Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 Next
Comments 107601 to 107650:
-
Ned at 23:14 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I haven't visited John Kehr's website, but Philip64 quotes that site as follows: If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere at all, the earth would be ever so slightly cooler, but barely enough to notice. Once there is about 50 ppm in the atmosphere, any additional amounts do not matter. There is overwhelming evidence that this is not true. Much of it is summarized on this site (e.g., here or here); much more can be learned by careful perusal of the excellent site Science of Doom, particularly the series of posts on CO2: An Insignificant Trace Gas (note the particular discussion of "Saturation" in Part Eight). -
Ned at 23:01 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I wrote: OK, epic rant over. Sorry! Actually, not over. I'm feeling a bit cantankerous this morning, so let me just add a bit more. (This is freely self-plagiarized from something I wrote on another forum ... it's not open-access, or I would just provide a link rather than restating it). Is there really anything wrong with a person offering contradictory (or incoherent) alternatives to someone else's theory? Let's say you're a chemistry professor and one of your grad students comes to you with some results that seem to contradict some fundamental aspect of basic physical chemistry. You know their results are probably wrong, but you don't know exactly why. So you suggest that maybe they used the wrong materials, or they measured something incorrectly, or they failed to maintain the proper temperature or pressure, or they recorded the data incorrectly, or they forgot to add the catalyst, or ... whatever. Obviously, all of these explanations are contradictory, but that's OK because what you're really doing is proposing a range of alternatives that need to be considered rather than proposing a single coherent argument of your own. In essence, the burden of "coherence" is on those who are actively supporting a specific theory, e.g. the mainstream view of anthropogenic climate change. Our theory only works if CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and we really are increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the assortment of positive feedbacks is strong enough to yield a climate sensitivity > 1 C or whatever and the economic/environmental impacts of climate change are negative enough to worry about. The skeptics' advantage is that they "win" if they can break any one of the links in that chain. Our advantage is that it's a very strong chain; the first two links are rock-solid, the third is at least close to rock-solid, and the fourth is pretty convincing to me but probably the source of greatest uncertainty. However, what this doesn't do is free the "skeptic" from the burden of reducing her or his "incoherence" over time in response to the evidence. In my analogy above, the chemistry professor needs to drop one of her alternative explanations for the student's odd result once the student provides sufficient evidence to rule out that particular alternative explanation. Likewise, let's consider a recent example from this site. A commenter recently suggested that if there really were significant positive feedbacks in the climate system, then "any change in CO2 would cause unbounded feedback and thermal runaway." She/he then concluded (logically) that the lack of any Venusian-style runaway warming at the end of the last interglacial "is a serious problem for computer models". Now, many people have this mistaken idea (that positive feedbacks would lead to "thermal runaway", and so they must not exist). This idea has been debunked many, many times on this site, including on the page Does positive feedback necessarily mean runaway warming?. So, I pointed this out to the skeptical commenter in question. What happens next? Does she/he persist in claiming that climate models must be wrong because the Earth isn't experiencing a "thermal runaway"? That persistence would be consistent (over time) ... but that virtue would pale in comparison to the much greater intellectual sin of hanging on to false beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary. Alternatively, does the commenter drop that particular "alternative" to the mainstream climate consensus? Logically, accepting that the "thermal runaway" thing isn't actually a sign of a problem with climate models does not force one to accept the entire IPCC AR4 in all its glory. But the point here is that while it's OK for individual "skeptics" to offer lots of disparate alternatives, they need to show some willingness to eliminate those alternatives when confronted with the evidence. Failing to do so will understandably lead to uncomfortable conclusions about people's intellectual honesty. (I am speaking hypothetically here, not referring to anyone in particular.) -
Roger A. Wehage at 22:36 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Don't tell us that there are contradictions; tell us why. Why are the messages not getting through to the public? Why would the average Joe prefer to condemn his offspring to an eternal life of suffering than to sacrifice now? It would appear that the average Joe is not taking climate change warnings seriously, so rather than worrying about whether all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, maybe it's time to start worrying about how those i's and t's are arranged within the messages.Moderator Response: Good question. There is a fairly large psychological literature on skepticism and climate change that partially answers your question. I hope to get around to doing a podcast/post on this issue in the near future. SL -
Ned at 22:28 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I will admit first off that my impression of many "skeptics" is that they will happily seize on any argument that supports their belief, regardless of whether or not it logically contradicts something else they may have been saying earlier. That said, there's nothing inherent in climate skepticism that demands this kind of incoherence, and there are people out there who have what seem to me like coherent skeptic belief systems. Most of the people I have in mind are perfectly cognizant of the basic physics of AGW, they recognize that the observed increase in CO2 is anthropogenic, they will readily agree that the Earth is warming and that this is mostly due to radiative forcing from GHGs, but they think climate sensitivity is on the low end of the scale and/or that the mainstream view of the impacts is unduly pessimistic. These are very defensible views. I think we do everyone a disservice when we treat all climate-skepticism as if it were coextensive with the commentariat at WUWT. I do think it's not random chance that the skeptics who seem most consistent are also those whose skepticism is limited to the more readily supportable arguments. Belief in the more extreme skeptic claims (AGW violates the second law of thermodynamics, CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere, CO2 is coming from the oceans, it's all a big conspiracy) is probably a pretty good indicator of fuzzy thinking in general. That said, there are a few more points to make here. First, it's easy to get an exaggerated impression of how widespread incoherence is, when you have lots of individuals on the same "side" making lots of different claims and failing to explicitly dissociate themselves from each others' claims. This is something I harp on all the time ... but I'll make it again. If people on this site who hold more "sensible" climate-skeptic positions were actually willing to speak up and disagree when the more irrational claims are promoted, it would do a lot to promote trust, confidence, and friendly communication on this site. Unfortunately that virtually never happens. With almost no effort right now I could put up links to a dozen recent discussions on here where one or another skeptical commenter made breathtakingly wrong claims or howlingly fallacious lines of reasoning, and in each case it's the "regulars" on this site who show up to provide the answers or rebuttals, while the entire "skeptic" contingent basically sits on the sidelines. (Sorry if I sound a bit emotional about this, but for a year or so now I've been increasingly frustrated by what I perceive as a passive demonstration of near total irresponsibility on the part of my "skeptic" friends on this site). Getting back to the topic of this thread, another point is that it's easy to exaggerate the incoherence of one's opponents and to inadvertently minimize the incoherence of one's friends. I think there are no shortage of cases where people make incoherent arguments in support of mainstream climate science. (If people doubt this, I can go into detail in another comment). It's probably good to try to reduce incoherence and inconsistency in our own arguments, and it's occasionally valuable to point out when our rhetorical opponents are making inconsistent claims. But let's not fetishize consistency. In another thread, we've seen a "skeptic" criticizing Mann 2008 for showing greater century/milliennial-scale variability than Mann 1998. Is that inconsistency? Is it bad? Ultimately, we should only worry about being consistent in seeking to understand the truth and in using that understanding to inform our stewardship of this fine planet we've been lucky enough to inherit from those who went before us. OK, epic rant over. Sorry!Moderator Response: Well put. SL -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 22:18 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
@CBD, The Arrhenius article is about the origin of the idea behind global warming. Angstrom pointed out the flaw at the time, but Arrhenius persisted and tried to ignore the skeptical view. An article is just that, it tells one tiny piece of the puzzle. That was an article on the historical origins of global warming and what it looks like if projected out. The two main ideas for "dominant" factors in climate are CO2 and 65N insolation. The question is which is dominant right now. Right now in this article I am curious as to my previous question. Thanks for you view. I do appreciate it. -
CBDunkerson at 22:06 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
TIS #19: Having read your article on Arrhenius I can say that your arguments are certainly NOT coherent. For instance, you claim that Arrhenius's ideas were accepted basically unchallenged for 80 years... and then cite Angstrom's 'proof' to the contrary from just a few years later. Contradicting both yourself AND reality in that Angstrom's findings were widely accepted and Arrhenius's AGW theory considered incorrect for decades until it was proven that Angstrom got it wrong. Can any skeptic be coherent? Certainly... but then every remotely coherent skeptic I can think of (e.g. Roy Spencer) acknowledges that anthropogenic global warming is real and currently taking place. True skeptics (e.g. Kevin Trenberth) of course seek to uncover the details of the warming impacts by determining the gaps and errors in our current understanding. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 21:35 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
This article is about the coherence. I am trying to point out that a person can be coherent and still be a skeptic. Please re-read my statement. I am not trying to debate the entire scientific battle of global warming in a few paragraphs. The article basically states that anyone that is a skeptic is incoherent in there views. I am trying to point out that skeptics are fully capable of coherence. I do understand all the other factors involved in the science, but this specific article is about consistency in views and statements. Let me ask a question. Do any of you believe that a skeptic can be coherent as described by the article? The article concludes that it is not possible, or fairly close with "There is, of course, a coherent alternative. It is the coherent and overwhelmingly supported scientific fact that the Earth’s climate is warming and that humans are largely responsible for it. That is coherent, backed by peer-reviewed science, and endorsed by all major scientific organizations in the world." So do any of you believe that skeptics can be coherent?Moderator Response: In principle, a skeptic position can be coherent. For example, it would be coherent to state "there is no warming and thus we need not worry about anything." It would also be coherent to state "there is warming but it is caused by XYZ not human CO2 emissions." If you look carefully, you will find that most 'skeptics' blend the two positions together, at which point they become incoherent. (As pure but entertaining speculation, I suspect this is because each coherent position is so weak on its own that they seek more argumentative force by combining them--alas, that achieves the opposite.) SL -
PeteM at 21:32 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I've looked at the contradictions. A long list- do you have any triplet states :-) Visually I'd like to see a set of points on a two axis plot. The aim would be to see if an position is easily understood to be contradictory , and/or also to understand if an argument implies multiple contradictions. I'm thinking of one axis representing the level of knowledge you'd need to understand the contradiction ( 5 year old , 10 year old , pre graduate ,...). Another (perpendicular) axis representing number of contradictions in the positioning of the argument . If it very easily understood as contradictory and there are lots of contradictions you're in the red zone (or worst cases the IR zone) ... the fewer contradictions the more orange/green you become . You could then use this to clasify a particular source of (dis)information . -
JMurphy at 21:21 PM on 6 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
johnd wrote : "With regards to the previous original reference to the JAMSTEC discussion, I provided the full link so that anyone interested could have full access to the entire discussion, as you so obviously had done, I therefore could not have been accused of being selective or cherry picking parts of the discussion to suit." johnd, I have replied to this on the 'How reliable are climate models ?' thread. -
JMurphy at 21:20 PM on 6 October 2010Models are unreliable
johnd wrote (on another thread) : "With regards to the previous original reference to the JAMSTEC discussion, I provided the full link so that anyone interested could have full access to the entire discussion, as you so obviously had done, I therefore could not have been accused of being selective or cherry picking parts of the discussion to suit." Unless the particular comment of yours, to which you are referring, has been deleted, I cannot see where you have provided that link. All I can see from you is this from your post which contained the actual quote : His details are at http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/hhendon.htm As far as I am aware, the link to the actual email discussion was provided by doug_bostrom. That is why I replied in the ways (here and here) I did. -
PeteM at 20:50 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Is there a way to clasify how incoherent a set of arguments are ? A sort of Mohs scale for invalid arguments. And perhaps there could be a simple visual representation of how certain websites are self contradictory ? Also, would be better to refer to Climate Skeptics (as in 'denialists') as Climate Incoherents .Response: We have a database of "contradiction pairs" - pairs of skeptic arguments that contradict each other. One thing I noticed about them was some pairs were more in conflict than others. I welcome any suggestions on how to rate the degree of contradiction :-) -
Philip64 at 19:21 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
The Inconvenient Skeptic's site is illuminating - in that it reveals how the mythological conspiracy theory that sustains the anti-AGW industry has grown up. Two crucial paragraphs: The science of global warming, it says is "a flawed theoretical idea, even from the beginning. Unfortunately it was 80 years before it could fully be proven as incorrect and as a result the flawed idea had plenty of time to become well entrenched in the scientific community." ['Fully proven' in this case means eyeballing a non-attributed graph that bears no relationship to any actual temperature data from any reputable source.] In the many decades since Arrhenius, the site claims, the only physicists who have challenged this (mythical) orthodoxy have been ignored "much like the real science continues to be ignored today." It then sets the records straight: "If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere at all, the earth would be ever so slightly cooler, but barely enough to notice. Once there is about 50 ppm in the atmosphere, any additional amounts do not matter." The confidence with which such assertions are made is what lies behind the credibility that sites like this enjoy in the Anglo-Saxon world among laymen of a certain political disposition. -
Anne van der Bom at 19:10 PM on 6 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
I just can't resist to comment. My favourite Steve 'Pixelcounter' Goddard piece is his declaring Hansen's Antarctic ice predictions a failure based on recent trends. On closer examination the Hansen prediction in question appears to be for equilibrium at 2x CO2, i.o.w. somewhere around 2070. We're now in 2010. The completely uncritical reception of this story at WUWT is jaw dropping and very revealing. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:00 PM on 6 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
HR @47 "Truely basic thermodynamics? No assumptions about forcings and feedbacks are involved in these sorts of calculations?" At the most fundamental level, yes. Just about all the forcings and feedbacks net out to some energy flux imbalance for the planet. This energy imbalance results in a net change in Total Heat Content for the climate system of which the Oceans are far and away the dominant element, but with a long time delay. Since the oceans have such huge thermal mass they take much longer to reach a new temperature than the atmosphere. And once the difference in temperature change of the oceans vs the atmosphere grows, this difference starts to alter the energy flows between atmosphere and ocean, retarding the temperature change in the atmosphere until the oceans catch up. And note, in this argument I haven't said warming. The reasoning is exactly the same whether the energy imbalance is positive - warming, or negative - cooling. The atmosphere leads, the oceans follow more slowly, the disparity between the two then retards the atmosphere until the oceans have caught up before a final equilibrium has been achieved. Basic Thermodynamics. What is more complex, and the subject of discussion is what all the forcings and feedbacks add up to and how this balance might evolve over time. But the same basic principle would apply if the Sun suddenly changed its Heat output by 1%, or if we started using geoengineering to add aerosols to the air. Note that I have only made this argument in qualitative terms. What the quantitative analysis is I leave to someone way above my pay grade. But if the atmospheric temperature change to date is positive, then the 'in the pipe line' warming MUST also be positive unless some process suddenly reverses the net forcing. Basic Thermodynamics. As to the quantitative estimate of how much, my get feel says that 0.6 is too low. But I am not qualifed to make that quantitave estimate. The analysis of the experts probably trumps 'my gut' Consider, of the heat changes measured so far, around 90% has accumulated in the oceans and only 3% in the atmosphere. But the the upper levels of the ocean have only seen temperature change of a fraction of the change in the atmosphere so far, and the abyssal oceans virtually not at all. To use another analogy, imagine a tribe of meerkats trying to move an elephant. As all the meerkats chatter around, pushing and shoving, there is some net direction in which they are trying to move the elephant. Even so, it takes some time for them all to move the elephant anywhere. And the Oceans are the elephant of the climate system. -
RSVP at 18:31 PM on 6 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
KR #98 That is the most perceptive remark on this thread. The fact that ozone in one place is "pollution" (i.e., harmful), and in another not only beneficial, but pretty much vital to life on Earth. To what degree this is actually true for CO2 is literally "up in the air". :) As with freon, the next question, is the EPA going to ban Coca-Cola? -
HumanityRules at 18:31 PM on 6 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
44.Glenn Tamblyn Truely basic thermodynamics? No assumptions about forcings and feedbacks are involved in these sorts of calculations? -
HumanityRules at 18:28 PM on 6 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
#40 scaddenp Another favorite paper on this website, murphy et al 2009, seems to to balance the energy budget without resorting to "missing heat". This suggests an inconsistency between Hansen 2005 and Murphy 2009. A new paper in press from Knox and Douglass suggests Hansen has got it wrong, questioning the TOA measurements. I realise that this part of the paper is very brief but the comment comes about from the fact that their finding seem to be moving in an opposite direction to what Hansen would like to see. And in a roundabout way this new paper on indirect aerosol forcing, Ruckstuhl et al 2010, which if accurate suggest IA forcing may be around 0 rather than -0.7W m2 assumed by the IPCC. Given this large potential error then my guess is the assumptions behind Hansen (and others) calculations need to be constantly re-assessed. (I'm happy to here how I've mis-interpreted these papers) -
adelady at 17:54 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
thingadonta, your argument about economics is sort of irrelevant to this particular issue in science and coherence versus incoherence. The big difference with the coherent science and the incoherent opposing arguments is the *strength* of the scientific coherence. The calculations about CO2 in climate science are entirely consistent with the calculations about CO2 used in lasers. It doesn't matter that these calculations are done within models you don't like. If they were done in pen and ink on parchment by 100,000 mathematicians in cubicles, they'd still have that irreducible core of coherence with the physics used in laser technology and any number of fields I couldn't pronounce the names of, far less spell. Disprove climate science? Go right ahead. The first thing you have to do is prove that it is *possible* for CO2 to have different radiative properties in atmosphere compared to exactly the same molecules in a laser. Once that's done, I'll leave you or your team of Nobel Prize winners to come up with the next step. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:55 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
No doubt, thingadonta. Why not get it over with all at once and give mathematics a good stirring? Who cares whether or not multiplying and dividing from different directions gets us to the same place? As the fellow said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." If we're orbiting satellites and they're not quite behaving correctly, there's absolutely no reason why people doing orbital mechanics and other people researching mascons should care if their findings agree, it simply doesn't matter. Oh, wait, I just noticed. No matter how hard I frown, regardless of whether I buy or do not buy "white goods," Big G stays the same. Oops. -
Bibliovermis at 16:55 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
The stockmarket is no more coherent than people. It is a social phenomenon. The basis of science is not a social phenomenon. > non-verifiable theories Please read Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming and comment there. -
archiesteel at 16:52 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
@thingadonta: "I suppose you would also say the stockmarket would only be correct, or useful, or practical, if it was coherant." Why would anyone say that? You're comparing a chaotic transactional system with argumentation about a scientific theory. You're not just comparing apples and oranges, here, but apples and screwdrivers. By the way, the field of Economics dates from the 18th century. I fail to see how getting "coherance" (sic) out of it could have taken "several thousands of years." I'm puzzled by what you're trying to say. Are you arguing in favor of incoherence? -
kdkd at 16:50 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
thingo #11 So what you're saying is that one of the assumptions surrounding economics is that it doesn't have to make sense, and consequently the same should be true of science. There's a reason that economics is called the "dismal science". Alternatively there's the old joke: Why did god invent economists? To make weathermen look good. With respect to the stock market, it tracks money, which is an abstract construct created by humans. It's reality is internally generated (which is why insanities like refusing to price externalities exist in that field). Natural sciences on the other hand exist to explain phenomena that usually have some sort of existence outisde of human concerns. As a result, your argument makes no sense whatsoever to me. -
thingadonta at 16:37 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I suppose you would also say the stockmarket would only be correct, or useful, or practical, if it was coherant. It took several thousand years to get this nonsense about 'coherance' out of economics, and I suppose it's goung to take several thousand years to get this nonsense about 'coherance' out of fields of science which deal with projections and non-verifiable theories. -
Albatross at 16:15 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
TIC, Sigh. You say " I am told that CO2 is the main forcing factor in climate," You are getting confused between the relative contributions of different forcing mechanisms, and the time scale involved. Moreover, you seem to be confusing different eras and forcing mechanisms, and also seem to misunderstand the importance of rate of change. For some time now, anthro GHGs have been a significant forcing mechanism (they are of course not the only forcing mechanism, that is why the global temperature has not been increasing monotonically), and that forcing will increase continue to increase with time anthro CO2 and other GHGs concentrations continue to rise (not to mention increases in GHGs from feedbacks as the permafrost melts, for example). You also fail to propose a physical and realistic natural mechanism which explains the the recent warming. Not only that, but one which explains the distribution of the warming around the globe (i.e., polar amplification), timing of warming (i.e., evening temperatures warming faster than day-time temperatures and most pronounced warming in winter), as well as the vertical profile of warming (warming of troposphere and cooling of stratosphere). Now there is a well-established and tested coherent theory which can explain all that, and it is not natural..... Many of the misconceptions and myths surrounding anthropogenic climate change are addressed elsewhere on this site. I really do recommend you read them and the literature cited therein. Let us cut to the chase, because this is what it ultimately boils down to, and this is where the uncertainty lies: 1) What do you understand equilibrium climate sensitivity to be without feed backs for doubling CO2 (or CO2 equivalent)? 2) What do you understand equilibrium climate sensitivity to be with feed backs (positive and negative) for doubling CO2 (or CO2 equivalent)? Thanks. -
Dan Moutal at 16:07 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Bringing back the discussion to this podcast (still can't find the RSS feed to subscribe to the podcast), I think the topic of coherence is essential to repeat often. Someone doesn't have to be an expert to understand that incoherent explanations have problems. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:52 PM on 6 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
GC, why don't you contact Alley himself at Penn State? The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 15:48 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Re: The Inconvenient Skeptic (1, 3) I looked at your Taylor Dome link. What I see is a graph with trend lines fitted...with no real analysis, no discussion of the radiative physics involved; in short, no evidence that you possess a substantive understanding of what you are trying to debunk. Climate Science is an extremely complex subject. Unless you have a multi-disciplinarian background, playing with data sets to create graphs reveals no insights into the underlying processes involved due to the lack of context and understanding. For example, your statement: "The Taylor Dome shows 4 warming periods comparable to the current." is rebutted by a layman's discussion here. I second everything archiesteel said in his most excellent comments above (except for #6). ;) You really should try to gain a greater understanding of the role of CO2 as the Biggest Control Knob. The Yooper -
Doug Bostrom at 15:46 PM on 6 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
As well, it's worth remembering that the Nobel Peace Prize is not really intended in the same way as a Nobel for physics, or chemistry: “The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics ...” versus “The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” as the categories are somewhat weirdly presented at the Nobel Prize website. -
bgood2creation at 15:43 PM on 6 October 2010CO2 effect is saturated
A few of your links are not working, but I think I found them. Griggs 2004 http://rose.bris.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/1983/999/1/paper.pdf Philipona 2004 http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2004/2003GL018765.shtml However, I could not find the Chen 2007 article. And thanks for the informative article. Blessings,Response: I've updated the links (and tracked down Chen 2007). Many thanks for the URLs - let's hope they stay active for as long as possible :-) -
archiesteel at 15:43 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
TIS, you may want to have a look at this to get a sense of proportions with regards to temperatures during the last millennium. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:36 PM on 6 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Although he's much-decorated I don't see anything about a Richard Lindzen Nobel prize in his bio: Richard Lindzen He does seem to have that reputation in some circles. Perhaps this was the shared award for IPCC work? Pretty ironic if so. I notice that the sites referring to him primarily as a Nobel laureate don't mention why he received his award. In any case, other than He Who Shall Not Be Named, no individuals were apparently included in the 2007 Nobel accorded to the IPCC: The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" -
archiesteel at 15:33 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
@TIS: "The natural increase was a 9% increase. Since then there has been a 39% increase in CO2. That is a multiple of 4.3 not 3 orders of magnitude. 280ppm to 390 ppm is in no way an increase of 1000x." A 9 percent increase over millenia, which amounts to a rate of increase of 0.27ppm per century (the figure from the graph on your blog) , vs. a rate of increase of 2ppm per year, which is likely to increase to 3 and more if the current trend in emmissions continues. As I said, about three orders of magnitude. "I was not insulting although the article was to those that disagree. I don't mind being insulted" Uh...who said anything about insults? I didn't insult you, nor did I insinuated you insulted others. I simply asked you to stop spamming your blog. "but please look at the Taylor Dome temperature of the past 1,000 years before saying that the current warming is very unlikely to be natural. The Taylor Dome shows 4 warming periods comparable to the current." It's hard to say because your graph does not show how it compares to the instrumental record. Without providing the context of temperatures for the last hundred years, your claim is meaningless. In other words, your graph does not allow to make the claim that similar average temperature increases have occured in the last 1,000 years, nor that average temperatures have been higher than the current ones during the past millenium. You should learn more about the science before adding one more outlet to an already crowded contrarian blogosphere... -
macoles at 15:29 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
TIS at 1, Why are you using the extreme ends of the Earth - Arctic on your website, and Antarctic in your link - to make an argument about average global temperatures? Surely a dataset with a decent spread of locations across the globe would be far more suitable? -
Daniel Bailey at 15:23 PM on 6 October 2010New observations find underwater Arctic Shelf is perforated and venting methane
Some interesting recent developments on the methane clathrate/PETM front. 1. From GEOLOGY (Abstract only available):"Changes in ocean circulation have been proposed as a trigger mechanism for the large coupled climate and carbon cycle perturbations at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, ca. 55 Ma). An abrupt warming of oceanic intermediate waters could have initiated the thermal destabilization of sediment-hosted methane gas hydrates and potentially triggered sediment slumps and slides. In an ensemble of fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model (AOGCM) simulations of the late Paleocene and early Eocene, we identify such a circulation-driven enhanced intermediate-water warming. Critically, we find an approximate twofold amplification of Atlantic intermediate-water warming when CO2 levels are doubled from 2× to 4× preindustrial CO2 compared to when they are doubled from 1× to 2×. This warming is largely focused on the equatorial and South Atlantic and is driven by a significant reduction in deep-water formation from the Southern Ocean. This scenario is consistent with altered PETM circulation patterns inferred from benthic carbon isotope data and the intensity of deep-sea carbonate dissolution in the South Atlantic. The linkage between intermediate-water warming and gas hydrate destabilization could provide an important feedback in the establishment of peak PETM warmth."
Source: CO2-driven ocean circulation changes as an amplifier of Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum hydrate destabilization 2. From Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society A (Abstract only available):"The plausible range of carbon mass input, approximately 4000–7000 PgC, strongly suggests a major alternative source of carbon in addition to any contribution from methane hydrates. We find that the potential range of PETM atmospheric pCO2 increase, combined with proxy estimates of the PETM temperature anomaly, does not necessarily imply climate sensitivities beyond the range of state-of-the-art climate models."
Source: A Palaeogene perspective on climate sensitivity and methane hydrate instability 3. From a poster presentation at the EGU, 2010"Hyperthermal climate events are geologically brief (~10-100kyrs) transient periods of marked global warming associated with prominent negative carbon isotope excursions and deep-sea carbonate dissolution. They are most likely the result of massive injections of isotopically light carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system. One plausible source of isotopically light carbon is a widespread dissociation of continental slope, sediment-hosted methane gas hydrates. Proposed triggers for the dissociation of such deep-water hydrates include a pronounced (~4ºC) warming of intermediate to deep waters driven by changes in global overturning circulation (Dickens et al., 1995). The most prominent hyperthermal event of the Ceonzoic is the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum (~55Ma; PETM)." "CONCLUSIONS We show modelling results which support the hypothesis that Eocene hyperthermals could be paced by orbital variations. The mechanism for this forcing is orbitally induced switches in ocean circulation, which lead to non-linear intermediate ocean warming, with the possibility of resulting destabilization of methane gas hydrates. The switches in circulation are associated with high eccentricity and obliquity and maximum seasonality in the Northern Hemisphere."
Poster Source: Is There An Orbital Control On Eocene Hyperthermals? Apologies for no links to the full articles (both paywalled). I've requested the articles through my employer library; will offer up a deeper dish when I get them. The Yooper -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 15:18 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
The natural increase was a 9% increase. Since then there has been a 39% increase in CO2. That is a multiple of 4.3 not 3 orders of magnitude. 280ppm to 390 ppm is in no way an increase of 1000x. I was not insulting although the article was to those that disagree. I don't mind being insulted, but please look at the Taylor Dome temperature of the past 1,000 years before saying that the current warming is very unlikely to be natural. The Taylor Dome shows 4 warming periods comparable to the current. -
scaddenp at 15:10 PM on 6 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
GC - it takes time for air in accumulating snow to become isolated from atmosphere which is why ice core is no help to you for past 100 years. Dont splice the instrument record on (though this shows you are misinformed about Mann) - just put current central greenland average temperature onto the graph - see that graphic - higher than any time is last 3000 years. -
archiesteel at 15:08 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
@TIS: There's nothing incoherent with CO2 rising by a relatively small amount and temperatures in slow decline. The reason is that CO2 is one of the main forcings but not the only one. What this means is that, since the Holocene Climate Optimum, the slow rise in CO2 has not been enough to counter the other long-term forcings (Milankovitch cycles in this case, IIRC). What you don't seem to understand is that the CO2 increase you refer to is *three* orders of magnitude smaller (i.e. about 1000x less) than the current increase. As for the temperature drop, it is also dwarfed by the current increase, representing only 2.5% of it in absolute terms. The Earth does go through cycles, short and long, but what you have to realize is that it's highly unlikely the current warming is due to a natural cycle. In fact, considering what the science tells us, it's nearly impossible. Oh, one more thing: you should really quit spamming links to your blog. It's not a very classy move. -
scaddenp at 15:03 PM on 6 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Lindzen got a Nobel? News to me though he most certainly has produced outstanding work. Lindzen and Choi not being one them however. It has been specifically rebutted in the published literature and so far as I am aware, Lindzen has not responded. Furthermore, observational data would appear to directly refute it. -
gallopingcamel at 14:53 PM on 6 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
scaddenp, (#80), Alley's interest was the Younger Dryas. I am hoping someone at NCDC has looked carefully at the last 2,000 years and how to fill in the interval since 1905. Is there an instrumental record that can be "spliced on"? That is one of the things that got Michael Mann into trouble! The snow accumulation issue is a tough one, especially if the flow rates are as strongly affected by thickness as Alley claims (8th power?). -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 14:51 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
You are correct that coherence is important. It is not incoherent to say that the Earth goes through short cycle and long cycle changes. The Earth is experiencing a short cycle of warming during a long cycle of cooling. The data supports that statement. You argue about not knowing the price of sheep, but wanting to buy while they are cheap. I pointed out that the Taylor Dome shows the past 6,000 years cooling while having 10,000 of increasing CO2 levels. I am told that CO2 is the main forcing factor in climate, but not to concern myself with the data. That is incoherent. There are many incoherent people that are skeptics. There are many incoherent people that believe in AGW. I will be called incoherent for not believing in AGW, but in the end CO2 has been rising for the past 10,000 years and the Earth has been in a long term cooling trend for the past 6,000 years. The Earth is not a linear system and as such there are many peaks and valleys along the way. The current period is a peak, I hope it lasts a long time because the valleys are unpleasant. The Earth is always changing. It has never and will never stay the same. Our current technology is allowing to see and measure that change. John Kehr The Inconvenient Skeptic -
gallopingcamel at 14:38 PM on 6 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
scaddenp (#117)' I will probably be told to take this issue to another thread but you did ask a fair question. Lindzen & Choi 2009 is a paper on the feedback question written by a Nobel laureate. The Lindzen paper is controversial but so are the dozen models cited by the IPCC. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:38 PM on 6 October 2010Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
Scaddenp, bearing in mind that I'm assuredly -not- being smart-aleck, in some ways this site is "open source" in the sense that people drag in all sorts of literature and deposit it for everybody's enjoyment. "Enjoyment" often takes the form of attacking offerings and dragging them back and forth like meat thrown to a pack of feral dogs, but that's just one possible outcome. If you should have a few minutes to spend beavering away at Google Scholar, looking for likely candidates, you can bet that what you find will be most appreciated. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:56 PM on 6 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
Matthew @43. Agnostic @42 referred to CO2e, not CO2. Currently CO2e is at around 430-440 ppm. And you are right, CO2 is growing at about 2 ppm/yr at present. During the 2000's, CO2 emissions were growing at about 3%/year. That is a doubling time of 25 years. So if sustained, by 2035 we would be growing at 4ppm per year and 8 ppm per year by 2070. That growth rate however is made up of different contributions from different parts of the world. And the biggest growth rate is China. During the 2000's their coal consumption grew by around 7%/year, which is a doubling period of around 10 years. And as they continue to grow, their increasing size means their growth rate will come to have a bigger impact on the global growth rate figure. How long before we see 4 or 5% global growth rates. 5% growth is a doubling of around 15 years so by 2025, that would be increases of 4ppm/year and 8 ppm/year by 2040. So if China (and other nations like India following them) are able to sustain their economic growth rates for several decades to come and can't bring renewables / nuclear onstream at major scales incredibly fast, we could blow through the doubling level of 560ppm before mid century. Bringing renewables to mainstream generation levels that fast is a herculean task. And if we allow that much fossil fuel capacity to be built, decommissioning it before the end of its working life will involve capital right-offs that will make the WFC look like chickenfeed. And if the growth stalls in those countries, then the political, social and military implications of that are terrifying. We are in deep sh!t, right here, right now, today. Humanity may pay a terrible price for the fact that deep down, we just don't 'get' the Compound Interest Law! -
scaddenp at 13:50 PM on 6 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
GC - a published paper demonstrating net negative feedback would be more convincing. Any of these nobel laureates got one out? Net negative feedback would mean sensitivity of less that about 1.9. By contrast, we have all these papers measuring or modelling sensitivity by various means which show it higher. And for a longer view, Wally estimated the temperature for 2010 with surprising accuracy (all right he was lucky), in 1975 with an estimate of 2.8 (thats strongly positive feedback) though he also overestimated our emissions by a bit. -
scaddenp at 13:41 PM on 6 October 2010Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
This rebuttal lack links to actual studies which is unusual and I think should be fixed. -
gallopingcamel at 13:28 PM on 6 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Baz(#111), If it turns out that rising CO2 is a major contributor to the recent upturn in temperatures we should be able to get a good estimate of "feedbacks". Are they negative or positive? There are plenty of people on this site who are convinced that the feedbacks are strongly positive but many well respected scientists (some of them with Nobel prizes) disagree. Sadly the question is well above my pay grade so I waiting to see what happens next. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:27 PM on 6 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
HumanityRules @39 "No disrespect but I do find it funny the casual way you drop in the " 0.6°C warming in the pipeline" as if it's a concrete fact." The actual figure of 0.6 is an estimate. That there must be an outstanding warming of some level that is still 'in the pipeline' is basic thermodynamics. The oceans have warmed less than th air since they have massively greater thermal mass. It takes time for them to warm to a comparable level. So as they warm more slowly, the growing temperature differential between them and the atmosphere starts to limit the temperature growth of the atmosphere. Personally I am surprised that the figure estimated for the 'in the pipeline' rise is only 0.6, I would have thoght higher. But that is only gut feel, not calculation. "If we were all honest about this we'd admit that at this stage that is little more than an idea which is around simply to fill an embarassing hole in an equation. " As I said, Its thermodynamics, not just an idea. And what is this hole you are referring to anyway? "There are other explanations which could replace "warming in the pipeline" which seem to me no more or no less plausable." Such as? -
Matthew at 13:20 PM on 6 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
Agnostic, at 2+ ppm of co2 being added per year it will take 30 years to make it to 450 ppm at the current rate. We will see if that will speed up or slow down, but that is the current rate. At this rate by 210 we will near near 570 ppm. We would of doubled. -
Riduna at 13:12 PM on 6 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
Daniel (38) Thanks. The URL is http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_1.pdf Hansen argues, with some conviction, that CO2-e concentration of 450 ppm is too high to limit temperature increase to 2C by 2100. I think he is right and that we probably approach a dangerous tipping point when concentrations exceed 400 ppm. CO2-e concentration is already 388 ppm and rising at an accelerating rate because of our reliance on and increasing use of fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. Don’t you think it rather disconcerting that the IMF should be lending billions for the building of coal fired power stations (http://www.smh.com.au/world/world-bank-spends-billions-on-coal-power-20100916-15emx.html) at a time when the world should be contracting rather than expanding the use of coal. -
muoncounter at 12:43 PM on 6 October 2010Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
Here is a statement of what should be the new paradigm: 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." The frequency of extreme warm anomalies increases disproportionately as global temperature rises. "Were global temperature not increasing, the chance of an extreme heat wave such as the one Moscow experienced, though not impossible, would be small," Hansen says. The map on that page makes it clear exactly what is meant by extreme variability:
Prev 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 Next
