Scientific prediction: There’s going to a thread on Urban Heat Dragons, or perhaps a series thereof, just like Sky Dragons.
Just wait and see.
Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by AK
↧
↧
Comment on Laframboise on the IPCC by Holly Stick
ve there are various greenhouse gases including CO2 and methane. Methane, I think, does nto last in the atmosphere for that long, so it is less of a problem, though it still can be one. CO2 lasts for a long time, so what CO2 we are emitting now will continue to cause warming for a long time.
A new study says we could see a 2 degrees rise in some parts of the world in our lifetime, maybe even by 2030:
Expect more deadly heat waves and more drought. I have seen some suggestions that Texas is likely to go into a permanent drought.
↧
Comment on Changing minds by gbaikie
@Fred Moolten…
I am surprised that no one ever considers “space development” as
one solution.
It’s pro-growth, pro-technology. All major nations are already engaged to some extent. Our current use of Space is immeasurably important- everything you do is connected/dependent on this activity continuing.
Everyone “knows” it’s the future.
But you all when discussing the future you don’t even consider “space development”. Further progress in space, could lead to only known way to completely control climate or weather
Which doesn’t mean I am suggesting “space weather control” be some plan, but rather it could lead to this. It’s like at the time of early airplanes and mentioning that some day you could fly around the world.
↧
Comment on IPCC and traceability by Ron Cram
steven,
When you say Pat gets this wildly wrong, are you saying that uncertainty does not grow over time? If so, does that mean a prediction 100 years into the future can be expected to have the same precision as a prediction 5 days into the future?
I am really quite to hear you explain how Pat has this wildly wrong.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by Fred Moolten
One way to think of this in terms of what might be happening on a general rather than exclusively urban scale is to recognize that “land use changes” have been judged to play a significant, albeit minor, role in the temperature trends of the past century. If both urban and rural areas are becoming warmer beyond the effects of CO2 or other climate forcing agents because fields are being replaced by asphalt and buildings, that is a real effect, and anthropogenic in a different manner from the effect of ghgs.
↧
↧
Comment on Changing minds by AK
Yeah, orbit a bunch of solar-powered steerable mirrors in NEO that could deflect sunlight away from certain areas, or capture sunlight that would otherwise go on by and send it somewhere…
If we had a somewhat mature science(s) of weather and climate.
↧
Comment on Laframboise on the IPCC by DaveR
You are going to have to point out which one is specifically about “carbon emissions” because I can’t find it.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by Fred Moolten
That’s up to Dr. Curry. Perhaps she’ll be guided by her success in conclusively putting to rest the Sky Dragon philosophy.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by AK
But it's <b>local</b> and an <b>artifact</b> WRT global average temperature.
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by AK
It was a prediction, not a suggestion (much less a request). But in addition to whether or not the sky dragon threads ever shut down debates about the basic GH effect, there’s also the fact that they’ve pretty much removed them as spam from other threads, haven’t they?
↧
Comment on Changing minds by gbaikie
“If we had a somewhat mature science(s) of weather and climate.”
Hopeful we will make some progress by then.
I near terms and some people living on the Moon and Mars, etc,
you will need to understand some of it a bit better. One will want to
make greenhouse and build a full ecology- and work out all the problems to make that work.
↧
Comment on Changing minds by Holly Stick
New papers about warming, up 2 degrees C in some areas by 2030, in many areas by 2060. We are running out of time to work on avoiding serious consequences.:
↧
Comment on Laframboise on the IPCC by sinchiroca
Sorry, I screwed up; the correct search phrase is “carbon dioxide”.
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC and traceability by Brian H
Actually, this is all good. JC has managed to get them to “engage” on the issue. Since the circular logic of using in-house expert opinion to validate expert opinion will inevitably be exposed, it’s a significant step in deconstruction of the IPCC house of cards.
↧
Comment on Changing minds by Fred Moolten
AK - the "drawdown problem" has been under investigation for a long time, as evidenced by this not very recent article by <a href="http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Klaus Lackner</a> but there's room for a newcomer to join the effort.
↧
Comment on Defending the Uncertainty Monster paper by Pekka Pirilä
AK wrote higheer up in this thread:
<blockquote>
The deceptiveness isn’t quite what is at issue here, rather it’s that WG1 has failed to document any sort of audit trail between the 10% significance in Figure 9.4/9.7 and the 90% confidence of their attribution. No explanation why the attribution confidence isn’t smaller than 10% (no matter how confident they were otherwise), nothing to stop me (or any other observer) from thinking that somebody looked at Figure 9.5, nodded their head(s), and forgot all about the error levels in Figure 9.7. (And don’t tell me 10% significance and 90% confidence is comparing apples and oranges, show it to me in the text of AR4. We’re talking about communications here, as well as traceability.)
</blockquote>
As far as I can say there's no direct connection between the 10% and 90% brought up by AK. The issues are related, but not the numbers.
The basic argument considered is, what's seen in <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html" rel="nofollow">Figure 9.5</a>. That tells, how models agree with data fairly well, when AGW is included, but disagree strongly without. That leaves the question of the representativity of the set of models for all possible models that are not excluded by other knowledge. AK noted that there are no error bars. Instead we can see only, how much the numerous model runs differ from each other. <b>If the models are really representative</b> of all possible outcomes, the distribution of the outcomes in the lower figure tell, how much of the warming can be explained by natural variability and with what level of confidence.
One of the questions related to the representativity is the ability of the chosen models to produce similar variability as seen in history data. This single factor is considered in <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-7.html" rel="nofollow">Figure 9.7</a>. Here we see that the models may have somewhat less variability than data in the range 10-50 years. The 10% significance tells that there's an estimated 10% possibility that the disagreement is due to a random effect in data, while it's more likely that the models have too little variability. More essential is, however, that the models do have nearly as much variability as the data (although the logarithmic scale may be misleading for that). The random effect of data might be in opposite direction, i.e., correct models might have even more variability, but even so Figure 9.7 presents evidence for the conclusion that the models have variability of the right order of magnitude. It gives evidence for that conclusion, but does certainly not prove that the models have correct variability.
Now we come back to Figure 9.4. The discrepancy without AGW is very large, much larger than the differences between models. If we now accept that models have almost the right level of variability, then it's easy to conclude that it's 90% certain that the observations cannot explained without AGW. This conclusion is based of several assumptions related to the representativity of the models. Therefore the confidence is not based on fully traceable
This is a clear example of problems of traceability in the IPCC handling of uncertainties. The scientists know that there are weaknesses in their models, but they maintain that the models are anyway good enough to provide evidence, because the margins between the variability of model results and the deviation from empirical data are large without AGW. All their attempts without AGW have failed to explain much, if any, of the warming. The conclusion is strong for the set of models that exist, the question is, do the models miss something essential. For this crucial question providing traceability is not possible. There basis for strong subjective thrust may be good, but it's not traceable. Additional objective arguments may perhaps be presented, but combining evidence objectively to form a quantitative PDF or a traceable overall level of confidence is and is likely to remain impossible.
The dilemma is fundamental. Even very strong reasons for confidence may remain partly non-traceable forever. It's not correct to insist that the strong confidence is not justified without a fully traceable logical argument, but it's also important to admit that strong confidence requires strong justification even, if it's too diverse to be fully traceable.
Uncertainties and risks will remain difficult issues that cannot be handled fully objectively, but many disagreements can be reduced, when people do their best to understand, what others are saying and, why they think as they do. Making all that objective that can be made helps also, but the subjective factor remains.
Most decision making is decision making under uncertainty. Often the uncertainty is of familiar nature, those uncertainties the decision makers have learned to handle. When the uncertainties are unfamiliar as are very low probability very large risks, or they are related to very long term potentially very serious trends, as the climate issue, then the experience doesn't help far. The only way to improve decision making is then to improve analysis. That requires data from specialists, but even more that requires deep thinking of the basic setup and a good overall view of the situation. Much more discussion and analysis is needed on handling the final steps of reasoning.
↧
Comment on Is there any good news for the environment among Evangelicals? by Brandon Shollenberger
Mark, this isn’t the place to discuss the issue, but I feel obliged to point something out. What you call “crazy beliefs” are not crazy, at all. They may seem strange or unbelievable, and they are certainly unprovable, but that doesn’t make them crazy. In fact, by calling them crazy, you are being rather offensive, and despite what you claimed, both you and Willis Eschenbach are obliged to avoid excessive offensiveness (it’s a blog rule). Of course, what qualifies as “excessive” is debatable, and I’m not going to dwell on the matter.
If you want to discuss this matter, or if you want me to show you you are completely wrong when you say “it’s trivial to demolish their unfounded beliefs with simple logic and irrefutable evidence,” I’d be happy to continue this exchange somewhere appropriate. Otherwise, just accept this comment as me disagreeing with you, strenuously.
↧
↧
Comment on Is there any good news for the environment among Evangelicals? by Don Monfort
Mark,
So you were headed to prison, but you were saved by your conversion from bible-study teacher to atheist skeptic. You sound like a reformed drunk. The most self-righteous boring people in the world. One question: Were you a bad person, when you were in the seminary and teaching bible-study? I am an atheist too, but you people who found the light, and then found another light , make me laugh. Find something you believe in, and stick with it next time.
↧
Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by JWR
Phil
I see a certain agressivity in your answers.
In fact the wires of my chicken gauze are black, and they have eps=1.
the factor “f” is just a ratio of surfaces.
The eps which is introduced gives the possibility that not only the wires emit but also the holes with O2 and N2.That effect is very small and in the runs eps is always taken as eps=1.
But Phill, why are you that agressivity, do you want that there is back radiation. There is not, as you can read in the paper.
Stefan BOltzmann is to be applied on pairs.
Let me take an example of daily live.
You love you wive very much, say infinitely much.
Her mother loves her also very much, say infinitely much.
But those two facts do not say anything about the relation between you and your mother in law.
And that is exactly what you do, calculating the flux from T1 to zeroK, and calculating the flux from T2 to zeroK, and you claim to have found the relation between T1 and T2.
No, there is the 2nd law saying that heat is going from warm to cold, and I put in my balances only the net flow. As simple as that. I get equations and I solve them. And the results are coherent.
↧
Comment on IPCC and traceability by Bart R
Rob Starkey
While I empathize, we should point out:
1) forecasting is not on the list of criteria;
2) correct conclusions is not on the list of criteria;
3) maturity is not on the list of criteria.
I have no idea why such obvious oversights took place with drafting the charter, but since the 20 criteria are so ill-met in the eyes of critics, it seems to me we have two different issues here.
Are you critical because IPCC reports do not adequately meet IPCC objectives, or because they don’t meet your objectives?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
