Martyn, I’ve noticed that every time you are challenged, you resort to personal insults, not just with me, but with many others too.
Very telling. Also, very immature.
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by David Appell (@davidappell)
↧
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by manacker
Steven Mosher
A global mean temperature increase of 2.5C above pre-industrial levels may lead to global aggregate economic losses of between 0.2 and 2.0 per cent, the report warns.
Don’t know what report you’re quoting there, Mosh, but the Richard Tol study suggests that the global warming to date from CO2 has been beneficial for mankind.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf
“Climate change increased welfare by the equivalent of a 0.5% increase in income for the first half of the 20th century. After 1950, impacts became more positive, edging up to 1.4% of GDP by 2000.”
Figure 2 shows the economic impact of climate change.
(Year:Temperature change:%GDP economic impact)
1900: 0ºC: 0%GDP
1950: +0.3ºC: +0.5%GDP
2000: +0.7ºC: +1.4%GDP
Projections:
2030: +1.2ºC: +1.2%GDP
2050: +1.7ºC: +1.0%GDP
2080: +2.7ºC: 0%GDP
2100: +3.5ºC: -1.2%GDP
The warming projections are based on arguably exaggerated IPCC worst case scenarios (3.5ºC warming above 1900 level by 2100).
Why do I say “arguably exaggerated”?
This is 2.8ºC above today’s global average temperature, which (at the arguably exaggerated 2xCO2 TCR of 1.9ºC (at least according to several recent, independent observation-based studies) would require CO2 to rise to 1080 ppmv:
1.9ºC * ln (1080 / 395) / ln (2) = 2.8ºC
Mosh, you’ll have to agree that atmospheric CO2 will certainly not reach 1080 ppmv by year 2100, for two reasons:
- reaching this level at the projected UN population growth rate would mean that every man, woman and child on this world would use 1.5 times as much fossil fuels as the average US citizen does today! Oops!
- that’s more CO2 than there is in all the inferred recoverable fossil fuel resources remaining on our planet (WEC 2010). Ouch!
Lemme splain.
US per capita CO2 emission is 16 tons/year
World per capita CO2 emission is 4.7 tons/year
To reach a concentration of 1080 ppmv by 2100, total annual CO2 emissions would have to increase to 7.6 times today’s emission or 254 GtCO2/year. (Do the ‘rithmetic yourself, Mosh).
At a projected population of 10.2 billion, that equals a per capita CO2 emission of 25 tons, or 1.5 times the US per capita emission today (which, by the way, is decreasing from year to year). Huh?
Such a projection by IPCC (or anyone else) is not only absurd, it is downright stupid, Mosh.
As a pretty good “numbers man”, you must agree.
So it is more reasonable to ASS-U-ME that warming by year 2100 will be below the “magic 2.7ºC above 1900″ (or 2.0ºC above today), IOW still net beneficial for mankind.
Good news for all, once the rubbish projections are weeded out.
Max
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by mosomoso
Start with a circular proposition which is pretty close to apple = apple.
“The most advanced comprehensive climate models effectively represent the current ability to simulate the climate system…”
Immediately, with just a comma to separate, let that flow into the outrageous assumption that “best available” = “adequate”.
“…and it is natural and appropriate to take the output of those models as the basis for predicting the future climate.”
Dr Held, what’s that “emergent simplicity” I spy amid all the dense, mushy verbiage? Why, it’s our daily warmie pill!
Clever scamps, these science communicators.
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by Jim D
Held, and I think everyone, observes linearity in the climate system. You get forcing by volcanoes, or a Maunder Minimum, and the temperature responds predictably in time and direction. The fact that this response is predictable is linearity. A more impressive example is the 11-year solar cycle, which is a forcing cycle of only about 0.2 W/m2. From this a temperature response can be seen by combining many cycles of data to bring the signal out, and that response is about 0.2 C. This is linearity seen even for a weak forcing. CO2, by contrast has a forcing change of nearly 2 W/m2, so unsurprisingly to people who study the sun and volcanoes, there is a measurable temperature response that is close to what would be expected when we compare it with other known forcing amounts and responses. Forcings, whether changes in the sun, volcanoes, GHGs, aerosols, have responses with a consistent sign and amplitude. This is linearity from observations.
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by mwgrant
Complex, but still gotta untie it. Anything else is laughable. We will not get anywhere.
↧
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by maksimovich
The global irridiance change for a glacial inception is 0.1% (Nicolis and Nicolis).
CO2, by contrast has a forcing change of nearly 2 W/m2,
The total net anthropogenic mean contribution is 1.6 Wm-2 (uncertainties 0.6 – 2.4 Wm-2) Gray 2010
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by David Appell (@davidappell)
Past a certain point, there is almost no correlation between life expectancy and energy use or CO2 emissions:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Christy-crock-7-part1.html
It is energy that makes societies healthier and wealthier; not a particular kind of energy. Fossil fuels have undeniable negative externalities, especially on health. For coal the NEs are large.
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by Stephen Segrest
Probably dumb questions from a lay people that come here to try and learn something: In studying the Earth’s climate record, what is (1) a top example of something being a linear function?, (2) a top example of something being a logarithmic function?; (3) a top example of a very long undamped oscillation. (4) What appears to be the hardest thing for scientists to understand as to interaction between potential drivers of temperature change?
↧
Comment on Bonfire of insanity by michael hart
J Martin, I’m fairly sure it produces more CO2 emissions per kW, as others have commented up-thread. But the regulations have apparently defined at least some of those those emissions as “sustainable” and so escape punishment.
Drax management seem to be being admirably forthright and open about it all. If the legislators and law tells them “burn wood, not coal, or go bankrupt” they say “OK, we know the government can bankrupt us if they really want to, so we’ll burn wood.”
↧
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by willb
“And jim I estimate you are 6 feet tall. Plus or minus 3 feet.”
How would you know if this estimate is correct?
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by HR
My summary
Held believes 1) internal variability is icing on the cake, I’m reading that as internal variability have no impact on long term trends (??centennial/multidecadal) and 2) assuming a linear relation between forcing and temperature is sufficient to understand past temperature change and future projections.
Curry believes ocean dynamics might impose themselves on trends on multidecadal/centennial timescales and 2) linear assumptions were OK for initial investigation but now we need more.
I assume 2) at least in part arises because of 1). I get the sense that there is little clarity with respect to mechanisms on how we might understand variations (on the multidecadal timescale), there has been no real attempt to quantify what impact multidecadal variability might have had on GMT and that datasets on this timescale are sufficiently incomplete so to be useless for ruling out either scientists position. Both arguments appear plausible but not much more than that.
Can anybody point me in the direction of science that makes me believe that both scientist aren’t including a whole lot of assertion in their argument?
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by John Carpenter
“…CS was 0.0 C to 1 place of decimals or 2 significant figures.”
Jim, just so I am clear… how many sig figs are you calling 0.0? It appears you are saying CS is 0.0 to 1 place of decimals ( .0) or 2 sig figs (0.0). Is this what you mean? For me, it is not clear what you are saying.
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by JCH
It could be as easy as looking at him.
↧
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by kim
I like ‘mote’ and ‘beam’ a lot better than ‘speck’ and ‘log’.
===============
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by Jim D
Held says that he sees a positive response to positive forcing and a negative response to negative forcing just as much as you see seasonal changes on the background of daily noise. Judith basically says, no Held doesn’t see that at all, or she doesn’t see that, or you shouldn’t see that, or something of that kind.
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by kim
The MWP warming was regional, all of the regions. And the climate optimae have all followed a slow decline curve through the Holocene; Minoan warmer than Roman, warmer than the Medieval, so far warmer than the Modern.
=============
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by Chuck L
IMO, the issue is that the predictions/scenarios from the climate models, 97 or 98% of which have been inaccurate to grossly inaccurate, are being used as the basis for sweeping social, political and economic policies by interested parties, whether scientists, governments, environmentalists or politicians. It’s wonderful that they are back-predicting so “well” but that is just a matter of changing fudge factors like aerosols by the programmers; the models have little or no predictive skill going forward. To make policy decisions based on them is folly unless those decisions are part of an agenda by an interested party or parties.
↧
↧
Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Michael
Tuppence, you dill, that is your conspiracy theory.
No, you don’t call it one – but it screams it.
The most cursory look at the facts disproves your bizarro ‘big govt’-science conspiracy.
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by HR
JimD I thought she said that seasonal cycle just wasn’t relevant. If her concern is with the multidecadal timescale then you could see how that makes sense.
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by Jim D
Held was just using the seasonal cycle as an analogy. Judith over-complicated it by thinking it was more than an analogy.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
