have explained over and over again that CO2 GHG forcing ACCUMULATES year-after-year while the heat from CO2 combustion DISSIPATES every year. He is in so deep in this charade that he comes up with this preposterous idea that the CO2 molecule acts as a dample-and-hold latch in the way it traps heat.
The reason for this intentional obfuscation is complex. The Chief has used this argument ever since I was aware of his (and his sockpuppets) existence here, and is the initial reason for my suspicion that he is a fake skeptic. Why he does this, I have no clue. It could be that Larrikin urge to prank that he just can’t control.’
I assume he means sample and hold. Does he think this somehow makes a difference? The higher energy state is maintained as a result of the reduced mean IR photon path with added CO2.
The simple idea is accounting for the heat of combustion in the global energy budget. It is appreciable enough to cause the atmosphere to warm while adding CO2. The initial warming is the same order of magnitude as the theoretical forcing from extra CO2. Ultimately the atmosphere is warmer and emissions increase from a warmer atmosphere. The question of combustion relates to the initial state of CO2 as it is released into the atmosphere. It doesn’t gain heat – it loses heat. Heat DISSIPATES. It cools to an energy state that is maintained as a result of a reduced mean IR photon path with added CO2.
I am so far from being a skeptic but we are dealing here with the dregs of the warminista space cadets who have an inflexible idea of how things should be rather than how things are. Move on dweeb – you have a long – long way to go.
.
It would be different if you had something to add, but all we get is obfuscation and covering your tracks.
Chief, you really have no intuition at all when it comes to physics and it shows. It really makes your pranks tiresome.
Web,
I lack the education…and perhaps even the brains… to follow the discussion between you and the chief. But either way, the chief never runs away from a debate… that I’ve seen in any case. Can’t say the same for you wrt my query on your implied invocation of the precautionary principle. In fairness, I don’t generally see you run away either. So why no response in this case? If you’ve not seen my question to you, I repeat below, first your remark and then my response. The reason I keep hammering away is it’s obviously of central importance, and I’m genuinely wanting to know what your thoughts are. If you don’t respond again I’ll drop it, but another evasion will be telling in my opinion.
WHT writes: “Just like the knee-jerkers complain that the AGW theories can not be verified, the same holds true for potential negative side effects. Since we don’t have a control, we err on the side of caution.”
pokerguy asks: “Thank you. A moment of clarity. This is what it comes down to for you alarmists and luke-warmers who clearly have a clue, isn’t it? The precautionary principle. And yet the truth is you simply have no idea Web, whether or not the cure will be worse than the disease. Or whether in fact there really is a disease. As a matter of fact within limits, any warming might be a significant benefit.
I simply cannot fathom your certainty. The real world doesn’t seem to be supportive of your worst case scenarios to say the very least, and yet you remain as sure of yourself as ever. What makes you so certain that we wouldn’t be causing more harm than good?”
Your ‘intuition’ is fantasy physics and incompetent math. You need to do some basic reading in atmospheric physics along with much else – and not rely on your fantasies. It is the difference between understanding and making it up based on preconceived space cadet ideas.
I responded to you. Do a search on risk assessment.
If you can’t tell that what Chief says is plain baloney, I don’t have much to add. The skill of science is to build on the correct foundation. The skill of engineering is to rip-off the best scientific ideas. If you can’t engage at that level, it is tough sledding. The Chief is taking you all for a ride. WHeeeeeeeeee!
Wagathon | May 14, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
“The ‘new approach to environmentalism’ – according to Dr. Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace who authored “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout) — ‘requires embracing humans as a positive element in evolution rather than viewing us as some kind of mistake.’ Patrick has essentially outed Leftists as perpetrators of the anti-humanist and anti-capitalist agenda of the Eurocommies.”
Yes. It is my belief that a technological species capable of building telescopes and spacecraft is required for life to continue beyond the span of time that a planet remains habitable. In several billion more years our sun will swell into a red giant and incinerate the earth and every living within it. Trees and lizards aren’t going to make an escape possible. Humanity or something like humanity might. Otherwise life on this planet will be lost forever.
I wrote the following article in response to Dr. Eric Pianka at UT Austin who routinely asks his class what makes them more important than a lizard. He cannot answer and expects no one else can either. He also blithely states the world would be better off if 90% of the human race was killed by a plague. But he’s not half as bright as he thinks he is and I answered him on his own terms. Life, if nothing, is about continuity. Reproduction is a goal that goes above all else. Whatever resources are required are consumed in the process. The earth’s life may be viewed as a single organism and like any other organism it will expend itself in the effort to reproduce. It won’t be successful without a means of transporting life here to another suitable location. It is my thesis that humans are the reproductive organs of the global organism. So if someone calls you a dick take it as a compliment. ;-)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-good-are-lizards/
That article of yours demonstrates a tremendous lack of vision. “If we use up all the resources on this planet but manage to get the seeds of life moved to another planet in the process“? Why stop there? What is life other than an eddy of the flow of energy from a low-entropy system (the Sun) to a high(er)-entropy system (radiation in interstellar, ultimately intergalactic, space)? Any eddy has the potential to expand to absorb a larger amount of the available energy stream. (For analogy, imagine a small eddy in a stream being able to grow till it captures most of the energy flow.)
Of the energy streaming from the Sun into interstellar space, only a very miniscule fraction is actually available for life of any kind. Why not look at the purpose of Humanity as being part of that growing life/eddy capable of expanding its scope to a large fraction of the sun’s energy, as some sort of Dyson sphere
Chief Hydrologist commented on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change said: ”The other was a quote from the IPCC. He is obviously incapable of understanding this either.”
Chief, you understand what’s not your business; but are a carpet beggar when it comes to what you can do something about it.
I want 10% from the loot money, or I’ll tell everybody what kind scum of the scam you are. you are profiteering in OZ, forget IPCC; instead of: you think globally and sponge locally
Chieg Hydrologist commented on Lennart Bengtsson said: ” No dome effect – occasionally convection is strong enough to punch through the tropopause.”
WRONG!!! How do you explain why in the desert is much more cooling at night, than on same latitude where is vegetation / moisture b] desert doesn’t ad up moisture in the upper atmosphere; you are scared from the truth!!!
2]”The dream of greening inland Australia is centuries old. Not worth my time worrying about”…?!.Shame shame, Australia is feeding you, not IPCC!
Greening inland is a brand new carbon sink AND IMPROVING THE CLIMATE! You proved me, correct again; for believing that you are a scum of the scam, thanks. The biggest anti-Australian conmen, Brown &Flanerry did a good job on your corrupt / immoral brains. From now, don’t go out without brown paper bag over your head!
This man is a true believer in the power of carbon dioxide to warm the world. Still, he does not go to extremes and may have some lukewarmish attitudes about that. He says the right words about science like pointing out the need for accurate observations and deploring the lack of genuine interest in climate and climate processes by politically motivated activists. But when you get a glimpse of how much regard he really has for science you find not much. To him, “global warming is mainly caused by the emission of carbon dioxide and thus directly related to energy production by fossil.” To remedy this, he thinks that “A carbon tax is an effective way to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide.” There we have it, still believing that we must fight the devil carbon dioxide even if it takes a carbon tax to do it. I knew about his work in the Arctic but from that to an advocate of carbon tax is a leap of faith. He retired from his leadership position at the Max Planck Institute and now has academic positions in Switzerland and the UK. He does not bother to justify his views with actual science and takes the attitude that what he is saying is just common knowledge. But someone must bring out the opposite views so I did what I could to introduce him to Ferenc Miskolczi’s work. His work is being suppressed and quite successfully ever since his 2007 paper came out. That was all theory but his 2010 article had empirical observations proving what he said in 2007. He used NOAA database of weather balloon observations going back to 1948 to show that absorption of IR by the atmosphere had been constant for 61 years. At the same time carbon dioxide went up by 21.6 percent. But this additional carbon dioxide did not have any effect on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is an empirical observation, not derived from any theory, and it overrides any predictions from theory that do not agree with it. Specifically, it overrides any predictions of warming by climate models utilizing greenhouse theory to predict warming. It follows that any laws and regulations passed with the aid of such predictions were passed under false premises and must be nullified. And without that greenhouse warming there can be no anthropogenic global warming either. AGW, RIP.
Coinidentally, I “anti-dedicated” the following blog post to the Mad Hungarian Ferenc:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-homework-problem-to-end-all.html
Ferenc seems to practice an impenetrable style of scientific inquiry. No one can follow any of his arguments or work out his results independently. What a real scientist has to do is actually put some effort into making the exposition clean. No sale otherwise.
Boo on Ferenc, and hiss on Arno, who both show disdain for their readers. Arno showing disdain by intentionally writing in one paragraph. I wonder if Arno’s book was written in a single long paragraph?
“I am immensely concerned by the overemphasis on climate model taxonomy, whereby scientists write papers analyzing the output of the IPCC climate model simulations, and infer future catastrophic impacts, and it seems far too easy for this kind of research to get published in Nature and Science. ”
Please, to call this research is to pervert science. Science requires statistically proper testing against the real world. Anything else is mental masturbation.
Furthermore, they call simulations, scenario analyses, and model runs “experiments“. That is a gross distortion of the meaning of the word experiment, IMO>
Pingback: The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 2554
A very good article Judith. I agree with his view point and perspective. The media hype and political games being played with the climate football are annoying at best and potentially destabilizing at worst, as the general credibility of science and commerce continue to decline in the public’s mind.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: A sane view on the ‘climate change’ issue « DON AITKIN
Pingback: I found this on a “Green” discussion string. As my Grandma used to say: “Let the Fur Fly!” | Clean Air!
Pingback: Climat : divergences croissantes :: RESILIENCETV