Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by A fan of *MORE* discourse

March 13, 2015, 11:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by GarryD

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by curryja

$

0

0

“Wicked problems” versus “wicked governance”:
historical perspectives on climate-change
science and climate-change policy

Looking back in history, it is striking how often “wicked governance” has sought to disguise itself behind “wicked technical problems”

COUNTDOWN
(14)  anthropogenic climate-change
(13)  regulated health-care
(12)  ozone-layer depletion
(11)  persistent pesticide toxicity
(10)  tobacco-cancer association
(09)  equal rights amendment
(08)  social security
(07)  votes for women
(06)  public sanitation
(05)  public education
(04)  freedom of religion
(03)  freedom of the press
(02)  rule of democracy
(01)  equality under the law

Observation I  NONE of these moral reforms have ever been unwound by modern democratic societies.

Observation II  ALL of these moral reforms were opposed by the faux-conservatives of their era.

Observation III  INCREASINGLY in the modern era, these reforms are grounded *EQUALLY* in science and morality.

Conclusion  Modern “wicked” governance is grounded equally in futile opposition to scientific advances, futile opposition to progressive education, *AND* futile opposition to moral reform.

Nowadays, the bankruptcy of “wicked” governance is increasingly evident to pretty much *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?

Where will humanity’s journey of transcending “wicked” governance carry us?

Even FOMD doesn’t know!

---

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by GarryD

March 13, 2015, 11:16 am

≫ Next: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Danny Thomas

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$

0

0

TTP,
He seems to be making a reasonable point, “Many environmentalists proclaim that climate change in coming decades is the central issue of the 21st century. I question this proclamation, not so as to dismiss the potentially destructive and/or expensive consequences of climate change, but rather to call to mind enormous problems currently facing humankind and the biosphere on which we all depend”.

The CAGW claims since late 80’s have not materialized. Zimmerman is is logically taking an objective assessment of reality. He never says, ecologist’s should stop considering ecological remediation’s because it is obvious that this type of planning benefits the planet. The question is can we weight the remediation’s in such a biased political environment.

Maybe there is no choice to working in the latter political environment but as Dr. Curry has noted on numerous occasions “climate science is complicated” and the alternatives of choice are nearly limitless unless you ask each nation to mandate birth control. The plethora of scientific opinions and papers trying to explain the climate observations of the last 15 years validates her warning on the climate side?

Zimmerman’s positions are reasonable to the extreme.

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Danny Thomas

March 14, 2015, 10:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Chic Bowdrie

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by GarryD

$

0

0

ATTP,
Pardon the interruption of your discussion w/Joshua, but re:”Water is largely incompressible” then how can we be discussing the “thermal expansion” as a portion of SLR? If one removed heat, would not the water then re-compress? (I don’t speak physics so write slowly, please) (Actually, while thinking about this I normally equate an increase in temps due to compression……..)
“But, squeeze hard enough and water will compress—shrink in size and become more dense … but not by very much. Envision the water a mile deep in the ocean. At that depth, the weight of the water above, pushing downwards, is about 150 times normal atmospheric pressure (Ask the Van). Even with this much pressure, water only compresses less than one percent.” http://water.usgs.gov/edu/compressibility.html
(While I don’t profess to understand the entireties, it helps me to chew on the smaller pieces. And I did note you stated “largely” uncompressable)

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Chic Bowdrie

March 14, 2015, 10:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by ...and Then There's Physics

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Danny Thomas

$

0

0

ATTP,

That the total energy of the planet has increased is a supposition that makes your argument circular. Don’t you and your sources assume total ocean heat content has increased, despite measuring capacity beyond our present means? If the deep ocean was warmer hundreds of years ago, is it unreasonable to imagine that some amount of that heat contributed to recent surface warming through redistribution resulting in a colder deep ocean and net heat transfer towards the surface?

If the net ocean heat content is immeasurably changed and the atmospheric changes are minuscule in comparison, where is the significant energy imbalance?

I cited two papers that support my case. Where is your evidence?

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by ...and Then There's Physics

March 14, 2015, 10:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Chic Bowdrie

$

0

0

Danny,
Well, there is slight difference between thermal expansion and compression. Water is largely incompressible, but it does expand if heated. All I was reallt getting at there was that there are two ways in which energy could come from the deep ocean to the surface. One is simply the actual movement of the water itself. However, since 1 cubic metre of water in the deep ocean carries less energy than 1 cubic metre at the surface, if you replaced surface water with water from the deep ocean it would actually cool the surface. The other way to transfer energy would be via diffusion (conduction) but this can’t bring energy from the deep because you can’t transfer energy in this way beause it would violate the second law of thermodyamics.

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Jim D

March 14, 2015, 10:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by ...and Then There's Physics

$

0

0

The Liang paper says that the ocean has motions with time scales of hundreds of years and was not in a steady state even prior to global warming. The fact that the deep ocean may be cooling is part of longer term trends on those time scales. None of this opposes the rather significant increase of ocean heat content in the whole ocean, which has to come from external sources.

Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher

March 14, 2015, 10:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Doug Proctor

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Jim D

$

0

0

Paul.

Its simple. Send a mail to know serial killers.
include Micheal Mann on the list a people who get the mail

Then you can say Mann’s name was among numerous serial killers who got the mail.

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Doug Proctor

March 14, 2015, 10:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Curious George

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

If stepping outside one’s ideological box is a necessary part of solving the climate “problem”, I ask for examples where such a thing may be found for review.

I am not being cynical here. Pragmatic. We need to understand how to achieve this. The eco-green seem to have the same limitation as the Christian, right-wing “denier”. Have we evolved socially enough to do this as a group? Is this failure not why we rely on regulatory coercion even for the most banal of things?

I think a new ideology allows new behavior. We are stuck inside boxes; we have to change box culture before we can expect behavior “outside the (old) box”.

The first requirement better be unnecessary, something to develop along the way as “success” becomes obvious. A collateral result, not a necessary precondition.

---

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Curious George

March 14, 2015, 10:22 am

≫ Next: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by ...and Then There's Physics

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Doug Proctor

$

0

0

Peter, my apology. A basic misunderstanding. For me, cumulative emissions are 2015 emissions plus 2014 emissions plus 2013 emissions and so on. I did not realize that all that fuss was just an analysis of 2013 emissions.

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by ...and Then There's Physics

March 14, 2015, 10:23 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by GaryM

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Curious George

$

0

0

Chic, <blockquote> That the total energy of the planet has increased is a supposition that makes your argument circular. Don’t you and your sources assume total ocean heat content has increased, despite measuring capacity beyond our present means? </blockquote> No. <blockquote> If the deep ocean was warmer hundreds of years ago, is it unreasonable to imagine that some amount of that heat contributed to recent surface warming through redistribution resulting in a colder deep ocean and net heat transfer towards the surface? </blockquote> No, because even if it were warmer in the past, it could never have been warm enough to have allowed for net energy transfer from the deep to the surface. <blockquote> I cited two papers that support my case. Where is your evidence? </blockquote> No, you cited one that I can't find and one that supports what I've been saying.

Comment on Week in review by GaryM

March 14, 2015, 10:29 am

≫ Next: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by ...and Then There's Physics

$

0

0

Kim,

Not surprisingly, I have an opinion on why people can take their revelations so far. Most people who are pro global decarbonization at any point are progressives who believe central planning is fundamentally better than a free market. The ‘elite’ should run the economy (or design the social structure0 because they are innately superior to the stupid voters,

But they believe this only because that is all they have ever been taught, and all they have ever heard from their friends, family and colleagues. Default progressives is my term for them.

They know what they know, and they know they are right, but they can’t articulate the underlying philosophy that leads them there, because they have never been taught that either. Theirs is a world of assumption, based on their acceptance of appeals to authority. They also cannot defend their belief system, for the same reason – so they avoid debate like the plague.

Once they get a glimmer of the way a given progressive policy is a house of cards, ala CAGW, they have a choice: look for the same tactics and weaknesses underlying the rest of their system of belief; or ignore what they have seen, and scurry back to safe belief in the ‘authorities’ they have followed their entire lives. When your sense of self is based on belonging to a self-described elite, can you really risk looking too closely into the rationality of their arguments?

Mosher, Keith Kloor, and for a long time Dr. Curry fit into this pattern. Dr. Curry seems to be moving beyond it, at least in the area of ‘climate science’. The others just surrender their intellectual independence (again) and re-join the tribe.

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Joshua

March 14, 2015, 10:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by GaryM

$

0

0

JimD –

So if I understand, it would be fallacious argue that Liang et al. “suggest” that “deep ocean” could explain recent surface warming in the context/time scale of AGW?

Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

March 14, 2015, 10:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Joshua

$

0

0

So, the regarded authority of ‘climate change’ is the IPCC.
The IPCC is part of the UN Environemental Program.
The UNEP was formed by Maurice Strong.
Maurice Strong was a fervent socialist and member of the Club of Rome.
The Club of Rome believe population was the root problem.
The Club of Rome believed they could use global warming to further an agenda:

“It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.
New enemies therefore have to be identified. New strategies imagined, new weapons devised. The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

I am struck by three things.

1.) Global warming can be both real ( warming ) and a hoax ( of exaggeration of harms and impacts as outlined in the plan ).

2.) It is not surprising that there is a yawning political divide of opinion if indeed the campaign was from political origin. And pay for hypothesis science is at work in the IPCC.

3.) If the goal really was to reduce population growth ( through CO2 reduction ), the utter failure of ideology – it is the capitalist developed economies that have falling populations and reduced CO2 emissions ( as if emissions mattered ). It is the ( necessarily ) socialist undeveloped third world that still has rapid population growth. The ideas were wrong both economically and scientifically.

Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

March 14, 2015, 10:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by tonyb

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

$

0

0

Even with flat emissions, CO2 levels will keep rising– they just might not rise as fast. Carbon sinks are still not able to keep up with the current rate of emissions. Only with declining emissions (or active carbon sequestration) will atmospheric CO2 levels eventually start to decline.

You are confusing rate and rate of change.

If emission rates were at the ‘removal rate’, then CO2 would not accumulate and no further ( theoretical ) forcing would be imposed.

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by tonyb

March 14, 2015, 10:35 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

$

0

0

Danny

You said this in response to a comment by Mosh, who gave misleading information on my CET temperature reconstruction.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/12/adaptive-problem-solving-integral-approaches-to-climate-change/#comment-683349

If you want the background please met me know by responding at the foot of this thread. Then keep an eye on it for my response as there will be a number of links that will need to be moderated which might take some time. Hopefully Mosh will read it as well

tonyb

---

Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

March 14, 2015, 10:37 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by tonyb

$

0

0

Carbon sinks are still not able to keep up with the current rate of emissions.

Wrong.

Removal rates increase as the absolute amount of CO2 increases:

CFCs are a tracer in the deep ocean from deep water formation at the poles – why would you think CO2 is not going where CFS are going?

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

March 14, 2015, 10:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

$

0

0

mosher –

So you think it was kind of black flag operation? In other words, Singer doesn’t really consider Judith to be a tribal ally, but instead, actually the idea was to include her name on the letter and then deliberately “leak” the letter (making it seem unintentional, of course) so that “realists” would be tricked into making libelous claims?

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Jim D

March 14, 2015, 10:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on The albedo of Earth by c1ue

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Joshua

$

0

0

Yes, that is not what they claim. Their claim is that the deep ocean may still be cooling due to long-term circulations. Nothing about missing heat there despite the lead-in here, and Tisdale made a hash of misrepresenting the paper at WUWT too.

Comment on The albedo of Earth by c1ue

March 14, 2015, 10:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Jim D

$

0

0

I won’t proclaim to be an expert on Kalman filters, but I do employ them for 3D point cloud work. A Kalman filter is nothing more than an estimation circuit by which noisy output can be converted into some form of pre-determined buckets. As such, while it can produce all manner of data, it does not fix the sampling problem if the sample data does not in fact contain sufficient information for a given phenomenon.
Thus your commentary on Kalman filters seems nonsensical: you seem to be saying that every possible variant on cell behavior is in fact measured – which cannot possibly be true. What you’re really saying is that all possible variations in cell behavior are completely modeled via a Kalman filter – this is theoretically possible but is not in fact provable to be accurate/true unless you test over the entire range of possible inputs and outputs.
As I noted above, a full exploration of behavior space is possible with semiconductor electrical circuits – I do not see how this can be possible with climate or weather.
Care to explain further?

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

March 14, 2015, 10:46 am

≫ Next: Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by tonyb

≪ Previous: Comment on The albedo of Earth by c1ue

$

0

0

If only some day those elitist “progressives” could wake up and pay attention to Gary’s understanding of how they think, how they were educated, etc.

But being such poorly educated elitists, they don’t have the capacity for understanding Gary’s humble, yet superior insights into why they think the way they do.