Dr. Koonin, do you have any thoughts you’re willing to share about the APS draft climate change statement ?
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by HaroldW
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Danny Thomas
Capt. D,
And this. Canada exports to US, US exports to China. Finding a low emission use for this byproduct would work wonders. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/business/energy-environment/mountain-of-petroleum-coke-from-oil-sands-rises-in-detroit.html?_r=0
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by daveandrews723
“Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole.” How do you read that any other way?
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by RiHo08
“…if the anthropogenic perturbation weren’t small, the detection/attribution discussion would be much more convincing than it is.”
I kinda like what this Koonin guy has to say. It fits with my own personal bias regarding the trace gas radiative transfer model, biases which I have acquired from my own experiences in other areas of science.
Just sayin’.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Danny Thomas
HaroldW,
Hope you get a response, but there is this on pg. 6 of the annotated WSJ article cited.
“Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about “believing” or “denying” the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity’s deepest goals and values.”
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Don Monfort
Why don’t you try to line your misrepresentation of the actual quote with the actual quote. See if it makes sense. then. If it doesn’t, you might consider spending your time on a food blog.
“So, there could be “serious consequences” but they will be “small.””
“Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole.”
Think hard.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by MikeR
“Except Rosner is an astrophysicist and Koonin is a nuclear physics theoretician, who also happened to be chief scientist at BP for a while. Neither is an expert on climate physics.” That’s backwards. We already know that a whole bunch of climate modelers think such-and-such. The question is, Does the APS agree with them? Do you think they are supposed to just take their word for it? If so, what would be the point or the value of any statement they would make? If they want to make a real statement, they need to audit the science of the neighboring field and verify that it meets their standards. The way to answer it is, bring in experts from outside the field. Steve Koonin is one of the biggest experts around in those kinds of techniques.
Telling me that he’s not a climate expert is tantamount to saying, We in the field trust the work, but it isn’t good enough that real physicists should respect it.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Jim D
Steyer does see the science as settled enough to act on it, and so do many. This is why he puts his money on the policies that stem from it. You have to understand that these people and most of the public don’t see any contenders to emitted CO2 doing this to the climate. The skeptics have made a very poor case for an alternative, especially as they don’t even agree with each other on one, which is why CO2 is so far out in the lead and pulling away at this point.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Szilard
daveandrews723:
As I read it, “they” refers to “human influences”, not “serious consequences”.
Say you believed “human influences” were going to increase avg surface temps by 10 deg C. That’s less than 5% of the current ~288K avg, so arguably “small”, mathematically. But surely with “serious consequences” for the climate as we experience it.
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by beththeserf
An old one but a good one.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Doug Badgero
This in a system where the short term response is more dependent on its position on the attractor than on a percentish change in forcing.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
Steyer is in no position to state that the science is settled. Even I can see it’s not, Dr. Koonin says not:”The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions what we need to have about our climate future.”, Dr. Curry says not.
Steyer is a politician: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer
“Steyer sold his ownership stake in Farallon, but still owns an investment, although his aides said he no longer earns profits. Some of the coal mines and coal power plants they invested in will continue to operate for as much as 30 years. For example, Farallon made tens of millions of dollars from developing the Maules Creek coal mine in Australia, which is opposed by environmentalists.”
His hands are no more clean than Koch. He’s a political backer with an agenda.
Exxon has invested billions in LNG. Shell did this today: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/business/dealbook/royal-dutch-shell-bg-group.html
So they’re in the process of changing their zebra stripes. You gonna stand up for them too?
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by jim2
Michael Mann, the Paleo “expert” according to ATTP, has a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics.
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Jim D
Paleoclimate tells us that the system is that delicate. Subtract 5 W/m2 and you get a deep ice age or even approach a snowball earth, while when you add 5 W/m2 you get an iceless hothouse with sea levels 70 meters higher.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by michael hart
lol. Koonan the Librarian?
—————
It’s a nice clear, simple, article.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Danny, If you happen to get insomnia this appears to be the latest draft for the G-P waste water treatment permit.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/northeast/Current-Topics/pdf/GP/2012/Draft_Permit-Georgia_Pacific.pdf
I am not sure how close to “state of the art” that is, but it would be a big improvement over twenty years ago. Rice Creek btw is part of the state park system and the Florida “green way” animal corridor system aka the Florida Trail.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Danny Thomas
Thanks Capt. I’ll add it to my list. Koch has a lot of work to do IMO. Hope this is on the pathway.
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Turbulent Eddie
So, the radiative forcing of CO2 ( plus feedback ) is small compared to natural variation.
The presumed temperature change is small compared to synoptic variation ( cold fronts, ridges, and the like ), not to mention diurnal and seasonal variation.
And the observations of temperature rise are less than the low end projections. They should be, because the actual forcing imposed has been less than the low end projection:
Smallness indeed.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Jim D
Danny, you are telling people that they can’t judge for themselves what the science is saying. This is like Judith telling the APS that they can’t judge the science for themselves. Science is a judgement call, and everyone is entitled to their opinion based on the weight of evidence that they have seen.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by jim2
Ah, but Steve K. Mosher and company can measure global temp to 1/100th of a degree. So, yes, our contribution is small, but BEST can definitely measure the global temperature of the Earth using thermometers that are widely scattered, read at different times of day, moved around, and weren’t really accurate to +/- 1 or 2 degrees to 1/100th of a degree. Of course they can.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
