Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 Next
Comments 20201 to 20250:
-
chriskoz at 11:26 AM on 26 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
My post @10 above is the response to sailingfree@6. Sorry for the omission.
-
chriskoz at 11:12 AM on 26 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
I don't understand you question. You need to be more specific.
The fact that shorten wavelngth are radiated by hotter objects follows from Wien's law. Later, Plank described the spectral distribution of black body radiation. Intuitively, it means that various molecules of a body are able to emit various quants of electromagnetion radiation, depending on their energy state at that instant. The collective amount of radiation (all quants combined, as emitted from 6.02*10E23 molecules per mole of material) form the continuous Plank spectrum or radiation.
What is unlear here? What do you mean by seeking "quantum electrodynamically" explanation?
-
DrivingBy at 10:49 AM on 26 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 01 - Ancient Sunlight
That was very well and plainly written, and refreshingly free of the man-is-evil, technology-is-evil, all economies other than government controlled are evil, you're all evil etc etc whinging which suffuses popular coverage of this topic.
Small quibble: stating energy consumption in watts sounds fuzzy: do you mean that we use energy at a rate of 10K watts, or 240KWH/day, or do you mean we use about 10KWh each day? The former sounds reasonable if you consider all direct and indirect energy use.
Humanity as a species has been so successful that we just might eat our way to the edge of the petri dish, but we're not quite there yet.
-
chriskoz at 10:46 AM on 26 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
sailingfree@5,
the energy goes into atoms WOBBLING [...] which is NOT thermal energy. So the CO2 does NOT get hotter when it absorbs IR.
(comment policy violating emphasis original)
Not exactly. By increasing the vibrational energy, the CO2 molecules become "super-hot" in terms of thermal energy definition, or overall "kinetic energy" definition I refered to in my previous comment to Tom Curtis. Further, by interacting eith other moelcules in the air (by bouncing around), CO2 molecules transfer that energy to the rest of air, resulting in air temperature increase.
-
chriskoz at 10:30 AM on 26 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Tom Curtis@7,
In contrast, only energy of translation contributes to the temperature of a gas
That is accurate only for monoatomic noble gases like helium that have the possibility of kinetic energy only from translational kinetic energy of point masses, that their single atomic molecules represent. For any other materials. The so called "kinetic temperature" you're refering to, defines temperature in terms of the average translational kinetic energy of the independent point masses only.
Molecules of all other materials can have other forms of kinetic energy. That includes rotational kinetic energy of vibrating milti-atomic molecules of most other gasses. The zero-th law of thermodynamics (which defines the termperature as the state of energy equilibrium between any two parts of a single "body") includes all kinds of kinetic energy in the material molecules. With such definition of material's "overall temperature", the vibrational energy must also be included. Such definition translates to the everyday understanding that the3 temperature of a gasuous material we measure, includes both translational and vibrational kinetic energy of the material's molecules. If it did not include vibrational kinetic energy, the subsequent laws of thermodynamics would be less intuitive to understand and the energy conservation laws would not be implied therein.
-
chriskoz at 09:20 AM on 26 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
jupiterjosh@45,
You seem to have a problem that "skin in the game" is not part of climate scientists' job, unlike your job.
In addition to the responses by Rob Honeycutt and Tom Curtis - indicating that those scientists often want to put their "skin in the game" as private citizens (with poor results when pitched against cowardice deniers) - I want to emphasise that a typical job of a scientist in general does not involve any betting games or such.
Scientists are like teachers: they sell you the knowledge of e.g. the physics. They don't sell you the products, e.g. the computer programs that are guaranteed to make money like you do. Their programs, as opposed to your program, are the teaching tool and not commercial tool. Cettainly they may become commercial tool when they are sold from one university to the other: then the authors from the original uni put their "skin in the game", in a sense that their program is free of design and implementation bugs.
Have you ever heard of a case when the students (like us in SkS) demanded from the teachers (like climate scientists) to put their "skin in the game" of teaching? Such notion is unheard of. Because all teachers' and all scientists' job desciption does not require them to do that. Their stake is not finance but reputation.
It's arguable if scientists would be inspired for a better job and/or their trust would increase if we forced them to have financial stake in their job description. For once, in case of climate scientists, all contrarians like Judith Curry, Fred Singer, Wili Soon, Dick Lidzen, etc. would have been eliminated from such field. But that's beside my point. My point is that our civilisation developed such ethical considerations around teaching jobs for a good reasons: that the scientific knowledge can be debated and developed unencumbered by any commercial obligations, therefore free from commercial bias.
To give you another perspective, for better understanding the difference between teacher's job and other commercial jobs, consider the case of medical professionals that can be both. Doctors may do research based on their practice and publish the new/breakthrough methods in medical journals and lecture at the unis. This is a teacher's job and they have no stake in it other than their reputation. On the other hand, when the patients come to their office for a medical consultation, they surely put "skin in the game", because they may be liable financially (e.g. sued) for wrong dignosis.
Finally, let's consider if making sicentist/teachers liable financially rather than morally for their job would encourage them to perform better? I doubt. Reputation for many people (especially highly educated and at level 3 of moral development according to Kohlberg) plays far important role, than financial remuneration, as the reward for their activities.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:38 AM on 26 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
sailingfree, thermal energy, by which I assume you mean heat, in a gas includes the energy of motion as each molecule moves ("energy of translation"), but it also includes the energy of vibration and/or rotation within the molecule. It does not include energy involved in changes energy states of electrons in ordinary atmospheric conditions. In contrast, only energy of translation contributes to the temperature of a gas.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:16 AM on 26 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
jupiterjosh @45, first (a very small point), it is anthropogenic climate change, not anthropomorphic. The former means human generated or caused, the later human formed.
Second, a number of climate scientists and communicators have tried very hard to get direct "skin in the game" in the form of bets on future temperatures. These include Rob Honeycutt himself, the climate scientist who blogs under the name of Eli Rabbet, and others. Generally they have had difficulty finding betting partners from among purported skeptics. Curiously, often purported skeptics are only prepared to bet on terms which presume a warming climate, although the bet Rob Honeycutt is involved in is not among those. Richard Lindzen, for example, is only prepared to bet on odds that assume it is 50 to 1 against a cooling climate in future.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:27 AM on 26 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
jupiterjosh... The issue here is, all the data is there. Scientists explain this stuff all the time. Over and over. Repeatedly and ad nauseum. My point is, it's like the old adage, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." It requires some willingness to listen on the part of "skeptics" in order for them to actually understand.
There are a lot of people who will go to their graves rather than accept scientific facts. This is just a simple failing of human nature. And in terms of "purse string holders" go, we need to put the purse strings into different hands if the one's holding them now are unwilling to accept facts.
In terms of having skin in the game, (a) I think science operates differently than markets, and (b) we all have skin in this game that involves potentially catastrophic impacts on future generations.
I think it's also important to reiterate the point that climate models and financial models are vastly different animals. The basis of the scientific understanding of anthropogenic (not anthropomorphic) climate change is fundamental physics, not models. Models are there only to help researchers to better understand what's happening and where things are likely going. They're used to constrain the range of uncertainty.
There is definitely no lack of empathy here. Scientists are working very hard to make their complex science clear to the general public. But there is also an extremely well funded effort out there driving confusion on the science as well. And remember, a lie can get half way round the planet before the truth can get its trousers on. (Quote attributed to various people.)
Telling the complex truth amidst a stormy sea of lies is always going to be challenging.
-
jupiterjosh at 05:26 AM on 26 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Rob,
First I want to thank you for taking the time to do this write-up. Anyone who is willing to stick their neck out to state something and is willing to open the floor to comments deserves thanks and you have mine.
I feel like climate scientists are being put in a position closer to that of an economist or an engineer because of the policy implications/ramifications that come as a product of climate research. While scientists in other fields do not normally have to assume the mantle of professional soothsayer, the fact that one of your opening comments (provided below) basically says you are unwilling to take on this mantle and that this view is probably widely held amongst climate scientists is very troubling given the importance of anthropomorphic climate change:
Aside from the ludicrous notion that saving the world somehow pivots on convincing "skeptics", Adams' fundamental fallacy is the notion that it's the job of climate scientists to convince "skeptics" that climate change is real.
How I interpret this comment is to say that climate scientists, in general, are not willing to spend time to convince those holding the purse-strings (going with Scott’s assumption that those holding the purse-strings are the skeptics) to make some sort of policy decision based on their prognostications.
So I have two questions: First, if you truly believe that it is ludicrous or futile to try to convince deniers to change policy then why say anything at all; why not aspire to push climate science to some sort of academic backwater to avoid all the attention? Second, if it’s not your job to convince skeptics then whose job is it?
I can tell you that the folks holding the purse-strings assume that it is your job to do the convincing since they are the ones who will feel the immediate impacts of your prognostication (e.g., voted out of office because you spent too much money). You could argue that your prognostications are based on physical laws and the “skeptic” should just take your word for it, but from the perspective of the person holding the purse, your argument is no different from that of a structural engineer who applies basic physical laws to create a schematic for a roadway bridge.
The only difference being that the structural engineer is willing to go the extra step of applying his/her license numbered stamp to the schematic which essentially says, "I certify that if you build it to these specifications, the bridge will not collapse." The climate scientist does nothing besides say “trust me.”
From the perspective of the purse-holder, which model is more believable? The model of the bridge where the structural engineer is willing to stake his/her professional engineering license (and subsequently his/her livelihood) on the belief that his prognostications are true, or the model of the climate scientist who has absolutely no skin in the game and isn’t even willing to simply explain his results?
While I’m on the topic of “skin in the game”, I want to explain to you what skin in the game feels like because I hope it will illustrate why climate models are not taken as seriously as the climate modeling community thinks they should. I happen to be a professional commodities speculator. I build and use mathematical models every day (I am an applied math PhD dropout). Furthermore, I have done the work explaining to others what I do so that other people give me money to make bets based on the outcome of my models.
In a single day I once lost $30,000 of my own money and $450,000 of someone else’s money based on a data error in one of my models. When I realized what had happened I threw up in the trashcan at my desk and was unable to eat for weeks. Since the error was a clear oversight on my part, I thought I would lose my job and I would be finished in this business. I’m still trading, but I never forgot that day. In fact, I still have a job precisely because my error put me in such financial “pain” and my superiors knew I wouldn’t make the same mistake twice.
While I believe in anthropomorphic climate change and that it is imperative that human behavior must be changed, I can’t help but wonder, is the average climate scientist willing to stake his livelihood on the output of one of his modeling runs? Will the scientist stake their home or whether or not they will have a job tomorrow that their models are free from data and programming errors? That’s what skin-in-the-game feels like, and once you can demonstrate to the person holding the purse that you have skin in the game, your model will take on a level of believability above and beyond what it actually does.So I guess to make a long story short. For the sake of the planet, more empathy may be required on the part of the climate scientist since the scientist is essentially asking of the person holding the purse-strings that they put their money where the scientist’s mouth is.
-
sailingfree at 02:10 AM on 26 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
More, misunderstanding: How, quantum electrodynamically, do we explain classical black body radiation, where the emitted frequency is a function of its thermal temperature? I am missing something, photons reacting with the thermal energy.
-
sailingfree at 00:42 AM on 26 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Thank you, Rob. For clarification, and do I have it right?:
Heat is thermal energy, that is, whole molecules BOUNCING around, hitting each other. When a molecule absorbs IR, the energy goes into atoms WOBBLING, or electrons jumping, within the molecule, which is NOT thermal energy.
So the CO2 does NOT get hotter when it absorbs IR.
Please comment on the accuracy of my (mis)understanding of the quantum electrodynamics. Thanks
-
Tom Curtis at 23:50 PM on 25 March 2017Global warming is increasing rainfall rates
Art Vandelay @10, my understanding is that the primary driver of the increased storm strength is the increased humidity. Storms cause precipitation results in the release of the energy stored as latent heat in the water vapour. That in turn drives the storm. Based on that, we would expect a 4% increase in the energy of storms per 1 C increase in temperature. That is very rough, however, as local humidity is driven by local temperatures rather than global temperatures, and there are other factors involved, some tending to make storms less energetic and/or less frequent.
-
Art Vandelay at 22:31 PM on 25 March 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Green parties can be enemies of science too, which happens when they exploit enviromnetal issues to peddle political ideology and agendas.
To say that conservative parties are enemies of science is not only a generalisation it's also incorrect, given that Conservatism has underpinned our entire technology era which was and is fueled by science.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped. You have posted comments on this website long enough for you to be acquainted with the SkS Comments Policy. Please adhere to it.
-
Art Vandelay at 22:17 PM on 25 March 2017Global warming is increasing rainfall rates
Recently, one of our leading climate scientists in Australia was on television explaining that we can expect storms to be more severe due to the additional energy in the atmosphere.
Obviously this makes sense but it also made we think about how much extra energy there must be, and based on temperature alone the answer is about 0.3%, or about 0.5% with vapour feedback.
My question therfore is how does a 0.5% increase in energy result in a substantial increase in the severity of weather events?
-
Art Vandelay at 22:08 PM on 25 March 2017Global warming is increasing rainfall rates
It makes some sense that a warming world is relevant to precipitation changes, as is a warmer world.
Regionally, as we transition from winter to spring at mid latitudes there's reduced rainfall and increased evaporation, and the opposite is also true as we transition from summer to autumn.
A future world will be a warmer world with changed precipitation patterns, but as the global temperature begins to fall in response to falling CO2 levels in the atmosphere the additional accumulated vapor in the atmosphere will be slowly reassimilated into the oceans, lakes and glaciers.
-
John Hartz at 12:40 PM on 25 March 2017Ice age predicted in the 70s
Recommended supplemental reading:
My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong
It's time for deniers of human-caused global warming to stop using an old magazine story against climate scientists.
by Peter Gwynne, Inside Science, May 21, 2014
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:00 AM on 25 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Confusion in the third sentence is due to two interpretations of "33 degrees Celcius". A better phrasing, now rarely used, is "33 Celcius degrees".
33 degrees Celcius is a temperature, equal to about 91 degrees Fahrenheit.
33 Celcius degrees is a difference in temperature, about equal to 59 Fahrenheit degrees.
-
KojoKerr at 09:30 AM on 25 March 2017Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
The blog seems to attack common weaknesses of both realists and alarmists. The alarmist assertions, from ambiguous questions, are a commonality. I addition, the % of survey targets delivered a tiny number of respondants.
Consensus is irrelevant as all scientists should know however, it has been clearly assessed by Von Storche etc, that the relationship between alarmists, the media and consensus in the unqualified dogma of the masses, is a self perpetuating myth.
This blog, so far, contributes to the mythology.
Moderator Response:[PS] Sloganeering snipped. Please read and abide by comments policy. This is not optional. Furthermore note that noone claims scientific consensus make the science right, only that the scientific consensus is the only rational basis for policy.
If you want dispute something, use appropriate language. Clearly state the claim (with a reference) you dispute so dont have any strawman arguments. Back your criticism with references/data preferably from the peer-reviewed literature. If you just want a rant there are plenty of other forums which welcome such contribution.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:37 AM on 25 March 2017Global warming is increasing rainfall rates
With apologies to the moderators, Wake in a post deleted for sloganeering, did refer to some data at the World Bank in an attempt to disprove the contention that precipitation levels are rising. Looking at the data in detail, it becomes obvious that it shows precisely the same decadal average for all data in a given nation, for every decade in which there is data. That is, according to the World Bank data, not only is their no trend, but there is no natural variability. Somalia, for instance, shows no evidence in their data of the 1980s drought in the Horn of Africa.
Needless to say, this complete uniformity in the data is very suspicious. If checked against local weather agencies, in this case Australia's Bureau of Meteorology, it is also shown to be false as regards decadal variability and overall trend. I do not know how it comes about that the World Bank is generating such spurious data, but while they do it is appropriate that a comment should be made on it (even if the original commentor here "has now recused himself").
-
nigelj at 07:25 AM on 25 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Interesting that Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, although a weak one. It's apparently that three atom structure again.
-
rkrolph at 03:27 AM on 25 March 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
I see Wake is on an alternative fact rant today. Now I understand where his climate change denial is coming from.
Moderator Response:[JH] I have just deleted a bunch of Wake's most recent posts because they were nothing more than inflamatory sloganeering.
[DB] Due to his inability to adhere to the SKS Comments Policy, Wake has recused himself from further participation in this venue.
-
barry1487 at 02:19 AM on 25 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
The sentence is right. Average temp of the earth is about 15C (59F).
33C cooler than that is -18C. That's -0.04F, which, with rounding is 59F cooler.
-
Kal at 01:28 AM on 25 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Confusion in the 3rd sentence.33 degrees C is not equivalent to 59 degrees F.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:59 AM on 24 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JohnFornaro @42, the current rate of sea level rise, taking the average of the five teams determining it, is 3.34 +/- 0.44 mm per year (see side bar here). Taken over the 17 years todate since Jan 1st, 2000, that represents a sea level rise of 57.35 +/- 7.55 mm. Comparing visually to the the second graph @39, that is above the upper limit of the IPCC "likely" range (shaded in purple), but about 40 mm below the "upper limit". Unfortunately this does not preclude the upper limit as yet.
The difference between the upper end of the likely range in the upper limit will, if the IPCC is correct, come from significant collapse of ice sheets. That is likely to be an irregular process, with periods of slower sea level rise interspersed with periods of rapid rise when undermined maritime ice sheets break loose, and/or when glaciers increase their flow because the ice shelf that had been slowing the flow break up. As with many things with regards to AGW, it will be a decade or two before we can significantly resolve which projection/model combination is most accurate with respect to sea level rise. As it stands, however, the current best estimate from an empirical stance would be a near 1 meter sea level rise.
With regard to Larsen C, it is an ice shelf, not an ice sheet. The difference is that an ice shelf is not grounded, ie, it floats. Consequently the break up of an ice shelf has a minimal direct effect on sea level rise; and no more direct effect than the melting of a similar volume of sea ice. The break up of an ice shelf can have a significant indirect effect in allowing the more rapid motion of the glaciers behind it. Given the location of Larson C on the Antarctic Peninsular, however, such glaciers will be of short length and limited mass. The effect on sea level rise is therefore likely to be, if anything, less than the similar break up of ice shelves on Greenland.
-
nomorewoo at 06:37 AM on 24 March 2017How Green is My EV?
greg_laden@ 14
"EVs have no known depreciation function." This is nonsense, any mechanical technology has some sort of depreciation as all machine experience wear and tear.
:the market hasn't come close to making up its mind." This is also nonsense; the market is making up its mind every minute of everyday. Type in 'used electric vehicle for sale' into google and you will find what the market has decided the market depreciation on a EV is in your area at that moment.
nigelj@15
The only thing i "need" to do is breath, but here you go anyway
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/14/stunning-deals-used-electric-cars-expense-1st-owners/
I am making the suggestion that an article investigating the depreciation costs of EVs vs ICEs would be great.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
nomorewoo at 06:17 AM on 24 March 2017Global warming is increasing rainfall rates
I remember reading a figure of only 1 to 3% increase in precipitation per degree C in average global temperature in Gavin Schmidt's book Climate Change: Picturing The Science. The guardian has written a much higher figure of "between 5 and 10% for every degree C increase".
Is this referring to in increase in average peak temperature or average temperature? Anyone have a source for this statement?
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed formatting. Use the tools in the editor for formatting and embedding link.
-
michael sweet at 05:55 AM on 24 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
John,
As I understand it, every year a lot more is learned about the melting ice sheets. This new information changes the opinions of experts somewhat over 10 years or so. It is not really possible for amateurs to determine which model is the best fit right now.
In addition, if the nations of the world really start to work hard on carbon emissions it will change the trajectory that is followed. We must hope that China successfully invests in renewable energy and the rest of the world follows. Parts of Europe are putting in a good effort and demonstrating what is possible. If wind and solar energy continue to go down in price it may happen.
-
william5331 at 05:10 AM on 24 March 2017Global warming is increasing rainfall rates
With more precipitation and with the precipitation more often occuring in strong downpours rather than gentle rain and with more of the precipitation falling as rain instead of feeding snow packs, our problem is to keep this water on the land, direct it underground and spread it timewise from times of rainfall (often the winter) to times of drought (usually the summer). We could create zillions of little concrete dams in all catchments but what a waste of money. Nature can do it for us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI5AjJd00cM
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2011/05/erics-beavers.html
-
JohnFornaro at 01:11 AM on 24 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Tom Curtis @39 and Michael Sweet @40:
Thanks for those graphs.
My question is pretty simply stated:
At what point can we measure sea level rise and point to that rise as incontrovertible evidence that one or more of these models is accurately predicting sea level rise?
I printed the graph provided by Michael to fit an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, and manually graphed the minimum and maximum sea level rise for the years 2017 to 2020. The minimum level rise can't be seen readily at this scale, but the maximum level rise would indicate a sea level rise of about 4 cm over the next three years.
I quite understand that I have arbitrarily selected the highest predicted rise.
Is there a better selection from among the eleven possibilities suggested in the graph?
When can the models be tested against reality? Is 4 cm good enough proof?
Michael Sweet: "Apparently they use the high value that 80% of experts think is the lowest high value."
I saw that too. Scott Adams' Twainian hammer is persuasion, and he rants, there's no other term for it, about how <b>all</b> things are about persuasion. Of course he's broadly wrong about that, but still, it is the case that people are trying to <b>persuade</b> policy makers to change policy regarding the climate, with tax policy being the tool of choice.
A graph such as this, with eleven scenarios and various percentages of confidence does not persuade well.
I saw Tom Curtis @ 41, quoting IPCC AR5:
"Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century."
Clearly, Larson C is in play and it seems that higher rates of sea level rise can be expected by current modeling.
-
pattimer at 22:38 PM on 23 March 2017Global warming is increasing rainfall rates
The result is a shift such that more intense precipitation occurs at higher temperatures in future, while the drop-off moves to even higher temperatures.
This makes intuitive sense. In an existaing world state if a region gets too hot then the precipitaion will likley occur somewhere else. If the world on average is getting warmer then this turning point will have to occur at a higher temperature for it to go somewhere else.
-
Paul D at 21:46 PM on 23 March 2017Global warming is increasing rainfall rates
On a practical note. About two years ago I upgraded the rain guttering on our house so that it could handle about 3 or 4 times more water. Previously it was beginning to overflow when there was a heavy rainfall, the new guttering can now handle the climate change induced heavier downpours, at least for now! Trouble is, I am not sure the soak away and the ground will be able to handle the greater amounts of water in the future.
Not sure if new homes in the UK are designed to handle increased rainfall?! Developers/builders seem to be still using the standard sized guttering they have always used.
-
Doug_C at 15:14 PM on 23 March 2017In-depth: What Donald Trump’s budget means for US spending on climate change
This is obviously a politically motivated budget, not a practical one. And while climate change denial is used as a political football to kick around to motivate support in certain sectors of the US, as this piece states at the very start, there is so much evidence that supports catastrophic human forced climate that defunding research to the level the Trump Whitehouse would like is highly unlikely.
This is just going to add gasoline to the fires that are going to start this year as the US gears up for the mid terms next year.
There's no way that climate change is ever going to be a forgotten issue in any nation as the catastrophic impacts become progressively severe. Climate change denial is an exercise in idiocy, it doesn't banish the physical processes we're pushing into overdrive as the heat budget of the planet grows every second. Many Hiroshima bombs worth of heat were added to Earth's oceans and atmosphere as I composed this brief comment.
-
SemiChemE at 13:39 PM on 23 March 2017Models are unreliable
Tom Curtis @1034, Thanks for understanding the point I was trying to make and giving a better explanation than I could have (see post #1035) for why paleoclimate data from >30million years ago may not be useful for predicting the earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 in modern times.
As for my conclusion, your post suggests I was not clear in stating my conclusion, since your argument appears to be about the likely range of climate sensitivities. I did cite a paper (or papers) that reflect a lower climate sensitivity, but my point in doing so was to highlight potential flaws in the models that might cause them to make improper predictions about future climate trends.
My intended conclusion was that climate models are still quite crude and unreliable for predicting the future climate. I do have hope that the models will get better over time, especially in light of modern data collection techniques (eg. Satellites, Argo sensors, etc...), which will enable modellers to reduce the acceptable ranges of the parameters that are currently used to adjust the model outputs.
I also argued that paleoclimate data is not sufficient to completely validate any given model due to
1. Limitted accuracy and precision
2. Poor temporal resolution
3. Significant gaps in global coverage
4. Limited visibility to important historical factors, including cloud behavior, aerosol and particulate variations, Ocean Currents, etc...Finally, while I believe my statements about Paleoclimate data to be true, I am certain there is a literal army of climate scientists working to address these shortcomings and I would welcome any suggestions for a good summary on the latest state of the art in understanding our planet's climate history.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:07 PM on 23 March 2017Models are unreliable
SemiChemE @1035, the three papers you cite all deal with the Transient Climate Response, formally defined as the temperature achieved at 70 years after a 1% increase in CO2 per annum over the 70 year period. The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is the condition that obtains when quasi equilibrium between energy in and energy out is obtained at the Top Of the Atmosphere. The difference between the two is a function of how much energy must be stored at the Earth's surface (primarilly in the oceans) for the temperature to rise sufficiently to obtain an energy balance. Because of this, the three papers have no bearing on the value of the ECS except in that the TOA energy imbalance is used in energy balance estimates of ECS to change an estimate of the TCR to an estimate of the ECS. (That wording may be confusing, for which I apologise. If necessary I shall explain more clearly later when I have more time.) The papers certainly have no bearing on the issue of estimating the ECS from paleo data.
-
SemiChemE at 12:50 PM on 23 March 2017Models are unreliable
DB inline @1030, I appologize for letting another poster pull me into an off topic discussion. My interest is in modelling and I will try to constrain my posts to that topic.
-
nigelj at 12:41 PM on 23 March 2017Global warming is increasing rainfall rates
Peru is currently experiencing some record floods, in the sense of their intensity over very short periods, and are causing a lot of damage. The basic cause appears to be an unusual local el nino like phenomenon, that sometimes happens.
The high intensity would seem to be consistent with higher atmospheric moisture from a warming climate, possibly in combination with the local el nino generated weather phenomenon, which may or may not itself be influenced by global warming.
It also appears there's also a 50 / 50 chance of another full scale el nino later this year.
I agree with the concept of having a robust military, but I would have thought the USA spends ample already on it's military. It's hard to see how spending more will resolve the sorts of threats in the current global situation, and agreements with countries, and linkages by way of free trade would seem a better way of reducing tensions.
While countries owe a duty to their own citizens first, global connections would come a reasonably close second, I would have thought. Todays problems are global scale, and so require some degree of cooperation.
-
SemiChemE at 12:27 PM on 23 March 2017Models are unreliable
Here are a few references, discussing the importance of Ocean-effects on global Climate Sensitivity.
Balmaseda, Magdalena A., Kevin E. Trenberth, and Erland Källén. "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content." Geophysical Research Letters 40.9 (2013): 1754-1759.
Meehl, Gerald A., et al. "Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods." Nature Climate Change 1.7 (2011): 360-364.
Raper, Sarah CB, Jonathan M. Gregory, and Ronald J. Stouffer. "The role of climate sensitivity and ocean heat uptake on AOGCM transient temperature response." Journal of Climate 15.1 (2002): 124-130.
There are many, many more such papers. Clearly, the oceans are very important to climate Sensitivity.
As for the evolution of Ocean Currents over time, here's a nice summary:
https://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Oceans.html
As you can see, prior to ~30 million years ago, the arrangement of the continents was different, which had a dramatic impact on ocean circulation patterns. The Atlantic Ocean was much smaller and the isthmus of Panama had not formed. Given that Atmospheric-Ocean coupling is a major factor in determining climate sensitivity (see references above) and that due to geological changes in the configuration of the continents the Ocean circulation patterns were different, it is entirely reasonable to believe that climate sensitivities prior to 30 million years ago may have been different from those today. Thus, as I stated before, I would be very skeptical of the relevancy of paleoclimate data from >30 million years ago for predicting the modern climate.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
Johnboy at 11:03 AM on 23 March 2017In-depth: What Donald Trump’s budget means for US spending on climate change
For what it's worth, my past experience in a Government agency was that President's budgets, assembled by the Office of Management & Budget, are not much more than an "exercise" for the administration to mostly display its philosophy with a general 10-year budget plan including spending and anticipated revenues. Our agency's budget office folks used to laugh that when it gets to Congress its given a glance and tossed under the desk and then they try to agree on Congressional Budget resolution, another 10-year "plan"which may or may not have much resemblance to the Presidents.
After all this, the real work goes to the Appropriations Commitees to knock appropriations to each of the agencies For the upcoming fiscal year. Lots of horse trading and "bringing home the bacon" back to the Congresspersons home District.
Borrowing from a phrase from the golf world, we used to joke, "Budget for show, appropriate for dough"
-
Tom Curtis at 10:08 AM on 23 March 2017Models are unreliable
PS inline @1029, SemiChemE's speculation is, I think, fairly obvious. Examples of changes in ocean circulation that would effect climate sensitivity include the opening of the Drake Passage between Antarctica and North America, the opening of the gap between Australia and Antarctica, the closure of the Central American Seaway between North and South Americas (with consequent strengthening of the Gulf Stream), and even the northward drift of Africa which is slowly strengthening the leakage of warm, saline water from the Indian ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, which leakage may have a significant effect on deglaciations. The extent of the effect on climate of these events is disputed in each case, but that they have some effect is, I think, incontrovertible. Each may have some role in the onset and/or intensity of recent glacial cycles; a sign that they have increased climate sensitivity over the geological average.
Nor are they the only geological changes that can impact climate sensitivity. Geological evidence shows that in periods with glacial caps climate sensitivity is greater. It follows that geological events that significantly increase or decrease CO2 concentrations will, respectively, decrease or increase climate sensitivity. The draw down of CO2 concentrations that resulted from the formation of the himalayas, therefore, has also likely increased climate sensitivity.
Despite agreeing with SemiChemE's speculation, however, I do not agree with his conclusion. We have climate sensitivity estimates across a very wide range of continental positions and glacial conditions. While the estimate of climate sensitivity from paleo data for one particular time may not be a reasonable analog of the modern Earth, we can expect the range of climate sensitivities across all times to constrain likely climate sensitivities today. In particular, we can expect modern climate sensitivity to be above within the range of climate sensitivities found in glacial conditions (as we are in a glacial condition).
Moderator Response:[PS] Understodd. Thank Tom, and apologies to SCE for not following his line of reasoning.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:22 AM on 23 March 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Wol @15, you are correct. My statement was over general, and was not believed by me in its over general interpretation. I should more correctly have said that conservative parties are the enemies of science, and restricted that claim to the English speaking nations in the Americas and Australasia.
-
michael sweet at 07:16 AM on 23 March 2017Models are unreliable
SCE,
Here is a more suitable thread to continue this discussion.
Moderator Response:[PS] Thank you
-
CO2 effect is saturated
Nahle's incompetence isn't confined to how the greenhouse effect actually works.
He has claimed (nearly halfway down this page) that this sequence of pictures proves that Mars was warming between 1995 and 2005 because the polar caps were shrinking, implying that it must be the sun.
He apparently didn't understand (or forgot to tell his readers!) that each picture was taken a little more than one Martian year after the previous one, and that the changes in the polar caps are almost entirely due to seasons! (more on that in the thread Mars is warming)
A similar sequence at 13 months intervals of the Arctic from September 2005 to March 2012 would seemingly show a nearly 3-fold increase in sea ice extent, but we know what really happened in September 2012, don't we? -
Mal Adapted at 04:17 AM on 23 March 2017Global warming is increasing rainfall rates
I'll call SkS readers' attention to a germane US National Academy of Sciences report, Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change. You can order a printed copy for $71.10, but you can download the PDFs for free.
-
michael sweet at 03:10 AM on 23 March 2017Models are unreliable
SCE,
Simply repeating a false claim that you read on the internet does not make it an argument. Your claim that "the social costs of planning for an overly pessimistic ECS would also be tremendous" is simply false.
The US Academy of Science warned President Johnson in 1965 that AGW would be a crisis for mankind in the future. How long do you want to wait?? Scientists have been sure since the 1990's that this is a critical issue that must be addressed immediately and you want to wait?
Let us look at the worst case . We start to seriously build out renewable energy (WWS). After 10 years it is more expensive than we expected and the consequences of AGW are less than we expected. We stop the build. We end up wasting a few hundred billion dollars on the energy build. The money goes to pay workers who spend it and improve the economy. It is a wash overall.
Since every time the IPCC puts out a new report it increases the damage already caused it is extremely unlikely the worst case will happen. The report I linked above (which you do not appear to have read) documents billions of dollars damage that are being caused already. To mention only today's newspaper, wildfires caused by AGW have caused several hundred million dollars damage already and the fire season has barely begun. The 11 million people who will lose their homes from sea level rise in Florida alone can go live in your house.
We wasted over two trillion dollars unsuccessfully trying to steal Iraq's oil. If we switch to WWS we will not need half the military we currently have. Jacobson estimates that WWS will cost less than conventional energy. The cost of solar and wind have plummeted since Jacobson made these estimates so his cost estimates are too high. You must support your claim that fossil fuels have a comparable cost to WWS. I have not seen any serious analysis that suggest fossil fuels are as cheap as WWS when all costs are included.
The cost of wind and solar have plummetted the last few years and they are now the cheapest form of energy period. You are arguing to preserve more expensive energy sources for what?? Jacobson identified the need for alternate materials for the turbine magnets years ago. Iron nitride magnets are one alternative. Others are being developed. Where are you going to get the beryllium you need for all those nuclear power plants?
No mater what is done, fossil fuels will run out in a few decades. When do you think we should start the switch to WWS?
You are skeptical of WWS. Perhaps if you read more about them you would be less skeptical. Read the Jacobson 2015 article I linked above.
Several hundred thousand people per year die from air pollution in the USA alone from your preferred energy source. All these people will live longer if we switch to WWS. The cost of medical care caused by coal pollution alone is over $40 billion per year. We will save all that money.
I am amazed that you claim (without any supporting data or citations) that WWS is a risky choice and then you are in favor on Nuclear. Toshiba is on the verge of bankruptcy from its nuclear adventures. No market economy will build any nuclear for decades. Raw materials (like beryllium and uranium) do not exist for a widespread nuclear effort.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is wandering completely offtopic. Unless there is comment on modelling, please use the search box to find a more appropriate thread and continue there.
SCE - please avoid stating opinions and hand-wavey arguments without providing the data/sources which form the basis of your opinion. And stick to topic.
-
vmarletto at 00:58 AM on 23 March 2017Global warming is increasing rainfall rates
Is the first letter of this article missing?
-
Rob Painting at 18:19 PM on 22 March 2017Models are unreliable
Latest climate model vs observations update - courtesy of Zeke Hausfather @ Berkley Earth:
-
SemiChemE at 15:26 PM on 22 March 2017Models are unreliable
michael sweet @1024
Why should I cite a peer reviewed report to back a claim that I never made? I never said that changing to renewable energy will be bad for the economy.
I stated that, "the social costs of planning for an overly pessimistic ECS would also be tremendous."
So, let's go for a worst-case IPCC ECS estimate of 6degC/doubling. How much would the U.S. need to cut it's CO2 emissions to avoid a 2degC increase in global temperatures? What would such a reduction cost?
Now don't forget that in the U.S. we don't make the best choice, rather we make the most politically expedient choice. So, how would we likely make up the difference? Probably by expanding fracking of natural gas (basically, what we've already been doing) and by expanding our subsidy to the Corn industry for ethanol-based fuels. Of course, the latter is especially troublesome, since it would cause food prices to spike, which would hit the most vulnerable in our society and because of the intensive use of hydrocarbons in agriculture, it would probably do little to reduce CO2 emissions.
It's important to get the science right and make reasonable attempts to adapt on reasonable time-scales.
As for renewable energy, it has it's place, but I'm skeptical it can be implemented at sufficient scale to replace our existing infrastructure in a timely manner. Large-scale adoption of wind and solar will also run into vital material shortages (eg. niobium for generator magnets). Finally, government subsidies to encourage adoption of renewables are tricky and can lead to unintended consequences (see Arizona's attempt at encouraging alternative fuels: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Arizona-Taxpayers-Fuming-Over-200-Million-2720374.php)
Finally, with respect to renewables, I think we'd be better off investing in Nuclear as it's a proven technology with scale sufficient to meet our electricity needs, but that's a debate for another time.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped. Please post on the topic of the OP of this thread. Other topics and threads can be found using the Search function.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
SemiChemE at 13:42 PM on 22 March 2017Models are unreliable
Glenn Tamblyn @1021 & 1023 and scaddenp @1028
The paleoclimate data is interesting, but I have concerns about how relevant it is for our world today and for predicting climate dynamics into the future. My biggest concern is that climate sensitivity is likely highly dependent on the prevailing ocean circulation patterns, since these dominate the heat exchange between the atmosphere and the oceans, thus amplifying or moderating greenhouse gas effects. For this reason I would be very skeptical of any conclusions based on data older than ~30 million years, since at that time the modern continents were still forming and ocean circulation must have been different. Presumably, there are other such factors that would make even more recent data of questionable value, though I'm no expert on the topic and would be interest to hear from anyone with such knowledge. Specifically, how relevant is paleoclimate data to today's world and how far back do we still have a modern climate system (eg. modern ocean and jetstream circulation patterns)?
My next concern is the accuracy and precision of the available climate record. During the instrument era (~200 years), we have daily, monthly, and yearly data, accurate to within tenths of a degree. By contrast, the error bars for paleo reconstructions are surely much larger, probably on the order of degrees or even tens of degrees. Furthermore, depending on the particular proxies, they often represent annual or at best seasonal averages. Thus, it becomes hard to distinguish a short-term period of extreme temperatures from a longer bout of moderate temperatures.
Finally, as I mentioned before, the paleo data is somewhat geographically sparse. So, what is interpreted as a large gobal climate shift may simply be a local, temporary abberation.
Now, I'll shift back to the topic at hand, which is"How reliable are climate models?". The problem is that if the data set against which you are validating the model has large error bars, significant uncertainties in the temporal resolution, and large spacial gaps, it becomes too easy to tweak the model such that it fits the data, but for the wrong reasons. For example, one of the biggest challenges for the models is handling cloud coverage. The unit cells are often much larger than individual clouds, so parameterizations must be used to represent cloud coverage. This means the entire cell has some "average cloud effect", which may or may not reflect reality. The result is that the model includes a "fudge factor" of cloud coverage, which cannot be independently verified.Another such factor involves aerosols and particulates (think Sea-spray or Dust storms). In these cases, you need to know both the variation in the particle and aerosol densities, as well as the sensitivity of the climate to these densities. Clouds, particulates, and aerosols are important phenomena, which are known to impact global temperature and climate, so you can't ignore them, but we are just beginning to understand the factors that drive them, so by necessity our current models are quite crude. This means, we can probably "fit" many models to match paleo data, but it doesn't mean we are doing it correctly or that those models will be able to predict the future climate.
Only in the satellite era are we beginning to get the proper instrumentation, so that we can monitor cloud, aerosol, and particulate densities so as to verify that the assumptions that are put into the models are reasonable. Because of this, I would say that our current models are not very reliable, but there is hope that within the coming decades they will become much better.
Moderator Response:[PS] You make the assertion "My biggest concern is that climate sensitivity is likely highly dependent on the prevailing ocean circulation patterns, since these dominate the heat exchange between the atmosphere and the oceans, thus amplifying or moderating greenhouse gas effects", implying unmodelled feedback effects. To me this looks like hand-waving in extreme so please provide some sources for supporting that opinion.
-
Wol at 11:07 AM on 22 March 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Tom Curtis @ 5:
>>It is also fairly clear that conservatives are enemies of science.<<
Don't fall into the same paradigm as deniers, Tom, by implying that ALL Xs are Ys.
Because one is of a conservative disposition does not automatically mean that one's brain is offline. As a conservative I am perfectly capable of assessing the arguments and coming to the conclusion that the science is correct.
Prev 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 Next
