Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 Next
Comments 121451 to 121500:
-
Chris G at 02:23 AM on 7 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Can't help myself, got to say: Generals that took no action until 5 sigma confidence levels were achieved would loose every time. Achieving a 90% certainty amongst the participants in an experimental setting is a lot easier to achieve than it is in the real world. Especially if you are going against defense mechanisms. Berényi, I don't see the connection between communism and physics. Though, it may be that the downfall of communism to capitalism is a good indicator that cooperative play on large scales is not inherently in human nature. And, who knows, maybe communism will make a comeback when the conditions are right for it. -
chris at 02:18 AM on 7 April 2010Are we too stupid?
oops, I've repeated what you just said michael... ..I hope we're not going to be accused of "consensus science"! -
chris at 02:14 AM on 7 April 2010Are we too stupid?
re: gallopingcamel at 00:13 AM on 7 April, 2010 You’re misrepresentation of the scientific understanding on climate sensitivity, gp. Inspection of the science on earth surface temperature sensitivity to raised greenhouse forcing indicates that the range of likelihood is between 2 - 4.5 oC (per doubling of [CO2]), which is quite well constrained at the low end (little likelihood of climate sensitivity below 2 oC[*]), but poorly constrained at the high end (scientifically poor basis for rejecting higher climate sensitivities). See for example Knutti and Hegerl’s recent review. R. Knutti and G. C. Hegerl (2008) The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes Nature Geoscience 1, 735-743 It would be foolish indeed to combine policy making with a false representation of the science that impacts that policy! That would be rather like reverting to the state of ignorance which had such a dismal effect on the welfare of societies in the recent (e.g. Lysenkoism, already mentioned, which was similarly based on misrepresentation of scientific knowledge), and more distant past (some examples in Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse, for example). --------------------------------------- [*] For example, the earth has warmed by around 0.8-0.9 oC since the middle of the 19th century, while [CO2] has risen from around 286 ppm then to 386 ppm now. A climate sensitivity of 2 oC should then give an equilibrium warming of: ln(386/286)*2/ln(2) = 0.85 oC We know that we haven’t had the full warming from this enhancement of greenhouse gases, since it takes the earth many decades to come to equilibrium with the current forcing resulting from raised greenhouse gases. Likewise we know that a significant part of the warming from this enhancement of greenhouse gas levels has been offset by manmade atmospheric aerosols. On the other hand some of the warming is due to non-CO2 sources (man-made methane, nitrous oxides, tropospheric ozone, black carbon). Non greenhouse gas contributions to this warming (solar, volcanic) are known to be small. Overall, it’s rather unlikely, given the warming since the mid-19th century, that climate sensitivity is less than 2 oC. This is expanded on in more detail in Knutti and Hegerl (see above), in Murphy et al. (2009), in Rind and Lean, 2008, in Hansen et al (2005), etc. etc. -
michael sweet at 01:53 AM on 7 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Galloping Camel: You need to check your sources of climate sensitivity. A review article in Nature online (Knutti and Hegerl 2008)summarized climate sensitivy as 2.0-4.5 degrees celcius per doubling with a possibility of much higher numbers not excluded. the IPCC range is 2-4.5 degrees per doubling. Your values are much too low. Lindzen and Choi have been rebutted and their value is not a reliable lower limit. The problem is much worse than you think. Inform yourself. You often have these types of claims where you do not cite a source for your numbers. Can you provide a source for your 0.5-3.2?? -
Chris G at 01:51 AM on 7 April 2010Are we too stupid?
A few thoughts: The prisoner's dilemma is based on discrete states, a flipping of a switch. Climate states can switch dramatically, but are not quite as clear-cut as that. There generally is not a discontinuity on a climate graph. To me, this implies that even if not everyone adopts good stewardship behaviors, there is still some benefit to be had in some of the population adopting them. Though, it's hard to see if that can have a long term benefit, unless there are negative feedbacks on the non-cooperative players. G.Camel, the best information we have happens to be inherently fuzzy data. No matter what course of action we take, we are deciding to take that course, even if it is deciding to do nothing. So, it seems to me that you are a inclined to advocate for doing nothing (probability of a positive outcome 16%), if the probability of a catastrophic outcome is _only_ 84%. I get the we-can-not-wreck-the-economy and we-should-be-spending-more-on-solving-[hunger, water shortage, disease] arguments; I even get the no-world-government-for-me argument. However, I believe we are in the ounce-of-prevention--pound-of-cure state and climate change seems to be the biggest threat to avoiding mass starvation, war, economic collapse, etc. I think Lovelock is wrong on a few points; I think we are on the edge of being too stupid. Unfortunately, my views are also largely the same as Tamblyn's; except my fear is that the food production will fall to enough to support maybe 4 billion, and the decline from 6-9 billion will be anything but "very slow". People tend to have a belief that really bad things happen to other people in other places, nothing really bad will happen to them. It's a great defense mechanism, but time will tell if it serves us well in the coming century. -
Tom Dayton at 01:15 AM on 7 April 2010A database of peer-reviewed papers on climate change
More details on the peer review process in the particular case of McKitrick's complaints are in a new post on Deep Climate: McKitrick Gets It Wrong on IPCC. That's in addition to the comments on a different Deep Climate post that I linked to earlier. -
gallopingcamel at 00:13 AM on 7 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Glenn Tamblyn (#9), In your very interesting post you mention one of the key issues for climate science, namely "Sensitivity". While there is widespread acceptance of the idea that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise, scientists have not been able to determine the sensitivity even at the 2 sigma level. 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. Let's look for Milinski's "90% certainty of disaster". The IPCC says (AR4) that a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature would constitute a "Catastrophe". Furthermore they say that there is a probability of 25% that this rise will occur by 2050. While Alarmists may be comfortable to base public policy on such a weak foundation many reasonable people would dissent: 1. Warmer periods in recorded history were times of prosperity rather than "Catastrophe". 2. The climate sensitivity may be so low that the actual temperature rise due to CO2 will be lost in the natural forcings that are beyond human intervention. My main reason for hanging out on this blog is the forlorn hope that there may be some public policy proposals that can be supported by Alarmists and Deniers alike. I am happy to endure abuse and ridicule as the price to be paid in pursuit of good public policy. -
Riccardo at 23:29 PM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
"The individual benefits (...) from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers." I think this is one of the single sentences that best describe our societies. It is the result, or maybe the other side of the coin, of our idea of freedom without any ethical and/or social limits. @gallopingcamel when on earth it has been shown that consesus is a fallacy? @thingadonta "People are naturally reluctant to major changes unless driven by extreme need. History shows they have good reason to be." I agree with the first sentence. As for the second, history also shows that to not take the necessary steps may destroy civilizations and that it happened very frequently with dire consequences. -
gallopingcamel at 22:50 PM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Jacob (#10), I realize that attaching labels is not helpful but I am recognizing the fact that it will be hard to find solutions to important environmental problems as long as the war of words continues. I hope your comment does not imply that you still believe that all scientists are "Alarmists". That "consensus" fallacy was demolished a while ago. -
thingadonta at 21:46 PM on 6 April 2010Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
How's this for a simple explanation. Certain high latitude trees are adapted to ice age conditions-ie most of the last million years or so. They will respond to slightly warmer condtions and follow a warmer temperature record to a point, but with too much warmth, accompanied by a decrease in moisture and rainfall, these trees reach a 'threshold', and start to diverge from the temperature record, as in the last few decades. Once this threshold is passed growth rates and tree rings start to diverge from temperatures. Because the last several hundred years, prior to the late 20th century, has been below this threshold, tree rings closely follow measured temperatures (eg back to ~1800s), and also various other proxy temperatures back to the ~end of the Medieval Warm Period. At about 1960 the 'threshold' was passed and these tree rings diverged from the temperature record, unique in the last several hundred years at least. If this simple explanation is the case, there is no way you can use tree rings to ascertain temperatures on longer time scales (eg past the end of the Medieval Warm Period) because they will diverge from any warm enough period once the threshold, mentioned above, is passed; obviously any warm temperatures beyond such a threshold wont show up in the tree ring data, you will get a flat line regardless of warmer temperatures, as in Manns 1998 hockeystick, which lacks a Medieval Warm Period. Furthermore, it is not enough to show that tree rings are consistent with other proxies, because it depends on which proxies you pick. Trees ring proxies are consistent with some, and not consistent with others. It is also not much use to 'average' out the various proxies to get an 'average' trend, because any inherant bias in the proxies wil simply become enhanced. For example, if 30% proxies dont pick up warmer temperatures well, coupled with a decrease in both measurable response the further back you go and a reduction in quality of data the further back you go, then 'averaging' out the proxies will produce a flattened/cool bias in the data, as in Mann's more recent papers. It's similar to the averaging out the 'gaps' in the fossil record, you simply get more 'gaps', and the further back in time you go, the more 'gaps' you get. This is a reflection of the imperfection in the fossil record, and not a reflection of the constant evolution of life. It is a preservation/measurability problem, and averaging out the imperfection of proxies over time also gives unreliable/distorted results. -
Ned at 21:39 PM on 6 April 2010Oceans are cooling
Berényi Péter writes: Without it most of the multi-decadal trend is gone. I don't think so. Here's Levitus et al.2009 figure S9, showing a comparison of three different analyses of OHC from the 1950s onward. Since you think there is a problem in 2003 I've cropped the graph at 2002. The long-term multidecadal increase in OHC is obvious in all three studies.
Figure S9 from Levitus et al. 2009. Yearly time series of ocean heat content (10E+22 J) for the 0-700 m layer from this study and from Domingues et al. [2008] and Ishii and Kimoto [2008]. Linear trends for each series for 1969-2008 given in the upper left portion of the figure. Reference period is 1957-1990.
You still haven't given any evidence that pre-ARGO OHC data are "unreliable". Since that claim contradicts the results of multiple peer-reviewed studies showing long-term increases in OHC, one would demand very convincing evidence, but you provide no evidence at all, merely assertions.
I think we can conclude that the oceans have in fact been warming over the past half-century. This should be no surprise, since oceans cover more than half the planet, and the surface and atmosphere are also warming.
-
Riccardo at 20:31 PM on 6 April 2010Oceans are cooling
Berényi Péter, i apologize for my too strong wording. But since, contrary to you claim, it is evident from the very same graphs you show (e.g. your third graph) that nothing particular happened in 2003 it really makes me think that you did not go through the data thoroughly and just threw your hypothesis to negate the validity of the OCH data. I would not call this skepticism. -
Jacob Bock Axelsen at 20:14 PM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Glenn Tamblyn "The change we need to make to really protect our futures are so profound that it is a huge ask. The technological aspect is trivial by comparison." Read Hardin's paper. Also, I will kindly ask you if you could keep your comments shorter next time. -
Jacob Bock Axelsen at 19:33 PM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
gallopingcamel "I have been wondering how long it will take for the Deniers and Alarmists to realise that nothing much will be achieved as long as they enjoy debating more than trying to find common ground with their opponents." Are the scientists the "Alarmists"? If so, then why do you wonder? -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 19:32 PM on 6 April 2010McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
@ #20 Sean A: In the article on the ABC Unleashed website, McLean dropped a couple of hints that suggest he might be looking to solar wind anomalies over the Antarctic to explain ENSO. He made a comment about a paper that I believe is this one (although he got the name of the lead author wrong): http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..890T.pdf However he won't be able to explain global warming by referring to solar winds. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:29 PM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
In many ways the answer to the question 'Are we too stupid' depends on how big the problem is. I believe we will be able to make the switch away from fossil fuels for power generation and transport, although how quickly we will do it (as opposed to how quickly we can do it) remains to be seen. These are achievable because they are technical changes in nature, viable, and apart from some economic costs, it does not have any real impact. Power still comes out of the socket, we still drive our cars. This change has no meaningful impact on how the economy works or the basic paradygms of our lives. However, if this is all the change we make, we had better hope like hell the Climate Sensitivity ends up being right at the low end of expectations. Otherwise we are in trouble. Actually there are a range of threats we face this century and the scale of response we need to make to deal with the sum of all of them is frightening: - Climate Sensitivity might be at the high end of expectations. - Tackling all the other ways in which humanity causes Greenhouse gas emissions - Melting Permafrost and Clathrates releasing Methane. - World Population is heading for 9-10 Billion before it is likely to level. And even then any decline after that would be very slow. Even more radical policies such as 1 child per family world wide would only see a decline back to levels similar to today by the end of the century. And any rapid decline in population would result in a demographic bulge for generations. Too many older people and not enough young people to support them. - The Green Revolution is in trouble. The Green revolution of the 60's and 70's saw many crop yields double and triple. This required new plant varieties, but it also required resources to allow them to achieve their yields - adequately fertile land, irrigation and chemical farming, particularly artificial fertilisers. And now population has climbed to the level where food shortages and famine are starting to threaten again. We need even more food yet the resource base needed to support its production is under threat: ---- around 1/3rd of farming soils are being lost faster than new soil is being created ---- The Hydrological Crisis may lead to major water shortages in important growing areas; declining groundwater supplies, declines in Glacial run-off, and AGW induced rainfall changes ---- Most of the worlds fertilisers rely on Natural Gas as their main feedstock in production. If we use up the NG before we switch to renewables, we may face a fertiliser shortage. ---- Crop Ecologists have a rule of thumb that a 1 DegC temperature rise results in a 10% decline in productivity for most major grain crops. So we face the possibility of a world with 9-10 billion people with even less food production than now. Maybe only enough for 4 billion - Then there is Economic Growth. Not only will we have more people who will want higher living standards, our economies are actually dependent on growth to function. Even when we have periods of low growth, but still growth, the economy is still described as sluggish. And much of our economies are dependent on huge waste to function - planned obsolesence, the throw away culture, needless consumption of vast amounts of pointless and contrived products and services. So much so that we are acculturated to call this Consumer Society our 'way of life'. We can't afford this level of resource consumption if we are to survive. So if the economy doesn't have increasing population as a driver of demand, if it doesn't have 'rising living standards' as a driver of demand, if it no longer has the wastefulness of the Consumer Society as a driver of demand, what happens to the economy? Vast arrays of industries, businesses and jobs vanish. Permanently. We could produce the basic goods and services we need with a fraction of our current workforce. But there is a problem. A part of humanity might be able to produce every thing that we all need. But the rest would be unemployed. And thus would not be able to afford to purchase the goods & services. And thus all the businesses that are producing them will have no markets. And even more people will have no jobs. So how do we create an economy that is low resource consumption, hyper-efficient in its use of resources, able to support everyone adequately yet still fits the economic model that includes things like property, money, that we can only have access to the resources of the world if we have access to money to buy it. And can only get money through work. If the work is available. Are our dominant paradigms, that have underpinned our societies and our sense of who we are as individuals, compatible with what we need to do to be able to survive? Personally I think not. But cut us some slack here. The change we need to make to really protect our futures are so profound that it is a huge ask. The technological aspect is trivial by comparison. We seem to be apemen who have evolved a huge capacity to change the world around us while being hostage to our inability to evolve comparable changes in our internal mental landscape to allow us to survive in the world we have created. -
tobyjoyce at 18:44 PM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Tom Dayton (#5) is absolutely right regarding galloping camel's claims. The discussion at Open Mind contains all that needs to be said. However, I cannot resist quoting this from "a particle physicist" (Comment 98) "Climate science obviously differs [from particle physics] in that we have only one Earth to work with (a “cosmic variance” problem that should be familiar to many physicists in other contexts). Not to mention that global warming from the greenhouse effect is a prediction of well-understood physics; the extraordinary claim that would require huge statistical significance to be convincing would be that it isn’t happening." Some of the ideas around the Prisoner's Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons are discussed non-mathematically in Matt Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue" -
RSVP at 18:40 PM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
"If players were also enlightened with expert knowledge on the climate they even cooperated significantly more." I am all for learing to be cooperative, but... these behavioral dynamics are found with overfishing, where cooperation is problematic even in the face of unequivocal observation (i.e. no fish). There is no doubt that Earth's resources are limited. Its atmosphere is also a limited resource, and becomes ever more so as population increases. Only with science can this limit be properly determine. But population does not only affect warming. And while limiting population solves many problems, it does not solve all problems. The million dollar question is how much is best, and in what manner? And even for that, you need cooperation. -
Jacob Bock Axelsen at 18:31 PM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
HumanityRules "If I could just restate Humanity does in fact Rule." It does not occur to you that Earth might defect on Humanity? -
Berényi Péter at 16:38 PM on 6 April 2010Oceans are cooling
#6 Ned at 11:04 AM on 6 April, 2010 "If one only uses one's own reasoning and disregards outside expertise, one is liable to be led into serious errors" Yes. That's a risk one should accept. However, mistakes can (and should) be corrected. Let's discuss it under the proper topic, please. On the other hand, the only way to actually understand anything is by trying to reproduce it on your own. There is no royal road. "Now there are many things that seem to be grounded in truth and to follow from scientific principles but actually are at variance with these principles and deceive the more superficial. It was for this reason that Euclid set forth methods for intelligent discrimination in such matters, too. With these methods not only shall we be able to train beginners in this study to detect fallacies, but we shall be able to escape deception ourselves". You also ask: Why would you link to that as justification for your claim that the pre-ARGO data aren't reliable?" I suppose you have read the paper. If so, you can see it has nothing to say about the 2003 step-like increase of OHC. Without it most of the multi-decadal trend is gone. Energy conservation is a pretty solid principle. If it ever gets falsified, it would not happen in climate science. -
Tom Dayton at 15:44 PM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Anyone who believes gallopingcamel's claims about statistical significance should read the professional statistician Tamino's post The Power -- and Perils -- of Statistics. Be sure to read all the comments, too, since many of them are from us "real" scientists. -
Steve L at 15:42 PM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
I should read this again, but it looks like people can be expected to act more responsibly when they are well-informed and when their actions are not anonymous. Seems pretty obvious, but it's good to be reminded. (This probably applies to behaviour on blogs, too.) I suspect there is more to Figure 4 than just that, though. -
gallopingcamel at 15:01 PM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Fascinating post. Maybe your best yet. I have been wondering how long it will take for the Deniers and Alarmists to realise that nothing much will be achieved as long as they enjoy debating more than trying to find common ground with their opponents. This thread may be venturing into the realm of "solutions", something that John Cook has avoided to date. When it comes to solutions I can think of several issues that both sides of the climate debate could support. According to Milinski things have to get pretty bad (90% probability of disaster) before the warring parties will be motivated to make common cause. The fly in the ointment is that hard science usually expects predictions to meet a 5 sigma limit (Normal distribution). This corresponds to a very high probability that the result is not random. In matters of life and death, even higher standards may be involved. For example, the probability of remaining alive after taking a scheduled air line flight in the USA exceeds the 6 sigma limit (p>0.99999998). When it comes to "Climate Science" it is hard to find any results at the 2 sigma level. Some even argue that a probability at the 1 sigma level (p=0.8413) should be good enough when they are predicting "the end of civilisation as we know it". I call it junk science that brings us real scientists into disrepute. -
Tom W at 14:11 PM on 6 April 2010McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
The splicing across more than one graph and the offset in the y-axes points to a deeper problem. Why not just offset the GTTA axis 6 inches down the page? Or expand the heck out of the scale. Since two axes refer to different metrics with no clear QUANTITATIVE relationship you're free to represent them however you want. Therefore MacLean's inference drawn from the observation that the GTTA never rises above the SOI doesn't mean anything. -
HumanityRules at 13:34 PM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
There are so many bad things to say about Lovelock's opinions in that interview that I don't know how you could find it in you to take up one point. If I could just restate Humanity does in fact Rule. -
Ned at 11:04 AM on 6 April 2010Oceans are cooling
Berényi Péter writes: Sometimes you should use your own head. No amount of peer reviewed literature could save you that effort. It's important to use your own head and think about things for yourself. But when considering a highly complex subject outside your own area of expertise it's equally important (or more important) to make an effort to understand what people who spend their whole careers studying that subject have to say. If one only uses one's own reasoning and disregards outside expertise, one is liable to be led into serious errors like this: "[Water vapor] feedback is not positive. If it would be positive, the scenario described above [a runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus] is inevitable. It is not climate science, not even physics. Just plain old math. Plus the empirical fact we are still alive." If you will forgive me for making a critical comment, I think that this kind of disregard for learning from active scientists is one of the weaknesses of many of your comments here. I rarely if ever see you engage at all with the peer reviewed literature, which is a bit puzzling -- this site is unique among climate science blogs because of John's emphasis on discussing the peer reviewed literature, so if you have no interest in that, why do you comment here? This current topic is a case in point. Many people have worked on reconstructions of ocean heat content from the 1950s or 1960s onward. There are debates within the field about the best ways to handle sparse data, the best ways to handle instrumentation biases, and whether there are sufficient data pre-1967 to permit a statistically valid reconstruction before that time. All of these are interesting topics and all of them are discussed in great detail in the literature. Against all that, we have your flat assertion that pre-ARGO ocean heat content data are unreliable. Why? Well, you just say "look at this graph". It's not clear what you think you see in that graph. Oddly enough, the graph itself (here) is actually from a paper titled "Global ocean heat content (1955-2008) in light of recent instrumentation problems," a paper in which the authors describe how they were able to reconstruct ocean heat content from 1955-2008 in spite of various difficulties associated with pre-ARGO instrumentation. Why would you link to that as justification for your claim that the pre-ARGO data aren't reliable? I have no doubt that when you write something like "In #86 I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, that recent decrease of OHC has nothing to do with ENSO. Just have a look at the figure" you sincerely believe you have in fact demonstrated that beyond a reasonable doubt. But alas, what seems convincing to you may be completely unconvincing to others. This is the advantage of testing your understanding against the accumulated expertise of scientists working in the field. -
Bernard J. at 10:23 AM on 6 April 2010McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
Berényi Péter at #24. If the oceans are "not quite" warming, what then accounts for the consistent rise in level, if not thermal expansion? Note that the rise occurs in the face of dam inpoundment which, according to BF Chao, removes more than 0.5mm/yr additional rise, from river inflows around the planet. -
gallopingcamel at 09:41 AM on 6 April 2010A residential lifetime
Many trees, from Sequoias to Olives can survive thousands of years when we let them. Even if we harvest the trees for lumber that wood can have a long lifetime, especially high quality woods. Instead of incentives for food and timber production we have provided incentives for farmers to produce ethanol from corn as an additive for gasoline, so the carbon absorbed is soon released back into the atmosphere. It is hard to see much benefit from this idea while the disadvantages have become increasingly obvious, including poorer vehicle performance, higher food prices and the pollution of water ways. Phillipe mentions the lobbyists who pressure governments into making bad public policies. The ethanol in gasoline idea is a notable example of that; it can be traced directly to ADM (Archer, Daniels, Midland). To influence the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere we need to implement better solutions than the ones tried so far. I agree with John Russell (#76) when he says humans can overwhelm the natural processes that sequester carbon; it is important that we make good choices. As Phillipe Chantreau points out, it is not going to be easy but this might be something you could persuade "Deniers" to support. I would also point out that it does less harm to the world's economy to produce valuable goods (non-perishable foods and high quality timber) than goods that are useless or perishable. Probably the worst kind of public policy is the all too common practice (USA & EEC) of paying farmers to grow nothing at all. -
Alexandre at 09:37 AM on 6 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Very interesting post. One great work to be added here is the one by the 2009 Nobel Prize Elinor Ostrom. Her book "Rules, Games and Common-pool Resources" is enlightening on the dilemma "private vs. collective result". Some games have a structure that lure agents to a destructive end result. A fisherman won't preserve his much needed tuna only by individually choosing to fish less. Only collective coordination of individual action can provide: 1) A rule of use of the resource that keeps consumption below its carrying capacity (eg limiting number of users or limiting individual consumption) 2) Some way of enforcing the above. -
Berényi Péter at 09:24 AM on 6 April 2010McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
#9 ubrew12 at 08:14 AM on 5 April, 2010 "The oceans are where the judgement of AGW is actually written, and those oceans are warming" The first part of the sentence is true. The second one is not quite so. -
Marcus at 09:22 AM on 6 April 2010McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
Heres the thing I fail to understand though. ENSO is hardly a *new* phenomenon-indeed humans have been *aware* of it for at least 250 years. Yet prior to the last 30 years we're supposed to believe it had *no* impact on long-term climate, but is now suddenly the cause of global warming. Excuse me if I'm a *little* incredulous, but isn't it just as likely that global warming is driving changes to ENSO, rather than the other way around? -
Berényi Péter at 08:37 AM on 6 April 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
#89 Ned at 21:40 PM on 5 April, 2010 "this subject is off-topic for a thread on snowfall" Right. I have also switched to the ocean cooling thread. -
Berényi Péter at 08:31 AM on 6 April 2010Oceans are cooling
#4 Ned at 21:37 PM on 5 April, 2010 "I'm replying here, since the subject was off-topic for that thread" OK, it was, indeed. However, it came there naturally, as things are interconnected. Just for reference: it was a response to #85 Ned at 00:29 AM on 5 April, 2010 under topic Does record snowfall disprove global warming? You have claimed there that "we've been in El Nino conditions for some time now and there's typically a short-term decrease in OHC when the cycle shifts from El Nino to La Nina". In #86 I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, that recent decrease of OHC has nothing to do with ENSO. Just have a look at the figure. I have also noticed there, that the 2003 jump in OHC may be an artifact due to instrumental change. The NODC OHC graph shows an increase of about 5 × 1022 J in a single year. Since heat storage capacity of all other components of the climate system are negligible compared to the oceans, this energy could only come from an abrupt 3 W m-2 increase of radiative imbalance at TOA (Top of Atmosphere). Let us see.
Well, if ISCCP data are considered reliable, nothing like that has happened. There was a sharp decrease of some 4 W m-2 in net incoming flux at TOA between 2000 and 2002. Since then it is practically flat. Therefore reconstruction of OHC history before ARGO is suspect.
Sometimes you should use your own head. No amount of peer reviewed literature could save you that effort.
#87 Riccardo at 06:43 AM on 5 April, 2010 in same thread wrote:
"you're dangerously falling into a grim denialism. You do not bother to verify you claims and let other people do the dirty job to make your denialism apparent. It's a bit boring"
Now. I kindly request our host to comment on this attitude. According to the site's Comments Policy "Comments using labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' are usually skating on thin ice". A couple of other points come to mind as well. John, I would rather not ask you to delete that comment, as it also includes a false claim I'll comment on shortly, but it definitely deserves one of those green boxes.
#87 Riccardo at 06:43 AM on 5 April, 2010
"Your claim about the jump in the deployment of Argo floats in 2003 which you immagine is the cause of the jump in OHC is blatantly false. Check youself (pag.4)."
Riccardo, you are referring to this image:
First things first. I have not claimed there was a jump in deployment. What I did claim, there is a jump in OHC reconstruction and at the same time instrumentation went through a huge change.
However, as you may notice, there is indeed a jump in Pacific ARGO deployments during 2003.
This jump is due to lack of ARGO floats in southern Pacific (to a lesser extent in southern Atlantic as well) during early 2003. The gap was filled in by December 2003, but it took another four months to get a reasonable distribution by random drift.
As for the number of active ARGO floats, it went like this:
2002-04 465
2003-04 797
2003-07 832
2003-08 860
2003-12 1023
2004-04 1158
2004-07 1257
2004-11 1500
2005-04 1788
2005-05 1871
2006-05 2451
2006-11 2743
2007-11 3070
2008-05 3111
2009-07 3319
The histogram shows the annual number of profiles collected, the blue line is the number of active floats.
Compare the distributions above to current status:
It is only the Number 5 December 2004 issue of Argonautics Newsletter that declares:
"Uses of Argo data
Perhaps the most important feature is that the array is now global and this permits us to start to address important scientific issues and to make the data useful to operational centres"
You can see how sparse OHC data really are prior to ARGO:
All other sources of OHC data also diminished dangerously by the year 2002. It is slide 6 in the Leviticus presentation:
Caption: The number of 4°x2° boxes that meet the observation criteria as a function of time for both MBT and XBT comparisons based on computations from WOD data.
-
philc at 08:26 AM on 6 April 2010Is the science settled?
Re 106-111 and humidity. Relative humidity is just that relative. To get to the root of the matter go with absolute humidity(g of water/g of dry air) and dewpoint(the temperature at which water condenses from the air in question). The term relative humidity was invented to explain why one might feel more comfortable on a warm dry day than on a slightly cooler but much more humid day. In order to get precipitation the air has to cool below the dewpoint. This might happen at 5,000 ft for cumulus clouds with high absolute humidity, or at 50,000 ft for cirrus clouds with low absolute humidity. Precip can happen at any altitude and any temperature, depending on conditions. That is why using a parameter to simulate it in a 200km grid box in a model is a dubious proposition at best. Trenberth's paper was very good. "The global energy budget is not closed." In other words we don't know where significant amounts of energy are going in the climate system. Per table #1, the residual is 30-100 Jx10^20 per year, which is in the range of the forcing attributed to GHG(~107 Jx 10^20/yr). It's also 1-3 times the total net positive imbalance in figure 4. I totally agree that long term, reliable measurements of the TOA radiation from a source such as the CERES satellite are needed. "A climate information systrem that first determines what is taking place and then establishes why is better able to provide a sound basis for making predictions and (sic)which can answer important questions such as 'Has global warming really slowed or not'". I agree 100%. Until we have real, reliable, accurate measurements of the TOA radiation we don't know sXXX. -
Riccardo at 08:04 AM on 6 April 2010McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
johnd, McLean's claim is different. He says that from the short term SOI variation logically follows the long term trend, which is quite obviously not the case. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:52 AM on 6 April 2010It's land use
BTW, johnd, what doubts do you harbor about what you term "revelations" concerning the UHI effect? -
Doug Bostrom at 07:43 AM on 6 April 2010It's land use
The answer for your #6 is easy, johnd. With steadily improving insulation the Earth's retained heat will increase, until the planet reaches thermal equilibrium again. This whole issue is really not complicated in its essential features but the scale of the phenomena involved defies our intuitive numeracy. -
johnd at 07:29 AM on 6 April 2010It's land use
Doug @4. I believe that if the infrastructure humans build creates additional thermal mass that stores heat that otherwise would radiate off at a faster rate, then that does alter the immediate environment we live in. This is something we all know, what a relief to escape the stifling city heat during the warmer days, or nights....With regards to the UHI effect, there are 2 aspects to it. The first is what effect it has on the natural climate. The second is what effect it has on the data collected that is used to quantify the physical conditions. I am not certain that the scientists have got a handle on the second as yet. Certainly revelations in recent times have created a considerable amount of doubt. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:17 AM on 6 April 2010The human fingerprint in global warming
Philc, this is one of those situations where a very simple experimental analogy can resolve a misunderstanding. The experiment's so easy to picture it's probably not necessary to do an actual implementation. But if you want to do it, you'll need an empty one gallon paint can, a thermometer, a 75 watt reflector lamp, and an old sweatshirt or other piece of cloth. -- Fill the paint can with water. -- Situate the can in a place with a stable ambient temperature -- Allow time enough for the temperature of the water to reach the ambient temperature of its location. -- Take a reading of the water temperature -- Arrange a 75 watt reflector bulb so that it is shining into the top of the can from a few inches away. -- Continue to take temperature readings, until the temperature has stabilized at its higher level. Record the stable temperature. -- Wrap the can with the old sweatshirt or cloth, leaving the top of the can and water exposed to the lamp. -- Take more temperature readings until the temperature of the water has stabilized at its new higher level. You've just seen why the Earth's temperature will rise but will not rise forever when its better insulated. The experimental analogy is not perfect because the insulation you've added to the can not only retards radiation but also reduces convective losses, but it's adequate to model the situation. -
johnd at 07:15 AM on 6 April 2010It's land use
Doug, I don't want to turn a fun experiment into a full blown project, but to get the most out of such an exercise, the temperature of the slabs would have to be tracked at least a full 24 hours with an additional slab stood at right angles to the other standing slab, as well as the temperature being recorded just below the soil surface over the same period. One of the objectives I believe is to measure under what conditions any residual heat will remain after a full day/night cycle. Of course what matters really is what heat remains after a full summer/winter cycle. -
johnd at 07:04 AM on 6 April 2010McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
Sean @20. It depends on what short and long term refer to. There is no doubt that the SOI does help form longer term variations seen as the multi decadal IPO or PDO which cycle over about 6 or 7 decades, and these have been identified back centuries. Reconstructions of El-Ninos (Quinn El-Ninos 1527-1987) indicate that the 1500's and 1800's were times of more frequent El-Ninos than more recent times. -
Tom Dayton at 06:54 AM on 6 April 2010The human fingerprint in global warming
philc, maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. Increased insulation reduces outgoing radiation, causing an imbalance between incoming and outgoing. Temperature increases, increasing the radiation trying to get out, until the extra radiation trying to get out overwhelms the additional insulation, resulting in, once again, the outgoing matching the incoming. -
Ned at 06:53 AM on 6 April 2010The human fingerprint in global warming
philc writes: Sorry Tom, but assuming the earth in in radiative energy balance [...] That's the whole point. The earth's radiant energy budget is currently not in balance -- outgoing LW radiation is less than the incoming solar radiation. This causes the planet to heat up, which in turn causes more LW radiation to be emitted. Eventually outgoing LW radiation will thus be back in balance with incoming solar radiation, but at a higher temperature (and with less LW in the CO2 absorption bands and more LW outside those bands). That's assuming that CO2 stops rising and then plateaus at some value for a long enough time for the radiation balance to reach equilibrium. -
philc at 06:24 AM on 6 April 2010The human fingerprint in global warming
Sorry Tom, but assuming the earth in in radiative energy balance(that we aren't in thermal runaway and are doomed) the incoming and outgoing radiation have to be equal. Any mechanism that slows the transfer of energy through the atmosphere("insulation") would result in an increase in temperature within the earth's atmosphere with no permanent change in the outgoing radiation. Depending on the rates involved there might be a temporary, measurable change in the outgoing radiation, but given the large amounts of radiation involved and the large variations in already already existing measurements, it might be very hard to pinpoint. The slower the heat transfer, the larger the temperature difference that will be supported. -
Sean A at 05:51 AM on 6 April 2010McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
McLean: "If the SOI accounts for short-term variation then logically it also accounts for long-term variation." That's so classic! I can't believe he actually said that. ;-) On blaming ENSO for global warming... where does the heat come from? No matter how much handwaving is employed, you can't ignore thermodynamics. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:12 AM on 6 April 2010A residential lifetime
There is no doubt that vegetation is a great way to take a hold of all that carbon. That's how it was stored in the first place. As others have mentioned, the problem is to not only store, but actually remove that carbon from the cycle. It would be, in fact, low tech and possibly low impact geo-engineering. Problem is, it's not so easy to do that from vegetation because it implies that the vegetation will neither burn nor rot. The remarkable thing that happened in the carboniferous was the storage of immense quantities of vegetation in anoxic conditions. Now all that carbon/hydrogen is getting back to the oxygen with a vengeance, thanks to us. If we want to get anywhere close to the kind of quantitative result we need, we're going to have to use, reuse and recycle ad-infinitum every scrap of wood we produce, and produce vast quantities of it. Feasible but difficult and perhaps energy intensive too. There is no silver bullet. We're looking here at a solution requiring: massive land use changes, infrastructure changes, attitude changes (getting back to using wood for all sorts of applications). Not to mention that the displaced industries will fight with their usual methods (i.e. the current climate disinformation, tobacco campaigns, lead paint campaigns, etc). It will also involve some strain on the world's economy. It's not a bad idea and I'm not opposed to it in principle but it will be every bit as hard as reducing emissions. -
Ned at 02:32 AM on 6 April 2010The human fingerprint in global warming
philc, your comment here is a bit unclear, but it seems like a restatement of your recent comment over on another thread (Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming). I replied to it there. -
Tom Dayton at 01:57 AM on 6 April 2010The human fingerprint in global warming
philc, you are incorrect that "If the mechanisms that slow this energy transfer act to slow the energy flow further, the surface would increase in temperature with no change in the energy absorb vs that emitted." If the surface temperature increases, the surface radiates more energy. -
philc at 01:41 AM on 6 April 2010The human fingerprint in global warming
"A comparison between satellite data from 1970 to 1996 found that less energy is escaping to space at the wavelengths that greenhouse gases absorb energy (Harries 2001)." The key driver here is not "that less energy is escaping to space at the wavelengths GHG absorb". The key metric is whether the overall radiation from the earth at all wavelengths is in balance with all the energy absorbed by the earth. The atmosphere/oceans/biosphere act as an insulator, slowing the rate of energy transfer from where it is absorbed to where it is emitted. They have done this for millennia, maintaining a higher temperature at the surface than we would have absent atmosphere/oceans. If the mechanisms that slow this energy transfer act to slow the energy flow further, the surface would increase in temperature with no change in the energy absorb vs that emitted. No change in the overall radiation balance is required to change the temperatures in the system, simply a change in the rates of transfer. CO2 certainly absorbs IR radiation, but how this affects the mechanisms that move the energy around in the system is far from understood, particularly when water(vapor,liquid, and ice) has such a large effect on the atmosphere and surface. The overall climate, barring catastrophic meteors and volcanoes, has remained hospitable to life for over a billion years. The reasons why this is so still don't seem to be understood. -
Riccardo at 23:25 PM on 5 April 2010Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Ned, i'm no expert so i'll only place my bet: it has something to do with the Arctic Oscillation which became about neutral in March. We'll soon have the response.
Prev 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 Next
