Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 Next
Comments 104501 to 104550:
-
muoncounter at 14:13 PM on 12 November 2010Ice-Free Arctic
#60: "the last decade of sea ice is much less than in the 1970's, but the 1970's were much cooler. " Yes, now you're getting it. "the last nine years do not show a downward trend." No legitimate prediction says that there is a monotonically decreasing ice extent. Individual years fluctuate; always have, always will. But look at the AMSR graph objectively: lowest mins, in order are 2007, 2008, 2010, 2009, 2005. Get the pattern? "a pattern determined by a current warming phase of the Arctic." Yes, one that's been around since the mid 70s. -
Norman at 13:52 PM on 12 November 2010Ice-Free Arctic
This one. Warm Arctic in 1922. And this: If you don't want to read this at least look at Figure 3 of Arctic temps. Now this in conjunction to the above link: Last nine years of Arctic sea ice extent. It is true the last decade of sea ice is much less than in the 1970's, but the 1970's were much cooler. But the last nine years do not show a downward trend. They are sitting in a pattern determined by a current warming phase of the Arctic. Will it continue to warm up? The next few years should let us know. 2007 was the lowest summer extent but 2009 was in the middle. I can't see a continued downward trend from the linked data unless the temps continue to rise. -
muoncounter at 13:31 PM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#57: "where in my post did I say I reject fuzzy science?" I thought you made a clear distinction between your 'Classic and solid science', provable by experiment rather than reliant on 'a series of math equations' vs. the fuzzy side, which lacks a 'way to verify the proxy with an actual test or measurement'. Fuzzy as in 'assumptions, you have to trust some unknown'. To me, that read that the former is good science, the latter not. If that wasn't your intent, I misread. "I was just making a point between a hard tested science and the other that you can only logically infer but can never actually test" That's where I think you and a lot of so-called skeptics are wrong. Climate science predictions were tested last summer; look to heat waves and accelerating ice melt as verification. "models of complex systems are inherently unpredictable. " That's why there are such things as statistics. In my spare time, I count muons (cosmic rays). There is ample physical theory regarding cosmic rays, but there is no way to predict any specific arrival or event. And yet anyone working in the field can tell you to a reasonable level of accuracy the number of muons that just passed through your head while you were reading this. We can know the 'cosmic ray climate' without any ability to predict the 'cosmic ray weather.' "this arcticle points out that another forcing factor is better" Or not. Chylek was reviewed here some time back and found wanting. Why is climate science held to the impossible standard that there must only be one interpretation or its all wrong? No other science has to meet that test. "Unbroken chain of life for billions of years." Well, no. Look harder: Climate change has had tremendous effects on life throughout the geologic record. One thing for you to read: How warm was summer 2010? I've quoted this before, but it continues to be relevant here: Weather in a given region occurs in such a complex and unstable environment, driven by such a multitude of factors, that no single weather event can be pinned solely on climate change. In that sense, it's correct to say that the Moscow heat wave was not caused by climate change. However, if one frames the question slightly differently: "Would an event like the Moscow heat wave have occurred if carbon dioxide levels had remained at pre-industrial levels," the answer, Hansen asserts, is clear: "Almost certainly not." -
Norman at 13:22 PM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#77 scaddenp "Also, by the way when looking at past conditions and past forcings, remember that issue here is RATE of change. A warmer world might be a whole lot better - provided we got there slowly. Global temperature changed at rates an order of magnitude or more slowly than current rate of change for normal glacial cycle. Have there been times of rapid temperature change in past? yes, and evidence too from species loss that these were highly stressful times to live in." From my eyeballs all the past warming slopes look about the same including the one we are on. -
Norman at 13:00 PM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#75 scaddenp I think this might go on awhile to find some sort of understanding of conceptual material. Your quote: "A test or experiment can DISPROVE but there is no way it can prove - another experiment might invalidate it. You will search in vain for proof" Consider this. I am an early chemical researcher. I have bottles of oxygen and hydrogen. No one has reacted them so far so I am not sure what will happen. I have some ideas based upon some other reactions I have performed but I am not certain. My ideas before the test are what I will prove or disprove. I mix them, nothing happens. I heat it and I get flame and water. By actually running the test I establish that mixing hydrogen and oxygen will produce heat and water. It will either confirm my previous ideas or cause them to be rejected. Another case. I am Newton and want to learn about gravity. How do I do it? I start dropping things and seeing what happens. I find it seems to pull all types of materials. I can see the objects accelerate by observation. Now I get a time piece and measure the time it takes to fall a certain distance. I start doing a series of measurements and find the gravity attraction causes an acceleration of 32 ft/sec^2. By doing experiments and tests I find the accleration of gravity. I prove it. Doing a series of experiments finds relationships among variables. Your other comment: "As for chaos - well see links - but remember everything in a chaotic system is obeying physical laws all the time. Weather is chaotic but it is far from clear whether climate is." I agree that chaotic systems obey physical laws. They are just hard to predict. Like the IPCC predictions about increasing severe weather events caused by Global warming. Maybe but chaos theory may invalidate these predictions. The only certain conclusion I could establish from Global warming is that the average temperatures will go up. The rest is speculation to me. Kind of like using fear to illicit a response or action. From what I have read Climate would definately be classed as a chaotic system. A warming globe can increase ice melting that can alter albedo, but a warming globe can increase water vapor that condenses into clouds and blocks solar energy. From the large and rapid global temp changes in the past, it would be a very strong indication of a chaotic system.Moderator Response: Further discussion of chaos must be done on the thread Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted. Comments elsewhere will be deleted. -
scaddenp at 12:42 PM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Also, by the way when looking at past conditions and past forcings, remember that issue here is RATE of change. A warmer world might be a whole lot better - provided we got there slowly. Global temperature changed at rates an order of magnitude or more slowly than current rate of change for normal glacial cycle. Have there been times of rapid temperature change in past? yes, and evidence too from species loss that these were highly stressful times to live in. -
Ken Lambert at 12:34 PM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Moderator John deleted my reply (11NOV) to multiple critics so I will engage in a careful tippy toe to avoid anything remotely controversial. Good to see a bit of passion in the old gang - CBD, JM, DB (Yooper), PC. PC: "Models based on physics should always be trusted over measurements made with sensititve equipment subject to many potential errors. It's funny how skeptics are also eager to cast suspicion on obseved data if it does not show what they want." There are three possibilities for error, and only one possibility for 'getting it right'. The Model could be wrong, the measurement could be wrong or both could be wrong. To get it right - both the measurement and the Model must be right to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Climate Models are much more than robust extension of basic laws. Constants are assumed, and unsettled science like feedback mechanisms and cloud albedo etc *estimated* in order to cycle models. Let me give you a simple example: the portion of Solar radiation assumed to be reflected from the atmosphere and surface is quoted as about 30%. ie. 0.7 of about 340 W/sq.m gets through to play in the biosphere. That means that about 240 gets through and 100 is reflected out. How accurately do we measure this 30% or 100W/sq.m? One percent?? So if the actual number is 29.7% or 30.3%, then the amount reflected could be 99W/sq.m or 101W/sq.m. The amount getting through could be 241W/sq.m or 239W/sq.m. The TOA imbalance is supposed to be 0.9W/sq.m. So varying just one assumption by 1 percent means that my warming imbalance could be 0.9 +/-1.0W/sq.m - more than a 100% error margin. We could have twice as much warming imbalance or no warming imbalance by varying one important factor by one percent. Cycle a 1 percent error through a Model yearly for 50 years and what do you predict? (1.01)^50 = 1.65. 1 percent becomes 65 percent. Are we measuring any of these climate variables to an accuracy of 1 percent? I don't think so. -
scaddenp at 12:12 PM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
"Scientific proof is empirical evidence. An experiment or test that either confirms or rejects an idea about how something behaves." A test or experiment can DISPROVE but there is no way it can prove - another experiment might invalidate it. You will search in vain for proof. However, if you want empirical evidence of climate theory, then John compiled this and this. Also this from another source. All referenced to published papers. Nature is doing the experiment all the time - models are checked against it. As to paleoclimate - well I'm geologist/geophysicist of sorts. How I prefer to think of geological evidence is in terms of constraints of what could or could not have happened. Its useful for checking models (if they couldnt account for glacial cycle or PETM hyperthermal then no good) but climate theory comes from physics not geology. I can appreciate your feelings given parents past but nothing distorts reality like looking at it through a political lens. You dont want One World Government? Good, neither do I. Lets find solutions that dont need One World Government or fit any other agenda other than fixing the problem. Adapt politics to reality, not the other way round. As for chaos - well see links - but remember everything in a chaotic system is obeying physical laws all the time. Weather is chaotic but it is far from clear whether climate is. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:55 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Re: Norman (55 - "clouds are hard to model") Hmmm, you really should read this then, from the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas, which says otherwise. The Yooper -
scaddenp at 11:51 AM on 12 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
ESNO is dynamical coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomena and what you mean by "cause" isnt a straightforward question. You are aware that "ESNO-like" features emerge in GCMs? The tough question is "how will ESNO change as the world warms?". -
johnd at 11:39 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman at 09:49 AM re "I think my communication skills are very lacking and I am sorry for this." Norman, you have nothing to apologise for, the presentation of your arguments are very lucid, IMO. -
PaulPS at 11:08 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Thanks Phila, JMurphy, and Yooper. Need a little time to digest. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:57 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Re: PaulPS (65) Excellent question, Paul. At what point do we deem we have enough information to make an informed decision on anything? ow do we know the "experts" know what they're talking about? As I see it, we have two choices: 1. We can go learn the topic ourselves & then decide. This works for things like changing lightbulbs or putting in a new toilet float. Really complex stuff, like pacemakers, I leave to experts. 2. We can solicit the help, aid, opinion of someone who knows the subject. Better yet, several. This has the advantage of being quicker and involving strenuous effort on the part of ones gray matter. But on a certain level it involves trust. Trust that you can decide whom to believe. For home repairs, I do stuff myself. Cardiac stuff, I trust a cardiologist (auto repairs, I solicit referrals from trusted friends). For science consensus statements, I trust credentialed scientific bodies. In this regard we are fortunate: in May, the National Academy of Science release a consensus statement, "Advancing the Science of Climate Change", wherein was found this statement:"A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems…. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
(here's the page with the specific quote). That comes from highly educated professionals who have spent their lives devoted to the study of science. So, if warming is an established fact, and that we are the likely cause, should we do something about it? Consider this: the last time the atmospheric concentration reached current levels was about 15 or so million years ago. Thick forests grew north of the Arctic circle. Global temps were at least 3 degrees C higher. Sea levels were much higher. A completely different world, climatically, then the one present for much of civilization:
So, to avoid having to add an arrow on the right side of the chart with the caption "agriculture ends here", should we try to avoid the worst of the effects of climate change while we still have some say in the matter? If soldiers waited until seeing the sniper picking them off one by one before taking evasive action, that would be kinda nutso, wouldn't it?
So maybe a better question is this: Since we're performing an experiment that can be run once (with no reset button), shouldn't we take action to err on the side of caution?
The Yooper
-
JMurphy at 10:57 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
PaulPS wrote : "At which point the question is asked; Is there enough certainty? If yes, then move forward. If not, wait and continue to collect the data." Can you define the level of certainty you are looking for ? -
Phila at 10:52 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
PaulPS @ #65 With that in mind, can we proceed with policy decisions that will drastically affect so many? To me, the basic problem with this question is the (seeming) assumption that business as usual is not a policy decision that will "drastically affect so many." The amount of warming generally agreed to be inevitable will drastically affect people all over the world. Inaction, according to the best peer-reviewed science available to us, is a policy decision that will lead to an even worse outcome. And I'd argue that this outcome logically includes greater political and economic instability, more drastic government action, and less freedom overall. More, in short, of everything the people who counsel inaction so often say they wish to avoid. The cancer analogy is probably overused, but if five doctors told you you needed chemotherapy, and one doctor told you that chemo would do more harm than good, and thinking positive thoughts would induce spontaneous remission, who would you believe? Many of us, I think, would go with the five doctors. But if we chose not to, we couldn't pretend that we hadn't made a "policy decision," for better or worse (statistically speaking, probably worse). The choice isn't between acting and not acting; it's between different actions that involve risks and consequences, as all actions always have. The main reason the cancer analogy breaks down, of course, is that it's about gambling only with one's own life. -
PaulPS at 10:50 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Phila at 10:13 AM on 12 November, 2010 Phila, You have hit on exactly what is required to determine action/inaction. Model refinement should continue, and additional emperical data included until we reach the low levels of uncertainty that give confidence to the decision making process. At which point the question is asked; Is there enough certainty? If yes, then move forward. If not, wait and continue to collect the data. -
JMurphy at 10:21 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Berényi Péter wrote : "The toxic waste from used batteries is much worse than nuclear stuff, as it is supposed to be generated in a distributed manner in residential areas. Under these circumstances proper handling and enforcement is next to impossible. Well, I seem to find it easy enough to dispose of batteries safely by taking them to recycling centres which (I have to assume) are able to transport them in some safety to their ultimate destination for reprocessing. Can't imagine how I would be able to do that with nuclear waste. -
Riccardo at 10:19 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Tom Dayton #67 there's no need to dig into the well known difference between brightness temperature and temperature. I can't tell if Berényi Péter didn't actually read the paper, deliberately ignored what the authors say or has well founded reasons to believe they're wrong. A few relevant quotes from the paper. "the difference in the 800-1,000 cm-1 region is positive, and lies between about 1 and 2K. It is important not to over-interpret the observations to an accuracy that is not justifed by the errors (see below), nor to lose sight of our principal result, which is the observation of the sharp spectral features discussed in the preceding paragraph." "we do conclude that the observed window difference spectra strongly indicate an effect involving residual small ice crystal effects, incompletely cleared from the data." "we must also take into account inter-annual variability as a possible cause of the observed difference spectra. In the window region, the brightness temperature difference is strongly modulated by short-term fluctuations, such as inter-annual variability (specific concern involves the 1997 warm El Nino/Southern Oscillation, ENSO, event)." -
Phila at 10:13 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman @ #60 I hope you take the time to read the link I posted for muoncounter about Chaos theory. Thanks, but (like most people here, I suspect) I'm actually familiar with the basic concepts of chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics. Putting aside the question of why climatologists stubbornly persist in modeling and prediction, despite the easy online availability of pop-science articles on chaos theory, I'd like to ask again why you seem to feel that uncertainty is grounds for inaction or complacency. -
Norman at 10:07 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#70 Riccardo Climate4you is a work in progress as are most climate sites. There is a vast amount of information concerning Global Warming and new information growing daily. I believe he leaves an email address on his site. I can send him the link you posted and see if he does anything with it. -
PaulPS at 10:02 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
I realize many are satisfied to some extent there is enough proof that CO2 is the primary agent of global warming. However, to Norman's point there are other variables we do not totally understand, or cannot have a high level of confidence in them at this point in time. With that in mind, can we proceed with policy decisions that will drastically affect so many? That is my dilemma, and what I am looking to answer. Has the science come to a point where additional discovery will only be minor, is the best solution confirmed? -
Norman at 09:55 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Here is an example article of why, in a complex system, no easy answer is the "Be All" of understanding the situation. Climate models predicted a warming Arctic and the current warming found in the region may seem to verify the model is accurately predicting what is going on (CO2 increase by man is heating the Arctic region and causing increased summer ice melting). However this arcticle points out that another forcing factor is better at explaining what is going on in the Arctic then the AGW theory. A possible alternative explanation of Arctic warming than AGW. -
JMurphy at 09:55 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman wrote : "#48 JMurphy, Check out Post 21 by Poptech." Sorry, but the question I asked was : Do you have more details of these "many", and what scientific evidence they are using for their "valid counter points" ? Your response fails on both counts, I'm afraid. -
Stephen Baines at 09:53 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman "Scientific proof is not achieved by a series of math equations even if they add up. Scientific proof is empirical evidence. An experiment or test that either confirms or rejects an idea about how something behaves." And yet if someone suggested a chemical reaction that did not obey the law of conservation of mass, or thermodynamic contraints on kinetics, you would hesitate to believe it, no? The moles and energy need to add up. If they don't you are throwing away centuries of science and opening up the range of possibilities to a degree that makes progress impossible. "You don't have a way to verify the proxy with an actual test or measurement." One calibrates (and validates) proxies against known instrumental records. Different proxies are compared to ensure consistency when back casting. As the proxies act by independent means, agreement means something. Are they perfect..no? Temporal resolution is course and varies among proxies, and other factors can affect them. But when independent proxies agree that gives us more confidence that what they see is correct. To throw that information away simply it seems fuzzy compared to a chemical reaction under controlled conditions in the laboratory seems disingenuous to me. "Climate is a similar complex system. The fundamental science behind climate is well established and tested (radiation properties, thermodynamics etc) but the overall system is complex and chaotic and even models with the largest computers will not be able to contain all the interactions." Should we not believe reaction kinetics because it does not explicitly consider all the shifts in quantum state that constantly occur at the atomic and molecular level? No, because we can generalize about the average behavior of compounds in solutions without that specific knowledge. We also cannot predict when an individual atom of a radioactive isotope will decay, but I can predict with amazing exactness the half life of a mole of C14. Likewise, we cannot predict what the winds will do in Sumatra next week, but we can be darn sure that as CO2 increases the radiative balance of the earth will change and that this must be reflected in a changing heat balance, which has predictable consequences for average conditions on earth, based on long standing physical principles. That we do not know everything does not mean that we know nothing and that generalization is not possible in any science. I long ago learned not to dismiss too quickly how another science goes about its business. Smart people find ways of dealing with the problems thrown up by the systems they study, and it takes a lot of experience to understand why experts in the field have taken the approach they have. -
JMurphy at 09:50 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman wrote : "The comment "...prior to 1970 all warming was natural, according to the IPCC" was based upon the visual analysis of the Model runs from IPCC. Look at the graph. He did not put a quote around the statement as it did not come from any text. Before 1970 the natural and anthropogenic CO2 produced the same effect." He did not put a quote around the text because then it would be too obvious that he is pushing his luck. It is always best to read the original words that came with the graphs; words like these : There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. (i.e. prior to 1970 all warming was NOT natural, according to the IPCC) During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. (i.e. that is why the bands diverge from that period onwards) Norman also wrote : "So did you take the time to look at any of his graphs and conclusions? Or did you stop at this statement and conclude he was incorrect and the rest of the site was useless?" By the time I had gotten to the graphs, I had also come across the non-scientific and emotive term "warm-mongers", and a reference to claims made by Steve McIntyre. He has his agenda and he intends to fit his case around that. If that is what you prefer to read too, I'll leave you to it. -
Norman at 09:49 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
%58 Phila I think my communication skills are very lacking and I am sorry for this. My points are that models of complex systems are inherently unpredictable. You can tweek them forever and have them mimic past events, but it does not make them able to accurately predict the future of a chaotic system. I hope you take the time to read the link I posted for muoncounter about Chaos theory.Moderator Response: Norman, type "chaos" into the Search field at the top left of this page. -
Norman at 09:45 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
muoncounter, Here is a quick look at chaos theory. Chaos theory.Moderator Response: Norman, the topic of chaos in climate change is well known. Type "chaos" into the Search field at the top left of this page. -
Phila at 09:42 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman #55 You have to make assumptions, you have to trust some unknown that you did not think of is effectin a proxy. You also have to make assumptions when you claim that climate models based on basic physical laws are wrong, or much more likely to be wrong than right, or much more likely to err on the side of "alarmism" than complacency. You seem to worry about trusting "some unknown" not to falsify climate models, but you also seem to be implying that we should trust that some unknown will falsify climate models. And as I see it, the grounds for assuming that some unknown process will result in a much happier outcome than the best available science predicts are actually much "fuzzier," in terms of their evidentiary basis, than the models you're trying to critique. -
Norman at 09:38 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#56 muoncounter Now where in my post did I say I reject fuzzy science? If something works you can still use it and build technology based upon it. Scientists are not sure what gravity or or how it is produced or if it can be manipulated. But they can certainly test an experiment with it to learn how it works and behaves and develop technology with this in mind (even if they do not grasp how it works at a deeper level). Fuzzy is a place where you can not empirically test your ideas. In Chemistry they had many models and ideas of what atoms where and how they behaved. They started running tests and found out their assumptions were not correct...Quantum theory came from empirical tests. They thought atoms were little hard balls, but when they shot radiation at it the radiation went on through except small amounts that bounced off the nucleus. I was just making a point between a hard tested science and the other that you can only logically infer but can never actually test. See the difference? I think my solar system analogy of complex systems did not convince you. It is not the scale of the climate system that is the problem, it is he complexity. Once a system is chaotic the ability to predict it will become increasingly difficult. It is why local weather is so very hard to predict. It is a chaotic system where small changes can have large outcomes in the future and the best models and calculating machines cannot overcome this fact. "One doesn't need to include all the interactions to understand a system governed by what you describe as 'well-established and tested' science. If the fundamental science is well-established and tested, then the predictions made by that science are no different than those from any other science." Maybe if you looked into chaos theory and predictability. The laws of gravity are very well established but predicting orbital motions of a multistar solar system may not even be possible.Moderator Response: Search for "chaos" in the field at the top left. -
Riccardo at 09:31 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman indeed. It's exactly what wanted to say, we have no evidence of a significant change in cloud cover, let alone take it as an alternative explanation of current warming trend. This is one more reason why the site you link is unreliable. -
Riccardo at 09:28 AM on 12 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
Eric (skeptic) I'm too lazy to check your numbers, but the data shows that it is indeed possible to measure the change in ocean heat content. Adding natural variability and it sure takes several years to confidently assess the trend. -
muoncounter at 09:17 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
55: "Fuzzy science is the realm where you stretch back in time or go smaller than you can test. " So you reject as fuzzy sciences: Earth science, cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. If so, you must reject the benefits of said sciences: But you drive a car which runs on petroleum found by earth scientists, use a TV or computer which runs on electronics described by quantum behavior and most likely use a GPS device which requires general relativity to work correctly. Are there no model equations in Chemistry? No statistical behavior? Nothing 'fuzzy'? "Climate is a similar complex system. The fundamental science behind climate is well established and tested ... but the overall system is complex and chaotic and even models with the largest computers will not be able to contain all the interactions." So you object to the scale of the problem? How many molecules of a gas do you measure to determine its properties? Certainly not all of them. One doesn't need to include all the interactions to understand a system governed by what you describe as 'well-established and tested' science. If the fundamental science is well-established and tested, then the predictions made by that science are no different than those from any other science. Where's the real fuzzy stuff coming from? The cherry-pickers and denialists who discount the expert analysis and repeat whatever the meme du jour happens to be. -
Berényi Péter at 08:51 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
#111 KR at 08:35 AM on 12 November, 2010 the damage to the water table from rubble percolation is unaffected by top contours. [...] I'm (personal opinion warning) a big fan of carbon taxes If you are worried over water table contamination, go for a tax on it, not on something else. Makes more sense, IMHO. -
Norman at 08:50 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#53 scaddenp Not sure what you are asking. My field is Chemistry. It is one of the Classic and solid sciences. Scientific proof is not achieved by a series of math equations even if they add up. Scientific proof is empirical evidence. An experiment or test that either confirms or rejects an idea about how something behaves. Fuzzy science is the realm where you stretch back in time or go smaller than you can test. Places you can not directly test. Earth's climate millions of years ago is fuzzy. It is based upon lots of proxy data that may be valid but then again maybe it doesn't work the way researchers believe it does. You don't have a way to verify the proxy with an actual test or measurement. You have to make assumptions, you have to trust some unknown that you did not think of is effectin a proxy. If a system gets too complex the model gets fuzzy really fast. Case of point. Our solar system functions in a nice model perdictable fashion. We have One much larger central mass and the laws of gravity can do very well to predict orbital motions of planets. But in a Solar system with multiple stars and planets the simple law of gravity will not allow a simple model to predict the motions of such planets. They become much more chaotic and unpredictable. Climate is a similar complex system. The fundamental science behind climate is well established and tested (radiation properties, thermodynamics etc) but the overall system is complex and chaotic and even models with the largest computers will not be able to contain all the interactions. Albedo can change, the Earth does change its position to the sun in orbital cycles, clouds are really random and dynamic and very hard to model, water vapor is very complex as it will increase and decrease based upon other variables in the system. Don't know if this helps. I am working to understand what your points are, what are you getting at. -
Berényi Péter at 08:41 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
#109 RSVP at 07:41 AM on 12 November, 2010 Has anyone produced a study that the world's photovoltaic production could actually sustain itself energywise, not to mention contributing this so called wedge? You know, it actually takes quite a bit of energy to create a solar cell (i.e., energy to get people to factories, turn on the diffusion furnaces, power the factory, package, ship, install, refurbish, and in the end clean the land of high tech poison left from all the exotic chemical processes.) The point is no such study is needed. Just a free market with no subsidies whatsoever and proper regulations (to ensure for example no high tech poison is left behind). If it takes more energy to put solar panels in operation than they are able to produce in their lifetime, power sold would not cover production costs, therefore only madmen (and government agencies) would invest their money in such projects. Let people think for themselves. In this respect the distributed information processing system called free market is much more efficient than any scientific study could possibly be. In the rare cases expert opinion is really needed, people would contract and pay for it. -
Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Unfortunately, Berényi, original contour restoration may not be possible (rubble is not stable/safe at angles of repose that the original solid rock hillsides often had), and the damage to the water table from rubble percolation is unaffected by top contours. Currently mountaintop mining is the prevalent up-and-coming technique, due to it's low (financial) costs compared to deep mining or even strip mining. I have some hopes that regulation will be developed to minimize this, but not strong ones. $$$ speaks loudly... I'm (personal opinion warning) a big fan of carbon taxes - if it's financially advantageous to use renewable energy, companies will do just that. Taxes, like regulations/penalties, are one of our available behavioral modification strategies. -
johnd at 08:20 AM on 12 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
Ned at 03:31 AM, you are correct in making the comparison between the ENSO cycles and the drop in temperature from day to night, or from summer to winter and the recognition that the diurnal cycle and the seasons are short-term cyclical phenomena, because they are all effects, effects that are recognisable and measurable. However the big difference is that whilst we all know and understand the cause of the night/day cycle, and the seasonal cycle, this discussion hasn't addressed the cause, the real drivers of the El-Nino/La Nina cycle, and until that has been done, none of the questions raised have been answered. -
Berényi Péter at 08:18 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
#107 KR at 06:21 AM on 12 November, 2010 Coal for power is just not a good idea. Let's say mountain top removal mining is not a bright idea. The story is not about coal as such, but regulations permitting a particular method. There are other, more benign ways to extract coal. You should clearly change section 515(c) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Current version reads like this: SECTION 515 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS [30 U.S.C. 1265] [...] (c) Procedures; exception to original contour restoration requirements (1) Each State program may and each Federal program shall include procedures pursuant to which the regulatory authority may permit surface mining operations for the purposes set forth in paragraph (3) of this subsection. (2) Where an applicant meets the requirements of paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection a permit without regard to the requirement to restore to approximate original contour set forth in subsection 515(b)(3) or 515(d)(2) and (3) of this section may be granted for the surface mining of coal where the mining operation will remove an entire coal seam or seams running through the upper fraction of a mountain, ridge, or hill (except as provided in subsection (c)(4)(A) hereof) by removing all of the overburden and creating a level plateau or a gently rolling contour with no highwalls remaining, and capable of supporting postmining uses in accord with the requirements of this subsection. etc., etc. Original contour restoration has to be enforced without exception. No "may permit" or "may be granted" in law, it's just call for corruption. In addition to this, topsoil has to be removed and stored in a separate location until open mining of a segment is finished. After contour restoration, soil has to be put back and the area reforested. It is as simple as that. As far as I know the US is still a democracy, at least in theory. Laws are supposed to be written and rewritten by representatives of the people, by the people, for the people and not by corporate lobby groups. Am I missing something? -
scaddenp at 08:03 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman - so we are having "unusual" weather at the moment. Does that make it unique? A unique event would by unusual but not the other way round. But instead of playing word games, look at the sentence that you quoted from the IPCC. Has climate4You refuted this statement? No. -
scaddenp at 08:00 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Post 21 by Poptech - seriously?? perhaps you should study how modelling is climate modelling is actually done and verified to evaluate that. -
scaddenp at 07:57 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman, which comments do you think raise "valid objections" - based on published science please? You go on about proof again. Proof belongs to mathematics. What do you think scientific proof looks like? We have a working model of what causes ice-ages that claims orbital-induced variations in insolation magnified by feedbacks in albedo and GHGs reproduce the effect. To harp on a point, IPCC WG1 Chapter 6 discusses this and points you to the seminal papers. Better than a website. If you want entertain the idea the orbital cycles can do this by themselves, then why arent hemispheres anti-phased? And the early objection to milankovich cycles was that the insolation change is way too small to create that much variation. You need the feedbacks. (Note that you can introduce all manner of fantasy models for explaining the world if you remove the constraint that the arithmetic must add up - but that isnt science). -
RSVP at 07:41 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
clonmac #104 "But the future is clearly solar power (and other self-sustainable options) which is why investments need to be made in it." I agree, but more so because it is supposedly a sustainable energy source. Or maybe I said too much. Has anyone produced a study that the world's photovoltaic production could actually sustain itself energywise, not to mention contributing this so called wedge? You know, it actually takes quite a bit of energy to create a solar cell (i.e., energy to get people to factories, turn on the diffusion furnaces, power the factory, package, ship, install, refurbish, and in the end clean the land of high tech poison left from all the exotic chemical processes.) -
dana1981 at 07:41 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
BP - "current battery packs...are turned into highly toxic waste at the end of their lifetime." What sort of battery packs are you talking about? I know lithium ion battery packs (which are cetainly current technology) are recycled (i.e. see Tesla), and don't contain heavy metals to begin with. clonmac #104 - very good point that land use efficiency is a relatively minor concern when it comes to energy production and associated environmental impact. There's no shortage of unused land, particularly in deserts, and of course rooftops. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:38 AM on 12 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
Thank you for that info Riccardo. I now see some on the Trenberth's travesty page. My quick calculation for the .64 w/m2 is 10^22 Joules per year. If applied to 700m of ocean (approx 2.5 * 10^23 grams of water), that's 0.01 degrees of warming per year (although my estimate for the 700m ocean mass is probably high). So yes, we need a better measurements network, but perhaps impossible given the small change we will have to measure. -
Tom Dayton at 07:32 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman, Ned is understating his case. "Unique" really means one of a kind, not merely unusual. In everyday conversation, "unique" is used casually as a synonym for "unusual," but the IPCC has gone out of its way to be careful in its choice of words, due to certain people jumping to conclusions based on the IPCC's more casual usage in the past. -
Tom Dayton at 07:25 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
I need help from someone more knowledgeable, but it seems to me that BP is incorrect in assuming a 2 degrees increase in brightness temperature equivalent to blackbody temperature in the narrow band of 750 cm-1 and 900 cm-1 requires a layer of atmosphere having increased its measured "temperature" by 2 degrees. -
Ned at 07:23 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman, in general the IPCC tend to be very cautious in their use of words. I would not recommend reading "unusual" and substituting the word "unique". -
Norman at 07:21 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#62 Riccardo I read through your link. It does not make the claim that the cloud cover percentage has not changed. They just warn against using this data to form any conclusion about climate because of problems with how the cloud cover is measured. As far as this article goes, Cloud cover could still be the dominant driver. There argument is don't use the cloud cover data at this time. -
Ned at 07:19 AM on 12 November 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Michele, your writing is a bit unclear, probably due to language issues. Well, it is, really, the back radiation that contradicts the second law assuming that the energy (heat) flows from lower temperature (atmosphere) to higher temperature (ground). There is a net heat flow from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere. But the presence of the (GHG-laden) atmosphere keeps the surface warmer than it would be in the absence of greenhouse gases. There's no contradiction of the 2nd law. As it happens, there is a nice discussion of this right now over at Science of Doom. -
Norman at 07:17 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#57 scaddenp "The text never uses the word unique. There is no argument easier to demolish than a strawman." From the IPCC page: "Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were signifi cantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}" IPCC source of above quote. Look at the Thesaurus for the word unusual...do you see unique in that list?
Prev 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 Next
