Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 Next
Comments 119451 to 119500:
-
maintain_integrity at 07:04 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@geo guy, #204 Giving us the pH of a solution of carbonic acid, is meaningless when it comes to a highly diluted solution of a large ocean absorbing more and more CO2 from the atmosphere. While I can certainly agree that runoff from mankind in a stream emptying into a huge ocean will skew that pH more than what you will find out in the middle of an ocean. It is still the AVERAGE pH, not regional, just like global temperature vs. regional temperature. There's been many credible studies over the past few years, showing a huge decrease in sea water pH, and all of them cite clear evidence of pH levels dropping in response to increased levels of atmospheric CO2. The latest study even stated that it was the largest decrease in ocean pH levels in at least 800,000 years to a pH level of 8.1 -
Geo Guy at 06:57 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
robhon # 200 While I haven't reviewed Mann's model, I have taken several graduate courses on forecasting and consequently I feel I do have a background in understanding the pros and cons of forecasting. I have relied on publishings by others who have had access to the model and data and who have determined that it is unreliable. I remember when the report first came out and the President of the US Association of Statisticians issues a statement that Mann did not follow normal statistical protocol in his study.(sorry I do not remember the official name as it was some years ago). However I have come across a resent report in Technology Review, published by MIT which is worth reading and throws some light on the issue: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/?a=f As for throwing out the baby with the bath water concept, I don't believe we, as scientists should accept conclusions that have been derived from suspect processes. I don't believe the issue regarding Mann's forecast to be reflective of such a concept. Regarding citations for my SO2 and CO2 - any text dealing with introductory chemistry will work for you. It is a no brainer to understand that until the 1980's and 1990's that the fuels being burned worldwide were high in sulfur contents and that their buring released SO2 into the atmosphere in large amounts (visit Sudbury to see the remnant effects). As for your friend in Portland - ask him how cold his November and Decembers were this past year. The west was affected by el Nino, hence the warming, but in recent years Portland has had heavy snow: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr/paststorms/200812/2008_Dec_snow.php Here in Calgary we had the warmest January that I can recall, but by far we experienced the coldest November in many years. However neither what Portland experienced nor what we experienced amounts to any significant in a 100 year time frame. - if you are going to use tid bits, make them comparable -
johnd at 06:57 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
michael sweet at 06:20 AM, given climate sensitivity is all about how the feedbacks respond to the very tiny initial warming provided by additional CO2, then one would expect those same feedbacks to also respond to any other sources of direct heat energy, especially if they are larger than that provided by CO2, thus once the feedback has reacted, that forcing heat energy will not be be dissipated to space. Is that not how climate sensitivity responds? Additionally CO2 does not have a total franchise on absorbing IR radiation, heat energy, as it's absorption bands overlap that of water vapour, and water vapour like CO2 is also additive. In fact whilst CO2 can be sequestered and removed from the atmosphere, water vapour, as it changes form, remains still with a surface exposed directly to the atmosphere, (that surface area relative to the prevailing conditions) and the heat energy circulating within thus exercising control over that heat energy, ready to provide immediate, short and long term feedback, positive or negative. -
J Bowers at 06:46 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech:"Does Courtney have a degree in material science or not? Either he has a science education or not." You mean you don't know yourself, Poptech? Here you go, enjoy the read... "Richard is also an Accredited Methodist Preacher. He is a founding Member of the Christ and the Cosmos Initiative that explores the interactions of religious and scientific ideas. The Initiative started in the UK but became active in 28 countries. Richard avoids confusion about him in his scientific and religious activities by rarely citing his academic achievements, but his material science qualifications include a DipPhil (Cambridge), a BA (Open) and a Diploma (Bath)." From Page 17 of this PDF by the man himself. -
Geo Guy at 06:38 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Maintain_integrity # 199 My purposes in posting the regional data is that there are other potential sources that affect ocean pH. As weathering of rock patterns change due to uplift, the pH of run-off water will change depending on changes to the rocks being eroded. Furthermore industrial activities contribute additional emissions notably SO2, which is more soluble in water than CO2 and which, when mixed with water creates sulphuric acid (pH of 0.96). On the other hand, CO2 when mixed with water forms Carbonic acid. Solutions with high amounts of dissolved CO2 (ie a soft drink) will have a pH of just under 4. Under normal atmospheric conditions, the pH of a carbonic acid solution lies around 5.4 Now with Sulphur dioxide being a major emission from sulphur rich coal, sulfur rich fuels and from the manufacture of cement, once can readily surmise that it has a greater role on influencing the pH of ocean water than does CO2. -
Geo Guy at 06:21 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
For those of you relying on published temperature records to support global warming - you can use it to support the notion that it is due to man's activities, however not in the manner in which you believe. A study undertaken by Edward Long (The Science & Public Policy Institute) arrives at some interesting conclusions. In essence he notes that apparent global warming trends as presented by GISS, NCDC and UAH are misleading. “GISS, over a 10-year period has modified their data by progressively lowering temperature values for far-back dates and raising those in the more recent past (Ref 3). These changes have caused their 2000 reporting of a 0.35 oC/century in 2000 to increase to 0.44 oC/century in 2009, a 26-percent increase.” In essence he identifies the global warming trends identified in the reports of those institutions to simply reflect the impact of urban warming (hence the effect of man's activities) on the data. It is an interesting study and can be found here. -
maintain_integrity at 06:21 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@geo guy, #198 Instead of parroting the usual stories of cold/snowy winters for one region over another, try to stick with the longer trends to make a point. BTW, the NSIDC explained the winter of 2009-2010 quite well as an extreme negative phase of the Arctic oscillation from a natural pattern of climate variability. Seems as if the Arctic was warmer than average and the mid-latitudes were colder. (i.e. Sweden) nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/010510.html -
J Bowers at 06:21 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Philippe Chantreau:"As I said, virtually anyone can be an IPCC reviewer, so long as some "appropriate organization" nominates the person." Interesting that. What year did the European Science and Environment Forum become defunct? When did it finish lobbying for the tobacco industry and GM foods? I can't even find their webpage. Is it still associated with the George C Marshall Institute? -
michael sweet at 06:20 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Johnd, I am not sure of your numbers (although they are available) but one problem with the 0.0075 W/m2 from CO2 is that it is additive. Any heat released from energy consumtion is dissapated and radiates into space. After 10 years the CO2 contribution is .075 W/m2 and after 20 years it is .15 W/m2. Meanwhile energy consumption still releases 0.027 W/m2 (obviously adjusted for different energy consumtion). After 50 or 100 years it starts to add up. -
maintain_integrity at 06:11 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@geo guy, #198; BTW, instead of parroting the usual cold and snowy stories for the winter of 2009-2010, as I posted in #197, even lead skeptic, Dr. Roy Spencer stated that Jan. and Feb. 2010 were the 1st and 2nd warmest globally in his 32 years of satellite data. Another thing, you might want to research this past winter's extreme negative Arctic oscillation by the NSIDC, which made the Arctic warmer than normal, and the mid-latitudes quite a bit colder. (i.e. Sweden) nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/010510.html -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:09 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
CATO publications are "peer-reviewed" to ensure that they follow the CATO party line. This is looking more and more like a joke. Pielke Jr is a political science major. I studied political sciences too, albeit briefly. I am unimpressed. As I said, virtually anyone can be an IPCC reviewer, so long as some "appropriate organization" nominates the person. And I still don't know what Dip Phil means. But as you said, it certainly is irrelevant. -
J Bowers at 06:07 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Philippe Chantreau: "And I still don't know what DipPhil means..." A diploma in philosophy. Impressive Eli has also been asking the same question. READ HERE And as DeSmog point out... "...Courtney is really just another PR guy. He's a union official and a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International, the journal of the international coal trading industry, and his principal expertise seems to be in coming up with imaginative and self-promoting ways to suggest that climate change is either not happening or that its cause remains a deep, dark mystery. It would be embarrassing to any real scientist to be seen on the same newspaper page with this guy..." -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:59 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@Geo Guy... Can you try to cite information on some of the claims you make here? Not challenging them, just would like to be able to properly evaluate them. I would also ask, how familiar are you with Mann's forecasting models? I keep hearing this refutation of modeling but I also know that science gets a tremendous amount of information through modeling. Don't you think it would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water? SO2 and CO2... again, citations. Just as a side note, MY friend who lives in Portland ME said they got very little snow this year. As interesting a tidbit? I would also note that Rutgers just published data on snow cover in N. America and it was the lowest in the 40 years. Tidbits tend to be a double edged sword. -
maintain_integrity at 05:58 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@geo guy, #198: "I found it quite common to observe the pH of stream and lake waters..." Comparing apples to oranges, since sea water is inherently alkaline due to the dissolved solids, and being a much larger body of water does not change as rapidly as smaller fresh water lakes and streams. Sea life is optimum between 8.1 and 8.4 pH, and the latest oceanographic studies have said the average is now at 8.1, and forecast to drop even further as this century progresses with additional dissolved CO2. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:56 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
And I still don't know what DipPhil means... Sonia B.C.'s record of science publications speaks volumes on her ability to review science papers. -
J Bowers at 05:54 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech: "Regarding Richard S Courtney, your opinion of him is irrelevant to him having scientific qualifications." Poptech, I don't care about your opinion of my opinion Both yours and my opinion are of complete irrelevance... full stop. "The word "serious" is subjective. I consider the journal serious." No, I believe an objective view can be made on whether a publication is "serious" or not. For instance, compared to Nature, or Science, I do believe E&E is a mere comic in comparison on the subject of climate. Its editor, Sonia B-C, has herself said in an email that neither she nor her reviewers are qualified to review the IPCC papers, therefore it is an irrelevance on the subject of climate. If you are trying to set yourself up as an authority on the subject I suggest you think again. You are not. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:48 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
And I still don't know what DipPhil means... -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:47 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Pdjakow,your quote seems to indicate Jaworowski confuses weather and climate. Other sources in the list that certainly won't ring bells for many are: "Futures", "Public Administration Review", "Interfaces", "Environmental Politics", "Society" "The Independent Review" "World Economics". This one I haven't checked, sounds interesting but never heard of it before "International Journal of Global Warming." I would have thought that skeptics arguing that science is not made by consensus would not attempt to give the impression of one by compiling lists. Dikran is right, at any rate. -
Geo Guy at 05:42 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Ok people..having read and re-read some of the posts here, I felt that should add my 2 bits worth. Re temperatures - recent investigations have thrown a question on the validity of the temperature studies undertaken by NOAA (cherry picking). Until their conclusions have been verified and the data examined, we cannot carry out any logical argument regarding recent global temperatures. Using world average temperatures, is in my view incorrect - the median should be used instead. Averages can be too easily manipulated through the inclusion or exclusion of outliers. Forecasts predicting large sea level rises are meaningless - as is any forecast that simply takes current observations and projects the trend indefinitely into the future. Mann's hockey stick forecast is a prime example. Having worked with a variety of forecasting models myself I personally know how difficult it is to reach and logical conclusion - (read near impossible) yet amy climate scientists seem to believe that forecasts using their models are to be accepted. Modeling does not work that way, no matter how much time and effort is placed into building it. While ocean acidity is of concern, linking any increase to high volumes of CO2 is really stretching it. SO2 is likely playing a more significant role in reducing pH than CO2 - I haven;t heard of any lakes becoming acidic due to acid rain involving CO2 - there are many cases of those lakes forming as a result of SO2 emissions. In my years as a field geologist, I under took many regional geochem surveys involving collecting and analyzing soil, water and sediment samples. From that experience I found it quite common to observe the pH of stream and lake waters to range from a low of around 4 to a high of 9. When you factor all other potential reasons for a change in ocean pH, I cannot accept the reasonableness of a slight drop in pH being related to increased carbonic acid. Just as a side note, a friend of mine who lives in wester Sweden recently told me they had snow for all the winter - the first time that has happened in their region for over 100 years - scientific?..of course not; interesting tidbit?..of course!!!! :) -
J Bowers at 05:37 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Dikran Marsupial: "If they can't, how can they arbitrate the 'scientific' truth of papers that seek to refute those papers?" Indeed. Well spotted! Let's emphasise the really important part of what Sonia says, just to make sure nothing gets missed... "I do not claim that I or my REVIEWERS can arbitrate on the `scientific' truth of publications that the IPCC selects as most relevant..." Huh? Peer reviewing climate papers? Are they sure the 'peer' belongs there? -
maintain_integrity at 05:31 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@tobyjoyce, #156: "Global warming is still the best explanation for multiple phenomena, and not even Roy Spencer is offering an alternative." First off, Dr. Spencer's webpage is a perfect example of a lead skeptic showing a steady warming trend from 1979 to the present through satellite data, with Jan. 2010 being the warmest January in 32 years and Feb. 2010, being the 2nd warmest February in 32 years of satellite data. www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures Secondly, because of CO2's inescapable greenhouse effect, contrarians like Roy Spencer, holding out for a natural explanation for current global warming, need to explain why, in their scenarios, CO2 is not compounding the problem. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:22 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
J Bowers I had a look at the -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:21 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
I had that Jaworowski confused with another one. What is Pielke Jr PhD in again? I loose track of all these things. I see nothing to convince me that Courtney is a scientist. I also read some of his tuff indicating he does not understand science better than me. Virtually anyone can be an IPCC reviewer. I'm still not sure what does Dip Phil mean. The list is misleading in the sense that it bundles together real papers with opinion pieces in the CATO publications or proceedings of conferences etc... I had never heard of "Economic Analysis and Policy." -
Geo Guy at 05:16 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
I find the post somewhat intriguing and feel it simply exemplifies an attempt to place credibility on the IPCC's report. First let me say that the issue of climate change and the probable cause of climate change are two distinct issues. If a person does not agree or feels the IPCC has not followed appropriate steps in arriving at their conclusions, that does not mean he or she is a denier of climate change. Unfortunately those who support the IPCC's conclusions fail to recognize this difference. The authors of the article number 250, while the NAS membership exceeds 2000. There would have been more credence to the report had it been published by the NAS - however it wasn't and that should speak loudly by itself. The NAS has been cited many times as a supporter of the findings of the IPCC. However that is misleading. While their statement acknowledges the conclusions of the IPCC, there is nothing in the wording that is close to clearly supporting the conclusions. What they do address is climate change itself and how governments should respond to it. http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf (sorry but your tip to post links does not work with the browser I use) Finally it is interesting to note that the NAS as a part of the InterAcademy Council Committee will be participating in a committee that has been asked by the UN to conduct an independent review of the procedures and processes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change....so from my perspective, the jury remains out on the IPCC's reports. http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100503.html -
pdjakow at 04:45 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@Poptech "Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. Natural Sciences, Former Research Scientist, Norwegian Polar Research Institute, Professor, Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland" Zbigniew Jaworowski: "zima r. 1995 (-5,3oC) była ponad sześciokrotnie zimniejsza niż w r. 1797 (-0,8oC)" ("1995 winter (-5,3oC) was more than six times colder than 1797 winter (-0,8oC)") Source -
J Bowers at 04:35 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech: "Richard S. Courtney, B.A., DipPhil Material Science, Expert Reviewer, IPCC" Richard S Courtney of the European Science and Environment Forum. Hmm... I think WTD is still trying to get to the bottom of a few things. I'd also like to know whether you classify Energy & Environment as seriously peer reviewed given its absence on the ISI listings (isn't it listed as a trade journal?)? Roger Pielke Jr is certainly on record somewhere saying he regrets publishing in E&E. Both Jaworowski and E&E are discussed HERE as well. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:31 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech *@ 256 said "In Brooks case his paper supports skepticism of tornadoes getting worse due to global warming." That is not true, on another blog post you made this claim on the grounds that "It is relevant to the “economic effects of.” climate change." Brooks himself then challenged you to "...provide one citation in the scientific literature AGW will lead to increased “tornado activity?” You came up with a Science Daily article that claims NASA predicts more thunderstorms and tornadoes, However as Brooks pointed out to you, the paper the story was based on made no mention of tornadoes (other than to say that the US has more of them than anywhere else), so it was an error made by a journalist. It also suggests that you had not read the paper to find out. Brooks then challenged you to have another go at finding a research article suggesting a link between AGW and tornadoes, but as far as I can see you didn't. If you want to rehabilitate that paper being on your list, then post an article that justifies it being there. If you can't, you'd be better off deleting it. BTW by "alarmist" do you actually mean "mainstream science" (as represented by say the IPCC WG1 report), or do you really mean alarmist in the sense of someone making wild claims of disaster above the level supported by mainstream science? Another BTW, you do know that some science papers are intended to show that something isn't ruled out by current understanding, without in anyway implying that it is probable? -
tobyjoyce at 04:04 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@johnd, #188 I looked at the link indicated and found a page from the IPCC TAR. Hardly a place to demonstrate "...even pro AGW scientists concede that the question as to whether the climate sensitivity is low or high remains unresolved. " and "evidence that they prefer to support the theory of high sensitivity otherwise their whole AGW hypothesis crumbles". Perhaps you misdirected me by mistake. I will await your response. -
maintain_integrity at 03:09 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@chris, #185 No doubt, "usurped by tedious bouts of trolling," which is mainly why I posted #191 to see how the peanut gallery is being incited towards rioting, when it comes to real scientists signing a letter like this from the NAS. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:05 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
@Heide... So, Lindzen et al have put another data point on that chart representing climate sensitivity. I wouldn't take this as being in anyway definitive because that's just not how science works. Lindzen has put forth a possible way of looking at climate sensitivity. There are many many such ways of looking at the issue. To take one method and dismiss all others because it fits what you want to hear is a mistake. -
maintain_integrity at 02:49 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Quite amusing reading 'Marketing Advice for Mad Scientists' by Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts over at the WUWT skeptic site, supposedly posted as a "satire." Despite the list of 255 distinguished scientists of the NAS, most of them Ph.D.'s with a varied range of expertise including paleoclimatology, geology, geophysics, physical oceanography, atmospherics, etc....Goddard and Watts disingenuously stated it was "signed by 250 biologists, anthropologists, neuroscientists, etc. in defense of climate science." They also added some nice sniping like: "In addition to the condescending tone, the use of the d-word, and lack of open access to an 'open letter' and companion editorial, the letter was so poorly written, that we thought we would pitch in and lend them a hand." Then they attack the scientist signatories: "All in all, this letter is a PR train wreck. then there's the signatories.....After the first 20 names, they are batting 0.000 (as far as true 'climate scientists'). The 266 responses get even better, as can be expected! wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/marketing-advice-for-mad-scientists/#more-19277 -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:30 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
I started looking into the list of 700 peer-reviewed papers linked by Poptech at the beginning of the thread. A surprising number comes from E&E, but many also from little known sources that seem to be Economics newsletters type, or secondary industry publications. Many come from non scientists like Richard Courtney, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Pielke Jr, etc. The title of the list is somewhat misleading, since Poptech includes in it responses to peer-reviewed comments that were submitted for publication but rejected: notably a response to the comments by Foster et al on McLean et al but also a response to a comment on the G&T paper. Also, it is not clear what the peer-review process is like for the lesser known publications (there is a great many of them in the list). I'm not curious enough about the thing to count how many papers would remain in the list if only science papers that appeared in peer-reviewed science journals were retained. The spirit of it is somewhat reminiscent of the OISM web page that continues listing deceased members, less it be apparent that it is made of one person and some family members. -
johnd at 02:23 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Riccardo at 17:06 PM, it was confirmation of the values rather than that of the formula I was after. If the value of 0.0075W/m2 is correct, and that is the additional energy not lost due to an additional 2ppm CO2, then surely the additional 0.027W/m2, being the average heating rate released from energy consumption is of even greater significance. That figure is based on the 2002 figure of 13.76TW averaged across the world. Would someone like to confirm, or otherwise, any of these values? -
Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Heide, Some papers use models, some papers use analysis of historical data, and some use direct observations. For example, Chung, Yeomans, & Soden (2010) directly measures climate feedbacks via measurements of outgoing radiation, and finds close agreement with models. When hundreds of papers using independent methods all converge to the same answer, it makes a very compelling case that the answer is correct. A couple papers outside the mainstream do not overturn an entire field of science. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, the Lindzen paper has been refuted. Even Roy Spencer has serious issues with it, and he's one of the leading proponents of low climate sensitivity. -
Heide de Klein at 01:50 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Wow, over 100 papers directly measuring climate sensitivity! I had no idea. I must look them up. Nevertheless, climate feedbacks have been directly measured from satellite data, and the sensitivity calculated to be 0.7K. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:09 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Tobyjoyce The thing that worried me about the article on Spencer's blog was the bit that said "I’ve been slicing and dicing the data different ways", which sounds to me a recipe for (unintentional) cherry picking. Also, the bit that said: "these feedbacks can not be estimated through simple linear regression on satellite data, which will almost always result in an underestimate of the net feedback, and thus an overestimate of climate sensitivity." isn't it the net feedback that the model is aiming to estimate, if so how can you know it is an underestimate? It will be interesting to read the full paper when it is available (and reading the discussion by those who understand the science rather better than I do! ;o) -
tobyjoyce at 00:34 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@Arkadiusz Semczyszak #189 Jeez, seems to me you are arguing that climate scientists should throw up their hands in case the bean-counters get their sums wrong. Not for nothing is economics called the "dismal science". Paul Krugman (Economics Nobel Laureate 2008) wrote a lengthy article on a "Green Economy" in the NYT. Paul Krugman: Climate Change - Green Economy My rudimentary understanding is that all forms of pollution are a "negative externality" on a business, or on society as a whole. The classic study is by British economist Arthur Pigou in the 1920s. Pigou used an example of lettuce growers and rabbit breeders. The lettuce growers regard the rabbits as a negative externality because they have to incur extra costs in defending their crops. Clearly such a society of rabbit breeders and lettuce growers is not at its optimum economically because the growers cannot expand their business or employ more people. The answer is a "Pigovian tax" imposed on the breeders to induce them to pay their fair share in reducing the destruction caused by rabbits. Incidentally, many radicals opposed Pigovian taxes on polluters since they said taxing something made it morally acceptable. At least we have gone past that, and such taxes are accepted as the free market solution. Commentators who are against taxes have not come up with a viable solution to rival Pigou's. Now carbon is turning out to be a massive negative externality on the globe as a whole. The costs incurred in the massive dislocations that may take place must be balanced somewhere. This makes sense even if such dislocations are "only a risk". The energy sources which compete with carbon-based fuels are not at the level where they can compete with oil e.g. prices of electric cars. The solution is "Pigovian txes" on oil and coal to help countries wean off dirty energy and transfer that money into developing alternative energy sources. Hence cap-and-trade, regulation etc. Krugman's bottom line: "Its the nonnegligible probability of utter disaster that should dominate our policy analysis. And that argues for aggressive moves to curb emissions, soon". -
JMurphy at 00:02 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
One final thing about that list, which is rather telling and demonstrative of the D-K effect. Within the 'debunking 9/11 myths' section on his website, Poptech is very clear about dismissing opinions from those with no skill or real knowledge of things like architecture, structural design or engineering (in fact, he holds such types in contempt and highlights the troofers' lack of such qualifications), and refers to his own training in architecture to bolster his own opinions on the topic. And yet, with regard to his 'skeptical of some part of the global warming alarmism' papers, he includes non-experts and claims to know for himself that skepticism is involved in those papers, even if the authors themselves disagree. And he is not an expert on this subject himself ! Priceless. -
CBDunkerson at 22:09 PM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
I'm surprised at the concern some cite about these long term effects. Doesn't it seem very likely that, given "hundreds to thousands of years", humans will be able to adapt to or even prevent these effects? It has always seemed clear to me that there were further 'long term' warming impacts to be expected... for instance the expected decline of Greenland and Antarctic ice for centuries to come would perforce indicate changing albedo and more warming. This new Lunt paper seems the most robust quantification of those eventual impacts I've seen thus far... but is it really a concern? I mean, if we get through the ~2 C temperature rise expected just this century then why should a subsequent ~1.5 C rise over the course of 1000+ years be cause for concern? Whatever changes we make to avoid the looming crisis should also help to mitigate the long term impacts... and we've got centuries more to work on that. -
J Bowers at 21:37 PM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
An excellent article and I fully agree about how straightforward graphics can explain a lot to the layman. For my own sanity, a couple of months ago I decided to stack all of the graphs I could find above each other and align them over time, just to be able to eyeball different aspects of climate for an overall context. It's a simple montage taken from various sources, but the end plan is to take the source data and plot my own graphs at higher resolution, with an eye to also creating an animation. The conceptual montage is HERE if anyone is interested. Red dots are the volcanic eruptions I could find for now. If anyone can point me to reconstructions of insolation / sunspots, and a decent list of volcanic eruptions since 700 AD it would be greatly appreciated. The absence of red dots, so far, during the MWP was a bit of a bit of an "Oh, I really get it now" moment. Personally, I thnk the MWP should be renamed the MACP: Medieval Absence of Cooling Period. -
Spencer Weart at 21:28 PM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
John, instead of "This means climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than previously thought," you should say, "This means climate MAY BE more sensitive to carbon dioxide than previously thought." Let's not fall into the fallacy so common among deniers of leaping on a just-published paper that contradicts something and declaring that THIS is at last the truth! All papers should be taken with a spoonful of salt until a couple of years of checking have passed. Other paleo studies of other geological eras have tended to cluster (with large variations) around the 3-degree sensitivity mark, so let's wait and see. I must say this study looks really good, but we can hope it turns out to have some flaw. If Hansen et al. are right we are in very serious trouble indeed.Response: Fair call, thanks for the suggestion. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:19 PM on 10 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
"Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from BUSINESS-as-usual practices." "Integrity of Science" - of course, the economics ? I'm curious, how many economists are signed in this? UNEP: "Cost-benefit analyses (CBA) should be used as decision criterion only if there is nothing of moral importance at stake (Randall 2002). Therefore CBA should not be decisive in climate change issues. It should be used as a piece of information among many. The idea of calculating an economically optimal (‘efficient’) climate path is misleading. There is no single utility function for mankind over centuries. Moreover, many value-laden problems are implicitly entailed in economic modelling (value of a statistical life, damage function, rate of discount, distribution of benefits and disadvantages, etc.). These variables must rest on ethical judgments and cannot be derived from empirical facts alone. Cost-benefit analyses and other economic evaluations often rely upon discounting. Discounting implies the possibility of severe accounting errors in long-term environmental problems (see contributions in Hampicke & Ott 2003). For ethical reasons, it remains highly doubtful whether global climate change falls within the scope in which ‘normal’ discounting should be applied. The debate about the so-called Stern-Report has been a debate about the very low discount rate (0.1%) being used in the report. Such discount rates can only be defended on ETHICAL GROUNDS." Mine, and V. Klaus for example, quoted by him, Schmidt’s (unless a Nobel laureate?), in the above text, and: "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science"; raises concerns: perspective - range = up to 100 years - !!! - "Future generations "?!; and over of ideology - "ethical grounds" - used to identify the "business-as-usual practices. " -
BC at 21:19 PM on 10 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
Mike, Thanks for the two links. I see where they got the 1C rise since 1950 in the BOM site. The 'State of the Climate' read is a bit worrying for Australia. No different to most of the rest of the world though. -
CBDunkerson at 21:04 PM on 10 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
cdion #11, once the Sun goes down the Earth begins losing heat fast. The greenhouse effect slows down the rate of heat loss. Thus, a more pronounced greenhouse effect means that nights stay closer to daytime temperatures longer. This 'heat loss' anomaly is greater than the increased daytime temperature anomaly from the enhanced greenhouse effect and the source of the bit about nights warming faster than days. Basically, if GHGs make the average daytime temp 1 C hotter they might make the average night temp 2 C hotter... because the temperature doesn't drop as fast as it used to. barry #14, no the slide really is meant to be human (industrial) emissions. There is a separate slide right after that for atmospheric levels. The intent is to show that atmospheric levels have grown as our emissions have. The emissions charts I've seen are generally calculated estimates based on fuel sources used, population, and industry. Nichol #13, as you surmised the H20 impact is off the left side of that chart... as is most of the CO2 impact. My recollection is that the study didn't show that section because they were unable to differentiate between the two.Response: "My recollection is that the study didn't show that section because they were unable to differentiate between the two."
Actually, the chart doesn't go further into the CO2 band because the uncertainty of the data gets too large - they had to cut it off when the uncertainty range got large. That particular graph shows the change in outgoing energy with the humidity effects removed. The point of that graph is to isolate the effect of trace gases. -
Riccardo at 20:55 PM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, it would be nice and usefull to all of us if you could focus your expertise and knowledge of the litterature on the topic at hand. Your generic rants bring nothing to the discussion and they might dangerously be confused with propaganda. -
johnd at 20:52 PM on 10 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
tobyjoyce at 23:17 PM, perhaps reading this might offer some insight into the uncertainities that exist as mentioned in the first section. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/022.htm -
Riccardo at 20:40 PM on 10 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
I'd like to add to tobyjoyce's comment that looking specifically at physics, often, though not always, a new theory "simply" highlights the limits of the current theory more than contradicting it. As for climate science, AGW has been the new rejected paradigm for decades untill relatively recently. It certainly has its limits, some of them we are already aware of. It should come as no surprise when someone will come out with a different theory on the behaviour of a part of the climate system. It might change the final outcome somewhat but a complete dismissal of the AGW theory is not at hand. This is how science normally works. Does it have anything to do with this post? Yes, I think. When you see hundreds of top scientists write a letter so strongly worded it must mean something. I believe that they feel that the standard scientific process is under attack, something from outside (politics? vested interests?) is trying to undermine the pillars that hold the whole building. This fear is shared by others, for example see the recent Position Statement of the University of Virginia Faculty Senate Executive Council on Cuccinelli's investigation of Michael Mann. The Statement ends with these words: "The Attorney General’s use of his power to issue a CID under the provisions of Virginia’s FATA is an inappropriate way to engage with the process of scientific inquiry. His action and the potential threat of legal prosecution of scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer-review standards send a chilling message to scientists engaged in basic research involving Earth’s climate and indeed to scholars in any discipline. Such actions directly threaten academic freedom and, thus, our ability to generate the knowledge upon which informed public policy relies." Others used even stronger words. Ken Caldeira (comment #12) says: "There is a historical example where politicians went after scientists because the politicians didn’t like scientific results. The example is Lysenkoism. The country was the Soviet Union. Are American politicians following in the footsteps of Stalin?" Hopefully this is just an isolated extremist political move, but still it's the air scientists breath every day. Should this fear turn out to be real, we're sailing really dangerous waters. There are several examples from the past, some even from a not that distant past. None of them I'd like to recall. -
Jacob Bock Axelsen at 20:37 PM on 10 May 2010Are we too stupid?
embb You honestly see no difference between banning a chemical and deliberately making the countrie's industry uncompetitive?? What gives you the idea that reducing CO2 emissions makes a country's industry uncompetitive? I have proof of the contrary: Spain, China, Denmark and Germany. How do you explain that most experts agree that a proposed reform to phase-out fossil fuels by 2050 in Denmark is not only necessary, but realistic, at a time when the economy is down and the danish oil production is in permanent decline? Samsø is completely self-sufficient in renewable energy, without any subsidies whatsoever. How do you explain all that? OPEC? Non-proliferation? OPEC is an excellent example of how powerful a coalition using reciprocity can be. Thank you. However, they were opposed by other coalitions so they did not eliminate 'defectors'- luckily. Non-proliferation more or less worked - otherwise you would have nuclear weapons all over in the Nash-equilibirum. In fact, it seems to be working even better these days. Nobody wants the tragedy-of-the-commons of a nuclear war, as I mentioned in the post above. you think that decreasing the amount of CO2 in a neighborhood increases the quality of life in that neighborhood? Neither I nor the EPA ever postulated that. Whatever gave you that idea? I think you mix up weather with climate. As we get to here at every cold spell the weather is NOT the climate. As I have recently studied the classic one-dimensional calculation of the Earth's boundary layer involving solving the Heat-diffusion equation for latitude bands using a Green's function, then surely such a mistake on my part can be ruled out. Did you ever read my post here on chaos? You just dismiss that "The Lancet and University College London's Institute for Global Health issued a major report concluding that climate change is the "biggest global health threat of the 21st century."? What is your source to the contrary? Jacob:Do you think voters favor cash in return for a destroyed planet? Yes. If they didn't you would not be thinking about game theory. The dilemma is that they want the planet to be safe and receive the temptation at the same time. You cannot see that? do you support geo-engineering? If no, why not? Do you think geo-engineering is more or less risky than switching to sustainable energy? If you argue for geo-engineering you will be contradicting your own concerns with the economic impact of reducing carbon. Why play around with huge risks when we are looking to reduce risks? If defection is so tempting there is one way of making this work, which is a global police force (...) it is a world police state. There is no police force in the case of the fig tree/fig wasp, is there? It is highly relevant because natural selection, which is mostly a Nash-equilibrium, can favor reciprocity and enhance symbiosis. We can undoubtedly learn from that. Interestingly, you put blind trust into economists' warning of trade wars in spite of the fact that the recent economic downturn was not correctly anticipated by economists and and no policies to properly mitigate the crises were proposed either. How come? The fact that Nobel prize winners themselves readily discard all current economic theory is not something you would take seriously? Look at CFCs. Here is what I said: A growing cluster of countries can eliminate defectors using science based coercive strategies and that is exactly what happened. Rather striking really. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:39 PM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
"... radiative forcing and associated feedbacks—is estimated at 1.5–4.5 °C..." It is also worth a look to: Comment on "Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition", by P. Chylek and U. Lohmann, Geophys. Res. Res. Lett., 2008. Authors: Hargreaves JC and JD Annan; said: "The sensitivity of the climate system to external forcing has long been a subject of much research, the bulk of which has concluded that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO 2 is likely to lie in the range 2–4.5 deg. C (IPCC 2007: Summary C (IPCC 2007: for Policymakers, Solomon et al. 2007; Knutti and Hegerl 2008.). Chylek and Lohmann (2008) (hereafter CL08) claim to have found evidence that the true value is much lower, AROUND 1.8 deg. C ...[...] (commentary by the authors: is a mistake Chylek and Lohmann)"; ... and for discussion: http://www.clim-past.net/5/143/2009/cp-5-143-2009.html In addition, skeptics still notify the three basic concerns: 1. Signs of ancient CO2 concentrations may be subject to substantial error, excessive smoothing - low resolution, etc. 2. This temperature rise is always first, then the concentration of CO2. So once the CO2 could only possibly enhance the warming. There are, however, periods of significant decrease in temperature. Despite the lack of decrease in the concentration of CO2. Why? - Is a topic for another discussion. 3. "It turns out that UNCERTAINTIES IN THE ENERGETIC RESPONSES of Earth climate systems are more than 10 times LARGER than the entire energetic effect of increased CO2." - (The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable; Frank p., 2009 - using, among others: Prof. Carl Wunsch, Prof. Paul Switzer, Prof. Ross McKitrick, Prof. Christopher Essex, Prof. Sebastian Doniach ...). -
chris at 19:35 PM on 10 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
No problem John. If you want to remove this post and the one directly above [chris at 18:14 PM on 10 May, 2010], please do so. I think this site really benefits from the strict moderation you've used - it makes it so much better as a resource than other sites. It's tedious to have to moderate, but I wonder whether you might ease the situation by having an occasional "open thread", where lots of the stuff that isn't relevant to a particular thread can be discussed. You could even have "themed" open threads (e.g. "questions and answers" for those that want to ask specific questions about aspects of the science; "contentious publications" for those that want to talk about papers that support opposing viewpoints etc.....).
Prev 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 Next
