1. Invention is also a major adaptation technique. Don’t like the mountain in your way? Blow it up with dynamite :)
2. If you think you know what we will need in fifty years, it’s you who are “naive to say the least.”
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by opluso
SL:
It would be helpful for the slow student in the back of the class (me) if you could point to the mechanism that enables your closely calibrated duo (effective climate sensitivity and GHG forcing) to produce a future equilibrium climate sensitivity that is significantly warmer than immediate observations.
As I quoted from the IPCC TAR earlier:
The effective sensitivity becomes the equilibrium sensitivity under equilibrium conditions with 2xCO2 forcing. The effective climate sensitivity is a measure of the strength of the feedbacks at a particular time and it may vary with forcing history and climate state.
Since you are charting the course of effective climate sensitivity (that is, the strength of feedbacks under current forcing), I was left wondering if you could have any “hidden heat” leftover in your model.
Most point to the thermal inertia of the Oceanic Mixed Layer as the source for ECS being significantly higher than TCR (or even effective climate sensitivity). VP did so in his original post, above. But I’m left wondering what is “charging” the thermal capacity of the mixed layer if, as your work demonstrates, the atmospheric mixed layer is apparently expressing the full effect of the GHG forcing?
I note that Boris Sherstyukov has developed an index which suggests atmospheric warming of the latter 20th century was due to the lack of corresponding warming in the mixed layer. http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2013/EGU2013-2822.pdf
If true, or if thermal inertia acts fairly rapidly on the atmosphere, it would seem to make your approach’s effective sensitivity quite close to equilibrium sensitivity. That is why I am interested to learn whether you rely on anything other than thermal inertia of the mixed layer to support a significantly higher equilibrium estimate.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to engage with others to discuss your work.
Kent
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by ristvan
Judith would perhaps know more. It appears his committee came in with some preliminary negative conclusions, so was shut down by the powers that be. Which then initiated his previous NYT post, also highlighted by Judith.
The initial idea was to examine the CAGW basis using APU standards, to see whether IPCC held up. Remenber a couple of very famous APS Nobel prize winners had already resigned over this ‘simple’ evidentiary issue.
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by john321s
There is much miscomprehension of stochastic oscillations evident in the cited exchange:
“VP: But after that, the putative “oscillation” seems to die down.
SL: This indeed confirms that it is not really an oscillation at all but rather an expression of low frequency natural variability (i.e. due to internal dynamics and the response to volcanic, solar and other natural causes). Indeed, as shown in L3, these residuals can in fact be forecast (hindcast) nearly as well as theoretically possible under the assumption that the spectrum is indeed a power law. The physics behind the power laws is simply that the dynamics have no characteristic time scale over a wide range: they create fluctuations at all scales (they are fractal).”
Waxing and waning of oscillations is a very common feature of geophysical signals, widely evident, e.g., in the behavior of ocean swell. Such “grouping” is simply the manifestation of bandwidth of the continuous spectrum characterizing the random.
The presumption that the spectral density of surface temperature is governed by a power law, while analytically expedient, is physically unjustified. In fact, power spectrum analysis of GISP2 Holocene data clearly shows significant spectral peaks of various bandwidths, not only at multidecadal , but also at multi-centennial and quasi-millennial time-scales. That is not fractal behavior!
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by justinwonder
SS,
“justinwonder — Will you ever come up with a germane technical engineering question that one can respond to?
You’re not a serious player on this blog — just serious in sophomoric bloviation.”
I can smell your desperation from here. For a long time you have pitched the renewables game and now you have added the fist mitigation meme.
As for engineering questions, I doubt you would understand them. IAC, you still owe me the answers to some questions:
1. What is 2×7%? Hint: it’s double the current “penetration” of renewables.
2. Do carbon credits, carbon trading, etc. help you sell your trees?
Every time you post on JC’s blog you get pounded, as you should. Please do look up the meaning of “rope a dope”.
↧
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by justinwonder
+1
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by john321s
The next-to-last paragraph in my comment should end with the phrase “random waves.”
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by Mark Silbert
Yeah! Total coverup BS makes me want to puke!
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by justinwonder
Don Monfort
“We should invest a ton more in Tesla. They got that battery wall thing going and they are only losing about $20,000 per car sold. They are pretty cars. Many of my neighbors have them. They use them on short guilt trips and when the Rovers and Escalades are in the shop getting serviced.”
Your post is so funny it should be posted twice, so I posted it! :)
↧
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by rebelronin
Mask?
“He underscores the futility of changing the climate by CO2 emissions reductions”
doesn’t matter because their is another purpose
Bill Gates recently provided hints
the minions of the court bicker over meaningless detail
while princes plot power
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by Jim D
As I mentioned above, we tend to invent ways out of problems. In this case mitigation rather than adaptation will be the optimal path of invention because that offers permanent solutions rather than temporary patches. Some have trouble realizing the economies offered by this route.
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by Vaughan Pratt
@opluso: are you suggesting that the 30 year mean monthly climatology standard is inadequate for policy purposes?
That would be a great question except for its premise. In the Glossary on page 1450 of AR5 WG1, the entry for climate reads as follows.
Climate Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.
I don’t know when the WMO ever said that, but if they say it today they probably use the IPCC statement above as their (circular) source! (The IPCC was founded by the WMO.)
For the purpose of estimating 60-year climate 85 years into the future, I would say 60-year climate based on 165 years of data (HadCRUT4 is for 1850-2015) should be sufficient for many policy purposes concerning 2100, assuming CO2 continues to track RCP8.5 (“business as usual”). If it doesn’t then a decent projection would need a more complex model.
However many policy makers may need nearer-term forecasts, say for 2030. They might well prefer to know the average over 2020-2040.
That too can be arranged but it takes a slightly more complex model than just rising GHGs. While I could write about that too here it’s really beyond the scope of this post since SL did not propose any model more complex than the naive one of just rising CO2. For 20-year climate one needs more than just CO2, which I view as reliable mainly for 60-year climate within a few decades of 2100.
For say 2030 one would prefer to know the increase between 2015 and 2030, which 60-year climate obviously isn’t going to give since it tells nothing about 15-year trends.
And for 2200 recent 60-year climate may well be insufficient because (as an imprecise rule of thumb) 160 years is insufficient for forecasting 185 years hence, quite apart from the uncertainties about future CO2.
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by Mark Silbert
We’re all paying. If it were just a few thousand margaritas I wouldn’t mind, but it’s oh so much more.
↧
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by Stephen Segrest
Justinwonder — Have you ever taken an engineering course involving electricity generation or engineering economics? Without Googling do you know what integrated resource planning is? Have you ever run an integrated planning model (such as GE has)? Many U.S. Utilities use software I wrote, called PROVAL (project evaluation model) on levelized revenue requirements. Have you ever used it?
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by Don Monfort
Why you acting all mad, hockeyputz? Still ain’t got the memo? HQ told us to fold our act and move on. Nobody here is going to fall for this lame skydragoon crap. Let’s see if we can weasel our way into the well-funded alarmist camp. I’m tired of eating pork&beans and ramen. I was supposed to get a replacement for my broken left flip-flop six weeks ago and I am still having to alternate. I just ain’t as dedicated as you are.
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by PA
This is a misstatement of the situation.
1. 400 PPM CO2 is perfectly fine. We don’t need (and don’t ever want) the CO2 level to go lower. Only crazy people talk about returning to 280 PPM.
2. The CO2 ocean/land absorption is about 5.7 GT/Y. Just multiply 0.047 * (Xco2-280) to determine the absorption from the atmospheric CO2 level.
3. At 500 PPM the absorption will be 10.4 GT/Y. At the current emissions level we will never hit 500 PPM.
500 – 400 = 100 PPM.(net desired change in CO2)
100 * 2 / (10.4 + 5.7) = 12.4 years. (change divided by average absorption)
If the mean lifetime of the excess is 12.4 years – why bother with removal technology?
The sweet spot in the CO2 picture is to motor up to 500 PPM at which point we will be beyond 2030 and China will be running out of coal, have its nuclear generators online, and cutting emissions, . Emissions will drop to the absorption level (10.4 GT/Y) or below. This is the “don’t do anything let nature take its course” approach.
At that point where emissions match absorption we don’t need to anything but kick back and watch the plants grow.
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by Don Monfort
Thanks, justin. Just reporting what I see, in a target rich environment.
↧
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by jim2
“Koonin presumes here that emissions are somehow ‘inevitable’. ”
He’s right. Humans will burn fossil fuels to stay alive and live the good life.
“A non-linear response does not negate the fact that the effects of CO2 emissions are cumulative.”
He is right. You are wrong. Whatever effect there might be is log[CO2]
“Using Koonin’s reasoning, we could claim that it’s futile to give people courses of vaccines for preventable diseases because the effect of subsequent doses is less than the first.”
I recognize this logical fallacy. Reasoning by id-eo-C.
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by matthewrmarler
PA: The sweet spot in the CO2 picture is to motor up to 500 PPM at which point we will be beyond 2030 and China will be running out of coal, have its nuclear generators online, and cutting emissions, . Emissions will drop to the absorption level (10.4 GT/Y) or below. This is the “don’t do anything let nature take its course” approach.
where do the 5.4 GT/Y and 10.7 GT/Y absorption figures come from?
I think you make a better case than the alarmists have made (Hansen, Ehrlich, Holdren, IPCC writers of summaries for policy makers, Trenberth, etc, AAAS officials who keep asking me for money).
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by Vaughan Pratt
Incidentally there is one modern climatology concept that does take 20-year climate as a standard. This is Transient Climate Response, TCR, which is defined as the rise in 20-year climate over 70 years of a sustained CO2 CAGR of 1%. Assuming RCP8.5, 20-year climate from 2010 to 2080 is a fair approximation to this because RPC8.5 CO2 is 508.43 ppmv in 2044 (my 100th birthday!) and 513.45 ppmv in 2045, a rise of 1%.
Observed CS this century should be less than TCR because the lower rate of rising CO2 (CAGR of about 0.25% in 1960 and 0.5% today) gives the ocean more time to absorb the Planck feedback resulting from the increasing thermal insulation of CO2. (I forget: did SL compare 20th century observed CS with TCR?)
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
