Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

> they should recognize the reasons others feel genuinely that too much urgency may result in more damage than good.

Koonin does not do that directly, for then he’d have to show that beyond these feelings there are arguments which rely on projections. But he already rejected these elsewhere in his argument.

So he must argue that there ought to be costs to our choices, and that these choices rely on values. Standing aside that this assumption may be debated, the main problem here is that Koonin stretches too far the fact/value dichotomy. When he says that scientists are no experts regarding our values, there’s a reading where he’s simply wrong. There are scientific ways to study values and decision making. His position may also lead to value relativism, as any value would be legitimate because it can be hold without reckoning basic facts.

People disagree because that’s their prerogative. We ought not push that peanut too far.


Comment on Week in review by angech

0
0

Doug I did it for her here September 16, 2014 at 10:04 am
In regard to the 50/50 argument by Judith Curry Pick one:

a) Warming since 1950 is predominantly (more than 50%) caused by humans.b) Warming since 1950 is predominantly caused by natural processes.

When faced with a choice between a) and b), I respond: ‘I can’t choose, since i think the most likely split between natural and anthropogenic causes to recent global warming is about 50-50′. Gavin thinks I’m ‘making things up’, so I promised yet another post on this topic.

The issue here is of the likelihood of human induced CO2 production causing the global warming detected from 1950 to 2014.

The basis of this argument is that CO2 increasing at 1.3 ppm a year [2.07 for last decade] from a base of 312 to now 400 PPM is all human induced and that this should cause a rise in average global temperature of 0.2 degrees a decade.

The attribution of the warming is made from assumptions [G and Curry] from models and the models are all programmed to input 0.2 degrees rise a decade [the rise that "must "occur when CO2 is going up at this rate"]. ” the climate models ‘detect’ AGW by comparing natural forcing simulations with anthropogenically forced simulations.

Gavin writes

The basis of the AR5 calculation is summarised in figure 10.5:
Figure 10.5 IPCC AR5

and herein lie a number of problems

Firstly anthropogenic global warming is really GHG [greenhouse gas] warming as humans are supposed to make all of the excess GHG. This is a lot more than the observed warming over this time as 0.2 degrees a decade for 64 years is 1.28 degrees. Strangely this is 130% of the observed warming that has occured, Guess the models did not predict the pause after all.

Secondly CO2 levels are increasing per decade from 0.75 ppm to 2.07 ppm but the models were set with the lower levels. At the same time as we should be seeing an increase in temperature rise we instead have a pause.

Thirdly anthropogenic global warming [ANT] is still put at greater than 100%, ie 110 %, after taking off the supposed negative aerosol effect [OA], which is so unknown that the error bars are bigger than the guesstimate.This is where Gavin obtains his 110% likely range of Anthropogenic warming that he attributes to the IPCC. This is 1.28 degrees minus largest guesstimate with a straight face for aerosol effect.

Fourthly Natural Variation gets a guernsey with the ridiculously low figure of 0.1 degree over 64 years either way, no guesswork here. Judith’s point that AO and PO oscillations and multidecadal waves which may go in 60 ,80 or 100 year cycles is completely ignored by saying that Natural variation should be ignored over a long time as it reverts to the mean. In the time frame given there is every possibility that natural variation, possibly in the order of 0.2 degrees a decade, Could be happening, but this could mean that the 1990’s rise was not caused by humans at all. In a different context on another matter Gavin himself said “in framing this as a binary choice, it gives implicit (but invalid) support to the idea that each choice is equally likely. That this is invalid reasoning should be obvious by simply replacing 50% with any other value and noting that the half/half argument could be made independent of any data.”

Fifthly, as kindly pointed out by Tom Curtis at Skeptical science to the maths challenged Russ R statement that G = +0.9±0.4°C and OA = -0.25±0.35°C. So, by simple math, ANT = 0.65± 0.75°C. So, the PDF would would be centered around 100% (not 110%) of the observed warming with (5-95%) uncertainty of ± 115%. [see first comment at blog , Judith, Russ R. at 06:27 AM on 16 September, 2014 ] , that would be a giant variability due to the OA uncertainty range if correct

Comment on An unsettled climate by WebHubTelescope

0
0

I give what I get. Better clean up your act duh-niers.

Comment on An unsettled climate by Joseph

0
0

If, as you say, natural variation (such as cycles) could account for up to 50% of the warming in the last 60 years, then don’t you need to accurately characterize the natural variation physically and quantify the effect before you can determine CO2 sensitivity?

Comment on An unsettled climate by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

For what it’s worth, here’s S11:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/full

No hit for “pause” nor “no warming.”

Here’s he abstract:

[1] We compare global-scale changes in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) with model simulations of forced and unforced TLT changes. While previous work has focused on a single period of record, we select analysis timescales ranging from 10 to 32 years, and then compare all possible observed TLT trends on each timescale with corresponding multi-model distributions of forced and unforced trends. We use observed estimates of the signal component of TLT changes and model estimates of climate noise to calculate timescale-dependent signal-to-noise ratios (S/N). These ratios are small (less than 1) on the 10-year timescale, increasing to more than 3.9 for 32-year trends. This large change in S/N is primarily due to a decrease in the amplitude of internally generated variability with increasing trend length. Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

For obvious reasons, Sir Rud relies on paraphrase.

Comment on An unsettled climate by DaveW

0
0

vtg – Wouldn’t ‘realists’ just look at the data, with some error estimate, rather than fit it to a linear response?

Comment on An unsettled climate by Rob Ellison

0
0


WebHubTelescope | September 23, 2014 at 11:57 am |

Totally delusional by AK.

Anybody that has worked diffusional problems and has done slab calculations knows about the 1/2 ratio.

Like with the Bose-Einstein statistics fiasco, these deniers don’t have a clue about statistical mechanics, continuity equations, or transport theory.

Why are putting up with this monster of misinformation?

The carbon cycle is not a diffusion problem – it simply is not.

And the Bose-Einstein fiasco is webnutcolonoscope. He insists he knows something but of course refuses to define and was MIA – presumed incompetent – in the relevant post.

Comment on An unsettled climate by TJA

0
0

“Invoking chaos is a crutch for the weak-minded.” – WHUT

So there is no middle ground between a closed experiment in a lab on a tuning fork and an open system like the planetary climate?


Comment on An unsettled climate by Rud Istvan

0
0

Nice post. US switch toward nat gas fired CCGT is simple. We have gas. cCGT takes less time to build than coal, costs less to build, and since runs at higher efficiency costs less to operate.
Not so easy where gas is constrained politically (EU from Russia) or geographically (Japan, China). I am all in favor of taking the time to sort out the various gen 4 nuclear proposals rather than going all in on gen 3. And some of those are indeed modular. It is maddening and saddening that China is doing more gen 4 nuclear research than the US.

Comment on An unsettled climate by Rob Ellison

0
0

The US has better technology for small modular nuclear – in theory but based on decades of experience. The remaining problems are in the fuel cycle and materials for high temperatures – both of which are having billions thrown at.

Comment on An unsettled climate by PA

0
0

Well, since the null hypothesis is that CO2 doesn’t have a significant impact there are a number of points that CAGW enthusiasts have to defend with factual information:

1. The claim of 800+ CO2 in 2100. Currently the trend is going asymptotical between 2 and 3 ppm. Emissions are running about 2.5 times the atmospheric CO2 increase. Since the available reserves are less than the CO2 in the atmosphere, 600 PPM (the current linear trend is 620) looks vaguely possible.
CAGW has to show that the sinks will saturate or that 2.5 times the current reserves can be economically extracted or revise down their number to something realistic. Total reserves isn’t good enough – it has to be reserves that are economically extractable.

2. Water vapor feedback.
At this point since there are papers out there that suggest a negative feedback and the 2.5+x positive water vapor feedback from the IPCC is clearly a non-starter in view of the pause, CAGW has to demonstrate via real atmospheric studies what the actual feedback is. No GCM modeling please. The IPCC range for values of the feedback parameter yields 110% loop feedback at the high end which isn’t physically realizable.

3. CO2 cost benefit analysis.
CO2 at 600 PPM is going increase fishing, forestry, and agriculture yields 30-50%. This is trillions of dollars annually. The CSIRO study that shows 11% plant growth from 1982-2011 indicates this is a realistic assessment. The reduction in plant water consumption and the greening of the deserts indicates the IPCC plants-will-wilt-and-die assessment or statements from AR5 like:
“Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence)” are clearly incorrect.

A realistic cost benefit study is needed.

4. CO2 lifetime.
Most studies (30+) peg CO2 lifetime at 5-15 years with a recent study at 5.6. The IPCC claims 100+. If the lifetime of CO2 is short there won’t be the big backended warming late in the century. A realistic number for CO2 lifetime needs to be incorporated into projections.

Comment on An unsettled climate by Joshua

Comment on An unsettled climate by AK

0
0
Maybe they'll have to learn how to mine <a href="http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2006/03/research.html" rel="nofollow">sea-floor methane hydrates</a>.

Comment on An unsettled climate by PA

0
0

Yeah, I would sort out the gen 4 or gen 4+ reactors and use gas until then. The cost of a gas power station is so low it is almost a throw away.

A nice atmospheric pressure passive safe high temperature reactor that can burn used fuel in the future, is much better than fielding a complex PWR today.

Comment on An unsettled climate by Peter Lang

0
0

Pekka,

You didn’t answer my question. That’s frustrating because it seems to happen in every discussion we have.

I asked what do you mean by “real interaction”. What’s its technical definition. It seems you are making up terms. If you are going to use or introduce new terms can you please provide a link to their definition.

Linear model works, when the state of knowledge can be explained well through concise documents that every reader understands in the same way. That does not work, when uncertainties are large and issues complex. Direct interactive contacts between decision makers and various specialists, including but not restricted to climate scientists, have a much better change of working in such situations.

That seems like the arguments for appealing to peoples values instead of evidence. The evidence for dangerous climate change is lacking so now you’d prefer to argue that we should make extremely costly decisions based on people person values – which have been influenced by the catastrophic climate change propaganda. Of course, the next step is that the correct values we must all agree to are those of the ideological Left, right?


Comment on An unsettled climate by occam

0
0

It is interesting how believers dismiss natural variability.

Here are two extremes: (1) natural variability’s contribution to global warming is negligible compared with the heating from increased CO2, and (2) the effect of increased CO2 is negligible compared with natural variations in the earth’s surface temperature.

It would appear from his post that Pekka Pirila accepts (1) above. I would be interested in his rationale for that.

There is a clear reason to think that (2) may be true. That is that the range of estimated temperatures for the earth over, say, the last 100,000 years, greatly dominates both the observed changes supposedly caused by CO2 over the last 150 years and the changes projected by the CAGW believers by the end of this century. That is, I must emphasize, a reason, not an explanation, that can and should be questioned and analyzed.

The problem for me is that there is are no reasonable causal explanations for the large range of temperatures the earth has clearly experience, from the depths of the ice ages to periods that appear to be much warmer than now.

There is some notion of “cycles”. But not all variations of time are cycles. And the mechanisms that could cause these changes have not been explored in the depth necessary to be convincing science. Perhaps volcanoes, sunspot variations or other changes affecting isolation, etc., are important (in the sense of being actual causes of large temperature variations), but those cases have yet to be made. I find it hard, for example, to take some of Vaugh Pratt’s ideas about cycles seriously when there is no convincing explanation for them. And I am doubtful that we will find simple explanations. (Not to pick on Pratt – others are proposing cycles, which is ok, but cannot provide strong arguments for them, which is the problem that bothers me.)

Comment on An unsettled climate by Rob Ellison

0
0

The Chinese are using pebble beds – which were first fired up in Germany in the 1960’s.

Comment on An unsettled climate by Joshua

0
0

==> “now you’d prefer to argue that we should make extremely costly decisions ”

So much for respecting uncertainty, and instead being certain based on unvalidated and unverified modeling of complex phenomena that project out into the future.

I would like to offer a general question to all SWIRLCAREs, like my friend Peter, here, as to what evidence they’ve “observed” that gives them so much more faith in the economic models that ground their confidence in the “extrem[e] cost” of policies that target ACO2 reduction.

Although you wouldn’t know it from her Op-ed or her recent talk for the Marshall Institute, but even Judith has expressed uncertainty about the economic modeling (kind of an odd coincidence that she left that out during her recent advocacy, isn’t it?).

Which economic models are the ones that the are so sure will get the economics correct going out two, three, ten, fifteen decades?

Comment on An unsettled climate by X Anonymous

0
0

Dana: “Climate scientists Michael Oppenheimer and Kevin Trenberth also took issue with Koonin’s assertion about the impact of human activity, saying,
Warming is well beyond natural climate variability and projected rates of change are potentially faster than ecosystems, farmers and societies can adapt to without major disruptions. Many details remain to be settled, and weather and natural variability will always mask some effects, especially regionally. But economic analysis of these risks supports substantial action beyond “no regrets” strategies. To argue otherwise as Koonin does is to ignore decades of research results.”
—–

Here’s a story about Richard Feynman, he’s on the way to a lecture, he walks thru a car park, and notices a licence plate ARW 357, he then tells the students “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight… I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”
(h/t Dick Lindzen)

Feynman recognized that statements concerned with probability and chance, such as those made by Oppenheimer and Trenberth (and the IPCC for that matter), can be fallacies.

The probabilities are CONSTRUCTED, that is to say, they are dependent on the boundaries from which they are created. Koonins piece reflects climate sciences’ high degree of uncertainty, which is another way of saying we don’t know where the boundaries lie.

Pick a number between 1 and 10, and ask yourself if that number is random?

Comment on An unsettled climate by Joshua

0
0

Peter –

BTW,

==> ““now you’d prefer to argue that we should make extremely costly decisions ””

I missed the part where Pekka said “that we should make extremely costly decisions.” Would you mind pointing that out?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images