Recent Comments

Prev  2421  2422  2423  2424  2425  2426  2427  2428  2429  2430  2431  2432  2433  2434  2435  2436  Next

Comments 121401 to 121450:

121401. fydijkstra at 00:21 AM on 8 April 2010
        Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
        1. Neutral water has a pH of 7, below 7 we call it acid, above 7 it is alkaline. With a pH of 8.1 we cannot speak of acidification. The ocean remains alkaline, though slightly less al-kaline. 2. Just as a global temperature, 'the' global ocean pH does not exist. We have only calcula-tions of the average of various separate measurements. The accuracy of such an average can be estimated at 0.15 pH-units. This means, that the pH shift that is found now, is only slightly more than the error in the measurement. Statisticians have an expression for such a difference: ‘not significant’. 3. The oceans have a huge buffering capacity. Excess CO2 is neutralized by chemical and biological mechanisms. Calcification by phytoplankton removes a lot of CO2, which is stored in the cell walls, and deposited to the bottom after death of the plankton cells. Maybe these buffering mechanisms are is the reason that the pH – as found in ice-cores – has never decreased below 8.1, nor has it risen above 8.3 in the past 800,000 years. 4. By the way, I would not simply accept pH-measurements in 800,000 year old ice cores. The assumption that the chemical composition of the ice cap and the air bubbles within it has not changed for 800,000 years – under hundreds of bars of pressure – is unproven. CO2-measurements in ice caps conflict with stomata-indices, that show that 10,000 years ago the CO2-concentration was higher than today. Nevertheless no biological disasters happened at that time. 5. A shift of the pH from 8.3 to 8.1 is not serious for most organism. An optimum pH-range of 0.5 to 1.0 pH-units is normal. I myself studied the growth of mushroom mycelium, and found optimal growth in the pH range from 6.5 to 7.5. Small shifts in pH are biologically insignificant. 6. Predictions of a further drop in pH by 0.3 or 0.4 units are highly speculative, as long as the buffer mechanisms of the oceans are insufficiently understood.
121402. Ned at 23:58 PM on 7 April 2010
        Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
        I wrote: a mass extinction caused a comet impact [...] Er, that obviously should have been "a mass extinction caused by a comet impact" The mass extinction did not in fact cause the comet impact.
121403. Ned at 23:56 PM on 7 April 2010
        Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
        Thanks for an interesting post, John. I had not seen the Pelejero 2010 paper before. One small note. John Cook writes: A similar situation occurred 65 million years ago during the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. Most of the planktonic calcifying species became rare or disappeared. Readers might wonder why a mass extinction caused a comet impact would show signals of ocean acidification. It was initially assumed that the main impact (pun not intended) of the K-T event would have been rapid global cooling caused by the injection of dust and aerosols into the stratosphere. But in recent years geoscientists have realized that the carbonate rocks at the site of the Chicxulub crater would have provided a massive pulse of carbon into the atmosphere. This would initially have been primarily in the form of CO, which would have rapidly evolved into tropospheric ozone, CH4, and ultimately CO2. The result would be a very rapid and intense warming -- RF probably peaked around 8 W/m2, dropping to 2 W/m2 by year 10 as the CO, O3, and CH4 evolved into CO2. From year 10 on, the warming episode would have persisted for centuries thanks to the long lifetime of the CO2 pulse. Fig. 6 from Kawaragi et al. 2009. (a) Temporal evolutions of change in abundances of CO, CH4, O3, and OH after the Chicxulub impact. The amounts of CO and NO released into the atmosphere are assumed to be 2.8 × 1016 mol and 5.0 × 1013 mol, respectively. (b) Temporal evolutions of radiative forcing of tropospheric O3, CH4, CO2, and their total. The radiative forcing of CO2 is the sum of contribution of CO2 oxidized from CO through photochemical reactions and shock-induced CO2. Right vertical axis represents the increase in surface temperature corresponding to the radiative forcing. That long-lived pulse of CO2 from carbonate rocks at Chicxulub is presumably the explanation for the signs of ocean acidification at the K-T impact. Massive flood basalt outbreaks at the Deccan Traps would also have released a lot of CO2, and is also widely suspected to be implicated.
121404. tobyjoyce at 23:51 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        I have just realised that I viewed a "tragedy of the commons" firsthand. May be off-topic - let the moderator decide. My family came in a long line of West of Ireland sheep-farmers in hilly country (think of the Scottish highlands). While the lowlands were divided up and walled, the upper hill slopes were known as "commonage". Those with commonage rights could graze their sheep there, and had "turbary" - the right to dig peat from the bogs for winter fuel. My father was a large landowner (he counted as a "rancher":)) I can remember plenty of land conflicts, but never one that involved the commonage. The areas were we had commonage, associated with the purchase of adjacent land, I could not grasp - but my mother claimed she knew every inch. How was the commonage so well policed? I think because all the conditions conditions Jacob mentions were in place: a) social punishment - a family overstocking the commonage would receive strong social sanction, not to mention finding their sheep had mysteriously jumped off a cliff. b) the population is sufficiently enlightened about the facts - there was a accepted social equality among the sheep-farmers, & a great spirit of assistance at lambing and sheep-shearing. It was not all about fear of a). c) everybody knows that they will pay a price if they do not contribute in time. The "laws" of the commonage were ingrained in custom, and the sanctions were well known. So where was the tragedy? Well, it came about through an external source - the European Union. Through the Common Agricultural Policy, farmers started to receive "headage" grants for the number of sheep they owned. This encouraged overgrazing. Furthermore, EU law did not recognise "commonage", so farmers were encouraged to formally divide the slopes into plots of land like the lowlands. It has come to pass that the remaining farmers (in the larger holdings)are dependent on handouts, the slopes overgrazed and the lakes polluted by sheep droppings. It was not exactly as Hardin imagined it, because the farmers were persuaded by an outside source (politicians, government advisers, lawyers) rather than self-motivated. But it was close enough. Also, the older "commonage" was not Utopia. Most of the small farmers had uneconomic holdings and were dependent on small handouts anyway (known as "farmer's dole"). But, environmentally, the unwritten commonage rights brought about better land management than modern, formal legal rights. My questions are: Is there a lesson here? What would a modern libertarian or legal positivist make of all this?
121405. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:25 PM on 7 April 2010
        Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
        In all such a long article that JC has not entered the ocean pH will have for 100 x ? years. And ... will always be a > 7 ... I’m looking - maybe on number of the fossils calcareous Ammonites genera in Triassic/Jurassic/Cretaceous (W.J. Kennedy 1977 in Patterns of Evolution, Amsterdam) and The Bahamas Banks, and comparison with carbon dioxide concentration in T/J/C oceanic (probably even > 4 x higher than It is a modern) and air (see: for example http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png) and temperature in this period (perhaps http://www.nzetc.org/etexts/Bio16Tuat01/Bio16Tuat01_004a.jpg) I can see great correlations in this older geological period: higher p.CO2, temperature = higher calcareous biomasses …, specifically by Ammonites: ~215 millions years BP = maximum - ~ 180 of genera, and 600 - 2100 ppmv CO2 , ~110 m. years BP = maximum - 180 of genera, and 500 - 2300 ppmv CO2,; similarly what about a temperature. In the Triassic/Jurassic/Cretaceous a calcareous organisms are like warm… What about modern times? M. D. Iglesias-Rodriguez et al, in: Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World - Science, 18.04.2008 (downloadable from http://www.sb-roscoff.fr/Phyto/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=418&Itemid=112); say: “From the mid-Mesozoic, coccolithophores have been major calcium carbonate producers in the world's oceans, today accounting for about a third of the total marine CaCO3 production.” “Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass.” I remind You same important papers (as I think) from Idso: “In a study of calcification rates of massive Porites coral colonies from the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Lough and Barnes (1997) found that "the 20th century has witnessed the second highest period of above average calcification in the past 237 years." “Buddemeier et al. (2004) have continued to claim that the ongoing rise in the air's CO 2 content and its predicted ability to lower surface ocean water pH (which is also a key claim of Orr et al .) will dramatically decrease coral calcification rates, which they say could lead to "a slow-down or reversal of reef-building and the potential loss of reef structures in the future." However, they have been forced to acknowledge that "temperature and calcification rates are correlated, and [real-world] corals have so far responded more to increases in water temperature (growing faster through increased metabolism and the increased photosynthetic rates of their zooxanthellae) than to decreases in carbonate ion concentration."
121406. Jacob Bock Axelsen at 22:57 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Alexandre "Our fisherman, alone, may choose to go on fishing even if he values the long term." Axelrod shows that a cluster of cooperating individuals can displace the defectors and persist against mutations, making tit-for-tat evolutionary stable. In other words, the fisherman could try to convince a small group to put trust in him. He can also make the consumers discriminate against the defectors through indirect reciprocity by them favoring the single cooperator. This might not be hard as the consumers are also interested in a steady flow of fish in the future. "The only way out is to articulate a rule of use of the resource - collectively- and find a way to enforce it." This is the coercion option Hardin finally resorts to in his paper. Not having the results of Axelrod and followers he still faces the problem of how to agree on the necessary reform. "I'd say CO2 emissions are on the high end of difficulty for this kind of game. Worldwide, difficult to monitor, no direct or immediate consequences to the cheater..." It is clearly safe to say that it is a hard problem. This is why Milinski's results are so interesting: it can be handled using indirect reciprocity alone. It is not easy to hide a coal power plant, so this may be published. The media attention will affect the legislation and thus the defecting country can be indirectly punished by regulating consumer patterns.
121407. Ned at 22:22 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        gallopingcamel writes: You mention CO2 "lagging". I think that fact alone destroys the idea that CO2 provides dominant forcing for global temperatures. When temperatures are rising, CO2 gets released into the atmosphere ~600 years later, nudging temperatures higher still. I'm really disappointed and frankly discouraged that you'd bring up this "lag proves that CO2 doesn't cause warming" claim. I would expect that from someone whose only familiarity with climate change issues is coming from websites like WUWT. I wouldn't expect it from someone like yourself who's spent many days reading and posting on this site. John Cook explains why CO2 lags temperature in the Pleistocene glacial/interglacial record here: CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? It was also the subject of a blog post from just a few months ago (Why does CO2 lag temperature?). More recently, the subject of the CO2 time lag came up in this thread. One commenter suggested that in the paleoclimate record CO2 has never led temperature, always lagged. I responded by (a) explaining that this is an illogical argument, and (b) there have been many cases where CO2 changes preceded (and caused) changes in temperature. There are lots of other relevant comments in that thread as well. In fact, you yourself were part of that discussion! Help us out here, GC. What can we do to keep the same mistaken claims from popping up over and over and over again? I'm sure you're not deliberately trying to be provocative. So what's up?
121408. Alexandre at 22:19 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        oops. for some reason, the link above came out wrong. Here's the right link to Ostroms Wikipedia page.
121409. Alexandre at 22:17 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Ostrom's research summarized in the Wikipedia page.
121410. Alexandre at 22:01 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Riccardo, I totally agree. And I would add that you're not able to (individually) find a way out of the Tragedy of the Commons even if you are aware of it. Try to picture the fisherman that notices his results diminishing, and he knows it's because of overharvesting. If he chooses to fish less, he will suffer the cost of this decision, and he will not increase the chances of perpetuating the resource (in the individual decision). Chances are, he will only leave more fish for other fishermen to overharvest. Our fisherman, alone, may choose to go on fishing even if he values the long term. The only way out is to articulate a rule of use of the resource - collectively- and find a way to enforce it. I'd say CO2 emissions are on the high end of difficulty for this kind of game. Worldwide, difficult to monitor, no direct or immediate consequences to the cheater... It's so diffuse that you have whole countries attempting to free-ride. I again suggest Elinor Ostrom's work. She even uses Game Theory as an initial test hypothesis - it's useful, but human behavior proves to be more complex than that.
121411. Marcus at 21:58 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        embb accuses me of setting up a "convenient straw man" in blaming the Oil Industry for the bulk of the skepticism out there. In truth, I'm just telling it as I see it. Look at the evidence: Exhibit A: Heartland Institute. Major skeptical organization, has received funding from the Fossil Fuel industry over the years-particularly Exxon. Exhibit B: George C Marshall Institute. Major skeptical organization which receives money from Exxon, amongst others, & has a former Exxon lobbyist, William O'Keefe, as its CEO. Exhibit C: Global Climate Coalition. Another Skeptic Organization-now defunct-had members from a number of large oil & automobile companies, as well as a lobbyist for Exxon. It also received considerable funding from the Oil industry in particular. Exhibit D: The Lavoisier Group. Key members are current or former members of Western Mining Corporation, Alcoa & other coal/mineral companies. Exhibit E: major skeptics, such as Ian Plimer, William Kininmonth & Garth Paltridge are all members of the group named in Exhibit D. So we see that, though not the source of *all* skepticism, the oil, coal & aluminium industries are definitely deeply involved in the skeptic "movement"-mostly because action against climate change will go against their short term interests. This isn't a straw man, its just THE FACTS!
121412. Riccardo at 21:07 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        And that's a huge problem, the short temporal horizon. We kind of look at next quarter or next year. This fits well in the framework of the tragedy of the commons, immediate individual benefit but in the long run we all lose. Pious wishes or looking far? Or both.
121413. embb at 19:13 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Marcus, you are kidding yourself, as many AGW people do, if you think that the skepticism is coming from the Big oil. that is a convenient straw-man but not very useful if you want to have a real discussion. Concerning the "tragedy of the commons" I think we have a situation where the benefits of "cheating" are high and immediate while the benefits of playing by the rules are a sort of "promised land" in a 100 years. No wonder no one has found a solution to this, except for pious wishes.
121414. bvangerven at 18:14 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        #9 Glenn Tamblyn: I’m afraid you’re all too right. By the way: Can anyone provide me with the scientific background as to why the world population would ever level out at about 9 to 10 billion (other than by mass starvation)? It seems to me – but I am uninformed – that population growth is mainly regulated by the amount of food (or more generally: resources) available. Which also means that any increase in crop produce will not end world hunger, it will just cause the world population to grow some more.
121415. Marcus at 16:38 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        GC. if we go nuclear you will *still* raise CO2 emissions. After all, its not like you can just pull uranium out of the ground & chuck it in a reactor-it requires significant amounts of downstream & upstream processing-which in turn requires energy investment (usually from fossil fuel sources). Also, as we have only 100 years worth of economically viable uranium at current levels of use, a major expansion of nuclear power use could see all the readily available uranium consumed before the middle of this century-& the rest depleted by the end of the century. We'll also have mountains of nuclear waste which most countries *still* don't know what to do with. On the other hand, most households & businesses waste as much as 30%-50% of their energy through inefficiency. Removing these inefficiencies is the low-hanging fruit in both reducing CO2 emissions & postponing the need for expensive new power stations. Industry, too, often wastes energy in the form of thermal pollution. If they captured it & fed the resulting electricity into the grid, then it would displace electricity generated directly from non-renewable sources. Decentralization of our electricity grids could also reduce electricity waste by 10%-15% through the removal of transmission & distribution losses. Also, given that many of the smaller power stations are usually run on "renewable" sources (micro-hydro, co-generation, landfill gas, Solar & Wind), they also will be a good way of directly reducing both CO2 emissions & the generation of other dangerous waste by-products. Of course, its to be hoped that smaller power stations can be better tailored to local demand, instead of running at nearly full capacity 24/7, as most coal & nuclear power stations have to. On our roads, we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions by mandating higher fuel efficiency standards, passing laws to increase car-pooling & public transport use during peak times & by shifting long-distance freight onto rail instead of road. Improving traffic management could also significantly reduce CO2 emissions from unnecessary idling of vehicles-as could a switch to a greater number of hybrid & full electric vehicles. So you see, GC, that many opportunities exist for significant reductions in CO2-opportunities which will provide numerous economic, social & environmental side-benefits & which do not require a switch to nuclear power. "Unfortunately" taking these measures will hurt the profit margins of Big Coal & Big Oil, which is why they're so desperate to cast doubt on climate change-by any means necessary. Whether you accept it or not, all you're doing here is parroting their claims.
121416. Marcus at 16:24 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        GC, CO2 is only a *lagging* factor when climate is being driven *naturally*-how many times do you need this explained to you? Also, this has really only been the case in the Quaternary Era, when we've lived in a relatively CO2 constrained environment. Prior to the Quaternary, CO2 levels were roughly 10 times higher than today, & temperatures were about 6 degrees warmer than at any point in the last 7.2 million years-even though the sun was 10% cooler. Thus it is abundantly clear that CO2 was the primary driver of the pre-Quaternary climate. In the last 50 years, CO2 & temperature have risen in close correlation-& these temperature changes have bucked the trend one would expect given the actions of the other major drivers of climate (Total Solar Insolation & Volcanic Activity). Even the PDO has been on a downward trend the last 30 years, whilst global temperatures have been rising-at the fastest rates in at least the last 8,000 years. That you refuse to accept these facts, & instead keep repeating fossil fuel industry propaganda, highlights that you're all too willing to "carry water" for big business-in spite of your protestations of innocence. Seriously, if you've got nothing useful to add, it makes me wonder why you even bother coming here?!
121417. Philippe Chantreau at 16:01 PM on 7 April 2010
        A residential lifetime
        The main problem with this is quantitative. I'm not sure it makes any quantitative sense. It took millions of years of natural processes to store all the CH we are now burning. How many years of these processes do we roll back in just 1 year of coal/oil burning? How much vegetation is necessary to store 1 year's worth of emissions? How much land does that require? How can all that vegetation been prevented from releasing its carbon? I don't think that any idea like that is viable if not accompanied by emissions reduction.
121418. Philippe Chantreau at 15:42 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        GC, the reason why you are taking some heat here is because you stoop down to the level of stupid right wing talking points as seen or heard on some radio and TV talk shows. You have given indication that you know better. You cite L&C but you ignore the fact that it was rebutted in the litterature. It's a cheap rethorical shot to point to who the rebuttal's author is and say "well of course he wouldn't say anything else." It so happens that he's saying in the litterature, where L&C were published in the first place. It means that there is objective validity to the rebuttal. In that sense, there is not that much wiggle room where we can "disagree" on what the science tells us. Science is a powerful thing because it enables us to establish what is not a matter of opinion. This: "The trouble with Alarmists is that they swallow all sorts of nonsense if it agrees with their beliefs. Yet their critical faculties are razor sharp when reviewing papers that challenge their beliefs." How are you immune to the same effect? Is ignoring the L&C published rebuttal an indication that you, or other skeptics, do better? Were you equally critical of L&C than of, say, a Mann paper? Why was there no "skeptic" to point out, in the litterature, the shortcomings of McLean & al? Was there any "skeptic" to challenge the ridiculous Soon&Baliunas piece? No there wasn't, even though it was so egregious that the all editorial board resigned. So, how skeptical really are the skeptics? How skeptical was the crowd at WUWT during the carbonic snow incident? Should we engage in that exercise that consists of reviewing how few papers agree with the "skeptics"' beliefs? Ah, but it has already been done by Oreskes. Skeptics regularly cite "papers" published in E&E. That publication has an openly acknowledged goal of providing a voice only for one kind of opinion, and an all but lacking review process. Would you take seriously a paper published in a similar publication (open bias, no real review) professing for the "opposite side"? -"We won't be able to ask the IPCC to return our money!" What is that about? Who's talking about paying money to the IPCC for emissions reduction? This is the kind of talk-show type strawman that should have no place in any of your arguments. Let's put things in perspective: can homeowners whose house lost 40% of its value ask for their money back from Wall Street? If social security goes down the drain before I retire, can I have for my money back? Please... - "When temperatures are rising, CO2 gets released into the atmosphere ~600 years later, nudging temperatures higher still. Yikes, positive feedback!" Yep, that's what the science says. Do you have any scientific analysis offering a convincing alternate argument? Is there a scientifically credible way for the low orbital forcing to generate the temperature variations seen in the paleo record? If not, then what is that yikes about? Not everything is a matter of opinion or perception. If you bang your head against a wall, it will damage your skin, bone and eventually brain tissues. There is no alternate view on that. It will. You may silence the indication of the damage (pain) with chemicals, but the damage will happen.
121419. Doug Bostrom at 15:17 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        GC, may I remind you that while you do not own private enterprise, you and the rest of us own our respective governments? The two do not equate, this is easily apparent when one compares the transparency of, for instance, NASA versus that of Boeing. Benefit to the public is the central mission of our government, or at least for most of us able to read and participate on this site. The public good is the business of government. Private enterprise is a different animal, operating under different rules and with entirely different objectives, not in opposition to our needs but divorced from them. Most notably, the notion of public good is absent from the operational constraints of most private enterprise and indeed is often at cross purposes with the stated mission of such entities. The benefit they yield us is entirely incidental. Alienating ourselves from our own governments by confusing them with private enterprise is not a good way to achieve our objective of government that is responsive to our needs. Rather, we must embrace our governments closely if we wish them to faithfully follow us.
121420. gallopingcamel at 14:19 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Marcus (#42), Please don't think that I would carry water for big business. I don't like being pushed around by big business or big government. Nevertheless, roads would not get built without governments or businesses, so we have to tolerate them while resisting their efforts to ride rough shod over us. Now we are now back to the "Prisoner's Dilemma". How do you work with others to minimise the punishments that the establishment will exact?
121421. gallopingcamel at 14:05 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Marcus (#35), You mention CO2 "lagging". I think that fact alone destroys the idea that CO2 provides dominant forcing for global temperatures. When temperatures are rising, CO2 gets released into the atmosphere ~600 years later, nudging temperatures higher still. Yikes, positive feedback! I have no objection to spending trillions to do something useful, such as boosting food and timber production. What makes no sense is spending trillions to do something that later turns out to be ineffective. We won't be able to ask the IPCC to return our money! As you point out, CO2 emissions can be reduced without spending extra dollars. For example, we will continue to build electric power stations regardless of the "Climate Wars". If we choose coal or natural gas the emissions will go up. If we build nukes they won't. Naturally, I am for nukes but not today's dangerous and expensive LWRs. James Lovelock and James Hansen are right on the nuclear power issue although I don't agree with Lovelock's tolerance for higher levels of nuclear radiation. My training in "Radiation Safety" convinces me that we can expand nuclear electrical generation and reduce the inventory of high level nuclear waste at the same time.
121422. Marcus at 13:39 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        "In the spirit of co-operation, even if we disagree on what the science is telling us we can still agree that it makes sense to reduce CO2 emissions." There's the problem though-powerful vested interests have done their level best to ensure *no* co-operation on this issue-& have done their best to make it seem than reducing CO2 emissions makes no sense at all. They don't do it for the benefit of the First World or Developing World's economies-they do it because it will cut into *their* bottom line. By pushing the arguments you do-GC-you're actually advancing the agenda of the Fossil Fuel sector-to the detriment of *all* of us!
121423. Marcus at 13:33 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Sorry, GC, but criticism of Lindzen & Choi have come about as a result of direct observation. The entire premise of the Iris Effect is that increased warming will lead to an increase in the Iris Effect over the tropics which-in turn-will allow more heat to escape into the upper atmosphere. This model was found to be flawed because satellite observations showed that more energy was allowed in by an increase in the Iris Effect than was allowed out-thus resulting in an overall *positive* forcing. Funny, though, how skeptics are quick to point to papers which back their views even when said papers use methods they usually disparage-like climate modeling!
121424. Doug Bostrom at 13:06 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        GC, would you care to name any "Alarmists"?
121425. gallopingcamel at 13:03 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        chris (#36), The trouble with Alarmists is that they swallow all sorts of nonsense if it agrees with their beliefs. Yet their critical faculties are razor sharp when reviewing papers that challenge their beliefs. The scathing critiques of Lindzen & Choi have come from Kevin Trenberth and associates. If you still believe in "Hockey Sticks" the rebuttals may impress you but I suspect Lindzen will have the last laugh. We are starting to get argumentative here. In the spirit of co-operation, even if we disagree on what the science is telling us we can still agree that it makes sense to reduce CO2 emissions. Put another way, in spite of their differences, Russians and Americans fought against Fascism.
121426. Doug Bostrom at 12:48 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Further to Phillipe's remark, globally we currently spend a bit north of $4 trillion per year buying peace of mind and necessary protection against bad things that in all likelihood will not happen. So against a global GDP of ~$60 trillion, we're spending some 6% on insurance, most of us necessarily deriving no benefit from that expenditure. The idea that we can't spare much less per year over the space of some 20 years to fix this C02 problem is rather silly. "Oh, but the poor people, we can't leave them in the mud!" Well, true, but we could increase the per capita income of the poorest 3 billion persons on the planet by 10 times right now and continue to do so annually if we chose, for far less than C02 mitigation will cost. This notion that by doing one we can't do the other is a false choice, the two things are not mutually exclusive. If we were sincere about ending poverty we could do it with our checkbooks today simply by moving wealth from the top 500 million income earners down to the lowest 3 billion. "A trillion here, a billion there" and our intuitive grasp of numbers fails abysmally.
121427. gallopingcamel at 12:40 PM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        chris (#36), The correlation between sunspots and climate over the last 1,000 years is much more impressive than the correlation with CO2 concentrations. Even on this blog you can find a (biased) admission of that: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm Check out Usoskin and Friis-Christensen http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm
        Response: The close correlation between sun and climate over the past 1000 years makes the break down in correlation over the last 40 years all the more significant. This 'divergence problem' is a serious flaw in the "sun is causing global warming" theory.
        
        
        
121428. chris at 11:41 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        re: gallopingcamel at 10:11 AM on 7 April, 2010 Nope, you're just blustering gallopingcamel. You haven't bothered to address my post at all. (i) Lindzen and Choi is a nonsense paper. It's been thoroughly debunked (see, for example, here, or for the published rebuttal: here). There a couple of other flawed papers that also attempt to insinuate a small climate sensitivity. These have either been retracted or shown to be fatally flawed . The fact that you ignore the well established and verified science on this subject (see citations in mine and other’s posts here and elsewhere on this thread), and attempt to insinuate flawed attempts to down-play the effects of greenhouse enhanced radiative forcing, suggests that you are less interested in the science than in a “political” “position”. Contrary to your assertion, there is no period in the last 1000 years that cannot be understood in terms of known forcings (solar, volcanic and greenhouse). Your equation of “scientist” with “alarmist” is ignorant, and indicates an unwillingness to engage with straightforward science: for example, there is no “400 year correlation between sunspot activity and temperature”. There is a 1000 or more year correlation between temperature and known forcings involving greenhouse gas, solar and volcanic forcings (see e.g. here, and here) You're epitomising an essential point of this thread, namely that education and reliable dissemination of the science are key to addressing mature and rational policy. If one just makes stuff up according to one's political opinions, that the prognosis for the future is hopeless. Happily, I don't believe policymakers are "too stupid", even if some fanatical science misrepresenters might be!
121429. Marcus at 11:24 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Oh dear, I see GC is off in fantasy land *again*. First of all, the sensitivity predictions of Lindzen & Choi are based on the disputed Iris Effect-which has now been shown to allow more energy *in* than it lets *out*, thus acting as a positive, rather than negative, feedback. Secondly, one doesn't expect to see a correlation between CO2 & delta T over decades or centuries, because its *usually* a lagging contributor-i.e. its usually solar activity that drives initial delta T which, in turn, *eventually* drives up atmospheric CO2 (from carbon sinks). This excess CO2 then drives delta T long after solar activity has leveled off. Over geological time (millenia & up) there is a strong correlation between CO2 & delta T. What is so strange this time around is how CO2 appears to be a *leading*, rather than *lagging* contributor to warming over the last 60 years. My point, then, is that looking for correlation over the last 1,000 years is pointless because there's not been sufficient increases in solar irradiance to raise natural levels of CO2 above 280ppm within that time frame-i.e. you're cherry picking *again*. Lastly, you talk of the trillions of trillions of dollars we'll need to spend to reduce CO2 emissions. First of all, several European countries have been able to achieve significant reductions in CO2 emissions without spending vast sums of money-largely through improving energy & fuel efficiency. However, even if it did cost trillions of dollars-globally-to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, then it will yield numerous side benefits irrespective of how dangerous global warming is. Coal & petrol are non-renewable resources which simply cannot be relied on into the future, & doing so will lead to eventual economic disaster. These fossil fuels are also a major source of vast numbers of harmful pollutants, such as mercury, heavy metals, benzene & particulate emissions. The reduction of these pollutants in our air, water & soils will be beneficial. So, in fact GC, you've not said a single thing-in your post-which is accurate!
121430. Philippe Chantreau at 11:04 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        GC you are misrepresenting the range of sensitivities that is actually present in the litterature. L&C is not even a real outlier, it's got flaws big enough to prevent taking into consideration at all. Funny how we just spent around a trillion (just in the US) on bad risk management by the financial establishment but no "skeptic" ever protested loudly against that. How many sigmas did they have in their schemes, I wonder.
121431. gallopingcamel at 10:11 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        When I pointed out that the climate sensitivity to CO2 was not known with much precision you folks corrected me. The Knutti & Hegerl, 2008 review paper mentioned a high figure of 4.5 degrees per doubling while Lindzen & Choi, 2009 suggested a low figure of 0.5 degrees. I rest my case. Actually the uncertainty surrounding the CO2 sensitivity is much worse than these figures would imply. Thus far nobody can prove how much of the temperature changes can be attributed to the rising CO2 concentration and how much is due to other factors. chris (#17), you make part of my case very well. As you point out, the rise in CO2 since 1850 can account for the warming without the need to invoke any other process, provided the sensitivity is 2 degrees Celsius/CO2 doubling. However, if you apply the same calculation to any other time period over the last 1,000 years there is no fit between temperature and CO2 concentration. You Alarmists (correctly in my view) claimed that a 400 year correlation between sunspot activity and temperature broke down ~30 years ago. This was put forward as strong evidence against the idea that solar activity has an influence on climate. Surely you can see that the same logic casts doubt on your sensitivity estimates. Just by cherry picking start and finish dates you can "prove" a wide range of sensitivities. Before we spend a trillion here and a trillion there (soon we will be talking real money) climate science needs to improve its ability to make convincing predictions. In order to establish even a 95% probability of "disaster" much better estimates of climate sensitivity are needed.
121432. Marcus at 09:28 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Ah, gallopingcamel is once again trying to perpetuate the "warmth=prosperity" myth to justify the ever increasing profits of the fossil fuel industry. Tell that little fairy tale to the Anasazi, the Mayans or the Khmer Empire. Oops, that's right, you *CAN'T*, because they were all wiped out by the relatively *mild* warming we encountered during the Middle Ages. By contrast, with the exception of the Greenland Colony (which was marginal to begin with) can you point out how many *entire* civilizations died out in the Little Ice Age which followed the Medieval Warm Period? So much for that little fantasy then. As I've said, its actually easier to overcome colder weather through technology than it is warmer weather-especially if that warming occurs in a relatively short time span (as it currently is). Warming will result in reduced access to fresh drinking water & water for crops-which is what caused the Khmer Empire to die out. Warming will also harm the fertility of soils & the growth of crops & forests-which is what caused the Mayan & Anasazi nations to collapse. The main difference was that their populations were smaller & they had more time to react to the changing climate-yet *still* failed to do so. The main reasons were that those in power weren't prepared to give up even a fraction of their extravagant lifestyle for the common good. Sound familiar?
121433. johnd at 07:51 AM on 7 April 2010
        Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
        Trees adapting to changing conditions more likely would happen over generations of trees rather than a single generation being able to adapt. Certain individual trees will flourish as they handle conditions whilst others do poorly, so natural selection would create a bias as the improved growth of succeeding generations becomes perhaps a measurement of the ability of the trees to adapt better to existing conditions rather than the conditions themselves necessarily changing.
121434. Jacob Bock Axelsen at 07:00 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        chris "I'm pointing out that one doesn't need game theory to address the problems that require collective solutions." I wish it was so simple, but then: why did COP15 fail? "(i) scientific analysis demonstrated ... " Irrefutable science, no doubt. If agreements, where the restrictions are laid out to secure that they are kept, are not necessary then why are they made? "I don't think this is a big issue..." Milinski et al. (2006) puts it differently: "Maintaining the Earth’s climate within habitable boundaries is probably the greatest ‘‘public goods game’’ played by humans." I agree. "The real issue IMO in relation to the politics and policy of collective solutions is education and reliable dissemination of the science." ... and I have provided you with the game theoretical background to reliably make that statement. How else do you argue that education or science is beneficial unless you argue within the context of survival and competition for resources? I recommend that you read both the Hardin and Axelrod papers. It is truly fascinating how game theory percolates nature. Just contemplate that e.g. the fig wasps serves as pollinator for the fig tree, but if the wasp enters an immature fig and destroys too many seeds, the tree simply discards the whole fig and the larvae perish along with it. Tit for tat(!)
121435. Alexandre at 05:22 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        chris #22 On your (iii): I loved to read Ages of Gaia, and AFAIK the ideas of the Earth being one big ecosystem that is worldwide interdependent and self regulating via negative feedbacks (including biological ones) is well accepted in mainstream science today. And I have to agree with you that he seems to like being provocative. I don't like his nihilism. One the other hand, if we observe what we have actually done so far to mitigate AGW (as opposed to what we know and say), it looks a lot like we are, indeed, stupid.
121436. Ned at 05:04 AM on 7 April 2010
        Oceans are cooling
        What strikes me about this figure is how close the agreement is among the three different teams. That's pretty remarkable. The general upward trend, on the other hand, is less remarkable. Since there are multiple other lines of reasoning to suggest that OHC ought to have been increasing over the past half-century, it's not really surprising. But it's a nice confirmation of what one would expect.
121437. Doug Bostrom at 04:47 AM on 7 April 2010
        Oceans are cooling
        Wait a minute, perhaps Berényi Péter objects to the relatively large increase 2003-2004? But why should we arbitrarily decide a particular year's increase is an error simply because it's the largest difference on the graph? How would the record get stuck "up" after that year, if the year in question were indeed wrong? If anything, we ought to see an downward swing after such an error but we don't. Berényi Péter, perhaps you should supply a hypothesis to explain how one year's error can influence subsequent derivations of OHC?
121438. Doug Bostrom at 04:41 AM on 7 April 2010
        Oceans are cooling
        For clarification, my previous remark implies that the onset of the upswing begins in the third year of the decade.
121439. chris at 04:40 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        RSVP at 03:48 AM on 7 April, 2010 Yes, fair enough RSVP, there's no question that population increase is a formidable issue in future scenarios. However, one cannot put off the issue of the inherent non-sustainability of fossil fuels. Oil has a very short future lifetime, whether or not we manage miraculously to abruptly constrain population levels, gas will last somewhat longer and coal will keep us going for a few hundred years. I expect we probably agree that any sustainable human population is unlikely to be greater than current population, and may well be significantly smaller. But there's really no question that any long term future for mankind will be based on societies fuelled by sustainable energy supplies. Current fossil fuel use would give us a few hundred years, and mankind would almost certainly be suffering from the effects of extraordinarily high geenhouse gas levels unless we were to find truly effective means of sequestering our emissions. Without adressing this problem, at some time in the future fossil fuels will run out. They only scenarios in which they will not run out, are those in which (a) mankind has worked out how to function with sustainable energy sources, or (b) mankind has expired.
121440. Doug Bostrom at 04:37 AM on 7 April 2010
        Oceans are cooling
        Berényi Péter pardon me for butting in but you're not the only person remarking on year 2003 as appearing as some sort of wild excursion. However, if you look at the data you that 2003 simply marks the onset of three years of temperature upticks. Looking at the rest of the graph, I don't see anything unusual about these years other than we see three upswings in row. In short, OHC in 2003 does not exhibit a "stepwise increase." 2003 itself is normal in terms of typical Y-axis behavior of this graph, as are other years subsequent to 2003. The "Gambler's Fallacy" tells us we should not be surprised by such an outcome.
121441. Ned at 04:29 AM on 7 April 2010
        Oceans are cooling
        Actually, I could have showed the whole graph with less effort, but I cropped it at 2002 because you had been complaining about 2003. If you don't like the large increase in 2003 in the Levitus et al. data set, feel free to use either of the others.
121442. chris at 04:22 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Jacob, I'm not dismissing game theory and certainly not dismissing experiments (which I spend much of my life doing!). I'm pointing out that one doesn't need game theory to address the problems that require collective solutions. To give an example, whether or not game theory is studied by political scientists, the fact remains that (with reference to the collective effort to address CFC ozone desruction, for example): (i) scientific analysis demonstrated that stratospheric ozone was subject to catalytic destruction by man made chlorofluorocarbons. (ii) scientific analysis informed understanding of the consequences of stratospheric ozone depletion. (iii) following the US Natl. Acad. Sci. report of 1976, and via the subsequent Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol (and aided no doubt by the discovery/invention of non-damaging CFC-alternatives), colective agreements amongst the main CFC-producing countries were made to freeze, and then reduce, CFC production and release. I don't really see that game theory had much of an impact on that process. I don't think this is a big issue, and it's not really worth arguing over, but I do think one needs to be careful not to lose the bigger picture by focussing on game theories, however interesting (and potentially applicable to other human interactions). The real issue IMO in relation to the politics and policy of collective solutions is education and reliable dissemination of the science. On libertarianism..... it's apparent that those forms of libertarianism (especially prevalent in the US) that eschew all forms of government intervention, and/or that consider self-interest the ultimate driver of an ideal society, find it difficult (tending to impossible!) to accommodate the sorts of collective solutions to problems that are required for addressing protection of the most all-pervading elements of "the commons" (i.e. the oceans and especially the atmosphere). Again one doesn't need "game theory" to argue that. As I said, I'm speaking of the "more robust" forms of libertarianism as indicated in the paragraph just above. In my understanding, there are forms of libertarianism that embrace collective solutions on a small scale....perhaps we need such a libertarian to let us know whether the extension of this to collective efforts on the national and inter-national scale required to address global warming (say) can be accommodated within a libertarian philosophy!
121443. Rob Honeycutt at 03:58 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        @gallopingcamel said... "Published papers suggest climate sensitivity to CO2 from 0.5 to 3.2 Celsius per doubling of CO2. There are probably some outliers that I have missed." Look back at the papers that John lists on this site. It's more than a little disingenuous not claim 0.5C as an outlier. My review of the published papers would put the normal range between 2C to 3.2C. Outliers being 6-7C and 0.5C. That is also very consistent with normal IPCC statements. They generally publish the most conservative reasonable number.
121444. Berényi Péter at 03:53 AM on 7 April 2010
        Oceans are cooling
        #9 Ned at 21:39 PM on 6 April, 2010 Since you think there is a problem in 2003 I've cropped the graph at 2002 With the same effort you could show us the entire graph. The huge divergence between reconstructions in 2003-2004 is clearly noticeable. If such problems occur in recent years, why would one believe any of it? Also, the choice of 1969-2003 as reference interval is nothing else but cherry picking.
121445. RSVP at 03:48 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        chris: To your remark, "societies based on sustainable energy sources", I would say, "everything is relative", since fossil fuels would provide perfect sustainability for a planet inhabited by say 500 million. However, there is absolutely no sustainable solution for a population that is doubling at 6 billion per generation. I am not sure what alternative miracle solutions are in the works for preventing future global warming, but they had better factor in this particular reality. What may be considered sustainable for 6 billion may not be acceptable for 12 or 18 billion, etc.
121446. Jacob Bock Axelsen at 03:41 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        chris "The "tragedy of the commons" is a poor phrase, since it connotes a sort of handwringing helplessness which is not terribly helpful." I find it highly appropiate. Hardin refers to the poet Whitehead who says:""The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things." You will also find that Hardin actually advocates action. "... extant realities of CFC-induced destruction of stratospheric ozone, which has been managed without recourse to game theory" The Prisoner's Dilemma is solid part of the core curriculum for political scientists. I can understand why - it is such an incredibly rich problem and several Nobel prizes (Nash, Aumann, Ostrom) in economics are related to it. "... if we were all libertarians, the tragedy of the commons would indeed be a tragedy!" If you dismiss game theory and experiments, then how can you argue that convincingly?
121447. Jacob Bock Axelsen at 03:12 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        "Let's look for Milinski's "90% certainty of disaster"." Forget p-values. Global warming due to human activities is already occuring - it has been realized. The 90% certainty was the level of risk needed to induce sufficient cooperation in the experiment. The question of 2 degrees by 2050 being 25% certain is not cause for concern unless you are only risk averse to false negatives - that you think it would be disastrous to accept global warming by humans if it were false. If that is indeed the case you fit the stunningly accurate characterization offered by Hardin: that conservatives either claim that the flaws in the necessary reforms are too important to ignore (the no concensus nonsense), that status quo is perfect (the 'everything-is-natural' tautology) and therefore we should do nothing - the path to ruin.
121448. chris at 03:05 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        A couple of comments about the top article: (i) The "tragedy of the commons" is a poor phrase, since it connotes a sort of handwringing helplessness which is not terribly helpful. I suspect the evolution of modern human socioeconomics is progressing from something like "the tragedy of the commons" to "the recognition of the commons" (which is where most of us are now at), to something like "the opportunity of the commons", or the "accommodation with the commons", which future societies are going to have to conform to if mankind has any significant long term future. (ii) Game theory is not terribly helpful I think. Of course one can formalize the sorts of incentivization combined with inventiveness, entepreneurialism etc. that will hopefully ease the transition to societies based on sustainable energy sources that is the only future for mankind. But it’s not obvious that game theory helps us very much, since the extant realities are increasingly apparent, and we do know how to address them, however difficult (e.g. the collective effort to address the extant realities of CFC-induced destruction of stratospheric ozone, which has been managed without recourse to game theory!). (iii) James Lovelock’s comments also aren’t terribly helpful. His reputation allows for a certain consideration of his views, but these should stand or fall in relation to evidence and informed understanding, just like any other future prognosis. I suspect he enjoys being provocative… (iv) Not related to the top article (more to a sub-group of comments) but it’s continually intriguing how certain political viewpoints associate with a misrepresentation of the science, as if those politics are simply unable to accommodate the possibility of collective solutions to problems (which must therefore be pretended not to exist). The more robust form of libertarianism in particular is a dismal philosophy in this respect; if we were all libertarians, the tragedy of the commons would indeed be a tragedy!
121449. Doug Bostrom at 03:01 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        The notion of accountability for public good or ill reminds me that public discussion of climate change is rather distorted at present, without any obvious way to unbend it. On the one hand, we have scientists who publish with their identities, characters and reputations attached to their work, with powerful incentives to produce work that consistently interlocks and functions with a plethora of other research findings. The work these people perform is inherently transparent in nature, even more so when their private communications in many cases are required to be disclosed upon request. Resonance in public discussion of findings these people produce is dependent largely on the acclaim they may receive from fellow researchers; discoveries found to have solid merit make their way into the popular mind via an indirect and organic social process starting in the academy. At the same time we have participants in the public discussion of climate change who may remain anonymous, are perfectly free to infect discourse with concepts that are false and inconsistent with observations, and who are completely unaccountable for their actions. In most parts of the world this antisocial behavior is protected by law, for reasons that are well founded. Unable to participate in science because their agenda is incompatible with certain research findings that are necessarily intractable, these shadowy forces instead purchase their participation in discussions of climate change as it relates to public policy with money. Again, this is perfectly legal, and what is permissible in the way of public engagement via commercial transactions is essentially boundless. If one has the money, one may assume a large profile in public policy debate concerning climate change regardless of of accuracy or intent. So lies are protected speech and the susceptible audience for lies is for sale. The reach and power of lies is limited only by the wealth and determination of those who need to lie. Research tells us that in order to optimize the public good, some form of comprehensive accountability is needed in this matter of public policy and climate change. Perhaps it would be a useful thing to continue to allow lies to be told, but not by anonymous interests, but that's an unlikely outcome.
121450. Doug Bostrom at 02:25 AM on 7 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Glenn Tamblyn, your remarks on the erstwhile Green Revolution certainly resonate for me. That was not magic, not a rabbit pulled from a hat, but it was a product of fortuitous circumstances and a trick we'll have a tough time pulling off a second time. Our complacent acceptance of an inevitable increase of what we like to think will be a stable population of ~10 billion-- likely preceded by significant overshoot-- boggles my mind. We've proven nothing of our proclivities so far but that we're careless in the extreme with our resources, this very fact is why we've got such a large population right now. We've got no reason to believe we're going to smoothly accommodate yet more unhinged procreation. As to our economy, its shape has evolved to fit a burgeoning population following an unbalanced approach to resource exploitation. All of our metrics of economic success point to "growth", a temporary phenomenon. Economic success needs a rethink, something along the lines of paying people to sit quietly at home composing poetry, bestowing honor and prestige on living less large.

Prev  2421  2422  2423  2424  2425  2426  2427  2428  2429  2430  2431  2432  2433  2434  2435  2436  Next