by Judith Curry
This past week, there have been several essays and one debate that provide some good perspectives on what we don’t know about climate change, and whether we should be alarmed.
James Lovelock
Nature has an interview with James Lovelock: James Lovelock reflects on Gaia’s legacy. Excerpts:
The Revenge of Gaia was over the top, but we were all so taken in by the perfect correlation between temperature and CO2 in the ice-core analyses [from the ice-sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, studied since the 1980s]. You could draw a straight line relating temperature and CO2, and it was such a temptation for everyone to say, “Well, with CO2 rising we can say in such and such a year it will be this hot.” It was a mistake we all made.
But being an independent scientist, it is much easier to say you made a mistake than if you are a government department or an employee or anything like that.
In your latest book you advocate not trying to halt climate change but exercising what you call a sustainable retreat. Why is that?
I think it is the better approach. To rush ahead and advance is very much the Napoleonic approach to battle. It is far better to think about how we can protect ourselves. This is something we should be looking at carefully, not just applying guesswork and hoping for the best.
A lot of investment in green technology has been a giant scam, if well intentioned.
What do you think of peer review — is it necessary? For run-of-the-mill papers, say if somebody comes up with a really neat method for analysing some component of urine or that kind of thing, it is important to keep it. But not on larger topics.
Lennart Bengtsson
GWPF provides a translation of an essay by Lenaert Bengtsson entitled The science and politics of climate change. Bengtsson was previously the Director of Research at ECMWF and Director of the Max Planck Insitute for Meteorology. Excerpts from the essay:
The science isn’t settled and we still don’t know how best to solve the energy problems of our planet.
More CO2 in the atmosphere leads undoubtedly to a warming of the earth surface. However, the extent and speed of this warming are still uncertain, because we cannot yet separate well enough the greenhouse effect from other climate influences. Although the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases (including methane, nitrogen oxides and fluorocarbons) has increased by 2.5 watts per square meter since the mid-19th century, observations show only a moderate warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius. Thus, the warming is significantly smaller than predicted by most climate models. In addition, the warming in the last century was not uniform. Phases of manifest warming were followed by periods with no warming at all or even cooling.
The complex and only partially understood relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming leads to a political dilemma. We do not know when to expect a warming of 2 degrees Celsius. In other words: global warming has not been a serious problem so far if we rely on observations. It is only a problem when we refer to climate simulations by computer models.
There is no alternative to such computer simulations if one wants to predict future developments. However, since there is no way to validate them, the forecasts are more a matter of faith than a fact. The IPCC has published its expert opinion a few months ago and presented it in the form of probabilities. As long as the results cannot be supported by validated models they produce a false impression of reliability.
It is no surprise that there are other forces that are driving rapid change. Because once government subsidies are involved, huge profits are available. However, before radical and hasty changes to the current energy system are implemented, there must be robust evidence that climate change is significantly detrimental. We are still far away from such evidence. It would be wrong to conclude from the report of the IPCC and similar reports that the science is settled.
iai TV debate
iai TV has a series Philosophy for our times: cutting edge debates. Frankie May of iai TV pointed me to this debate between Bob Carter, Michael McIntyre and Richard Cornfeld entitled What we don’t know about CO2: The science of climate change. My attention was piqued in particular by the participation of Michael McIntyre, who is likely to be the smartest guy in any room with climate scientists in it. The blurb for the debate is :
There is no question that CO2 levels are increasing due to human activity. But predicting the impact of this is less straightforward. Will our understanding of the world’s climate system remain mired in complexity until it is too late? Or is apocalyptic thinking confusing the science?
I listened to whole thing (its about 15 minutes), it is superb. There are many gems in this, from each of the 3 participants. At the end of this, I don’t see much dis agreement among the three participants. Some notes I took from listening to the debate.
We shouldn’t worry, we should just accept that this will happen and we should adapt to it and regard it as a business opportunity.
Its arrogant to assume that climate will remain static.
The whole language of climate change is designed to confuse the public and policy makers
Bob Carter says the IPCC has accomplished the inversion of the null hypothesis, where the onus is now on disproving dangerous anthropogenic climate change
We should focus on protecting people from natural hazards, and not worrying about what is causing them
It makes sense to encourage alternative energy and see what happens.
Bob Carter closed with this: no scientist can tell you whether it will be warmer or cooler in 2020, so we should prepare for both
JC reflections
It is gratifying to see leading scientists and thinkers ‘stepping off the reservation’ to provide interpretations of climate science and thoughts on how we should respond, that differ from the IPCC assessments and the more alarmist interpretations.
It is unfortunate that it seems to be primarily the independent scientists and retired scientists that are doing this; government employees in many countries would not do this (even if their personal convictions differ from the IPCC consensus), and the same seems to be true for most scientists employed by universities. This is a very unhealthy situation particularly for universities.
Excellent post. The comment:
“We should focus on protecting people from natural hazards, and not worrying about what is causing them”
Seems very true if there is not very high confidence that an action taken will not prevent the hazard from occuring. Nobody can say with any confidence that a CO2 mitigation action will lessen any hazard.
Nobody can say with any confidence that a CO2 mitigation action will lessen any hazard.
Indeed, but that does not in any way negate the argument that we should spend resources on protecting people from natural hazards.
Those natural hazards will occur with or without CAGW. As the population density at the coasts increases, natural hazards such as hurricanes and tsunamis become much more expensive. The same holds for earthquakes and floods.
To my mind, all the effort spent on attempting to somehow magically stop AGW is misdirected. Resources spent on hazard mitigation are justifiable with or without CAGW, while crippling the global economy to (at best) slightly slow down climate change seems ill-advised.
That is why I find the conflation of scientists “believing in AGW” with them advocating specific CO2-reduction policies so annoying. The argument is always couched in terms that make it seem that the only possible solution to the hazards presented by AGW is a significant decrease in standard of living.
The null hypothesis for AGW that Roy Clark proposed – and that global warming alarmists refused to consider because it cannot be rejected – is as follows: It is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change to the Earth’s climate, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.
fizzy
The best protection from adverse weather is the construction and maintenance of robust infrastructure. Some places do it well, while others do not.
Nobody can say with any confidence that CO2 causes any problem that needs mitigation.
We all know CO2 causes green things to grow better with less water.
Nobody wants mitigation to stop the good things that we all know CO2 is responsible for.
There are no known hazards of CO2. There is only threats from climate output and the climate models really, really, do not work right.
The greatest threats posed by ACO2 are the policies that are being implemented, by decree, to combat the so far unobserved effects of it.
Oh, yeah?!
=======
yeah!
As long as government pays for a conclusion, it will get that conclusion. They pay well.
Pingback: Climate Change | Transterrestrial Musings
We need to hear more from people with backgrounds who can speak credibly and balanced on the climate debate. I said in another Climate etc. post “more and better is needed (representing expert but balanced viewpoints) e.g., a bone fide Übermensch of Science that transcends all propagandistic jingoistic trashing from the left greatly supported by the mainstream media like ABC/CBS and NYT etc. I believe that IPCC is losing credibility … and more needs to be done to educate the youth on what Science is and what the climate science is.
I would nominate Richard Lindzen as Ubermensch #1.
You don’t get much Uber-er than Freeman Dyson.
The problem is that the alarmists using “global warming” as a stalking horse for a socialist agenda jumped all over people like Freeman Dyson, lumping them all into a “denier” category. And too many who were simply concerned and ignorant went right along.
As a result, just about everybody who has already taken a sane position on the general subject is considered a “denier” by many of those same ignorant and concerned people.
It’s good that the “ice is breaking” WRT more reasonable scientists, most of whom have probably been highly skeptical of the “warmist” agenda all along but not willing to speak up.
But most of what they say is going to strike the ignorant as repeating what people like Freeman Dyson have already said.
That’s a powderkeg recommendation to the deniers. A significant fraction of them only care that alternative and especially renewable energies fail.
Anger is an energy.
Webby- try to point out a single commenter who “only care that alternative and especially renewable energies fail”
People may not wish to see them subsidized, but that is completely different.
Remarkably enough, all of the low power density alternative energy schemes are blowing themselves up. How does that work? I thought you had to pack a powder keg to get maximum oomph.
==============
Web,
Bunk.
Nuclear is an alternative to coal, even if you are a denier of the fact.
This is becoming more and more obviously a proxy fight over whether the future will be high energy or low energy. Both options are emissions-free.
Face it, you want to exaggerate the problem and the weather in some vain hope that people will inexplicably choose a future where the government forces them to shiver in the dark. Just like you did with peak oil.
It won’t happen because it doesn’t have to and everybody knows it. Even die-hard believers in catastrophic global warming accept this. Which means the issue isn’t even really political anymore. The Republican Party has no interest in stopping nuclear power or natural gas fracking and once everybody accepts that advocating full-on stupid – 100% “renewables” – is a losing hand, the Democrats will walk away from the issue. That’s already happening.
Time to find a new hobby horse. Good luck.
Europe is going for coal because its cheap. 51% of Germany’s electricity is from coal, and 26 of that 51 is lignite – the dirtiest filthiest lowest energy coal.
I think there’s lignite in North Dakota. Let’s go for it.
===========
Peat in Minnesota. Wood chips in Norway. Oh, wait, Canada is in the way.
===========
How can you complain about subsidies in countries that you are not a citizen of?
Or are you a fan of world government?
I am a fan of funding for the polywell and for the Canadian, General Fusion, acoustic implosion reactor.
http://www.generalfusion.com/
I think spending on R&D for high density electrical storage technologies will, eventually, completely change our world. When we have a similar energy density to gasoline, everything changes. Amongst the everything is the utility of solar power and the use of a ‘grid’ for electricity distribution.
You are becoming more nutty Web.
As a “denier” I can assure you that I do not care if alternative or renewable energies fail. It would be very nice if we could find one little pebble on a beach some place and tap it lightly with a hammer every year and get enough energy for a whole year out of it. With of course no byproducts of any kind and no harm at all to the pebble so we could keep using it again and again and again. And the pebble needs to be pretty also.
Whoops, I though for a minute that I was writing a reply to that blog about good happy children’s stories, you know where everybody lives happily ever after and it never rains too hard, etc. etc.
As a denier who worked (briefly) in the solar cell research industry (late 1970’s at a university) my only comment is; how many decades must the taxpayers continue funding the search for breakthroughs that are always decades away ?
Anyone that wants to search for the magic pebble on their own dime should “knock yourself out”, just stop insisting that my wallet come along for the ride.
Cheers, Kevin.
“That’s a powderkeg recommendation to the deniers. A significant fraction of them only care that alternative and especially renewable energies fail.”
In Arizona, we benefited from the huge federal solar subsidies that attempted to make solar affordable is less hospitable climates. The result for me is an insanely affordable solar lease with a 20 year life and a three year payback.
If the payback were ten or twelve years, then I would not have made the investment. With the subsidy, my MacMansion in Phoenix is the most energy efficient living opportunity I have..
Webby
That’s a very negative statement.
Try thinking positive for a change.
You’ll feel much better.
Max
What rot. Renewables so far are a drain on resources not a boost.
Perhaps if the money paid in subsidies was put into R&D we would have advanced considerably. That is the position most people have as they resent being fleeced to put money into the pockets of purveyors of sub-standard technology that is not ready for prime time.
WHT – Anger is an energy (Johnny Rotten – Rise)
A joule is the unit of emotion.
Nice generalization Webby.
I work for an energy utility. We are invested in alternative, renewable energy generation, as well as conservation. Guess what – they have their limits. To some, pointing out those limits gets you labeled a “denier”. For me, ignoring them gets you labeled as a dumb ass.
Web, there are no skeptics I know of that object to normal development of renewable energy capabilities. It clearly would become needed in the future as fossil fuels are used up. However, this depletion is several decades to centuries off. The issue is between letting economics and natural development drive the development, or making uneconomical and impractical approaches, to rush into a shorter term capability than practical, and destroying the economy while doing it. It is likely that fission and possibly cold fusion might be the best long term solution. Solar is clearly a useful capability, but limited due to the storage problem. Wind is a bad actor due to bird and bat kill, noise, and other factors, as well as the storage problem, and likely to not be useful at all.
Leonard,
Regarding usefulness of solar and wind. Can’t say I agree. Plus it depends on the details. Solar as a source of generation for the electrical grid does not look that good at this time. It may prove useful for off grid use and as a means to reduce reliance on the electrical system.
Wind does have a role in the generation mix. However it has its limits. The best projections for the US (i.e. those from the wind generation industry) are something on the order of 20% of generation output (at current levels) by mid century. Then there is the issue of intermitent output. In our part of the country it isn’t a major issue due to us having a large hydro base generation capacity. In other areas (LA being an example I’m familiar with), there is a requirement to build an equal amount of gas fueled backup generation. For every kilowatt of wind you pay to construct you also end up paying for construction of a kilowatt worth of backup generation.
Yes, the iai TV presentation is well worth watching!
What I still rarely hear in discussions of uncertainty, is the fundamental question as to whether any warming would actually be a net benefit. Now wouldn’t that be the height of human stupidity, to break the bank…and increase global poverty… trying to prevent something that might in fact be a great boon to mankind?
This is the issue that first got me interested in the climate debate back when I was an uninformed warmist. Why was it, I wondered, that I never heard about the possible benefits for people in say, northern latitudes? Surely for some people, at least for some period of time, warmer had to be better.
Does anyone know the situation of the committee of the APS, who are writing the report which will form the basis of a possible new statement on CAGW from the APS? It seems to me that this sort of discussion ought to be very relevant to their deliberations. The only name I can remember is Dr. Susan Seestrom, but surely this blog discussion ought to be brought to their attention.
It will take awhile, don’t expect anything before the end of the calendar year.
Thanks, Judith.
As I understand it the next report is about mitigation. There is an article today at RealClimate by Brigitte Knopf ‘Mitagation of climate change – Part 3 of new IPCC report.’ Also the Telegraph had an interesting article on April 13 ‘How to save the Planet: Moon mining, Iron filings, and fake volcanoes’ by Sarah Knapton. Sorry I can’t (or don’t know how) to link with my tablet. You can probably goggle.
Opps you wanted APS never mind.
I think a Academic Establishment Insider like Dr. Curry would have something interesting to say about the American Tradition Inst. v. Rector and Visitors (Mann vs. FOI) case.
Andrew
Propriety
Goalkeeps F. O. I. A. puck.
Not discovery.
===============
Awww, Proprietary.
‘Raw propriety’ works.
===========
I’m tweeting on this, will have something to say on week in review.
The good thing is the demeaning of the media amicus. It may, just may, provoke salivation.
==============
Dangit, there was a sneer and a snarl in there that I just completely missed.
======
The judges weren’t unreasonable.
I am with Mosher on this one. Judges very reasonable. You “skeptics” wouldn’t expect MCDonald’s scientists to have to give up the emails in which they discuss the ingredients in the special sauce for Le Big Mac.
If I paid for their work, yes I would. But since I did not pay for it, but McDonalds corporation paid for it, then it is their choice to demand the emails or not. The courts have already ruled that the EMPLOYERS own the emails, not the employees.
As a state employee, that makes us his employer. That is what FOIA is all about.
Duty the sauce not be toxic,
Dereliction of this saucy duty,
Damaged are we, we’ve been sauced,
Directly by hockey sauce caused.
==================
But phil, the state/UVA is protecting the valuable proprietary interests of the citizens of VA by not revealing to said citizens the proprietary secrets devised by the great climate minds at UVA. Some of the citizens might talk. It would only take one. Loose lips sink ships, phil. Shhhhh!
@Don – Yes, it does sound like a parent to a child.
Don
“Judges very reasonable.” note I said “not unreasonable”
Sometimes I engage in creative paraphrasing, Mosher.
Yes phil, it is paternalistic and even authoritarian. How will the citizens ever know if the information denied to them is really “proprietary”? Maybe Mosher will elucidate on his opinion that the judges “weren’t unreasonable.”
@Don Monfort – If you have never been a courtroom (and please do not go there unless you absolutely have to), you will see the worst example of despotic tyranny. I have had the misfortune several times. Fortunately, the ire of his majesty was directed not at me, but mostly at the opposition, and occasionally at my counsel.
So to expect judges, justices of any stripe to be reasonable is laughable. They are not. They are extremely opinionated, and biased. One always hopes the bias is in their favor. That is why the founders created the “jury of peers”. They did not trust judges either!
Our hostess writes “This is a very unhealthy situation particularly for universities.”
I agree completely. But where does the blame lie for this disastrous situation? With academia and the learned scientific societies who have virtually unanimously endorsed the religion of CAGW in unequivocal terms, with absolutely no measured, empirical data whatsoever to support the hypothesis of CAGW.
Physician heal thyself.
“where does the blame lie for this disastrous situation?”
In a practical sense I’d say that most of the blame falls on government funding which is inevitably, profoundly corrupting.
MIT, Penn State, UCSD all have online courses on Climate change that purport to be unbiased but, in fact, perpetuate IPCC pap.
Georgia Tech, on the other hand, has an online course on Energy taught by an engineer that is the facts and only the facts ma’am.
Needless to say I am very pleased that my eldest granddaughter has been accepted and will be attending Georgia Tech next fall.
Hi Mark, your grand daughter made an excellent choice :)
I have 3 family members who are GT graduates.
:)
At last, sense prevails.
There is a danger in off loading the blame for injecting catastrophe into the climate variability story upon main stream media. There are the CO2 control knob activists who darken the halls of academia and Congress with their tales of woe. There are the activist NGO’s who foment a grass roots campaign that CO2 is bad and man is the source of this badness. There are the minions who plod to work in EPA offices and their ilk whose job it is to compile reams and reams of stuff in support that CO2 is a control knob, that man is the source, and that regulation is the answer to stifling this plague.
Dismantling these interwoven establishments requires chipping away at each component: first, more scientists need to speak, at least to the uncertainty of the science, diluting that certainty; second, wean the NGO’s from government funding, nay, stop funding environmental NGO’s altogether; and, as for the government minions, toiling away at their computer terminals, shifting one piece of bad science from one pile to another, hold each one accountable for their work product: name and date stamp; accountants can add up who is saying what and how many times. Armed with who and when, a TV broadcasted Congressional hearing or two might help.
The media is a hopeless mess to reform. There is constriction in journalist numbers, constriction in funding for independent news research, journalism education is flagging, sound bites and talking heads capture the dominant journalistic formats, and news as an entertainment rather than a information source appear to me to be the main trajectory of the modern news media.
Although I do not condone nor support Snowden’s revelations (I believe in honoring one’s commitments and statements) I believe that internet news will be the source for more and more people, knowing full well that internet news is corruptible, but so is the New York Times and Washington Post, CBS, BBC, etc.
Aside from the local news forecasting our weather, telling us who did what to whom, and the scores of our favorite sports teams, multiple sources of news information will be necessary just to start the day, unless and until something better comes along.
“The Revenge of Gaia was over the top, but we were all so taken in by the perfect correlation between temperature and CO2 in the ice-core analyses [from the ice-sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, studied since the 1980s]. You could draw a straight line relating temperature and CO2, and it was such a temptation for everyone to say, “Well, with CO2 rising we can say in such and such a year it will be this hot.” It was a mistake we all made.”
I never really understood how one could be taken in by the correlation. What it tells me (if true) that climate ‘switches’ from warming to cooling at the highest CO2 and from cooling to warming at the lowest.
Science may suffer fools gladly, but it does not do so indefinitely in the face of data.
Climate sensitivity is unknowable because internal radiative forcing is unmeasurable
Roy Spencer posts: ENSO, SST, CERES, forcing, and feedback: The travesty continues to
Three very good discussions, Judith.
Thanks.
BREAKING NEWS
Professors/Government Employees
Speak-Out Skeptically
Biomedical lessons-learned by senior scientists, climate-science lessons-learned by FOMD!
Gosh, *these* government/academic folks have no problem speaking out self-critically, eh Climate Etc readers?
Perhaps the problem is that climate-scientists are (as Naomi Oreskes has documented), too conservative in their projections of climate-risk?
Conclusion Senior climate-science researchers like James Hansen, and institutions like the Vatican, are already embracing the responsible actions that senior biomedical researchers now advocate.
Fan, you do realize that the authors of the PNAS are calling for funding changes in my field, that if applied to the Climate Science field, would essentially destroy the major thrust and centers that now exist?
The changes these authors suggest could probably be applied to all fields.
DocMartyn, your observation is entirely correct!
Indeed the advocated changes already are underway, throughout the global science/technology/engineering/mathematics community. In mathematical language, Jean-Pierre Serre’s 20th century research du marteau et du burin (“by the hammer and by the chisel”) — that is, research by clever postulates, ingenious experiments, and deep theorems — has already largely been supplanted by Alexander Grothendiecks’s la matrée montante (“the rising sea“), of natural mathematical ideas, simple physical principles, and planetary-scale observations.
As in 20th-century Grothendieck-style mathematics, so in present-day Hansen-style climate-science, and (for the 21st century biomedical researchers) understanding founded upon comprehensive observation, unified by simple physical principles, communicated via natural mathematical frameworks, and validated in clinical practice.
Conclusion The world’s Revolution of the Mind is accelerating even faster than sea-level rise.
Which is mighty *GOOD*, isn’t it DocMartyn? Because the old 20th century’s “hammer-and-chisel” style of science doesn’t viably scale to a world of ten billion people!
You grow more bizarre as time goes by.
I was at a drug design conference over the last two days.
The computational chemists were doing their pitches for design based on crystals and then we had a jolly nice man who had fished for ligand for a cancer target with a peptide library, then did rational drug design and crystallography itinerations .
His final drug fitted into a pocket of the targeted protein that didn’t exist in any of the crystal structures, the putative drug made its own pocket like a harpoon driven in a whale; a Kd of <50 pM.
Then he smiled at the computational guys.
“the climate-change Hockey Stick blades will get longer”
and the good news is that this is a good thing – ice and tundra is bad – open water and plowable ground is good.
It is a good thing when A fan of *MORE* discourse and a old engineer agree on the future of humanity.
Fan,
You on spring break and sampling the peote buttons?
Your grip on reality is slipping. Substituting words into material on a different topic does not alter reality, except perhaps in your world.
In forty years time we’ll be fretting over something different, all proven indisputably by “scientists” who “say”.
I have this theory that protein fads coincide with global warming fears and carbohydrate fads coincide with cooling fears. Sometimes you get overlaps, but the likelihood runs in at about 97%. (I made up that percentage – but who doesn’t?)
I note that caveman diets are lately on a bit of a slide and the starch is getting the odd nod from those “scientists” who “say”. And when you consider all that mid-spring ice in the Great Lakes…
Could it soon be Stephen Schneider’s Early Period all over again? Snowmaggedon with lots of spuds and spag for dinner instead of egg yolk omelets in lard?
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
A good attempt to try and see through the fog of the ‘climate wars.’
The real question is: What do we know about a climate change?
“……Michael McIntyre, who is likely to be the smartest guy in any room with climate scientists in it.”
Really?
Well, he is a control knob guy, so he has that going for him.
Professor emeritus of the department of applied mathematics and theoretical physics at Cambridge is possibly a pretty smart cookie.
What she meant to say: “…with nobody but climate scientists in it”.
(As Lindzen noticed, it is the intellectual mediocrities who study climate science.)
We all know that Obama ist the smartest man in the room if nobody else is there.
And I am often the dumbest guy in the room, several times a day even.
It seems Michael, Richard and Robert all agree we are going to see huge increases in sea level within a century or two. In my opinion, it would be worth it to catalog the real estate under threat and compare the value of those properties to the value of 3 to 5 thousand GE advanced boiling water reactors.
And go for which ones cheaper.
Somebody will make money either way.
I’ll have none of that Westinghouse, or small modular, or thorium or liquid sodium or any other untested unbuilt folishness.
bob droege
Naw.
The answer (if sea level really does begin to rise more rapidly than it has in the past) is simple.
Build or extend dikes and seawalls, as the Dutch have been doing for centuries.
This works.
Curtailing CO2 does not.
Max
Max,
Dykes and seawalls don’t work in Florida, specifically Miami and the rest of the state is a porous limestone sandbar.
Even if they did work everywhere, what is the expense of building the necessary number of dykes and seawalls and compare with the costs of preventing the necessity of their use?
And would said construction contribute to the problem with the amount of CO2 released due to the amount of concrete used in building all those seawalls and dykes.
So how do we stop places like Florida from being inundated?
Even if we manage to reduce the rate of sea level rise to what it was a century ago, it will probably buy us, at the most, a few decades.
Sooner or later the rate will change; it’s been suspiciously stable for such a variable phenomenon.
===============
Those who suggest building sea walls and dykes should consider the cost of those which is easily in the tens of millions US dollars per mile, and a couple hundred thousand miles of coastline we need to protect. This easily gets into the trillions of US dollars.
The seawall at Kamaishi, Japan which failed to protect the city center from the tsunami was 63 meters deep and cost 1.5 billion dollars for 2 kilometers, could be considered an example of the size and cost of dealing with the eventual sea level rise associated with the loss of the Greenland Ice sheet and a substantial contribution from Antarctica’s ice sheets.
The back of my envelop says mitigation is cheaper.
Bob, based on history, that sea levels might rise to heights that would threaten Florida (and elsewhere) has always been a real possibility.
Just as where I live there is always a possibility of being covered by a glacier, given that I live on top of a terminal moraine.
So what? Let the Floridians who are taking the “risk” deal with it. If they get swamped, I’ll shed not a single tear and don’t look for me to open my wallet either. And I’ll take my chances against glaciers and not ask for help, if I get buried.
Neither will happen fast enough to prevent calm adaptation, even if,that means moving to higher (or warmer) ground.
“You pays your money and takes your chances.”
By the way, I don’t believe they (or I) have much to fear for the foreseeable future.
bob droege | April 17, 2014 at 8:11 pm |
“It seems Michael, Richard and Robert all agree we are going to see huge increases in sea level within a century or two.” Or ten or twenty. The point is almost none of the real property that will get inundated existed two hundred years ago – much less a thousand. Yeah, maybe it sucks that Miami has to move to Missouri in a couple of hundred years – or maybe it won’t suck – maybe the New Miami will be way cool in ways we cannot imagine today.
We don’t know what the world population will be in two hundred years.after it levels off in the 10 billion range? Will it start to decline?
If there is a CO2 induced catastrophe – the time scale is centuries not decades. Of course, the alarmists want to gloss over that point and focus your attention on the slight possibility of a fat tail event in this century.
Bob,
Not if I’m in the room with you. I have the calluses on my knuckles to prove it.
Must say I disagree with on design. I consider the 2 loop Westinghouse PWR as the better of the two designs. But then most of my experience is with them. I can only recall two BWR’s I ever worked at.
Is your viewpoint driven by metallurgy issues?
Timg,
My experience is with a BWR6 and the ABWR is an improvement on that, no loops. Rx coolant pumps are internal to the pressure vessel. No pressurizer and no steam generators. Several have already been built and are operating.
Westinghouse’s design is fine, it’s just I have always worked with GE’s radioactive crap, so I am in favor of their design.
I have been accused of being hired from the neck down as well, but then I did know to ask my boss if he would mind fetching a 1 and 15/16 combination wrench to help me get a job done.
On the previous thread, whoever goes by the pseudonym of the Reverend Hypotenuse, wrote of me “Jim, you do not get to summarily decide who bears the burden of proof in science,” Is not this precisely what our hostess is complaining about?
Sarc/on We skeptics are not supposed to think for ourselves, and query what our warmist betters know to be true. We are just supposed to bow to their superior intellect. Sarc off/
I have news for you. I have intention whatsoever of stopping querying anything that I think is wrong, and demanding proof where I see none. That is what proper scientists are supposed to do. That is what Sir Gordon Sutherland taught me in Physics 101. That is what I have been dong all my life.
burden of proof is socially determined.
Steven Mosher
In politics, yes.
But not in science (see Feynman).
Max
Yes in science (see Kuhn).
There is science as it is (Kuhn), and it’s not science at all. It’s corrupted and sterile (except at paradigm shifts). Kuhn was a diagnostician.
There is science as it should be (Feynman), and it’s the real science, uncorrupted and fertile.
Kinda like religion.
It’s well known that Feynman didn’t always practice what he preached. It might (would, IMO) be better to say that Feynman promulgated an “Ideal” of how science should be practiced, without reference to the actual sociological processes Kuhn was analyzing.
But scientists are people, and science is a social effort, supported and accepted (or not) by people. The process of doing science, then, is like any other sociological process, subject to sociological analysis. The ideal (a la Feynman) is one of the factors affecting the behavior of people who claim to be doing “science”. So are expectations regarding funding, and social acceptance, among both other scientists and the general population.
It’s important to remember that the word “science” derives from the latin“scientia”, meaning roughly “knowledge”, “understanding”, and/or “skill”. Leaving aside ancient meanings and interpretations, the medieval understanding (in Western Europe where our more modern ideals of “science” evolved) was pretty much “the party line, as determined by the Roman Curia”. Beginning with the Renaissance, the definition began to become broader (and vaguer), first subsuming a bunch of alternative traditions left over from Hellenistic times (that had been suppressed during the dark ages), then including more heuristic and experimental paradigms.
While physics, thermodynamics, and chemistry led the way with fairly rigorous experimentalism, other fields remained closer to the older approach. They got started later, worked with much less access to rigorous, repeatable experiment, and often were far more subject to social/political ideological biases.
I don’t claim that Feynman always practiced what he preached. He’s human too.
AK, that’s really good, but it carries a hint of extrapolating past to present and future. It’s taken a lot of physics and chemistry to get biology to where it is now, but it does not need to be dogma-driven.
@bill_c…
IMO biochemistry is in a similar position to Climate Science. In both fields, there’s too much focus on global processes, not enough recognition of the role of information in the overall behavior of systems. (Ecology is a little ahead, because nobody started out with linear assumptions. But they’re all somewhat stalled, IMO, pending development of better methods of modelling hyper-complex non-linear systems.)
AK,
Nothing to disagree with there, but mathematical modeling per se isn’t the only triumph of science by big machines….in climate science, space-based observations (and in biochemistry perhaps sequencers or something?), though all rely on math models as Mosher is fond of pointing out, are another sort of leverage. Once you can enhance observational methods, better stuff happens….
I was referring to models more generally, starting with the conceptual models present as neural activity in the minds of scientists and others. And going from there to the intuitive/semantic models that actually exist within specific paradigms.
Example: provide a rigorous definition of the word “average” as used within current climate modelling paradigms.
Alternative intuitive/semantic models can be very useful in providing new perspectives on existing research. For example, modelling the cell as an intelligent information processing system. Or Cellular energy systems by analogy with electrical power wiring.
manaker.
so ironic that you make an appeal to authority.
Listen to feyman, he’s an expert.
What did feynman say? he said, dont believe in experts.
even feynman accepted that burden of proof was socially determined.
-It makes sense to encourage alternative energy and see what happens.
Bob Carter closed with this: no scientist can tell you whether it will be warmer or cooler in 2020, so we should prepare for both.-
I would say that until 2020, natural variability is obviously the bigger
thing to prepare for. All things in the past 50 years, that we needed to prepare for were the result of natural variability- and not due to what media
has distorted into as being caused by global warming or change climate.
Even those with religious fervor [though perhaps not religious insanity]
if they are honest would agree that in near term [up to 2020] what needs to be prepared for is type weather and changing conditions of a type which has occurred in the past. One might possibly have 100 or 1000 year flood or drought or earthquake, so one be surprised if you only considers the past as last decade or so, rather than past centuries.
As for encouraging alternative energy, I would say “people” or generally speaking, we mostly don’t know how to encourage alternative energy. Plus
people associate alternative energy as the current solar power and wind generation. I would say what is mostly considered alternative energy by most people [due news media marketing] is not an alternative energy,.
So the encouraging of things like solar and wind energy has been solely a waste of public money, and what we have done is not how one should encourage alternative energy.
So in terms of alternative energy, we should identify what they might be, also address how they should be encouraged.
The fundamental aspect of alternative energy is we don’t know enough about this possible source of power generation. Otherwise, alternative energy is what we would we would be calling traditional or conventional energy power generation- it would already be what is mostly used.
And/or alternative energy could be said to be variants of conventional energy and/or widespread adoption of is used by small number of people, so more people learn how to adapt it for their environment.
So due to lack of knowledge or due to misinformation a current way of generating power could be considered an alternative energy, if can made to used more broadly.
So fracking is an alternative energy. Also nuclear power is alternative energy. And both one can have high confidence that they are alternative energy because they are successfully being used- and both are not widely used due to lack of knowledge.
In terms of developing new alternative energy. We have fusion energy which has researched for decades and has not produce a viable system
of producing power. Another new alternative energy is mining methane hydrates from ocean [the so called frozen fire], this is currently being researched and governmental “encouragement”.
One could argue that the little progress of fusion or methane hydrate in terms of “development” is not being done in a fashion which gives the quickest path to their development.
Or simply, one could say that government had something to do with development of internet, but it was the private sector which transformed
it into what is today. Or one argue about the “mix” of governmental effort
vs private sector. And one point to silicon valley, say what different about this region of world. Or why did America drive this information age [not saying other people of other nations were not playing an important role in this].
gbaikie, generally support these two posts. You say “So in terms of alternative energy, we should identify what they might be.” Who’s the “we” here? I’ve consistently argued that, whatever the truth of (C)AGW, government policies which foster innovation, entrepreneurialism, wealth creation and retention, flexibility, etc, will leave us best be placed to deal with whatever befalls. Such policies would provide a framework in which there are stronger incentives to research and develop new technologies, without government selection or directive. If research into and development of new energy sources is regarded as a viable use of entrepreneurial resources, without dependence on or threat of market-changing and market-dominating government restrictions and forcings, then they will be pursued. The more restrictions governments place on what are “good” and “bad” energy sources, the less innovation and development there will be in this field.
To date, the incentives have been to pursue technologies which are not viable but must be heavily subsidised, at the cost of more regulation and higher taxes and input costs which deter R&D not pursuing government-determined lines.
Carter is good! He’s on point with the null hypothesis and deliberate imprecision of language and the confusion it creates.
+1
In other words: global warming has not been a serious problem so far if we rely on observations. It is only a problem when we refer to climate simulations by computer models.
There is no alternative to such computer simulations if one wants to predict future developments.
That is totally not true. We can curve fit the past eleven thousand years and get a really good idea of what is ahead. What has happened will happen and what has not happened will not happen.
If computer simulations ever have output that looks like actual real data, we should look at it, but with skepticism.
Since computer simulation output looks nothing like actual real data, we should treat it like a serious illness and we should not use it for any thing beyond talk show jokes. It really works well there.
Dubious assertion by Herman Alexander Pope, data by NASA/FOMD.
Conclusion Curve-fitting the ever-growing set of climate-change “Hockey Sticks” leads to just one rational conclusion: the climate-change Hockey Stick blades will get longer
That’s scientific common-sense, eh Climate Etc readers?
Listen to what McInyre has to say
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/more-on-carbon-dioxide.html
The models referenced in the IPCC reports are not the best cards to inform us what is in store for the future.
CO2 hasn’t been at 400 ppm in the last 11000 years, so we can not expect temperatures to stay in the same range.
Pingback: Judith Curry Reflects | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
There is undoubtedly uncertainty in climate research as there is in every field of science. There is certainly uncertainty in exactly how much the Earth’s climate will change from the eruption of the Human Carbon Volcano. If any single thing comes from the “pause” it should be the fact that we have too narrowly defined climate sensitivity to be based on tropospheric sensible heat when in fact this proxy for “climate” change is a rather poor one based on both basic science as well as observations. Here’s a perfect example from the posting by Judith, where Bengtsson writes:
“Although the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases (including methane, nitrogen oxides and fluorocarbons) has increased by 2.5 watts per square meter since the mid-19th century, observations show only a moderate warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius.”
Again, the problem with this is one of perspective—myopic if only focused on the low energy storage and low thermal inertia of the troposphere, measuring 0.8 C rise in sensible heat. Implying somehow that the full 2.5 w/m^2 just disappeared. Of course, by now it is becoming increasingly obvious that the oceans are keeping the vast majority of the energy the system is retaining, and that a figure of likely somewhere around 0.5 x 10^22 Joules of additional energy per year (down to 2000 m) are being stored in the ocean, and even more at greater depth. More so, it is absolutely wrong to think this energy will just be harmlessly spread around the ocean. That’s not the way the oceans either store or release energy. Discounting energy in other parts of the climate system, either intentionally, or unintentionally, through a myopic short-term focus on tropospheric sensible heat gives an incomplete and extremely skewed perspective on the long-term effects on the full climate system from the increasing energy in that system from the ever accelerating eruption of the Human Carbon Volcano.
We have as much certainty about climate change as we do about gravity. Over the next 30-50 years we can be certain gravity will not change and climate will.
I am with gatesy on this one. If any single thing comes from the “pause” it should be the fact that “skeptics” have too narrowly defined climate sensitivity to be based on tropospheric sensible heat when in fact the “skeptics” should have known all along that this dumb proxy for “climate” change is a rather silly one based on both basic science as well as observations.
If the missing heat had not gone missing, certain folks would not be now whining that we ignored the basic science and observations and foolishly fixed our myopic focus on tropospheric sensible heat. Well, at least some of us have made up for our stoopid myopia by planting a climate friendly kind of foliage in our yards. We done our part to throttle the Human Volcano.
The problem with phrases such as “the eruption of the Human Carbon Volcano” is that they immediately tag you as an extremist and deter further reading or engagement. Give it away, Gates.
R. Gates, “Again, the problem with this is one of perspective—myopic if only focused on the low energy storage and low thermal inertia of the troposphere, measuring 0.8 C rise in sensible heat.”
The problem with that myopic perspective is that the geniuses “projecting” alarming potential warming selected it to begin with. With the oceans warming at a rate of around 0.8C per 300 years or so, the humongous 10^22 joules per whatever isn’t all that impressive either, especially since the warming of the oceans from the 1700 AD Indo-Pacific warm pool minimum is right on time with the same 0.8C per 300 years or so.
Becareful now or might run out of horses to change in the stream.
“the eruption of the Human Carbon Volcano”
Seems to be over.The blood moon eclipse which became blue indicates a clear stratosphere ie a decrease in stratospheric aerosols (almost surely due to a decrease in tropical upwelling due to reduced sst)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/annualconference/slides/69-130415-A.pdf
As there seems to be a significant problem with the recent acceleration in tropical upwelling in the Brewer dobson circulation ie a Hiatus along with significant stratospheric warming that is persistent through 3 solar rotations this year,there are legitimate arguments for explanations for the ccm suite of models.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/14/9951/2014/acpd-14-9951-2014.html
“The problem with phrases such as “the eruption of the Human Carbon Volcano” is that they immediately tag you as an extremist….”
—–
Sure, provide an exceptionally appropriate and descriptive metaphor for the transfer of carbon from lithosphere to atmosphere by human activity, and the fake-skeptic un-science crowd would like to brand you as an “extremist”. Quite understandable.
““the eruption of the Human Carbon Volcano”
Seems to be over.
——-
Hardly. The amount of carbon humans are transferring from lithosphere to atmosphere reached record high levels last year. This party seems to just be getting started.
… an eruption measurable in ppm is like an empty glass of wine.
you have reliable OHC data from before say 1990?
“”
Don Monfort | April 17, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
I am with gatesy on this one. If any single thing comes from the “pause” it should be the fact that “skeptics” have too narrowly defined climate sensitivity to be based on tropospheric sensible heat when in fact the “skeptics” should have known all along that this dumb proxy for “climate” change is a rather silly one based on both basic science as well as observations.
“”
I learn something new every day here. I always had assumed everyone understood this on the first or second day of climate science 101. I thought it was the true believers that didn’t get it.
“the Human Carbon Volcano”
Hyperbole. Gatesy, me and everyone knows no such thing exists.
Andrew
I could easily see “human carbon fountain”. Volcano brings up images of unpredictability and violence. Human CO2 emissions are neither.
Meh, ‘Human Carbon Cornucopia’. Wonderful Anthropogenic Global Greening, it’s WAGGish.
============
Maksimovich,
Your first link is really interesting.
Your second link – how would that relate to the lack of a major El Ninho since 1998?
daly, daly
You must be from another planet. I will set it right, just for you:
If any single thing comes from the pause, it should be the fact that the pause is killing the cause.
Are we straight now, daly?
One area of uncertainty is UV radiation. Both the IPCC and Sorce express low confidence in knowledge about uv. Based on how it burns my skin, I would think it is an important factor in global warming.
Loss of energy to the deep oceans is a falsification of CAGW.
1/The positive feedback only exists if the CO2 heats the upper troposphere and increases the absolute humidity. It cant happen at the bottom of the ocean!
2/The heat capacity of the ocean is 2000 times that of the atmosphere.
4 deg C of atmospheric warming is only 0.002 deg of ocean warming! (roughly)
GHCN Temperature Adjustments Affect 40% Of The Arctic “Trausti Jonsson, a senior climatologist at the Iceland Met Office, has already confirmed that he sees no reason for the adjustments in Iceland and that they themselves have already made any adjustments necessary due to station moves etc before sending the data onto GHCN”. http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/ghcn-temperature-adjustments-affect-40-of-the-arctic/
http://agbjarn.blog.is/blog/agbjarn/entry/1375663/
Interesting that Bengtsson’s article was published in the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, which usually lets a guy write who studied law and likes to use the word “denier”. (They also have a science supplement, often written by 2 Germans, who studied physics but seem to believe what “Mutti” (Merkel) says.)
Is there light at the end of the Gotthard tunnel (the longest in the world)?
Hansen Warming Things Up In Reykjavik: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/hansen-warming-things-up-in-reykjavik/
Holmsteinn
The adjustment to some Icelandic temperatures has been well known for years. My self and a colleague wrote this;
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
We researched Haell in Iceland, and established a very long term cooling trend. We also examined the data for your capital which appeared to show warming, but it was so confused and had been adjusted so many times we decided to discount it and moved on to other places.
I was in Iceland last year and was intrigued by the siting of the weather station at the Keflavik airport which seemed to be in an inappropriate position.
tonyb
Judith, this past month and week there were two stories that mentioned you and the CLI FI post you did in December 2012. See Ms. Claude Nougat’s piece here from Rome, Italy that mentions you prominently and my high regard for you as well. –
http://claudenougat.blogspot.tw/2014/04/interview-with-father-of-cli-fi.html#.U1BXVqjWI0E
What I find amusing is that there appears to be a whole science (climate science) that peddles alarmism based on the faulty notion that the rate of warming increased after 1945 (when CO2 really started climbing).
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/could-co2-have-lowered-the-rate-of-natural-warming/
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/could-co2-have-lowered-the-rate-of-natural-warming-in-the-oceans/
Global sea ice area is close to where it was in 1979. I said close, not even with 1979 yet. But looking at the chart, sea ice of late has been spending time in positive anomoly territory. Pretty cool. Not that I belive we need more sea ice.
Oh, the link …
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
This is going to increase albedo and prevent the Earth from warming as much as otherwise. I remember when the CAGWers were howling about how the ocean exposed by melting ice and its low albedo would be a major “feedback” and send us to the very Gates of Hell. I wonder where they went?
Great post Judith!
The iai piece was very interesting. I guess your characterization of McIntyre must be based on your experience. I didn’t think he was very impressive in this setting as his comments were all over the place. He seemed to be great media fodder for alarmist sound bites.
Mark, good luck to your granddaughter attending GT. I just hope she does not get that stinky dorm room I had, Oh, wait a second I think they tore that down for the Olympics ?
I disagree. Micheal’s point is was the best science we have today is water vapor has an amplifying effect. We will get significant temperature rise over some indeterminate period time between the best and the worst case scenarios.. So what? Get used to it and make money.
By implication, “the current infrastructure of the coastal cities suck, so let’s start over.”
It should be Steve McIntyre. Michael is Dr. Mann’s first name.
Judith Curry
This is great stuff.
And I hope there will be more as scientists, who are skeptical of the IPCC consensus party line but have remained silent until now, speak out.
James Lovelock: “adaptation instead of mitigation”.
Lennart Bengtsson
[i.e. on whether AGW constitutes a potential future threat to humanity or our environment or not.]
iai debate
This is interesting. I particularly like
“it is arrogant to think that climate will remain static”
so let’s
[i.e. adapt to any future challenges climate may throw at us if and when it appears that these could become imminent – regarding this as a “business opportunity”, rather than an existential threat].
Positive common sense thinking in all three.
Such a pleasant change from the totally negative doomsday BS we are being fed by the media day by day (for which IPCC and many climate scientists are directly responsible).
Made my day.
Thanks for posting it.
Max
“My attention was piqued in particular by the participation of Michael McIntyre, who is likely to be the smartest guy in any room with climate scientists in it. ”
So if I agree with Michael that rising sea levels, on whatever time scale, is a magnificent business opportunity, am I smart?
RobertInAz
For civil contractors who build dikes, it is a magnificent business opportunity (as it has been for centuries in the Netherlands). So Michael McIntyre is right.
But if your really “in AZ” you shouldn’t be worrying too much about sea levels.
Max
Richard Cornfield is an arrogant [insert noun].
Bob Carter is sharp and quick – very good presentation in the statement and the Q&A.
Micheal’s comment on “what is dangerous” is magnificent!
Bob Carter on environmental hazards and duty of care of the government! Australia – floods, drought and ??. In New Zealand it is volcanoes and earthquakes.
What clear thinking!
The bottom line for me is if CAGW is true, over the period of hundreds or thousands of years we will get a massive do over on where people live and how we interact. I frankly see it as an opportunity. The status quo frankly sucks (on geologic time scales mind you – I like my life).
[b]{q}So what will the next 100 years look like?[/b]
{Lovelock) That’s impossible to answer. All I can say is that it will be nowhere as near as bad as the worst-case scenario.
“It is unfortunate that it seems to be primarily the independent scientists and retired scientists that are doing this;”
True, but tenure is a rare thing., The rest of us must eat.
In terms of government scientists “jumping off the reservation:” news reports suggest that in two major US bureaucracies — the Departments of Energy and Interior — memos have been emailed saying that “climate deniers” won’t be tolerated, not a quote but words to that effect. If I worked in one of those places, I don’t think I would stick my head out.
Yep. I’m “only” 60 so I can assure you, these things come and go. The vast majority of the work of these bureaucracies has nothing to do with “climate science”.
The iai discussion was good. However, I was less than impressed with MM description of CO2 as a control knob to an amplifier with a perpetuallly high gain. It ignores many of the physical processes that we know may impact the “amplifiers” gain. He conspicuously ignored some of the most significant uncertainties in climate science.
The good news is he said it does not matter. Hi gain or low gain, all we can do is adapt.
You are correct, that was the low point.
The iAi ‘debate’.. Did anyone else think there was a ring of arrogance about it?
All this opinion about what’s good for dinosaurs and CO2-starved atmospheres and the idea that complicated electronics are a good metaphor for the climate because the general public has such a great grasp of the principles of electronic circuitry?
I’d rather hear any three random denizens of Climate Etc. chat unmoderated for fifteen minutes than have to go through the iAi thing again, and I’m sure it’d be more edifying.
“Did anyone else think there was a ring of arrogance about it?”
What did you think of Bob Carter’s comment that if CO2 doubled from today’s level, the atmosphere would be CO2 starved. The idea is unpopular in may circles, but likely correct.
Yes?
I put Carter’s comment on a par with Corfield’s repeated comments about the dinosaurs being “happy” with their climate.
RIGHT. Since most modern species are more adaptable than dinosaurs, life will be good.
Compare the number of people planning tropical vacations to the number planning arctic or high temperate vacations.
I mean, I love you Scotland. But only once in a lifetime. I’ll stay in Phoenix, thank you, for the rest.
Most modern mammals would not be happy with the dinosaurs’ climate. Hard to shed the heat as the air gets closer to blood temperature, especially in humid conditions.
RobertInAz | April 17, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
I think the comments paternalistic in the extreme, with a whiff of smug about them. If CO2 doubled from today’s level gradually over the course of 100,000 or 1,000,000 years, it’d be within Bob Carter’s area of expertise, and his claims likely mostly harmless, about a world we would scarcely recognize were we to set foot in it in that distant day. However, his is not talk about paleo timescales, it’s talk about perhaps one human lifespan or less, and Bob Carter’s thesis is far out of his field and its depth for that discussion, on its face.
It may be true on the other hand, that talk of the end of all life or end of human life, is pointless and alarmist. But on balance, compared to the minimization carried out by Corfield and Carter, such talk is relatively far less irrational. Even the third presentation, by the professor whom Dr. Curry holds no doubt rightly in such high regard, Michael McIntyre, is an embarrassment at the current stage in this discussion. A decade or so ago, it’d have been up-to-date; now, it’s practically obsolete.
All of the presenters assumed equipartition and a thesis of gradual sea level change that does not correspond with what we know from the paleo record of past massive sea level shifts. Nature loves a sigmoid curve, and if sea level rises more than 0.7m by 2100, then the difference between a 7m and a 17m and a 70m rise is moot for more than just the reason that humans cope so badly when their ankles get a bit wet. If the rise is typical of what the geological record indicates, then we cannot predict it will take a millennium, or even a century, and we cannot constrain beyond the range of more than a centimeter but less than seventy meters, based on the evidence we have, and only an argument of incredible arrogance would imply we know better.
Bob Carter’s thesis of a CO2 starved atmosphere is immensely off-base botanically. As the past two and a quarter or more million years have shown, plants can endure quite comfortably on a planet below today’s CO2 level, can thrive, and can take up so much surface area as at any time in the planet’s history, and far more than for most of the planet’s life story.
The blarney that 180 ppmv is a ‘near death’ experience for plant populations is simply untrue, botanically. Getting down to 150 ppmv CO2 would be, for Earth, a catastrophe to be sure, but it would also be almost as biochemically improbable an asymptote as getting up to a nearly pure CO2 atmosphere. If we got down to under 170 ppmv in any timescale of direct concern to us, we’d have bigger concerns to us.
Everything about Carter’s claims lie almost entirely outside what an experienced botanist would accept as valid if they examined them closely. CO2 is a plant hormone modifier like steroids are to humans, not a nutrient, and certainly not a necessary one, beyond 280 ppmv, for the vast majority of Earth’s mainly Nitrogen-starved wild plants, and Nitrogen makes up seven tenths or more of the atmosphere. Carter’s argument abuses the conditions of domestic hothouse planting to establish a case that is true no place in Nature.
Corfield’s statements were far too vague to consider commenting on, unless one is a four year old who really loves dinosaurs. And what four year old doesn’t really love dinosaurs?
Since you asked.
Bart R
Instead of always spouting negative doomsday BS, you should take a cue from the positive attitudes expressed in the lead post.
Just a tip.
Max
manacker | April 18, 2014 at 1:27 am |
There was something positive? I must’ve missed it.
But if you think I wrote anything negative, you’re not a very careful reader.
I see a sea level rise as an opportunity to own beachfront property for cheap, and to get rid of those neighbors down the road, plus think of how much my taxes will drop when all that money being wasted to maintain low lying city streets is no longer needed.
A world full of business opportunities, where bullets will be worth their weight in gold, and anyone can grab all the loot they can carry off of whatever washes up on the coastline. That’s the sort of future we all look forward to: beachcombing for boots and canned food on an ever-shifting shore. What a utopia we can expect!
Bart R
When you are in a negative mindset, you can easily miss a positive statement from someone else.
Fear is a negative emotion, Bart. IPCC panders to this fear with its CAGW premise (as specifically outlined in its AR4 and AR5 reports).
Fear makes it difficult to think rationally.
Think positive, Bart. Forget all about doomsday scenarios and all that other rubbish.
Just some advice. You’ll be much happier that way.
Max
“:I think the comments paternalistic in the extreme, with a whiff of smug about them.”
Unlike anything you write following?
“However, his is not talk about paleo timescales, it’s talk about perhaps one human lifespan or less, and Bob Carter’s thesis is far out of his field and its depth for that discussion, on its face.”
This is an oft repeated tactic of the climate extremist community when addressing scientists with whom they disagree. The more realistic point is if the climate has a large and rapid response to CO2 increase (none demonstrated to date) then the future is outside of everybody’s field. Bob Carter is perfectly correct to point out the world handled 2000 PPM of CO2 without ending life as we know it.
And you should know that even the most extreme potential sea level gains posited by climate alarmists are will within the capability of modern engineering to handle – if the problem manifests. As much terrain becomes habitable from warming as is inundated by sea level rise.
manacker | April 18, 2014 at 1:49 am |
Fear? You have some imagination. Maybe your mindset is more negative than you realize?
There’s no doomsday in what I write. No negativity. I’m a huge fan of arrogance, paternalism, smugness and all forms of condescension after all (judging by the comments of people who have nothing worthwhile or on topic to say), and who doesn’t love dinosaurs?
Is wanting to hear from the denizens negative somehow?
Is being edified by experience not positive?
Is it doomsayingly negative to be critical of doomsaying negativity? Because you do see where I call such talk irrational, right?
So why tar me with that brush?
Are you trying to paint a straw man on my back?
I think you are. Do you really expect Judith’s readers to fall for that sort of tactic?
Well, clearly as you routinely use it, you do. Maybe if you changed your ways, people might find your ways less in need of changing like soiled babies.
After all, I’m the one calling fake on Bob Carter’s irrelevant doomsaying and negativity about scenarios we just don’t face in the sub-200 ppmv range. If I’m not positive, then Carter is positively funereal by comparison.. though of course the 150 ppmv funeral Carter posits is rampantly impossible, and that’s a positive thing.
RobertInAz | April 18, 2014 at 8:08 am |
Oft-repeated tactic?
Sir, you wound me by that jibe. I’m not part of some community.
Bob Carter being correct about paleontology is a wonderful thing, but I’m not talking about Bob Carter, rather about Carter’s claims; Bob Carter’s claims talking at length about paleontological phenomena on geological timescales as if they are somehow relevant to current phenomena on the scale of half a human lifespan is pure deception.
This is not a matter of lack of expertise or not on the part of the claim’s author, rather of understanding what the claim means with clarity, in terms of immediacy and rate.
That the claim is also outside the author’s field of expertise merely weakens that his claim carries any authority, which appears implied by the author’s tone and choice of content, and is thereby a double fallacy, both appeal to authority (his own) and straw man pretense that AGW timescales correlate to geologic timescales. If Al Gore was thrice slapped on the wrists for this by the Burton decision, we can scarcely allow it in in Carter.
“Your honor,” the defendant claims, “my ancestors all had fists; back even before history, or Man walking upright. Some of them had huge gigantic fists, or even claws if you go back far enough. So how could it be wrong for my fist to be smashing the plaintiff’s teeth out of his mouth?”
Would you accept such an argument against a charge of assault? Then why accept it as anything but facetious nonsense about CO2?
Why should modern engineering _have_ to handle sea level rises? More to the point, why should _I_ have to pay for that modern engineering through taxes on me? Did I profiteer from excessive CO2E emissions for decades? No, sir I did not. Neither did over 90% of the population so profit by theft above their share of that scarce resource which moderated sea level change rates before the fossil industry went haywire.
I had to pluck this bit of malarky out of the passage for special treatment, so odiously false it rings.
Terrain doesn’t merely ‘become habitable’ by virtue of warming. In the far north of Canada and Alaska, and around the Arctic Circle, where one presumes you mean (as the Antarctic would inundate every coastline on the planet for a dramatic distance in excess of Antarctica’s habitable surface area, which is fairly small considering its mountainous topography, were it to become habitably warm), the loss of ice roads and permafrost makes the terrain less habitable, as transportation and building are subject to complete upheaval.
Nearer the USA, Canadian farmland doesn’t just sprout up out of nowhere as the botanical zones migrate north with rising industrial CO2 emission levels: the vast marshes and wild hinterlands, often mountainous but even on the lake-strewn frigid expanses of the northern boundaries of the great plains, and into the pebbly tundra desert regions of the Yukon and Inuvik it is geographic naivete of the worst sort to assume habitability increasing in some easy, happy way without damage or cost.
So unless you provide ample and credible evidence the equal of these objections, you must understand why I feel such claims of yours fall victim to arrogant generalization and smug assumption, groundlessly.
“So unless you provide ample and credible evidence the equal of these objections, you must understand why I feel such claims of yours fall victim to arrogant generalization and smug assumption, groundlessly.”
Of course I cannot. Similarly, you have no basis for your conviction this all happens in decades rather than centuries. Timeline is everything.
RobertInAz | April 18, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
“Similarly, you have no basis for your conviction this all happens in decades rather than centuries. ”
See, there’s the difference between me and thee, between Science and Fingoism: I say what inference from observation shows most simply, parsimoniously and universally to be accurate or very nearly true; you make crap up out of your hat.
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/03/01/biosci.biu016.full
http://envirolaw.com/climate-change-gardens/
In nature, the assumption of equipartition is invariably wrong. We must admit that some sigmoid effect is likely, and thus that the shifts we have seen to date may be prelude to an exponential rise at some unknowable date for some unknowable duration. There is far more ample evidence for this than I could possibly cite, as this is the inference one may draw from all available evidence.
Timescale is a thing. It is not the only thing.
Bart R | April 20, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
“See, there’s the difference between me and thee, between Science and Fingoism: I say what inference from observation shows most simply, parsimoniously and universally to be accurate or very nearly true; you make crap up out of your hat.
……
Timescale is a thing. It is not the only thing.”
I think with your focus on erudite insults – you lost the thread on the discussion. Plant changing hardiness zones over time is interesting and well known and has nothing to do with when Miami becomes uninhabitable due to rising sea levels. Multiple sources point out the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets in a dramatically warmer world will occur over millennia, not decades. Here is one:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html
AR5 significantly increases the 21st century projected sea level rise over the AR4 projection to a still tolerable high end of 1 meter. This projection relies on acceleration not yet observed.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/10/ipccs-new-estimates-for-increased-sea-level-rise/
And AR5 sea level change still looks suspiciously linear though two teams found an acceleration on the order of .01mm/yr**2.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf
The parsimonious interpretation of the facts is the next century will be much like the prior century.
In terms of mitigation verses adaptation, timescale is the most important thing.
Bart R | April 20, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
“In nature, the assumption of equipartition is invariably wrong. We must admit that some sigmoid effect is likely, and thus that the shifts we have seen to date may be prelude to an exponential rise at some unknowable date for some unknowable duration.”
Similarly, the parsimonious interpretation of the current pause in atmospheric temperature is the cycle reached a peak and is preparing to decline.
o RobertInAz | April 20, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
I must say, it is a delight to have an exchange with you; if you feel insulted, by all means I apologize; the fault for that is entirely mine, and I admit my intemperate word choices could easily offend and are unwarranted. We ought reason by the content of our claims, not claims about our character.
If you assume equipartition, as the multiple sources you cite allow you to infer from what they write, and thereby ought more strongly warn against as an error in reading (harder), then you could form an opinion that timescale is somehow on your side.
The resolution we have for such changes measured geologically by paleoclimatologists is century scale or longer; the actual events we have next to no direct evidence of their real rates.
The breaking of an ice dam in North America is speculated to have altered sea level by many meters and salinity and the isocline dramatically worldwide in under a decade, and may have taken only a year or two, in the way we see volcano impact on the stratosphere, although our geological records might not allow us to date that volcano eruption more precisely than within a millennium.
o RobertInAz | April 20, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
Your comment appears to misconstrue what is meant in Science by parsimony, which refers to parsimony of exceptions.
The parsimonious projection is that the Physics that rules the next century will be the same Physics as ruled the past; that Physics predicts sigmoids, and the direction of temperature and sea level to be net upward.
While no claim can reasonably dismiss some tiny drops with plausible physical causes along the way that the far future could not detect using paleoclimatology either, Physics says they can’t be considered cyclic, and your claim gives no evidence for a physical mechanism underlying a cyclic explanation. In trendology, an unexplained apparent cycle is given utmost skepticism, given how easily other effects can mimic a cycle.
Googling “physics sigmoid” yielded nothing on point.
I am struck by the extensive paleontological evidence that, in the current ice age era, temperatures do not get much warmer than at present. The hypothetical positive feedbacks to a little CO2 warming remain hypothetical. And if we look at the Milankovitch cycle related warming in the Eemian interglacial, it did not get much warmer than today and sea levels peaked at about 6 meters higher than today. Refer to numerous figures in AR5.
So the observed physics in the distance past tells me that the any positive feedback to a warming impulse rapidly damps out. The observed physics of the past few years also points to a limited to non-existent positive feedback.
The alarmists claim a steady state temperature at the Eemian level is BAD. I disagree.
And just to give you a little red meat: why should I be forced to pay forced to pay more for electricity because of a theory in search of confirmation?
You have to pay for the smart meter somehow.
I enjoyed the IAI Debate. Seems the participants agree with me that sea level rise is inevitable. The seas have been rising since the end of the last ice age and will continue to do so until the beginning of the next. Fortunately for humans, even the slowest walkers will be able to stay ahead of the rising water.
Even better, the most extravagant real estate investment will be fully amortized before rising water effects the value.
If there is alarmism to think about, it is that over the cost of mitigation. Anyone who sees the estimate from WG3 will see it is not going to harm the global economy the way that the economical alarmists have portrayed mitigation costs with their campaign. Yes, there are changes in financial flows, so that less is directed to the fossil fuel industries, and more to new technologies around new energy, adaptation and resilience, so at the end of those flows are the businesses that are successfully adapting to the new reality. It is not a net loss, but a diversification of the money associated with energy and building things. The only real losses come from damaging events, not from replacing coal power plants.
In the iai debate, someone quoted Richard Branson as saying that climate change is a business opportunity. Yes, it is. It will pay well to look ahead, and not cling to the old ways. There will be incentives to be had too, not just deterrents.
Jim D
No.
You have it all wrong.
The doomsayers are the ones spouting negative alarmism.
The authors of the lead post articles and statements appear to be positive thinkers.
Let’s make sure we can protect humans from any natural catastrophe that comes along, by adapting to any climate challenge that is thrown at us, if and when it becomes apparent that such a challenge is imminent and needs action – as humanity has done for centuries.
That’s a positive message – with no alarmism needed.
The negative IPCC CAGW message has become stale.
It’s time for some positive thinking, Jim.
Max
manacker, as I said, there is a positive side, and it is the economic opportunities and environmental improvement offered by the move to clean energy and fuel. No need to be alarmist about this energy transition. These have happened all the time through the last century, and are occurring today, especially. Some just want to stay with the old ways, and these tend to be older folk. Quite understandable. I am sure there were just as many wood and dung proponents when coal first came along.
Jim D
No.
You’ve got it wrong.
You are not talking about opportunity.
You are talking about a fear-driven obsession with CO2 and the deleterious effects and impacts of human-induced global warming, which will hurt us all unless we drastically curtail the use of fossil fuels.
This message has become stale, Jim.
It is not the positive message of the future.
Fossil fuels will get replaced as the prime energy source as soon as something new which is economically competitive and environmentally acceptable comes along.
The positive thinker looks for ways to make that happen – not for ways to force fossil fuels “to stay in the ground” by making them non-competitive through direct or indirect taxation. That’s the negative approach, especially if it is based on an irrational fear of the consequences of AGW.
Max
JD, Manacker is upset by the assertion that it makes sense to encourage alternative energy and see what happens.
This has little to do with AGW.
Jim D,
So what happens when these mitigation opportunities don’t result in any mitigation to speak of? Take one example – exactly how much mitigation do you think is occuring from Tesla Motors? Ben Pile had a good piece about a year ago comparing the amount of money being proposed to “weatherize” homes in Great Britain to how much nuclear generation capacity it could provide. The numbers were damning, if you were a proponent of the weatherization scheme. Or look at the same initiative in the US. That does not have a track record anyone is quick to bring attention to.
But as with Webby above, mention that much of what we hear on mitigation either doesn’t pencil out or is so chock full of uncertainties we haven’t a clue whether it will or not, and you get labeled a denier. Ask for cost benefit analysis between mitigation and adaptation and you get labeled a denier.
As I’ve stated a number of times. You don’t have to argue climate change on the basis of physics. Simple arithmatic will often tell you who is blowing smoke (or inhaling too much of it).
Mitigation makes a difference of 500 ppm in the long-term CO2 level compared to a burn-it-all scenario. Do you think that will have no effect?
Nice duck and weave Jim.
Instead of answering, you post a retorical question.
1) We are going to hit the 500 ppm concentration no matter what mitigation actions are taken. China alone guarantees that.
2) Most mitigation being proposed has a cost. In some instances a quite substantial cost.
3) There is a considerable degree of uncertainty over the effectiveness of these measures.
Add up high cost, high degree of uncertainty, both for effectiveness and for the purported risk from an atmospheric concentration of 500 ppm and you get one of two possible answers to the question “Why are people saying we have to act now with all urgency?” Either they are mentally defective or they have agendas they are pushing which have little to do with the climate.
timg56, no it was a valid question. There are multiple mitigation scenarios summarized in WG3 that lead to a 500 ppm climate stabilization. Without them, and burning everything available you are looking at 1000 ppm and much more if you include some yet to be considered but possible sources.
Jim,
Then the authors have never worked in generation of energy or providing transportation.
The most important things we don’t know are:
1. Will increasing CO2 concentrations bring forward or delay the next sudden climate change event? and what are the probabilities?
2. Will increasing CO2 concentrations make the next sudden climate change event more or less damaging? and what are the probabilities
3. Will the advocated GHG mitigation policies change make beneficial changes to the climate?
4. If so, how much difference will they make and what are the probabilities?
5. What is the probability the advocated mitigation policies would succeed given the realities of international politics, economics, conflict, etc?
6. What is the probability the advocated policies would deliver the expected benefits (i.e. climate damages avoided)?
These are what I believe are the most important things we don’t know about climate change and the climate policies commonly proposed. Until I believe I have satisfactory answers to these questions, I would not support mitigation policies that will damage economic growth.
-The most important things we don’t know are:
1. Will increasing CO2 concentrations bring forward or delay the next sudden climate change event? and what are the probabilities?-
The only significant or clear effect of the rise of 100 ppm of CO2 has be global greening and increased crop production. And I think this is positive news. There has endless media reports claiming rising CO2 level are responsible killing polar bears and cause some hurricane, but this badly informed news reports.
So if one is not worried about more global vegetation, but are concerned about effects of future rises in CO2, it seems one could search for any other possible past effects of increasing CO2 concentrations. But since say “next sudden climate event” what were the last couple “sudden climate events” which you think might occur next?
Do you actually mean climate, rather than weather events? And would regional dust bowl count as such climate event or is more like the regional climate event of desertification creation of the current Sahara Desert being the type climate event [though not really sudden] what you mean?
–2. Will increasing CO2 concentrations make the next sudden climate change event more or less damaging? and what are the probabilities
3. Will the advocated GHG mitigation policies change make beneficial changes to the climate?
4. If so, how much difference will they make and what are the probabilities?–
It seems it’s fair to say the GHG mitigation policies have caused more CO2 emissions.
Nuclear power which none as far as I know have been done for GHG mitigation policies, have reduced CO2 emission by a significant amount.
So ethanol, burning wood, solar, and wind power have as far as I know created more CO2. And this also applies to hybrid cars. But it’s possible doing things with buses and trucks somewhere in world could have reduced CO2. Now, Iran and Pakistan are using a lot natural gas and propane for transformational needs, but terrorist countries are probably not responding to any GHG mitigation policies. And they seem in general to favor ending the world as fast as possible..
On climate, I think the brightest one in the room was the moderator. You could tell from her smile when someone had said something ridiculous. She was probably thinking “where do they get these people from?”
Jim D
I looked at it again.
To me it looked like she had a mild gas attack.
Max
‘For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.’
What we don’t know is why they think they have any credibility left when it was quite obvious it wasn’t and they don’t.
This is a case – apparently – where certainty in other than surprises seems absurd. But when the only certainty is surprise there is some understandable apprehension for the future – and perhaps prophecy, appeasement of the climate gods and post facto rationalization is the human condition. Not so much a wicked problem but a wacky human one.
Pingback: La fe climática | PlazaMoyua.com
Pingback: La fe climática
The title of this thread is “Climate change: what we don’t know”
I was waiting to see whether anyone else would write the blindingly obvious. No-one has. Since it is impractical to actually measure the numerical value for it, the most important thing we don’t know, is what is the value of climate sensitivity, however defined. Surely, when this is realised, little else matters.
One cannot employ The Scientific Method to resolve whether CAGW is anything more than a hypothesis, which is all it is. And no-one has shown that any approach, other then The Scientific Method, is capable of showing that CAGW is anything more than a hypothesis.
The Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN “corrections” are in error in the case of Reykjavik”.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/another-giss-miss-this-time-in-iceland/
Paul Homewood asks: a) Were the Iceland Met Office aware that these adjustments are being made?
Answer: No we were not aware of this.
Paul: b) Has the Met Office been advised of the reasons for them?
Answer: No, but we are asking for the reasons.
Paul: c) Does the Met Office accept that their own temperature data is in error, and that the corrections applied by GHCN are both valid and of the correct value? If so, why?
Answer : The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik but not quite as bad for the other stations. But we will have a better look. We do not accept these “corrections”.
Paul: d) Does the Met Office intend to modify their own temperature records in line with GHCN?
Answer: No.
“We should focus on protecting people from natural hazards, and not worrying about what is causing them”
How insane is that?
Imagine taking the same approach to health-care?
Not a valid analogy.
We should study, but not worry.
AK,
If you don’t like the analogy, just think about bush-fires and apply that reasoning.
Insanity.
Fire is a natural part of the ecology. The primary cause of really destructive fires is unwise fire prevention and ecological mis-management. Not climate change.
“We should focus on protecting people from natural hazards, and not worrying about what is causing them”
How insane is that? –> Not insane at all. The good news about climate change adaptation strategies is they help the poorest people in the world. Climate change mitigation strategies tend to hurt the poorest people and enrich the richest.
“Climate change mitigation strategies tend to hurt the poorest people and enrich the richest.”
Bravo – the raise in energy taxes are hurting the poor/middle class of the central valley here in CA during the brutally (though normal) hot summers while the elites on the cool breezy coasts smugly wonder what the fuss is about.
AK | April 18, 2014 at 8:40 am |
Fire is a natural part of the ecology. The primary cause of really destructive fires is unwise fire prevention and ecological mis-management. Not climate change.
RobertInAz | April 18, 2014 at 8:53 am |
The good news about climate change adaptation strategies is they help the poorest people in the world. Climate change mitigation strategies tend to hurt the poorest people and enrich the richest.
Can we see some development of these assertions?
I’ve worked with a lot of people who deal with wildfires, and they say human caused fires are the only factor that contribute more to wild fire than climate; since I deal with people from widely diverse understory and forest and wildlands management catchments, and they have themselves had different fire prevention and ecological management practices through their careers, I must call BS on AK’s claim.
I’ve also worked with a lot of people who work with the poorest people in the world. I don’t remember them mentioning RobertinAz as their chosen spokesman, or saying how wonderful it is to pull up stakes and ‘adapt’ by taking refuge far from their lost homes. Please, some of us may have been born during the day, but no one reading this was born yesterday.
harkin | April 18, 2014 at 9:21 am |
It’s a shame, really, how messed up California’s tax system is.
British Columbia has revenue neutral carbon ‘taxes’ (though how can it be a tax if it doesn’t add to government revenue?) that have the opposite effect: the richest pay the most, and the poorest pay less, and because demand for fossil fuels is down in British Columbia, citizens there pay less for fuel in relation to their neighbors in places without effective carbon pricing than they did before.
So, I’d call this effect a result of Californians being bad at everything about tax, not a result of mitigation strategy.
AK,
So you think that we should consider the cause of bush-fires….
How interesting.
heh well that didn’t take long did it.
I tend to think this method of deconstructing climate skeptic guff is the best, by applying their ill logic to other areas to demonstrate how stupid it is and tie them in knots trying to justify it.
Some day out comes the sharp sword and the obvious facts fall to the ground like the old rope it was from its start.
Michael
“We should focus on protecting people from natural hazards, and not worrying about what is causing them”
Seems very true if there is not high confidence that an action taken will prevent the hazard from occuring. Nobody can say with any confidence that a CO2 mitigation action will lessen any hazard.
Yes, but that wasn’t my point. Destructive fires most often happen because too much fire prevention allowed too much undergrowth to accumulate. (I’m not going to spend time right now digging up links, but they abound.) Much of the remainder of the “destruction” is due to humans building vulnerable constructions in areas that would naturally be swept by fire with no lasting harm to the environment.
Even to the extent that “climate change” is responsible for destructive fires, and to the extent (if any) that anthropogenic increases in pCO2 are responsible for some instances of that climate change, the analogy remains invalid. But the primary causes (unwise fire prevention and ecological mis-management) make a reasonable analogy to “health-care”.
AK | April 18, 2014 at 11:46 am |
Again, your claims are not very accurate in general. Failure to allow understory wildfire to clear debris can contribute in old growth conifer forests to more destructive upper story and complex fires spreading; that is true, but it also represents next to none of the brush fires in unforested grasslands, scrublands and new growth, which are also on the rise.
Your claims simply do not bear inspection when compared to facts, but merely cherry pick out the part of the far larger and more intricate wildfire situation. You minimize climate impacts by exaggerating a real, but much smaller, problem. Sure, _that_ smaller problem needs to be dealt with; indeed, in many places it has been dealt with by experts, and for many years.
@Bart R…
The fact that you don’t bother mentioning rangeland impels me to not waste time on what’s probably a bunch m0tivated th1inking based on cherry-picked anecdotal evidence.
Bart,
So do I and what they say is that many of our (US) forests are overloaded and that the money budgeted to address that issue keeps getting stripped away.
There are a number of factors which contribute to fires. Climate is just one of them.
Bart R | April 18, 2014 at 9:39 am |
“I’ve also worked with a lot of people who work with the poorest people in the world. I don’t remember them mentioning RobertinAz as their chosen spokesman, or saying how wonderful it is to pull up stakes and ‘adapt’ by taking refuge far from their lost homes. Please, some of us may have been born during the day, but no one reading this was born yesterday.”
Time scales again.IMHO, a fundamental tenant of adaptation is poverty remediation. Less poor people have more choices than poor people, including how to respond to the future inundation of their village. On the time scale of centuries, people not mired in abject poverty will adapt. Taking refuge far from home is part of the human condition. I was born overseas. In one 9 year period I changed physical residence on average every 9 months. Almost all were over 100 miles and several were transcontinental moves. I am not their spokesperson, but working as I do with some of the poorest indigenous people in the world, I do have a concept of acceptable outcomes. The people I know are only married to place by paucity of opportunity.
Bart R | April 18, 2014 at 9:39 am |
“British Columbia has revenue neutral carbon ‘taxes’ (though how can it be a tax if it doesn’t add to government revenue?) that have the opposite effect: the richest pay the most, and the poorest pay less, and because demand for fossil fuels is down in British Columbia, citizens there pay less for fuel in relation to their neighbors in places without effective carbon pricing than they did before.”
There appear to be multiple data points. I would like to see “pay less for fuel in relation to their neighbors” expanded.Is that per gallon or in aggregate. If in aggregate see the offloading of demand to BC neighbors discussed here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/13/the-real-canadian-hockeystick/. The post says nothing about magnitude but does make a telling point about behavior.
RobertInAz | April 18, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
Oh what a burden you bear. I’m heartened to hear you’re going to solve poverty so the people you solve poverty for can run away from the problems they face at home. Because that’s so sensible and reasonable, and so much like the way people treat their homelands if they are wealthy enough, and so likely workable.
.. Oh. Wait. No, it’s none of those things.
Why should the poor, or the newly non-poor, have to spend a dime or make a single decision to adapt to something easily avoidable and mitigatable and that benefits them not at all?
You want to do something for the poor?
Make those who emit CO2E pay them (and all of us) a fair price for the emission privilege.
And let the poor speak for themselves.
Bart R | April 18, 2014 at 9:39 am |
“Can we see some development of these assertions? ”
I posted earlier on adaptation – on mitigation I offer:
Emission tax regimes are gamed by the wealthy at the expense of the less wealthy. Trading schemes are gamed by the wealthy at the expense of the less wealthy. There is a reason Enron was a strong proponent of a carbon market.
Interestingly, I have since the 70s been a strong proponent of higher gasoline taxes in the US for reasons unrelated to CO2. And it would be hypocritical of me to not be a proponent of alternative energy tax credits since I have personally benefited so much from them. Since tax credits only remit back what I have already paid – I guess they are OK.
Bart R | April 18, 2014 at 8:35 pm |
-skipping the irrelevent snipes ….
“Why should the poor, or the newly non-poor, have to spend a dime or make a single decision to adapt to something easily avoidable and mitigatable and that benefits them not at all?”
Other than “easily avoidable” is not and “mitigatable”is a myth, why should we not devote resources otherwise wasted in fantasy mitigation schemes to helping to equip them to make their own choices?
Absent education barriers, it is often easier for people to move to where energy is inexpensive than to deliver energy to remote locations.
Bart R | April 18, 2014 at 8:35 pm |
“Make those who emit CO2E pay them (and all of us) a fair price for the emission privilege…. And let the poor speak for themselves.”
As you might discern from my other posts, if I thought paying for CO2E would meaningfully benefit the poor, my objection would be reduced. We all know it would not.
• AK | April 18, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
The fact that you don’t bother mentioning rangeland impels ..
Rangeland includes pebble-covered tundra, sand dune expanses, sandstone flats, dry lakebeds, and rocky outcroppings. I mentioned the parts of rangeland that burn. Hairsplit much?
Sure, fire suppression can lead to woodlands replacing scrublands; is it your argument that America has too much forest, and we should not encourage forest growth? You’re citing decades old views long since acted upon in a world very different from when those ideas first took root. The passage you quote is in fact a small example of the wrong approach set out in a much larger document explaining all of this. Your own source material argues against your claim.
• timg56 | April 18, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
Ayup. I cannot dispute that America is governed by short-sighted and inept people who dismiss the views of actual experts.
• RobertInAz | April 18, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
There appear to be multiple data points. I would like to see “pay less for fuel in relation to their neighbors” expanded.Is that per gallon or in aggregate. If in aggregate see the offloading of demand to BC neighbors discussed here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/13/the-real-canadian-hockeystick/. The post says nothing about magnitude but does make a telling point about behavior.
BC citizens both pay less as a ratio for fuel now as compared to their neighbors before the carbon tax per gallon (actually, it’s “litre” there, they’re like France), and in the aggregate per capita.
As you may know, I don’t read WUWT.
However, I have read the offloading argument and seen it thoroughly debunked. For one thing, anything over a small per-trip amount of fuel in the tank gets charged the carbon tax as people cross the border, so off-loading claims are pure crap. BC shoppers crashed the US border after 2008 because the US economy tanked while the BC economy sailed along unharmed, in part some say due to the carbon tax, so the prices in the US were much better with the exchange rate and lower US consumer demand.
RobertInAz | April 18, 2014 at 9:00 pm |
You and Ross McKitrick both are, apparently, fans of fuel taxes. But what BC has isn’t a fuel tax, it’s a revenue neutral carbon emission measure administered by the tax man that includes fuels that emit carbon. It also includes other emissions. But as every penny collected goes back to people instead of to the tax man, it’s hard to call it a tax with a straight face.
And while there’s been some gaming of the BC Carbon Tax, mostly by people in the remote parts of BC claiming (falsely) that they’re disproportionately affected, or the poor claiming (falsely) that they’re disproportionately affected, or the government knuckling under and slowing their rate increases to “let the rest of the world catch up” (falsely), it would be hard to claim the ‘rich’ have gamed the measure much, and the principle remains the same: who get a benefit from emitting CO2E pay for it. While I’d rather the Market set the price than some arbitrary decision of people with political debts to pay, I’m not dismissing the fact that the thing works.
• RobertInAz | April 18, 2014 at 10:25 pm |
Other than “easily avoidable” is not and “mitigatable”is a myth, why should we not devote resources otherwise wasted in fantasy mitigation schemes to helping to equip them to make their own choices?
Absent education barriers, it is often easier for people to move to where energy is inexpensive than to deliver energy to remote locations.
Myth?
How is it a myth?
The British Columbia case shows that people on their own mitigate CO2E emission with even a slim direct price put on it. The price of generating electricity by hydro, solar and wind will by 2020 be cheaper than generating by oil, coal or biomass (if they aren’t already), and soon after will be cheaper than natural gas (if they aren’t already).
People call a “move to where energy is inexpensive” becoming an economic refugee, leaving home, giving up their heritage and way of life, abandoning their culture, and other nasty things. Making them do this just to subsidize coal? That’s hardly adaptation, that’s simply a forced march for the sake of gloating corporate greed.
• RobertInAz | April 18, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
As you might discern from my other posts, if I thought paying for CO2E would meaningfully benefit the poor, my objection would be reduced. We all know it would not.
We who? British Columbia stands as solid evidence you are simply blowing smoke.
Bart R | April 19, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
“We who? British Columbia stands as solid evidence you are simply blowing smoke.”
Actually, I’m not.
http://daily.sightline.org/2014/03/11/all-you-need-to-know-about-bcs-carbon-tax-shift-in-five-charts/
That said, I think the plan is fine and should, with adaptation, be implemented here but only in the context of a rational energy policy – something the USA appears to be incapable of creating. Having done business in British Columbia and traveled over most of its southern portions, I have to say I do not consider the fine people of BC to be poor.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908763.html
To illustrate the income inequality between rich and poor countries, consider these facts: about 1.75 billion people live in multi-dimensional poverty, meaning extreme deprivation in education, health, and standard of living; 1.44 billion people out of the developing world’s 6.9 billion people live on $1.25 per day; 2.6 billion people are estimated to be living on less than $2 a day. Multidimensional poverty varies by region from three percent in Europe and Central Asia to 65% in Sub-Saharan Africa.
RobertInAz | April 19, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
Thanks for the link to Durning and Bauman’s article; well worth the read, and an intelligent choice.
OTOH, what you say about poverty in BC is not strictly accurate. BC has one of Canada’s worst records on each of poverty, endemic poverty, child poverty, aboriginal poverty, extreme poverty, homelessness, minimum wages, health care for the poor, mortality among the poor, education of the poor and success rate at breaking the multigenerational poverty cycle.
In part, this was due to a rabidly socialistic series of governments up until they were given the boot over a dozen years ago, which left the infrastructure, business climate and government revenues and reserves in a shoddy state.
With all that, the new government gave BC the lowest corporate tax rate in North America, its citizens one of the lowest income tax rates on the continent, and a steadily improving quality of life.. except among the most desperately poor. If not for a string of fiasco on other issues (though compared to California for example, nothing worth mentioning), they might have done right by their poorest.. but that’s unlikely. The BC Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax was a good thing for the poorest of BC’s poor, and had the government not lost its nerve and halted its rate increases, it still would be benefiting them.
GISS/NASA MANIPULATION OF TEMPERATURE DATA
Wibjörn Karlén, professor em. member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: http://www.geoclimate.se/articles/20131107_GISS_Wibjorn_Karlen.pdf
Hólmsteinn Jónasson | April 18, 2014 at 7:59 am |
So, Swede-o-scientist Wibjörn Karlén is.. complaining about man-made ‘climatology change’, because someone at NASA modernized a few web pages?
We care why?
Some of us are interested in all views.
Some of us apparently are not.
I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya’.
==================
sure so why has BEST and everyone else who has looked at the data found the same warming as GISS/NASA?
Climate skeptics it seem are incapable of logic.
When you use the same data set, one usually gets the same results.
Your logic is missing.
“so why has BEST and everyone else who has looked at the data found the same warming as GISS/NAS?”
Because they are Warmers? Do you think that Warmers are going to produce data products that show Cooling?
“and everyone else who has looked at the data”
I looked at it and saw a hoax.
Andrew
So where’s your global temperature dataset andrew? to show us what the data really says.
Funny isn’t it that anyone that produces such a set confirms the warming everyone else found and then in your eyes they become “warmers”.
What a convenient mechanism by which you can remain close minded and deny what the data shows.
P.S Id love to know just how and when you think Richard Muller and James Hansen conspired together to obtain the same result.
“Funny isn’t it that anyone that produces such a set confirms the warming everyone else found and then in your eyes they become “warmers”.
Wrong. They believe a priori that additional C02 “makes it warmer.” This is the basis of their climatology. To produce a data product that says otherwise would present a contradiction. So, we get “warmer”.
Andrew
It’s the Perfect Circular Logic of Popular Climate Science.
It’s not real science. It’s a fraud.
Andrew
” They believe a priori that additional C02 “makes it warmer.”
They also believe in evolution and that NASA landed on the moon
You probably believe differently.
“They also believe in evolution and that NASA landed on the moon”
These have nothing to do with climate science.
Andrew
trollwot, his dybbuk; tighten up, son. You can do it.
=====
“Bart R | April 18, 2014 at 9:26 am |
So, Swede-o-scientist Wibjörn Karlén is.. complaining about man-made ‘climatology change’, because someone at NASA modernized a few web pages?”
The word “modernize” is absolutely ridiculous and a travesty.
.
This concerns eg the mean temperature in Reykjavík in 1940. The meteorologists there measured it AND ADJUSTED it.
Then comes a jerk from NY in 2010 und adjustes it again, by 3°F and of course downwards. No wonder the icelanders hate Yankee imperialism.
So what was the REAL temperature there in 1940? Anyone?
Alexej Buergin | April 18, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
Okay. One more time. Please give your version of these facts citing specifics and furnishing a more complete narrative. Your telling here has all the hallmarks of Big Lie about it, and I know no Icelander wants to be accused of spreading a Big Lie.
Who exactly did what exactly, and when, and how, exactly?
Documentation, not narrative.
“Because they are Warmers? Do you think that Warmers are going to produce data products that show Cooling?”
1. I actually started in this debate as a Lukewarmer who thought the
temperature record was suspect.
A) so many stations where data was not being used.
B) methods ( CAM and RSM) that were NEVER tested on synthetic
data.
C) UHI that was never adequately understood or studied.
D) Adjustments that seemed to understate the uncertainty and all go in one direction.
2. I found a two men of similar attitudes: Rich Muller and Jonathan Wurtle
Both top of the heap scientists willing to take a fresh look at data and methods.
3. I read all the sceptical writers who had anything of merit to say.
A) jeffId
B) RomanM
C) Willis
D) many others at CA, rank exploits, WUWT
Here is what I found
There was a universal condemnation of “stitching” stations together
by using adjustments. Instead they favored an approach where you
dont stitch stations: if station X changes location, it becomes a new station. No need for NOAAs “SHAP” adjustments. if a station changes its TOBs it becomes a new station. No need for NOAAs “TOBS” adjustment.
You dont splice stations, you scalpel them.
Next, RomanM and JeffId pioneered an approach that allowed you to use
all the data even short records. No more calculations of a base period. This was a key key key sceptical insight. RomanMs work influenced our head statistician ( they know each other). Also, I found that many skeptics suggested using Kriging. Why? well because it was proven unlike the methods of CRU ( CAM) and the method of GISS (RSM)
of the 4 issues above ( low number of stations, untested methods, UHI, and adjustments) it was apparent that the skeptics had good approaches to
3: stations, methods, adjustments.
So the berkeley team used those skeptical insights to re look at the data
A) stations: they use all the data that people publish publically. No more
confidential data like CRU.
B) Scalpeling versus adjusting and splicing. When a station changes
location, changes instrument, changes time of observation, we do
not adjust it. we split it. its a different station when you move it. its
a different station when you change instruments. Its a different
station when you change time of observation.
C) Adjusting thus become a purely statistical step. There is no human
deciding that this station should go up while that station should go down.
The expectation is calculated to minimize the error of prediction.
When I first reviewed their work I saw that every issue I had had since 2007
was addressed, and addressed in ways that skeptics suggested ( see Anthony’s endorsement of the approach) but there was one thing I didnt like. I didnt like the way they handled the UHI work they were doing. I criticized them. They invited me to join their meetings. They re did all of their testing with my proxies for urbanity. The results didn’t change.
Of the people who work on the temperature data ( there are 3 of us ) Not a single one of us is a crazy leftist calling for global taxation. None of us express alarmist views. Our goal was simple: 1. use all the open data we can find: no confidential data. 2. Use standard methods. 3. No explicit adjustments to “correct” a stations record. 4. improve as best we could users access to data and methods.
of course nothing is perfect, so the email address is steve- at-berkeleyearth. org. Suggestions, criticisms, offers to help are all welcomed
“I actually started in this debate as a Lukewarmer who thought the
temperature record was suspect.”
Doesn’t matter where you “started”. You have stated on this blog more than once that additional C02 makes it warmer.
It’s impossible for you to show otherwise, according to your beliefs.
Andrew
Frank Lansner has done some work that raises questions about BEST’s use of only publicly published data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/06/the-original-temperatures-project/
Frank was able to pry a lot of additional and original temperature data out of national meteorological services.
haha “raises questions”
It’s like racists trying desperately to find bits of old news to justify their racism.
Explain how what I said is anything like racists doing whatever it is you are talking about, lollie. This is about the silliest and certainly the most inappropriate playing of the race card that I have ever seen. Let’s see if Judith deletes this one.
Reykjavík 1940:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/latest-giss-data-tampering-in-iceland/
Alexej, yes and the REAL temperatures track solar variability very well.
Mosher,
Nice post.
Montford,
When they resort to racist analogies, you know they have nothing else.
Here’s where I come down on this issue: I don’t use adjusted data unless it corresponds with an independent validation.
BEST provides a world-class validation alternative to adjusted data. What does BEST tell us about the adjustments?
By and large, the adjustments are too small overall, but in more detail.. enh, I don’t believe there’s a decent way to settle the argument over any one single station’s adjustments, or even a single small town on some pimple of a volcanic island on the edge of nowhere, buffeted by ragingly varied ocean oscillations.
So it’s an argument that can’t be resolved. Why bother with it? Take the high road, and do something practical instead.
Mosher and I agree about almost nothing in climate, but he’s made good sense on this issue, and I don’t want it to be said I can’t recognize a good argument coming from someone just because we don’t usually see eye-to-eye.
Does barty think that BEST only used unadjusted temperature data? I provided a link above to Frank Lansner’s presentation of the hard work he has undertaken to get original data. Frank has criticisms of BEST that were given short shrift by Mosher’s comment:
” Steven Mosher says:
January 6, 2014 at 8:47 am
‘If the BEST project aimed to show something better than we have already from GISS, HadCRU or NOAA, then BEST should simply have asked for all the temperature datasets from the national Meteorological Institutes. Why not?”
The aim of the project was to use data that was PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE.
There are roughly 40K stations where the data can be downloaded and checked by
citizens. Open data.
Here is what Phil Jones did. he took data from NWS as you suggest we should.
Then when we asked him for the data he used, he said. Go get it yourself.
In short, we aim at taking all the that is publically available. No sign in, no registration, no request to people who could deny your request. That way people can check the work.
I’ll note that there is also data that we could have used that we would have to pay for?
Imagine the uproar if I said ‘ well we paid for that data so you cant check it”
When I started this in 2007 I held to one position. Phil Jones should not be using data from NWS that is not freely available. Publically open and maintained into the future.
Its interesting to see Phil Jones approach ressurrected at WUWT”
Using only publicly available temperature data that has been stepped on is not necessarily a virtue. In fact, Frank Lansner’s approach is the antithesis of the practice of Jones and some national services of withholding data. Frank has actually liberated original data. It’s odd that Mosher wouldn’t be eager to get at it.
Don
“Frank was able to pry a lot of additional and original temperature data out of national meteorological services.”
A couple of points.
1. In the past I have vetted Franks article for WUWT. The quality was bad.
That is when I did simple checks about whether the data he said he downloaded was in fact downloaded correctly, I found mistakes.
2. One thing I have fought against consistently is the Jones approach
of going to NWS. Recall that when we asked him for data he would say
“go ask the NWS”. the problems are legion.
A) jones gets X from the NWS, I ask and get Y. How do we reconcile?
B) Jones gets X, the NWS refuses me.
C) the public in general cannot all go to the NWS.
Let me give you an example that I am facing today, well several
1. India. India offers up only a few stations for public consumption.
I could buy daily data from them back till 1900. But I could not
share that with others. you’d scream if I did
2. Hundreds of super high quality sites in the US that are “pay for” data.
suppose I used those and told you to go pay thousands to check my work.
3. Korea, same thing
4. China, same thing.
Over time the NWS may be convinced to put it in a public repository
I have 2000+ new sites that have been made public, so stay tuned.
And Yes Don, if you or frank can persuade NWS to make the data publically available in repository ( you know a place that anybody can go and get) then by all means do so and send me the link.
steve -at- berkeley earth.org
“You have stated on this blog more than once that additional C02 makes it warmer.”
Yes Andrew.
Question. Does C02 make the planet warmer than it would have been otherwise.
A) No it makes it cooler
B) No it has zero effect
C) yes it makes it warmer.
D) we can never know.
Given those 4 options everything I know suggests that C is the correct answer. there is no evidence for A or B. Answer D? depends on your definition of “know”
People who answer C fall into three groups; a tiny bit warmer, a little warmer, a lot warmer.
I believe a little bit warmer (1-6C), but this belief is open to evidence.
Steven, I believe that you understand that I respect your integrity and abilities, even though barty has agreed with you on this one occasion. What I am offering is meant to be constructive criticism.
Frank L. has made specific criticisms of BEST’s work based on his analysis of original data he has obtained from 20 countries, so far. To glibly dismiss his criticisms with the ‘it’s just like Jones’ approach’ excuse, or pointing out that you have caught Frank making errors in the past, does not seem to be your style.
I expected to see you take on his specific complaints, because I think it’s important to get this stuff straight. And I don’t think it is getting straight, because publicly funded data is not being freely made available to the public who have funded the crap.
You gotta at least give Frank credit for trying. Help him, instead of dismissing his efforts. He will pay you just as much as you are getting from Muller:)
OMG! Steven! Say it ain’t so. Did you mean 1.6C?
“warmer than it would have been otherwise”
And have you determined the “otherwise”?
Lets have some science on this issue. Whenever you are ready, Mosher.
Andrew
Andrew, would you need to know what “otherwise” is, if the sun got more powerful and continually shined an additional 3.7 watts per sqm on us? Wouldn’t that make us warmer than it would otherwise be?
My point is that “otherwise” is meaningless in this context. Scientifically, there is no “otherwise” climate. It will never be known, because it never happens. It’s just poetry that Mosher resorts to, because that’s what he does.
Andrew
You are engaging in semantic quibbling, Andrew. Climate always happens. Otherwise simply means what would happen without human influences. If we returned to the old days of unfettered burning of coal. fuel oil and gasoline on a massive scale and it started getting really cold, you would probably be concerned.
Don Monfort | April 18, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
*sigh*
READ HARDER.
The alternative to adjusted data doesn’t need to be not using adjusted data, where one cleverly validates the adjusted data or makes such use of the data available as to demonstrate the adjustments have no net effect on the outputs one does use.
Hence, BEST showed in its early releases much about the land-only record as a whole, but almost nothing that could help out the Iceland poser. We’ll never know what the ‘valid’ temperature for a single station ought to be. That question is a non-ender, can never be finally answered, and we know that going into it. So why start it?
The questions BEST did answer obviously are answerable.
If someone were to solve the little proprietary intellectual property rights issue of the people holding out on weather station data, then the quality of the BEST figures would improve marginally. *shrug* Not economically worth it to pay that price financially, nor worth the delay of negotiating it, so why make a big deal out of something impractical?
You’re not going to shift the answers very much, and certainly not by enough to overthrow how Physics works. You can’t even get enough data to settle the least of the actually meaningful questions of Science with such an outraged approach toward people who won’t give away what they regard as theirs to you for free. So you feel entitled to it? What a surprise.
Pay for what you get, or do without. It’s called Capitalism, comrade.
barty, barty
You obviously did not read the Frank Lansner post for which I graciously provided a link. You have not addressed the issues that were the subject of my comment. And BEST could not even get published in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. So forgive me, if I don’t take your word that BEST clearly validated all the adjustments made on the same incomplete, unoriginal stepped on data that was produced by the consensus crowd. READ Frank Lansner’s post, before you continue to make a fool of yourself, barty.
Don Monfort | April 19, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
I don’t read most links you provide. If you can’t relate their contents in your comments, don’t expect me to feel compelled by your urgent assertions that it’s worth my while to click.
I’m sure Frank is a nice guy and all, but so far you just haven’t made the sale.
Come back when you’ve learned to WRITE HARDER.
barty, barty
Quickly barty, can you name the pay-for-play journal of last resort that published BEST, as the sole article in it’s inaugural addition, after BEST was rejected by your consensus pal-review journals? If someone referenced a paper that Spencer or Lindzen had published in that thing, you would laugh your head off. But you find it convenient to agree with Mosher for the first time, because BEST suits your purposes. And you will comment on it, but you ain’t gonna read Frank Lansner’s detailed and plausible critique of BEST and the other establishment temperature records, because it don’t suit your purposes. I bet you did read it, but you’ve got no comeback. Carry on with your foolishness, barty.
Seriously barty, if you really want to help the cause try to emulate Pekka. He doesn’t engage in petty foolishness.
“Otherwise simply means what would happen without human influences.”
It means you don’t know what happens without “human influences” (or with for that matter).
Neither does Mosher.
Andrew
You are being silly and trivial, andy. I don’t have any more time for you.
Don Monfort | April 19, 2014 at 8:40 pm |
Fallacious argument much?
If you want to recommend a reasoned argument, give the freaking reasoned argument, briefly, concisely and with clarity.
If you want to furnish pessimism that there could be anything worthwhile in any link you supply, continue to use fallacy and whinge uncharitably as if the world owed you your entitlements.
Now, that’s tricky. Let’s elaborate on it a bit.
1. One does want to predict future developments.
2. In that case there is no alternative to computer simulations.
3. There is no way to validate computer simulations.
4. Belief in a forecast from an unvalidated computer simulation is a matter of faith.
5. A prediction based on faith is called profecy.
Therefore, if one wants to predict future developments [of climate], divine inspiration is needed. Does not look like the scientific method, does it?
I think the situation is somewhat better than that though. One only needs to get rid of reductionist computational climate models, not of science itself.
True, the terrestrial climate system is too big to fit into the lab, but the general class it belongs to, that of irreproducible quasi stationary non equilibrium thermodynamic systems does have members that are realizable in an experimental setup. It means various systems can be run as many times as needed to validate their respective models. The situation is very different in case of climate, where we are dealing with a single run of a unique entity, belonging to a class with obscure theoretical status.
Once a general understanding is attained, we can return to the climate system with somewhat more confidence.
Gaia turns at 2:00 AM as the green phone rings.
==================
@kim
Do you mean this one?
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3wGUOprwE0?rel=0&w=640&h=360%5D
The quotes from James Lovelock are shameful. How that man can hold his head up and call himself a scientist or even a ‘thinker’ is beyond me. Anyone with the tiniest amount of scientific training and genuine curiosity immediately saw that the CO2 – temperature perfect relationship throws up far more questions than answers. To stand back now after a decade of reflection and state “we were all fooled” is a garbage. Yes, a lot of people were fooled but people like Lovelock should have known better. It just demonstrates how ordinary his thinking is. And his books are a load of crap as well.
Gaia resents that review, but giggles, too.
=====
Imrancan, you write “The quotes from James Lovelock are shameful.”
I think you do James Lovelock an injustice. Just about all the learned societies, and virtually the whole of academia, embraced the hoax of CAGW, and Lovelock went along. Now he has seen the error of his ways, has ‘fessed up, and acknowledged that he was wrong. That is the measure of a proper scientist.
What we are waiting for, is when the learned scientific societies, hopefully led by the APS, acknowledge the errors of their ways.
Jim … I don’t think I do Lovelock an injustice … He was wrong because he is not a very good scientist …. He should have been lot more sceptical. The fact that these other “learned societies” also went along and to their eternal shame denounced anyone who was sceptical is equally appalling. It just shows how far they all are from their supposed core beliefs and how little innovative and critical thinking is present. Lovelock is no exception. Intellectually deficient.
“Its arrogant to assume that climate will remain static.”
That misses the point. Negligently.
Left to nature there’s no reason to expect a deviation outside the climate of the last 10,000 years. Ie climate will just do for the next few 100 years what it’s done for the last 10,000.
Human greenhouse gas emissions alone bring the unique threat of destabilizing that holocene climate. It’s the only plausible mechanism by which climate slide outside the tried and tested holocene range.
Remember that a doubling of CO2 produces the largest known plausible radiative forcing known to science. Variations in natural forcings like the Sun etc are an order of magnitude smaller.
“…climate will just do for the next few 100 years what it’s done for the last 10,000.”
That means further declining from the Holocene peak into the next glacial period, with multi-centennial ups and downs. After the rise since the LIA, the next decline is due.
Human CO2 is irrelevant.
lolwot,
Why are you drawing a line at 10,000 years?
On what basis do you believe that the current climate regime will continue indefinately into the future?
Mr. Bengtsson agrees with many of us: climate models are not reliable. In fact, IPCC assessments are based in inappropriate science. I have sent my “Refuting …” document:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2TWRnRVhwSnNLc0k/
to Mr. Stoker and the leading authors of ch12.
I cannot understand why WGI AR5 ch12 authors proceed in that hilarious way, for example, in fig. 12.43.b. It is not an issue of being “just institutionalized”. I imagine myself being the leading author of ch12, and Pachauri tells me that I have to publish fig. 12.43.b and, instead, I prefer to resign. That simple.
Global Warming Poll – Equivocation
Surveying American Attitudes toward Climate Change
Contrast the IPCC use of “global warming” to mean that the majority of warming is due to human activity.
Judith,
Tamsin Edwards has a post from last month: Whether environmental modellers are wrong
http://blogs.plos.org/models/whether-environmental-modellers-are-wrong/
Here’s a snippet:
The authors make strong statements about political motivation of scientists. Does a partial assessment of uncertainty really indicate nefarious aims? Or might scientists be limited by resources (computing, person, or project time) or, admittedly less satisfactorily, statistical expertise or imagination (the infamous “unknown unknowns”)? In my experience modellers might already need tactful persuasion to detune carefully tuned models, and consequently increase uncertainty ranges; slinging accusations of motivation would not help this process. Far better to argue the benefits of uncertainty quantification. By showing that sensitivity analysis helps us understand complex models and highlight where effort should be concentrated, we can be motivated by better model development. And by showing where we have been ‘surprised’ by too small uncertainty ranges in the past, we can be motivated by the greater longevity of our results.
Judith Curry:
”Lennart Bengtsson:
‘In other words: global warming has not been a serious problem so far if we rely on observations. It is only a problem when we refer to climate simulations by computer models.’
My attention was piqued in particular by the participation of Michael McIntyre, who is likely to be the smartest guy in any room with climate scientists in it. The blurb for the debate is :
‘There is no question that CO2 levels are increasing due to human activity. But predicting the impact of this is less straightforward. Will our understanding of the world’s climate system remain mired in complexity until it is too late? Or is apocalyptic thinking confusing the science?’”
Judith Curry, I do not know, whether you have scrutinized yourself the view: ‘There is no question that CO2 levels are increasing due to human activity’. I have understood you prefer empiric observations to climate model simulation. On basis of that you should have qualifications for pragmatic logic to make understandable whether ‘CO2 levels are increasing due to human activity’ significantly or insignificantly. As far as I am aware the anthropogenic role of CO2 increase in atmosphere is insignificant.
You clearly know e.g. the views of Segalstad:
Tom V Segalstad says, http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_CO2-Science_090805.pdf : ”The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%).”
Tom V Segalstad; http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm : ”Carbon isotopic trends agree qualitatively with fossil fuel CO2 emissions like stated by IPCC, but show quantitatively a fossil fuel CO2 component of maximum 4 % versus the 21% claimed by IPCC.”
Salby’s claim, link http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions , agrees with Segalstad’s views above. In my comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 I have proved the real role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on the actual CO2 content in atmosphere, and the share of anthropogenic CO2 in the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere:
a) All CO2 emissions from CO2 sources to atmosphere, and all CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to CO2 sinks together determine the CO2 content in atmosphere: CO2 absortions to sinks, CO2 emissions from sources, and CO2 content in atmosphere are syncronized to get appropriate dynamic balance. As for instance the recent share of anthropogenic CO2 emission has been only about 4 % of the total CO2 emissions, the anthropogenic share of the recent CO2 content of about 395 ppm in atmosphere has been only 16 ppm at the most.
b) As the recent annual increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has been about 2 ppm, its anthropogenic share of only 4 % has been 0.08 ppm.
c) The recent increase of about 2 ppm CO2 in atmosphere has been dominated by warming of sea surfaces, especially on the areas where sea surface sinks of CO2 are. Even the anthropogenic share of 0.08 ppm is mainly controlled by the warming of sea surfaces. As the annual increase of anthropogenic CO2 emissions has been about 6 % at the most, that is to say about 0.5 GtC, that makes the mere annual increase of anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause only an increase of 0.005 ppm CO2 in atmosphere at the most..
Long term trends of CO2 content changes in atmosphere follow climate changes and not vice versa. This has been the average situation during last 100 million years; the same is related to to glacial and inter glacial periods; and especially during the last century the increase of CO2 content in atmosphere seems to be related to warming of sea surface on the areas where sea surface CO2 sinks are. The warming of these sea surface areas of CO2 sinks seems to be related to periods when El Niño events are dominating.
I think he got his OFA(l) talking points mixed in with his chakra algore talking points.
Good post. Thank you.
Lauri Heimonen,
from the link to Tom V. Segelstad: 13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC’s atmospheric residence time of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO2 mass) to fit its measured 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. This proves why IPCC’s wrong model creates its artificial 50% “missing sink”. IPCC’s 50% inexplicable “missing sink” of about 3 giga-tonnes carbon annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC’s model. When such rejection has not yet occurred, it beautifully shows the result of the “scare-them-to-death” influence principle.
Where in their writing do the IPCC describe that missing reservoir? I’m not disputing you, or him, but I would like a reference to add to my file.
Matthew R Marler:
”Lauri Heimonen, from the link to Tom V. Segelstad: 13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC’s atmospheric residence time of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO2 mass) to fit its measured 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. This proves why IPCC’s wrong model creates its artificial 50% “missing sink”. IPCC’s 50% inexplicable “missing sink” of about 3 giga-tonnes carbon annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC’s model. When such rejection has not yet occurred, it beautifully shows the result of the “scare-them-to-death” influence principle.
Where in their writing do the IPCC describe that missing reservoir? I’m not disputing you, or him, but I would like a reference to add to my file.”
I am sorry I don’t know any appropriate, straight reference of IPCC concerning the ‘inexplicable, missing sink’ of antropogenic CO2 emissions. There is no empiric evidence that could prove that the believed ‘missing reservoir’ would be right: a) as far as I am aware, on basis of inverse calculations of climate models, without any empiric basis, IPCC scientists assume that the increase of CO2 contentent in atmosphere during the industrialized period has been totally anthropogenic; b) during the same time the anthropogenic CO2 emissions to atmosphere have, however, been double what CO2 content has been increased in atmosphere; and c) that is why there has been assumed that 50 % of CO2 from the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are missing. All the problem is caused by the wrong assumption that increased CO2 content in atmosphere has been dominated by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. As results of pragmatic logic of Segalstad, Salby and mine have proved, the anthropogenic share of recent CO2 content in atmosphere has been only about 4 % at the most.
One have to understand the natural law according to which anthropogenic CO2 emissions to atmosphere behave identically with all other CO2 emissions to atmosphere. Any anthropogenic increase of CO2 emissions makes all the system of CO2 circulation be syncronized, where endeavours to increase CO2 content in atmosphere, to increase absortion of CO2 from atmosphere to sinks, and to decrease CO2 emissions from potential other sources to atmosphere (e.g. from sea surface sources) have influences on each others in order to reach a dynamic balance. This makes the mere anthropogenic share of increase of CO2 content in atmosphere be so minimal that it can not be empirically distinguished. The recent anthropogenic share of 4 % in atmospheric CO2 content has only been determined by lessening of CO2 absorption from atmosphere to CO2 sinks, which recently has been dominatingly caused by sea surface warming on the areas where sea surface sinks are.
Pingback: El “ateísmo climático” (© @ecogallego @Juliaenlaonda ) explicado por Lennart Bengtsson. Como para niños. | PlazaMoyua.com
Pingback: the Revision Division
“There is no alternative to such computer simulations if one wants to predict future developments. However, since there is no way to validate them”
—
It’s all about radiative imbalance due to changing levels of CO2 isn’t it?
So why is it that we don’t just measure the energy radiating into the earth system, the energy radiating out of the earth system, and compare the difference between them to the concentration of CO2? The two will either move together or they won’t. And if they do move together, we’ll also know how much extra energy is entering the system, and so be able to say how much temperatures will rise.
A ten-year old could understand this, so what is the hold-up? Technical difficulties ?
Yup, and yup. Though the fog clears.
=========
Handel,
One word response is all that’s required – feedback.
tim,
In what way do feedbacks cloud ( :-) ) the simple issue of measuring and comparing radiation in and out ?
Handel,
Albedo, for one. If I understand the issue properly, Clouds are involved in multiple feedback mechanisms. The water vapor acts to capture lwr. But clouds also change the planet’s albedo, reflecting more swr back into space. One of the big unknowns is how this all sums out. We don’t really know if clouds represent an overall positive, negative or neutral feedback. If anyone tells we do, be careful of what else they tell you.
Personally, I’d go with slightly negative. I believe clouds act far more as a control knob to planetary climate than CO2.
“So why is it that we don’t just measure the energy radiating into the earth system, the energy radiating out of the earth system, and compare the difference between them to the concentration of CO2? ”
The satellite data does not go back very far and what we have has pretty large uncertainties.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/01/23/3412428.htm
So why is it that we don’t just measure the energy radiating into the earth system, the energy radiating out of the earth system, and compare the difference between them to the concentration of CO2?
timg56
Albedo, for one.
I still don’t see why albedo necessarily upsets the notion of comparing incoming an outgoing radiation – albedo is just part of the latter, surely?
RobertInAz
The satellite data does not go back very far and what we have has pretty large uncertainties.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/01/23/3412428.htm
OK – so technical difficulties then.
Which is why we are reduced to using very indirect methods – models, trying to measure the temperature of the atmosphere, oceans, land, etc. Which could well be varying for reasons other than a radiative imbalance.
The post is excellent. Thanks for this.
This focus on CO2 is really a red herring. It has nothing whatever to do with climate except as a marker of change. It is a result, not a cause. For most of earth’s history CO2 has been MUCH higher than it is now. In fact, CO2 is almost at an historic low point right now. CO2 has been many TIMES higher than now in ice ages, and slightly lower than now in the past as well. What is clear is that when CO2 is higher, plants grow better. In fact, CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to increase yield. (to a level of about 1000 ppm.) Because plants grow better with increased CO2, it can be said that plants are CO2 starved right now – plant growth is held back by the present low level of atmospheric CO2.
Lastly, people live in every climate on earth, save Antarctica. Regardless of how climate changes, people will live in the slightly modified climate just fine. They always have, except when ice ages drive people out of their habitat. That is the thing to be afraid of.
John
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
“It was a mistake we all made.”
Well some of us didn’t make this mistake, mainly because we had seen this oversimplification, overextrapolation and overhype many times before. Notwithstanding that there was never any explanation for cooling cycles in these ice core measurements beyond solar-forcing or the implausible appearance of a regular, unidentified, sudden and massive carbon sink. In short, they only ever had half a theory in the first place!
Of course if alternative energy breakthroughs come out of this then it will be a net good but it would have been much nicer if this ‘sustainability’ drive was done for it’s own sake and in an economically consistent manner, not by scare strories. The danger now is that the legitimate alternative energy ideas will just collapse along with the boondoggles.
At some point they might even realise that Mauna Loa data is highly suspect too – on the simple skeptical bases that a) it looks to darn neat for nature, and b) picking/rejecting data is far too open to confirmation bias – which we know is rife in science. The better way to do it is the established one of keeping all the data, finding a gaussian and drawing a line at the 5% mark. Having seen actual raw CO2 data in desert locations (where minimum levels doesn’t seem to rise and variance is utterly massive), I don’t believe that squiggly line for a second.
Ditto James. I too have seen how the atmospheric CO2 numbers jump around all over the place and wonder about the official record.
Pingback: Rapports du GIEC:Les seniors sortent de leur réserve :: RESILIENCETV