Articles on this Page
- 12/11/18--17:39: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--17:43: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--18:19: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--18:24: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/11/18--18:32: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--18:41: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--19:04: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/11/18--19:37: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--19:46: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--20:53: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--21:08: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--21:20: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--21:31: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--21:33: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--21:34: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--21:34: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--21:39: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--21:39: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--21:50: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--21:55: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/11/18--18:24: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/11/18--19:04: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by matthewrmarler
This guy covers it:
I don't think it's in doubt that for some reason, the pH indicates the increased CO2 content of the oceans. We could argue about sampling being weak.
Oceans are a sink and not a source - because of the biological and physical CO2 pumps.
This is a point of contention and an important point. As I understand it, it was declared, by the "consensus" that the interchange was only 2GT/y, about 20% of current emissions. They, basically, cherry pick every number which fits their catastrophe scenarios. Then assassinate the character of anyone who criticises them. Given the "consensus" don't play by the rules, I wonder why I should trust them? I trust good observations; not "consensus" modeling.
I requesting people post good studies based only on observations.
“The reason why I think drawing attention to the logic of precaution is a helpful supplement to Andy’s article is that…”
As noted numerous times above, this is most welcome and informative.
“You haven’t given me any feedback that indicates that you have done so (nor has Andy, for that matter)”
I said that indeed there are “…other narratives ‘out there’, and to point to an example of one is in no way evidence of any prejudice.” The existence of the narrative has never been disputed. And indeed as you acknowledge ‘Andy was not writing an article about the principle’ contained therein.
“…all I get back is ‘make your argument’”
Per above clarification I got your line of argument a while back. I was seeking a) why you thought it was so important in relation to this post, and b) the assurance that no mutual misunderstanding which might have inadvertently inflated this importance, was getting in the way. Well per a couple of passes above both a) and b) are bottomed out now as far as I can see. So the great news is that you don’t need to present the line again, as indeed I now get your position, albeit you don’t not agree with my response. b) is not the case and regarding a) you have a self-declared cause, and you strongly linked your view of importance to this cause. Well I may have been slow to grasp your support for cause but indeed you have been perfectly transparent about it, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. However domain analysis, and support for (or opposition to) domain relevant causes, must be kept distinct. And nor does lack of support for your cause (in a post that nevertheless does not prejudice for or against same, and for which indeed ‘Andy was not writing an article about the principle’) constitute a serious issue.
“…does not exist or, at the very least, that it is uninfluential”
I have never here or anywhere questioned its existence. As to its relative influence this could only be determined via analysis; I have not spoken to same (on this or other memes). The many and many high authority sources propagating the narrative of high certainty of imminent catastrophe, as exampled, themselves cumulatively speak to an influence that can only be major. But this is nevertheless not measured against any other domain narratives. Any contribution you can make regarding the profile of competitive memes would be welcome. Coopetive aspects are also relevant. Taleb et al and indeed also the particular quote you provide, was featured in a post by Judith here at Climate Etc about 3 years back, with useful comment. While as you note above this fosters a competing precautionary narrative to the straight certainty catastrophe narrative (and indeed you expressed concern that it may be out-competed by the latter), there are also aspects that strongly suggest influence of the latter meme on formation of the former. This situation is not uncommon with memes, and the equivalent in financial systems that both cooperate and compete is termed coopetition. So for instance in Taleb et al: ‘We believe that the PP should be evoked only in extreme situations: when the potential harm is systemic (rather than localized) and the consequences can involve total irreversible ruin, such as the extinction of human beings or all life on the planet.’ Such statements reveal some catastrophe influence beyond mainstream science projections at *any* level of probability due to climate change. Mainstream science does not have any route for all life on the planet ending due to CC (i.e. even at very low / any probability), and while human extinction might be more in range, how this could happen is not actually framed either. Judith noted then that “global harm does not necessarily imply ‘ruin’” and indeed that “I’m not really seeing AGW as a ‘ruin’ problem, i.e. a ‘catastrophe’.” A precautionary principle against the impossible is not truly a precautionary principle. However, some subtleties / spectra of the precautionary narrative is secondary in that it certainly exists in this paper and elsewhere, i.e. it has some presence, but the point here is to show that in differing contexts within the domain (i.e. within different parts of the social structure that memeplexes support) it both competes and cooperates with the high certainty of imminent catastrophe.
“The reason why this constitutes a serious criticism of Andy’s article, however, is because the rationale behind his argument that CAGW is used inappropriately (when it is referring to the mainstream scientific view) is plain wrong. Why? Because it is an argument that requires the non-existence of the precautionary principle.”
This is a non-sequitur, the basis of which you found upon your interpretation that ‘CAGW’ is inclusive of precautionary principle narrative. But this is not the domain usage (on both side of the divide), as noted. The much larger territory for both memes is anyhow outside of venues where ‘CAGW’ is typically used. Within that territory and the further one moves away from possible reality groundings in science (and less so) policy / legislation, expressions in the vernacular, whether prompted originally by either meme or indeed others, tend to fuzz together in what typically amounts frequently to the catastrophe narrative, because emotively it tends to win out when the more subtle language of science or policy falls away. However notwithstanding this effect, narrative based upon the precautionary principle exists, as restated above and indeed several times before, and there is no incompatibility with this existence and that of the narrative of certainty of imminent catastrophe, or indeed with ‘CAGW’ usage.
Per the main post the catastrophe narrative is not supported by mainstream science; the latter does not support a certainty of imminent global catastrophe. The narrative and the science clash. Likewise, the catastrophe narrative can also clash with (albeit to a lesser extent than with science, as science has more exacting language) legislation and policy, including cases where legislation includes the precautionary principle, because the latter does not cleave to certainty. The fact that these clash in no way invalidates the presence of either, or means that there is no interest in climate legislation. Of all the very many (and many high) authority quotes, none are legislative. While the catastrophe narrative, by virtue of long years of propagation from these cumulatively very influential authority sources, influences both science (e.g see the Rossiter layer model in footnotes) and policy formation along with those orgs in which these happen, I presume it is no more written into law (certainly such as I’ve seen anyhow), than it is written into the AR5 chapters. Apart from confirming still more the contradictions that surround cultural narratives, this changes nothing set out in the post.
So say I wrote a 4000 word post on the filo viruses, their variant characteristics and main recent / historic outbreaks (plus major suspected historic but unproven outbreaks) and naming conventions, inclusive of ebola and marburg and cueva and subspecies, which conventions are tangled with outbreak locations. And some learned medical researcher comments to say hey, you missed that this other viral disease XYZ (with different cycle / symptoms), shares as part of its transmission modes a common entry portal vulnerability in humans, which is thus relevant here (while all diseases compete for human targets, this means that these two, and indeed a few others also, compete especially for the particular targets where this vulnerability is maximised). Great, I say, that’s a fine and interesting supplement to this post. But they come back with, “that your post hasn’t fully explored this this is a serious problem. This disease is a big deal too and I’m trying to keep awareness of it alive” (a self-declared cause). So I say, “well this post only features the filo viruses in 4000 words, not enough already and simply not addressing XYZ despite the shared portal, but your supplement was indeed welcome and maybe you could do a post on XYZ to expound for readers, with specific attention to overlap”. And a third party commenter then asks whether they could sketch out some example major outbreaks too. But the medical researcher replies that no post is required as the disease manifestly exists (which in fact was never challenged), and further that ‘no it would not be helpful in the slightest’ to provide some example major outbreak incidents. Yet despite thusly declining, at the same time still maintaining it’s a serious issue that the topic of XYZ was not covered in the original post. This is where we are, and Matthew’s request speaks to the latter issue; a response on some main examples wouldn’t be anything like a proper quantitative analysis in relation to other memes of course, but this is fine and it would nevertheless give readers a somewhat better feel for the history and authority profile of this meme in some comparative sense; at worst it would still increase awareness.
Do most IPCC models assume positive water vapor feedback in the order of 2 times the temp. Increase due to CO2 forcing alone as opposed to Dr. Richard Lindzen's assertion that the feedback may be negative?
<i>So while CO2 emissions have been increasing the ocean has only been absorbing ~25% of the emitted CO2</i>
The party line position is MM emissions (MME) are considered the largest portion of the growth in atm CO2.
If you would look at the fig. 12 I posted below, could you tell me at what point does the ocean absorb 25% of the emitted CO2 and how can you know that, considering the 12mo change in CO2 curve so closely follows SST? Further, since MME are supposed to be accelerating blah blah why isn't there an increase in the 12 mo change trend over and above the ocean outgassing component? It should be flipping obvious, why isn't it?
Its apparent to me the whole carbon budget charade is a ruse or self-deception that allows climate modellers tremendous latitude to massage the outcome in favor of their internal bias towards CO2 warming.
Who here knows the RCP8.5 has solar forcing fixed to the solar cycle 23 that had the highest TSI in the instrumental record, out until 2100? Does any of have the judgement to understand the fraud here? They use the highest TSI years as a basis and then claim CO2 will be doing all that warming, not the sun. Do they even know what they're doing? Are they ignorant, stupid, or deliberately lying?
<i>but in equilibrium (in, say 2000 years after emissions cease) the ocean will hold ~73% of the total emitted CO2</i>
How do you know what is going to happen to that CO2? How do you know that much of it doesn't get turned into rock chemically?
John Ridgway: <i>No it would not be helpful in the slightest. </i>
I think that you asserted a distinction without a difference. There isn't anybody exhibiting the one kind of certainty without the other kind of certainty.
A question for people more scientifically literate than me. I recently read somewhere that at some point increased CO2 is similar to applying multiple layers of paint on metal -- the additional [amount] of CO2 doesn't have much of an effect--for example, similar to the 6th layer of paint on metal. Is what I read, correct or not?
I'm making the observation that Nic Lewis has a habit of not answering tough questions.
<i>" the ocean outgassing via Henry’s Law that is responsible for driving the accumulation of CO2"</i>
The usual basic question - if the ocean outgassed so much, and we emitted so much, each being comparable to the CO2 originally there, then where did it all go? Not into biomass; that would have to more than double.
Models don’t assume that. Models calculate the amount of water vapor in each grid cell and each time step - via x,y,z wind, evaporation, condensation, rain, etc. The effect of water vapor follows from these calculations and the radiative transfer equation.
Whether or not the models provide useful results from this finite element analysis is a question. But they do not have feedbacks built into them. The calculation of feedbacks comes from the results of the models.
IPCC 1990 FIRST REPORT
"We calculate with confidence that: ...CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect; long-lived gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of over 60% to stabilise their concentrations at today's levels...
Based on current models, we predict increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 o C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 o C per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years;"
My better half asked what AGW meant and what it would take for me to believe. I said according to the science above 0.3C per decade.
Thanks Nic, as a lukewarmer I am eagerly waiting when the long promised rise in the airborne fraction finally will kick in, similar to the long awaited accelleration in temperature and sea level rise. Because without them we wil never reach two degrees at the end of this century.
Good to see you active here.
"But they do not have feedbacks built into them. The calculation of feedbacks comes from the results of the models."
This is a bit of sophistry.
If feedbacks can be calculated from the results of the models then the feedbacks are derived from both the input data viz, x,y,z wind, evaporation, condensation, rain, etc. and the way of treating some of those data inputs as you well know.
Not just the radiative transfer equation.
A small change in the assumption of complicated water heat release at altitudes and pressures is assigned or assumed and can be changed by the modellers at will.
Hence assigning [or building positive water vapor feedback] happens by default in these models.
The proper approach here for someone of your status would be to acknowledge this fact and say that by using what we think are the best assumptions models give results with large feedback levels.
<i>"It is fairly straightforward to estimate TCRE from warming and cumulative CO2 emissions to date"</i>
But I think you are low-balling the estimate. The AR5 itself gives CO2 forcing as 1.68 W/m2 out of 2.21, or 76%. And the upward revisions of land use emissions seems speculative; without it, emissions are 530 Gtons. That gives a TCRE of 1.33, considerably more than your 1.05.
And the 76% has wide error bars.
No. The evidence comes from the radiative transfer equation using the spectroscopic properties of CO2.
At around 15um 95% of radiation is absorbed within 1m (at surface pressure and temperature). So more CO2 has no effect around this wavelength.
Around 13um the absorption through a few km of the atmosphere is of the order of 50%. So more CO2 has a significant effect around these wavelengths.
You can see the details in Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation – Part Seven – CO2 increases - https://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/13/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-seven-co2-increases/
Sophistry - "the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving".
My response to such lines of discussion:
<i>"So more CO2 has a significant effect around these wavelengths."</i>
And even where little radiation goes through to space directly, it still matters where it is absorbed, or more importantly emitted. With more CO2, the emission reaching the ground comes from lower, warmer levels. So even in bands where almost all IR is absorbed within a km, more CO2 makes a difference.
<i>When will people get it that it is the ocean outgassing via Henry’s Law that is responsible for driving the accumulation of CO2, via a solar-warmed ocean?</i>
Because it isn't, as co2 is going <b>into</b> the oceans, temperature rise is only worth 10 ppm rise in the atmosphere.
What you see in the graph is inhibition of CO2 uptake during higher temperatures predominantly during el nino events. It's land sink variation by the way. Ocean sink rises monotonally since 1960.