Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 Next
Comments 20501 to 20550:
-
Eclectic at 21:01 PM on 30 March 2017There is no consensus
Spassapparat @746 ,
the purpose of science is to discover the truths of our universe.
And the purpose of surveys such as Cook et al., 2013 , is to discover the truth about what scientists hold to be factual.
Of course, we should also look for further evidence that may corroborate what the surveys do find (they find that, for expert climate scientists, a percentage figure in the high 90's is holding AGW theory to be factual).
These survey results are (unsurprisingly) supported by word-of-mouth opinion from expert scientists about their colleagues — and Spassapparat, this is a matter which you can rather easily ascertain for yourself, by questioning some genuine climate-related scientists. I am confident you will find it difficult, indeed almost impossible, to find any genuine "contrarian" scientist. And any such, that you can find, will be unable to provide any real evidence to support their contrarian viewpoints.
For the year 2013, it is reported that over 2000 climate-related scientific papers were published (totalling 9000 authors). And yet in that period, only one paper made a contrarian claim [i.e. that modern global warming is caused by an alteration of cosmic ray bombardment of the atmosphere]. This single paper was by a Russian astronomer, and was published in a Russian journal of proceedings. The paper was vaguely-worded; it did not measure the claimed effect; and it failed to dispose of the well-measured and well-understood CO2 mechanism known to produce AGW. This cosmic ray hypothesis had already been debunked before 2013 : and in addition, since 2013 there has been more evidence (from cloud-chamber experiments by CERN scientists) showing that this cosmic ray hypothesis is false. In short, the Russian paper was Dreck.
So in reality, Null out of 2000 papers could support a non-AGW position. To me this seems excellent corroboration that the "over 97%" Cook et al. study is the correct representation of the truth — and that the Cook 97% figure very much understates the current status.
In seeking truth, it is our duty to use complete Ehrlichkeit, and to avoid word-games which are unsupported by the general evidence, and to avoid unredlich conclusions (even when these unredlich conclusions are politically fashionable in some quarters).
-
green tortoise at 16:22 PM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
chriskoz @5:
I agree with you 200% that this is a social, economic, politic, moral and why not, criminal problem.
However I was making the case that even in the case that the deniers are right and global warming is not man-made (I insist, it's just a hypothetical scenario to show how absurd the denialist position is) the case against fossil fuels and for renewable energy is still economically and socially very strong.
FF deplete, causing inflation in the long term. Renewables in the other hand, are abundant, do not deplete, had a near-zero OPEX and a time-decaying CAPEX, causing energy cost deflation, a strong boost for the economy.
Even without accounting for global warming, millions of people die every year due to aerosol air pollution, and it cost several percent of GDP to remedy all that damage.
Today argue for FF, and coal in particular, is beyond crazy.
It's behaving like Stalin during the 1930 5-year plans and Mao during the so-called "Great Leap Forward". Both agro-indutrial plans to boost production ended in the worst famines that affected Russia and China, killing even more people than WW2 and WW1. Only the 1918/AH1N1 avian influenza pandemic killed more people.
-
chriskoz at 14:01 PM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Skepty@3,
Would you rather live 100 years ago or now. People will be saying the same another century from now. As long as Mother Earth allows it.
If your objective in life is to actually make a positive impact on history, surprisingly many people would like to live 100y ago. For example John Mason the author of the very next SkS post.
The ignorant attitude displayed in your comment ("Ultimately it doesn't matter") precludes understanding and appreciation of positions of other people like that displayed by John, for whom the historical issues of our times do matter.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:48 PM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Regarding my comment@8: My comparison of Coal burning with CCS to Natural Gas is based on CO2 capture from emissions being near 90%. The Boundary Dam retrofit in Saskatchewan has this level of CO2 capture (along with nearly 100% SO2 capture and low NOx - however not all of the CO2 is properly sequestered since it is injected to enhance oil recovery from nearby oil fields rather than being put into reliable long term storage). The addition of CCS changed the Boundary Dam Unit generation from 145-150MW to 110-115MW.
Burning natural gas results in about 50% of the CO2 per unit of electricity that burning coal produces.
So 90% CCS on coal burning would be significantly better than natural gas burning without CCS (as long as the full 90% captured is properly reliably Sequestered - for thousands of years).
And even coal burning with CCS (or Natural Gas burning with CCS) is still adding to the CO2 problem, just not as quickly. And since the total amount of accumulated CO2 is the concern, CCS is not a solution. It is just a short term action that would reduce the magnitude of the problem being created compared to not adding CCS to existing facilities.
The reduction of trouble-making needs to be considered to be "Invaluable", meaning the costs to achieve the reduction of trouble-making need to be irrelevant. The only comparison that is relevant is the costs of the different ways that rapidly terminate the creation of the problem. Delaying the termination of the trouble-making because "Doing More Rapid Reduction of trouble-making" is deemed to be "more expensive" or "less profitable/beneficial for some current day people" is not a responsible action, it is an excuse - a very poor excuse that is tragically easy to make very popular in nations with unjustifiably developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity.
The developed lack of ethics and morals among leaders is the real problem. Leaders like Scott Pruit should face legal Recall, meaning removal from their assigned responsibility when it can be shown that they are not competent to properly perform the role they have been assigned.
Excusing bad behaviour can be popular. But ethically and morally it cannot and should not actually Win anything (even if the bad behaviour is totally legal, since laws or lack of laws that develop unethical or immoral results eventually get changed).
-
chriskoz at 13:10 PM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
green tortoise@3,
It [climate change] will not just kill a lot of people (something that by itself would be already the worst thing in human history) but also most of life on Earth.And ironically, solving it will be economically positive, even if global warming is not man-madeWe all know CC is man-made. But if you assume it "is not man-made" (as in your final clause quoted above) then the idea of "solving it" does not make sense. Because AGW problem is not an environmental problem but a social problem, as I've always been saying here. If AGW problem was an environmental problem, it would've been already solved, because the technologies to move away from FF already exist. It's just lack of power and/or courage by politicians to implement the solutions. The reason is that said implementation would change social status quo, because of large vested interests held by large & strong population groups and by large and literally "energy strong" nations on global scale. So there is strong opposition to the solutions, so strong as to resulting in denial by ruling political forces. The more powerful and the more encumbered by their FF donors the forces are (e.g. in English apeaking countires), the stronger and more absurd the denial is. Up to the point of disconnection from reality by the ruling party in the most powerful nation (GOP in US). This gradual strenghtening of denial through political systems culminates in the most powerful leader of the world: a sociopathic moron, the denier-in-chief, who came unsurprisingly from GOP.
In context of that picture, it is more than obvious that we have a social problem here that we must resolve first. The environmental aspects or AGW is a distant secondary issue that will never be resolved if we do not resolve the social aspect. That's why talking about "solving global warming even if not man-made" does not make sense, or should be prioritised away as a secondary task. E.g. efforts to scrub CO2 from the athmosphere or deploy some other safe geo-engineering cooling methods only address the symptoms and not the cause of a problem we have.
-
John Mason at 12:48 PM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
#1 - dreams have the luxury of being in the future or the past :)
Although having said which, if I could live a dream it would be to go back ca. 100 years and devise a "how the Planet works" course for all 12-year-olds worldwide and get its teaching implemented!
-
scaddenp at 12:07 PM on 30 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
"reflect or refract" isnt a great description of the interaction. A better understanding can be found here. As to effect of raising by 100ppm, you can always try the "shut up and calculate" approach. The interactions are described by radiative transfer equations. You can solve for the atmosphere and compare direct measurements at earths surface or outgoing IR from satellite with the results of the calculation. This thread has some of the results. This paper for an even better direct measurement of the effect of raising CO2.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:42 AM on 30 March 2017There is no consensus
Spassapparat @746, in Cook et al, endorsement or rejection is explicitly stated to be endorsement or rejection of the theory of AGW. That is, it is endorsement or rejection of a specific theory which states, in part, that anthropogenic factors are responsible for greater than 50% of warming since 1950. If you interpret the different categories of endorsement (implicit, explicit, and explicit with quantification) as applying to successively stronger theories, you have misinterpreted the paper and misunderstood the methodology in the paper.
You say (@744):
"Also, I was wondering about what the paper is actually saying. If we include category 2 and 3, don't we have to dial down what we are saying to what is included in the weakest category (category 3)"
However, category 3 is not endorsement of a weaker theory, but a less strong endorsement of the same theory. In category 1, endorsement is explicit, and a quantification is give so there can be no doubt that AGW is endorsed. In category 3, endorsement is implicit, so while the theory endorsed is the same, the possibility of error in assessing whether or not the paper endorses the theory is greater.
I am aware that climate "skeptics" reject this understanding of the paper, but it was the understanding of the authors, and it was the understanding of the raters. More importantly, if the endorsements are not understood in that way, it makes the paper inconsistent. That means critics are rejecting a consistent understanding of the paper, which was held by the authors and raters, in order that a criticism they have should be valid. Another way of putting that is that they are raising a straw man.
-
green tortoise at 09:36 AM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
A pandemic would, ironically, be the single one situation where closing borders actually would make sense.
To be more precise: quarantine everyone that is not a healthcare worker (or any other emergency hero, for that matter). Close not just the external borders, also the inter-state and inter-province ones. Close schools, universities, workplaces and factories. Close ports and airports (like after 9/11, but for months). In the worst case scenario, no one should exit home. To feed people, there should be soldiers and doctors distributing food, water and medicines.
Before the vaccine/cure finally arrives, it will take many months. In those months quarantine in a massive scale is the only way to prevent losing most of human population. Yes, it would mean to shut down the whole economy for perhaps even a year round, but is better to lose 80% GDP than 80% of the population.
Extreme situation means extreme measures to save lives, even if that means destroying the economy. The economy can be rebuilt, dead people not.
Climate change is like a slow motion version of a global fever. It will not just kill a lot of people (something that by itself would be already the worst thing in human history) but also most of life on Earth.And ironically, solving it will be economically positive, even if global warming is not man-made.
Is like, in a hypothetical, conspiracy-theory world, letting billions of people to die because you don't allow to produce the right vaccine, a vaccine that already known and cheap, and has positive (not negative) side-effects. The "problem" is that vaccine is not profitable to the oligopoly in charge because it will make most medicines unnecessary and so they will lose most of their market.
Well, if you don't produce the vaccine in time, you will need to either shut down the economy or surrender to the infection and let billions die.
-
Tom Dayton at 08:54 AM on 30 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Welcome, Sancho! See if this post helps: "How substances in trace amounts can cause large effects." Then read "How Do We Know More CO2 Is Causing Warming?" Read the Basic tabbed pane first, and if you want more read the Intermediate and then Advanced tabbed panes.
-
sancho at 08:23 AM on 30 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
I am new here so bear with me. I liked the article. I'm wondering though about one thing. I'm not sure of the exact data, but I've heard that atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased in the last century or so from around 300 ppm to 400ppm. If the change has only been one additional molecule of CO2 per 10,000 (namely 4 molecules of CO2 out of every ten thousand gaseous molecules as opposed to there having been only 3/10,000 a hundred years ago) how does this account for the rise of (correct me if I'm wrong) 1.5F? The molecular percentage change is miniscule. I don't see how it correlates to a temperature change of one and a half degrees globally. I realize the N2 and O2 are not participating in the IR equation, but it just doesn't seem to make sense mathematically. Also, are the molecules of CO2 and Methane refracting or reflecting the IR? I like the name of your website, by the way. A scientist's job is to try and poke holes in any hypothesis. Copernicus challenged the Ptolemaic model which was the scientific consensus of his day. We aren't called to have faith in other's experiments. We're called to look for the weak links. The main thing that concerns me however about the so-called climate skeptics are their bedfellows.
-
nigelj at 07:05 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
One Planet Only Forever @8, yes I agree Trump & his team probably want to bring back coal with the possibility of export. It is indeed reprehensible, given the climate issue.
But I doubt if even those economics will make much sense, with other countries turning to renewables. I think the international market for coal prices isn't too great.
Coal is also costly to export, given the considerable bulk. We mine coal and export it, but its very hard going financially and many mines have shut down. The most lucrative market is in coking coal (?) for steel production, if you have that grade of coal.
But regardless, it's risable exporting coal given the climate change issue.
It's also probably cheaper to have renewables, than complex "clean coal".
I have read about Bannion, the alleged brains behind the presidency. This guy has a history and has suffered some undeserved traumas, but it has turned him into a bitter, extreme, anti globalist conspiracy theory. It's dangerous when people like that get the levers of power.
Others on Team Trump are as you say xenophobic. They are also short term thinkers, who react extremely defensively if they perceive something threatens their lifestyle or interests even slightly.
-
John Hartz at 06:38 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
For those interested in reading the text of Trump's Executive Order:
Text: President Trump's Executive Order on Energy and Climate Change, InsideClimate News, Mar 28, 2017
-
nigelj at 06:36 AM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
I get that Trump is a climate sceptic, but to actually try to shut down basic scientific research on climate science is just so risable. This is short sighted, emotive, authoritarian thinking. When I think Trump, I'm reminded of the authoritarian state in the book 1984 by Orwell.
Trump is trying to go back to a world that no longer exists. You can't pretend certain climate realities don't exist. You also can't put the globalisation genie back in the bottle,
As you appear to say, he could take a different more positive approach to research, and be well thought of by the vast majority of people
-
villabolo at 06:26 AM on 30 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
Excellent post John. Good analogy.
You made an error on the 13th paragraph putting a date as, "December 11th 2017".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:14 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
The Bannon/Sessions push for making coal (and oil and gas burning) less expensive and less restricted is probably to support things like the export of USA coal for burning elsewhere in the world, which is just as unethical as burning it in the USA.
What is worse is that the likes of Koch owned refineries of heavy oils and bitumen from places like the sands of Northern Alberta produce Petroleum Coke which can be burned and is far worse than coal. That stuff should not be allowed to be burned or be exported. Such a prohibition on freedom to pursue profit would be contrary to the unethical likes of Bannon/Sessions.
As for cleaner coal, CO2 capture and proper locking away can make coal burning better than burning natural gas (the lower energy production per unit of coal burned is more than offset by the reduction of CO2 emissions). Of course burning natural gas with CO2 capture and storage would be better. But adding CO2 capture and storage on an existing coal burner could be better than building a new gas burner without CCS (if better is measured by what really matters, like CO2 emissions, rather than being evaluated by fundamentally flawed cost/profit/popularity comparisons).
p.s. The real trouble-makers are the likes of Bannon and Sessions and Tillerson (the ones who were not on the ballot yet now have tremendous influence in the most influential nation on the planet - and who rely on people being easily tempted to care more about their personal interests, like greed and xenophobia, than they do about improving the future for all of humanity). They were making more trouble than Trump long before they chose Trump to be their Potentially Popular Misleading Impression Creation False Idol Poster Boy.
-
michael sweet at 05:45 AM on 30 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
John Fornarno,
Admiral David Titely recently testified in congress
"The more we looked at the data, the more we saw that not only were the air temperatures coming up, but the water temperatures were coming up, the sea level was coming up, the glaciers were retreating, the oceans were acidifying. When you put all those independent lines of evidence together, coupled with a theory that was over 100 years old that had stood the test of time, it kinda made sense.
Does it mean we know everything? No, but does it mean we know enough that we should be considering this and acting? Yes, it’s called risk management and that’s what we were doing."
You are asking us to wait until we are certain that it will be a catastrophie before we take action. Scientists will never say they are completely certain. We have to act on the best inforamtion that is available. Scientists have been in agreement that action should be taken since at least 1965 when the Academy of Science warned President Johnson.
If we wait until we are certain which of the sea level model is correct it will be too late to have any affect on the result. Since Tom's data shows that we are currently running above the high estimate from the IPCC, it seems like it might already be late to start getting serious about sea level rise. Experts have characterized ice melt in the Antarctic as "unstoppable". Tamino has posted here and here about flooding in the USA already caused by sea level rise. Miami Beach is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in a futile effort to hold back the sea. This affects current real estate prices.
How much worse does it have to be before you think we should take action?
-
nigelj at 05:31 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
I don't approve of any of Trump's policies, but I actually feel sorry for Trump.
Maybe he genuinely believes he can bring back coal, and is yearning for a world of the past. (even I do that sometimes). But the economics says its not going to happen, unless he literally forces people to open new coal mines. Coal and renewaable energy is now very similar in cost, and almost no new coal leases have been applied for in years.
Apparently approx, 70,000 Americans work in coal and approximately 600,000 in renewable energy. This was in our media, tvone New Zealand and I have no reason to doubt the numbers, but correct me if you have better data.Trumps coal policies can only really shift a few people from renewable energy back to coal. How utterly pointless.
-
nigelj at 05:18 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Skepty @3 suggests climate will change anyway, so we might as well do nothing abot fossil fuel emissions.
It's just a weak type of reasoning. Here's another analogy: we will all get old and get some sort of disease, so why bother with medicine at all. I guess there are many such analogies.
The point is we probaly can't resolve all future challenges like ice ages, but we might as well at least reduce risks that we have some control over.
Ultimately it's a question of the level of risk of global warming and whether we can realistically reduce fossil fuel use, and I think we can. The sceptics give me the impression they think it's all too hard, or too complicated for them.
-
Spassapparat at 03:06 AM on 30 March 2017There is no consensus
Eclectic @745 , thanks for your response!
Since the chair of the science committee in today's hearing on climate change brought the papers critiquing the Cook et al study into public record, this brought me back here.
I am aware of (A), but one should note that even there we still do not get close to a 97% consensus on category (1). I've looked into the data, and it suggests that 17% of the authors of papers that do express an opinion on climate change self-identify their paper as a category 1 paper. This is substantially higher than the rating by Cook et al. themselves, but still a farcry from the 97%.
If Cook et al. are now saying that many papers do not make a definite statement because it is obvious that most of global warming is human-made, I am inclined to agree with this assumption, not least because of other research referenced on this page showing a similar degree of consensus. However it is still just that, an assumption.
I do not think it is just Spass to play with words, I do think there is a substantial difference between saying "Cook et al. show that there is a 97% consensus that most of global warming is human made" (which, in my opinion, is an untrue statement) and "Cook et al. show there is a 97% consensus that some global warming is human made".
I wonder why, since there are half a dozen other studies showing a similar agreement, this site in particular and the climate science community in public discourse in general chooses to use a study whose proclaimed findings are so easily attackable.
-
Jim Eager at 01:47 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Shorter Skepty: "I don't know, therefore we don't know."
-
pattimer at 00:07 AM on 30 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Skepty
"Ok. I don't have the answers."
Surprised to see you then attempt to offer answers though.
"nor do you"
Surprised that you then tell us about your knowledge of past changes that could only be learned from climate scientists.
"Ultimately it doesn't matter."
Surprised then that you even bothered to comment. (According to your strange outlook it would make sense to build houses on shifting sand because ultimately they will fall down.)
"Would you rather live 100 years ago or now. People will be saying the same another century from now."
Surprise you go into the prophesy game after your comments suggesting extremes will come and go without us knowing about the causes. Did you use tea-leaves to reach this conclusion?
-
Skepty at 23:00 PM on 29 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
2030. 13 years. Ok. I don't have the answers, nor do you. Is the climate changing? Yes, as it always has and always will. I'll even agree that we are influencing its change. Ultimately it doesn't matter. The Earth's environment will fluctuate to extremes regardless of what one or every man does or doesn't do. Eventually our planet will experience another ice age, the ice will come back. As far as changes to currents, temps, water levels, etc. What complicates one life benefits another. What I find most comical about these discussions is how wrapped up some get, that they want/crave controversy. Step back and really think about it. Would you rather live 100 years ago or now. People will be saying the same another century from now. As long as Mother Earth allows it.
-
bjchip at 15:23 PM on 29 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Any realistic and reasoned discussion of "Clean Coal" ends up with the understanding that the oxymoron is real, and the concept is not.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
― Philip K. Dick
The Tyrannosaurus-rump (T-rump) has an amazingly large and toothy mouth, a tiny brain (to go with tiny hands) and a dangerous disregard of reality... the TV version not being particularly real. What we can expect however (IMO) is that he will weary of being the wrong end of the joke and find a way to get medicaled out of the job. Which will leave us with Pence who is more certain in his ignorance than even Trump can manage. This does not end well.
By 2030 ordinary people will understand what the science has been saying for the past half a century and it will suddenly become a massive priority. What is the outcome in that case?
That is an input I suggest needs to be entered into the models. BAU and no effective action prior to 2030 and a crash program to reduce CO2 after that date.
What can we expect from that?
I do not clearly know but the expectation of the free-market fundamentalists that there is prosperity in trade is going to be incinerated with CO2 costs of shipping over long distances. Assertions that there will not be a cost to emitting will be used to eviscerate political parties that are so loudly expressing them now.
Will it be enough? I think not. I think there will be war on the far side of that process. The T-rump is bad and his potential replacement no better. Ignorance is the enemy of democracy
“if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be” - Jefferson
and the USA has embraced it.
and I moved to New Zealand ... which is not nearly far enough away :-)
-
chriskoz at 08:16 AM on 29 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Like in case of T-man anti-climate coverage during his campaign by mainstream meida - subject of previous SkS article - I want to know how much of this news will be covered. Not by Guardian and not by PBS who do a reasonable job (and that's why T-man doesnt like them) but by mainstream media: ABC, CBS, MSN, CNN, FOX.
They're reverberating on ends with the coverage of anti-healthcare fiasko and earlier anti-immigration nonsense. But when it comes to the real issue herein, affecting long-term environment and intergenerational morality, arguably the biggest political issue of current generation, I predict the above media will remain laregely silent. They woul rather prefer a silly soap opera like like pussygate. I rest my case, no more words necessary.
A truly sadf state of affairs. I personally, would even like to turn blind eye on pussygate (which might be irrellevant to the ability of the president to actually govern the nation) if the president was otherwise a wise leader when it come to doing his job. But media view it differently and turn the priorities around. Really sad!
Moderator Response:[JH] Rest assurred, Trump's blitzkrieg on the environment is being covered by all MSM in the US including the broadcast media you have listed. I have posted links to some of those news reports on the SkS Facebook page and will continue to do so throughout the week. In addition, i am posting links to editorials about Trump's erasure of US climate policy at the federal level. The editorials that I have read so far are quite damning.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:05 AM on 29 March 2017Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Grumpymel @91 and 92, the claim above is a rebutal of denier claims that human respiration is a direct source of the increase of atmospheric CO2, just as is the combustion of fossil fuels. That claim by deniers is typified by the quote from Ian Plimer, that
"If Senator Wong was really serious about her science she would stop breathing because you inhale air that's got 385 parts per million carbon dioxide in it and you exhale air with about ten times as much, and that extra carbon comes from what you eat."
Of course, if Ian Plimer was at all honest in his science (on global warming) he would have noted that the carbon in what we eat comes from CO2 in the atmosphere, and consequently Senator Penny Wong's, and our respiration causes no direct increase in CO2 concentration.
That is a seperate question as to whether or not human agricultural activity has changed atmospheric content. It has, and in complex ways. Of these the most important have been the increase in CO2 from deforestation, and the increase in CH4 from rice farming and cattle production. Nothing above denies this, and there is extensive discussion of this in comments above. Further, the IPCC takes account of CO2 and CH4 production from these scources.
For what it is worth, CO2 emissions due to Land Use Change (the title given to those emissions) represents about 10% of emissions from fossil fuel use and cement manufacture (another important source).
-
Grumpymel at 06:28 AM on 29 March 2017Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Thanks for your rapid response and I aplogize for the use of capitals. I was just trying to denote emphasis.
I think the problem I'm running into is simply this. The claim is that an increase in the numbers of humans engaging in respiration has a zero net effect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere because that is offset because we produced more crops which themselves take in C from the atmosphere and thus results in net zero change.
In theory if the only things you were considering were plants consumed and human respiration (and I suppose storage of C in tissues) in isolation... that argument would seem to make sense.
However, just as the Carbon we exhale comes from somewhere (consumption of plants) and our respiration should not be looked in isolation from that so too do the crops we produce to eat come from somehere and our production of them has some effect beyond thier simple consumption.
In other words, I think what you are categorizing as land use change is salient to the topic being discussed and should not be artificially isolated from it.
That is to say, if we weren't burning any fossil fuels whatsoever but still somehow performing all the other activities we perform in order to produce the food that we consume and which in part we respirate out as CO2 waste would the effect on the composition of the atmosphere be nothing whatsoever? Would the composition of the atmosphere be exactly the same as if there were no humans on the planet doing those things? or if there were only 1 billion. I really don't see how that would be a given.
I can see the argument that the change might be very small compared to fossil fuel production, maybe even reach some equilibrium but would it be exactly the same equilibrium as were there no humans on the planet. I really don't see how you could make that argument?
Moderator Response:[RH] Again, you're extending the issue into other topics outside whether breathing adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Re-read the myth statement at the top of the article. That is what is being discussed. It's a very common misunderstanding that many non-scientists have regarding climate change and CO2 levels.
-
william5331 at 05:09 AM on 29 March 2017PBS is the only network reporting on climate change. Trump wants to cut it
The situation is so severe that one hopes the reaction will put us firmly on the road to some sensible government. It is time for Bernie to do a Lincoln and take his supporters and start a new party. The Dems are not the solution. Sorry about the political nature of the comment but politics is the problem. Get vested interest money out of politics as Bernie was doing and it is not an automatic solution to all our problems but it suddenly makes them possible to solve.
Moderator Response:[PS] This really is not the forum for political comment. Try ThinkProgress.
-
Grumpymel at 04:48 AM on 29 March 2017Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Sorry, but it seems a rather simplistic approach to assume the result would neccesarly be net neutral in terms of emmissions. Yes, we've obviously grown more crops in order to consume them.... but that would have to assume the land upon which the crops were grown was absent of vegitation wouldn't it?
The assumption seems to be that we've increased the total amount of vegitation exactly enough to offset our increased respiration.... but haven't what we've actually done is CHANGED THE TYPE of vegitation from a form we can't consume to a form we can consume.
Where is the evidence to suggest that we've actually increased the total mass of vegitation in an amount exactly equal to our respiration?
Further wouldn't that also assume that all plant mass has exactly the same value in removing carbon from the atmosphere and acting as a carbon sink. Just the fact that certain plants have longer life cycles and hold onto their mass for longer periods of time.... or have different growing cycles would tend to suggest otherwise wouldn't it?
Would even a deciduous tree have the same value in removing carbon from the atmosphere and producing O2 as a conifer occupying the same acerage?
That's even ignoring the role of livestock in the cycle and assuming all our intake comes directly from plants.
I'm not a scientist but it seems rather like you've made a convenient set of assumptions of net neutrality for something that is not nearly as simplistic.... but maybe I'm completely off base.
Moderator Response:[RH] Note that all caps isn't allowed here. Thanks.
In terms of your question, first, make sure you've read both the basic and intermediate tabs for this topic. It seems to me that you're trying to make the question more complicated than it is. This topic isn't intended to address land use changes due to population growth. For that you can read this SkS article.
-
green tortoise at 03:23 AM on 29 March 2017Global warming is increasing rainfall rates
Dear John Abraham:
This paper is specially interesting given the current disaster in my country (Peru). So far this rainy season was similar, if not worse, than the and 1982-1983 and 1997-1998 El Niño events.
There is a rare, localised warming along South America Coast (peaks of 5-10°C in the Peruvian Northern Coast), but weaker anomalies go all the way down to Chile and along the Southern Pacific Subtropics into the Australian Great Barrier Reef, were there is currently a severe bleaching event.
We call those events a "coastal El Niño", but I am unaware of the effects of the large "blob" of warmer water in the Pacific Subtropics. Perhaps this could be our (southern) version of the infamous "Blob" seen in Northern Pacific before the 2015-16 El Niño?
Perhaps you have a copy of the paper, where there could be any clues.
And what do you think of what is happening in the Pacific Ocean right now?
-
Tom Curtis at 09:38 AM on 28 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JohnFornaro @56, it is not a rational response to uncertainty to assume that, with 100% certainty the uncertain thing won't happen. That, however, is the effective attitude you say I give Congress "effective permission" to adopt.
I would suggest that the information I have provided should lead Congress to adopt now, a policy of converting to parkland any land subject to flooding by king tides or by 1:50 year rainfall events or more in coastal areas, or within around 300 mm of that datum. Converting to Parkland would involve buying back private properties using eminent domain. They should further commit to reviewing the policy in a decade. Standards for levies are a bit different as you greatly increase the cost of the response if you do multiple builds. There I suggest they set a standard for levies equivalent to a Katrina level storm surge plus around 1.5 meters. Again, they should commit to decadal review.
This policy admits to the near certainty that there will be significant sea level rise, and then hones in on the most appropriate level of response by dealing with the the near certainties first and progressively responding as we have better information. Both of the suggested short term standards (300 mm and 1.5 meters) should be refined by a short term review by relevant experts (of which I am not one).
In the US, I understand many people have a phobia about reasonable government regulation, so you may prefer to simply legislate that in any property sales, the buyer must provide the supplier with the height above sea level of the property, along with the height of a representative storm surge plus the 300 mm; along with the specific cost of flood ensurance for the property. At the same time, any law prohibiting insurance companies from varying the cost of flood insurance based on local conditions plus expectations based on climate change should be repealed; and any government flood insurance, including any emergency help in the event of flood other than to rescue occupants, should be banned for properties below the surge plus 300 mm datum, unless the properties are protected by levies meeting the 1.5 m datum.
These two regulations amount to a requirement that buyers do not conceal faults in a property they are selling, and that the government not subsidize the insurance, or become the insurer of last resort for people who ignore the reality of sea level rise. Nor reasonable, and principled objection to excessive government regulation can object to those requirements.
Of course, many of these courses of action would not actually be in the power of Congress, and must devolve to state or local governments.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:22 AM on 28 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JF... Regarding sea level rise, if you merely squash a chart down you're unlikely to gain any valuable information. Much of what is expected from future sea level rise is a function of ice sheet dynamics. The 1m+ projections for SLR are a function of how fast Greenland and Antarctica are melting. There's a lot of research being done on that very issue but the dynamics are extremely complex.
In terms of "persuasion" what are scientists supposed to do? They can't just make up numbers. They have to have a basis for any projections they put forth. That's what make science so much more difficult than political rhetoric.
What seems ridiculous to me is that people, such as Adams, have some expectation that if scientists were more clever with their words or graphics, then people would easily be convinced of the dangers we face with climate change. I'm sorry but such thinking oversimplifies the issue and doesn't even start to offer any substantive insights into what could actually be done to more effectively communicate complex issues to non-scientists.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:44 AM on 28 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JF... "I'm hoping that we agree that neither amateurs nor experts can determine which model best fits the data."
I'd have to say, that's a non-statement on par with, "I can neither confirm nor deny existence of such an operation without the explicit concent of the secretary." (re: Mission Impossible)
On persuasion without expertise, I'd suggest that's a dangerous area on many levels. This is how you end up with people in positions of power and importance who do not have to moral character or requisite skills to perform their duties.
-
JohnFornaro at 00:46 AM on 28 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
I'm hoping that we agree that neither amateurs nor experts can determine which model best fits the data.
Tom Curtis @55:
"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."
Which is fair on one level, but it is also permission for Congress to say, wait and see. Ten to twenty years is not three years.
I made an effort to demonstrate that, with at least one model, within three years, there should be a measurable rise in sea levels which could not be dismissed on a partisan basis.
On some other site, I was advised that the extreme predictions are more to be believed than the less extreme predictions about sea level rise. This is why I chose the extreme example in the graph @ 40. What is the thought about sea level rise on this site?
About persuasion, I said that Scott Adams does have good knowledge about persuasion. As you noticed, I didn't say anything about Scott's "expertise". In addition, Scott says that he's an expert in persuasion, not an expert in "something". Scott did not force people to give him money over his career; he persuaded them. It sounds like you may not agree with me that without, for example, a verifiable rise in sea levels of about 4cm in three years, that policymakers need to be persuaded to change carbon emission policy.
I also said that if policy is to be changed by effective persuasion, then it would be requisite to show all the graphical pictures at the same scale. It's easy to make fun of congresscritters for being visually challenged; I do it all the time.
I pasted the colorado.edu graph mentioned above over the graph @40, squeezed it down to about the right scale at least on the abscissa. The ordinate of the colorado.edu graph should be flattened even more. 1 cm barely registers.
The illustrated flat curve is not at all persuasive regarding catastrophic sea level rise. [Edit just before posting: I was not able to upload the described image from my computer to this post, using the 'Insert Image' tool]
What is the best predictive model showing expected sea level rise?
Moderator Response:[PS] The comments policy includes information at the bottom about posting images and other useful stuff. You have to host the image somewhere else on the web and then use that URL with the image tool.
-
jlsoaz at 13:53 PM on 27 March 2017Antarctica is gaining ice
Hi -
I have found this thread helpful to getting perspective on land and sea ice discussion. My comment is a question or request about data:
For a long time I have been trying to monitor land ice, but for the layman the information does not seem to be readily out there and updating regularly. I see this page:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
However, that information has not been updated past March 2016. I've tried to dig around a bit for alterntaive sources of information and haven't so far been able to find any. I don't know if it is the function of this page to provide such information, but does anyone know of a good source that can readily be understood by non-scientists? (To get an updated reading of whether trends in Antarctica toward lower land ice are continuing). -
Tom Curtis at 09:53 AM on 27 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
John Fornaro @53:
1)
"At the risk of running into the repetition problem, I remind you of my question. 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?"
And I remind you of my answer:
"[I]t will be a decade or two before we can significantly resolve which projection/model combination is most accurate with respect to sea level rise."
2)
"If policy is to be changed by effective persuasion, then it would be requisite to paint all the graphical pictures at the same scale."
Not to put to fine a point on it, if our elected representatives cannot cope with the mental difficulty of understanding a change in scale, there is no hope of persuading them of the actual science and it implications. Understanding science requires an ability to reason, and if a change of scales defeats a person, they lack that ability.
What is more, if we continuously elect representatives whose capacity to reason is so easilly defeated, we probably deserve the consequences.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:34 AM on 27 March 2017Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
John Fornaro @302:
"400 ppm is a "greatly increased partial pressure? As compared to 270 ppm in 1750?"
Importantly, the current CO2 concentration is 400 parts per million by volume, ie, ppmv - not parts per million by mass. That hooks it into a number of important equivalencies. Specifically:
1) pi/p = ni/n where pi is the partial pressure and p the total pressure, and ni the moles of the individual gas and n the total moles of the gas; and also
2) Vx = Vtot x pi/p = Vtot = ni/n, where Vx is the partial volume and Vtot is the total volume of the gas.
The second equation is why the ratio of molecules of CO2 to the total number of molecules in dry air is expressed as ppmv.
It follows from the above that an increase of 42.9% in concentration will result in approximately a 42.9% increase in partial pressure, any slight variation being due to a variation in the total pressure. That, as the article says, is a "greatly increased partial pressure".
"Woah, in that, the same care in studying carbon sequestration by plant life has not been included in the calculations."
The change in plant life is given fairly precisely by the change in C12/C13 ratio once adjustment is made for the contribution of fossil fuels to that change. It is also given some what less precisely by the change in O2 levels, in that the total change in O2 level, ignoring ocean outgasing, is the original total, minus the amount combusted with fossil fuels, plus the extra amount from CO2 that has been photosynthesized, with the carbon being retained in plant matter. Detailed local surveys (which have been conducted across a number of ecosystems) are necessary to determine in what form the retained carbon is stored (living plant tissue, or dead plant tissue, or soil organic carbon) but not to determine the total extra amount stored.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:13 AM on 27 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JohnFornaro... "Scott Adams [...] does have good knowledge about persuasion."
I don't believe this is even remotely established. Adams certainly believes this is the case and repeats it often. Personally, I don't think saying you're an expert in something actually makes you an expert. (Yes, I realize you didn't use the word "expert" but Adams generally presents himself as such.)
-
Tom Dayton at 03:39 AM on 27 March 2017Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
John Fornaro: It seems you have overlooked or misunderstood the mass balance evidence of humans being responsible for the rise in CO2. It's just algebra.
-
JohnFornaro at 02:03 AM on 27 March 2017Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Tom Dayton @ 297: "Your understanding that "the current warming cycle is releasing more naturally sequestered carbon into the atmo than mankind is emitting" is incorrect."
There is an argument that warming is forcing carbon release. My understanding of the argument as simply phrased above is correct. That doesn't mean I'm a proponent of that argument.
Tom Dayton: "The amount we release is enough to outstrip the abilities of the natural sinks to absorb it."
That is also my understanding of this argument. From the 'intermediate pane':
"Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years."
Obviously, temperatures, ocean levels, and CO2 concentrations have varied over the millenia. Because that was the case then, doesn't mean that humans now are or are not forcing the climate beyond what is thought to have been a natural balance.
There is no question in my mind that humans have burnt off a lot of fossil fuels that otherwise would have stayed in the ground. The climate will seek a new balance, but that new balance would also include warmer temperatures and different coastlines, among several other effects.
I looked at:
https://skepticalscience.com/warming-co2-rise.htm
"But in today's world, the greatly increased partial pressure of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions causes a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans."
Ai chihuahua. 400 ppm is a "greatly increased partial pressure? As compared to 270 ppm in 1750? The pressure relationship is not defined solely by 400/270. I could use some education on this matter.
Still, "Hocker begins his analysis by calculating the first derivative of the CO2 data", which doesn't make sense to me either. It seems more like he's hindcasting.
I also looked at:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm
"Caveat: Land use and biomass changes certainly soak up a lot of CO2, some [of] it [is] simply regrowth of forests etc, but the point is that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere clearly demonstrates that they do not soak up enough." [a small amount of editing for clarity added]
Woah, in that, the same care in studying carbon sequestration by plant life has not been included in the calculations. My three acres is sequestering more carbon than either an equivalent area in Manhattan or the Sahara. Land based plant life must be included for the sake of accuracy.
-
JohnFornaro at 01:12 AM on 27 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Tom Curtis @ 44:
I quite realize the necessity to smooth out what will certainly be an irregular yearly rise and fall of sea levels. For example, we cannot be sure exactly when the penguins, with their rhythmic jumping up and down, will crack off Larsen C. Anyhow, by my reading, I would agree that Greenland will melt first. Surely, it is generally agreed that there is more ice in Antarctica.
At the risk of running into the repetition problem, I remind you of my question. 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?
If the graph @40 is incorrect as of now, can you point me to a better one?
In this case, persuasion by the sea itself will speak far more than a bunch of graphs. Surely, The Donald would acknowledge a one meter rise of sea level around Mar a Lago.
"Since 2006, the average rate of sea-level rise in South Florida has increased to 9 millimeters a year from 3 millimeters a year, for a total rise over the decade of about 90 millimeters, or about 3.5 inches, according to Shimon Wdowinski, a research scientist at the University of Miami."
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/07/donald-trump-maralago-climate-change
Shimon sez:
"The average rate of sea-level rise increased by 6 millimeters per year over the last decade - from 3 millimeters per year before 2006 to 9 millimeters per year after 2006."
http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/news-events/press-releases/2016/new-study-shows-increased-flooding-accelerated-sea-level-rise-in-miami-over/
This is more along the lines of what my casual but accurate graphing exercise of the smooth curve extreme range on the graph @40 indicated. This is a lot more than suggested by the info in your link:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
As a technical point, this graph from colorado.edu is in millimeters, and the graph @40 is in meters.
If policy is to be changed by effective persuasion, then it would be requisite to paint all the graphical pictures at the same scale. Scott Adams may not have any good knowledge about the climate, but he does have good knowledge about persuasion.
To get to one meter of sea level rise, it would be necesary to go one silly millimeter at a time, over a long period of time. When you say, "the current best estimate from an empirical stance would be a near 1 meter sea level rise", you don't mention the year 2100 for one thing. For another, what does the term "empirical stance" mean?
Finally, Michael Sweet @43:
"It is not really possible for amateurs to determine which model is the best fit right now."
Neither is it really possible for the experts to determine best fit. But you already knew that.
On other fronts, is humor understood and allowed here?
-
Jim Eager at 00:41 AM on 27 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
What's missing here is the fact that below the effective radiating height relaxation through collision with another gas molecule (mainly O2 or N2) is far more likely than relaxation through spontneous emission of a new photon, thereby converting the vibrational energy of absorption to thermal energy within the atmosphere.
-
chriskoz at 20:37 PM on 26 March 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #12
So despite bad news, KXL is not a done deal yet: a permit from NE is required. I hope someone will find a legal glitch that can possibly stop/delay it, just like judge Robart found anti-immigration order unconstitutional but5 chances look slim.
I don't understand the political details here and how long state of NE will take on it. Or how "a fantastic governor" of NE can expedite it. I obviously do not believe in a single word of a man who signed it & who says: “It’s going to be an incredible pipeline. Greatest technology known to man". Foolish moronism of that man was only confirmed here, because a person who pronounces such nonsense clearly does not understand how human technology has evolved in more than 150 years since mid-1850. He's proven once again that facts and reality do not matter to him, not only when he's angry, but also when he's happy and smiling because things are moving according to his wishes.
-
Digby Scorgie at 18:01 PM on 26 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JupiterJosh
Which purse-string-holding politicians are we talking about here? Let's put the matter in a wider context:
I've read that there's over thirty-thousand climate scientists at work around the world (I hope that's correct). The IPCC reports provide a summary of the consensus viewpoint of this huge number of researchers, a consensus based on strong evidence.
Now, as it happens, almost all the governments of the world — including the US — accepted this consensus and signed the Paris Agreement as a consequence. What has since changed? All that has changed is the US government. So of all the world's politicians we have a small group effectively holding the world to ransom. (And yes, I know that some politicians in other countries also reject the science — but their governments have not.)
Climate scientists have done their damndest to apprise politicians of the danger. One would have thought the Paris Agreement settled the matter. What can they do now against a very powerful group whose aim is to destroy them and their science? I don't think you can reason with an enemy who has vowed to destroy you.
-
chriskoz at 14:47 PM on 26 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Rob@50,
I can aswer for JupiterJosh here:
Environmental impact of acid rain, impact of CFC on strat O3, health effects of tobacco smoking, etc. research that impacted policies of politicians encumbered by certain industries.
We all know that and understand each other. What JupiterJosh seems to lack in his understanding is the distinction between the roles in climate mitigation efforts played by scientists, advocates and politicians. He would like climate scientists to play at least both first two (in not all 3) roles. His definition of "skin in the game" aptly applies to politicians who make commercial decisions. Climate scientists are not even qualified for such decisions, to start with, which indicates how unrealistic Josh's expectations are. As for activists, scientists can choose to become them as private citizens only and it would be foolish to mix activism and science. Read Gavin's comment on RC to have a thoughful opinion about it.
-
chriskoz at 13:53 PM on 26 March 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 01 - Ancient Sunlight
DrivingBy@14,
Energy at a rate of 10K watts per person is not a mistake, even though it may seem high to you. Check the third column of the table of energy use per capita.
For US it is 9538.8. It's less for other countries, average is I believe some 2.5kW. I also think it's hight: myself as a consumer I cannot believe I use as much as 75kW (Australia) but that includes all economy not just residential and your car, which is your personal use. My personal use would definitely be less than 500W (appliances at home, no car - I commute by bicycle) but my low energy footprint means nothing while the civilisation that suppots me revs up 15 times more than that.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:44 PM on 26 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JupiterJosh... Let me ask you this: What other science has required "skin in the game"? Relativity? Quantum theory? Germ theory?
Personally, I'm not seeing a fit.
-
jupiterjosh at 12:33 PM on 26 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Hi Rob @46, Tom @47, and chriskoz @48. Anthroprogenic — yes, my apologies — if you can't get the little things right, you're never going to sell them on the big things :-)
First to chriskoz @48. I agree with you 100%. I don't think I was clear in my original comment. What I meant to say is that I believe a role above and beyond what is traditionally a scientist's/teacher's role has been thrust upon the climate science community because of the policy ramifications that result from their research. As you point out, it is unethical for a climate scientist/teacher to have a financial conflict-of-interest with their research. But the deniers can employ anyone they want to further their agenda. So if climate scientists do not take on this additional role of engineer/evangelist/promoter/soothsayer, then who will? Who can?
These were my original questions and I still don't know the answer to them. I believe this is the spirit of what Scott Adams was grasping at.
Getting, to Rob and Tom's comments. While I agree that there a some folks holding purse-strings that aught not to, in the U.S. at least, we are where we are. So Rob, do you not at least agree that the transaction being suggested by climate science is for someone holding the purse-strings (politicians, CEO's, etc.) to accept a short-run risk (in terms of being voted out of office by either the public or shareholders should the average person suddenly forget why the climate policy was enacted in the first place) in exchange for the promise of a long-term gain?
I think it is important to also point out that the market *has* put a price on the status quo. If there was no price associated with the status-quo then there wouldn't be a coordinated effort to deny climate change. All that lobbying and TV-time costs money.
This is why climate models look like financial models to me and why it seems like having skin-in-the-game is an important ingredient to convincing someone holding the purse that what you're saying is true. As chriskoz pointed out to me, from the climate scientist's perspective they do have skin in the game in the form of reputation amongst their peers, and this would be enough if they were trying to convince eachother, but I don't think reputation amongst peers is exchangable currency with folks outside of one's peer group. Not having skin in the game certainly isn't the fault of the climate scientist, and as Tom pointed out it certainly isn't for lack of trying (via temperature bets).
But this again brings me back to the original questions in my post. If the climate scientist is unwilling to take on the job of convincing skeptics then whose job is it? If saving the world doesn't pivot on convincing skeptics, what does it pivot on?
As a quick aside/fyi, I think you'd be surprised at how close these climate models are to becoming financial models. Constaining the range of uncertainty is exactly the purpose of a financial model. A financial model attempts to "predict" a distribution of financial outcomes. It does this by (1) specifying a universe of future events, (2) identifying a "cost" function that tabulates the cost of any individual event occuring, and (3) somehow imputing a distribution on the likelihood of those events occurring. The standard climate model does (1) and (3). The only thing the climate model doesn't do is (2). Consider that seasonal weather models are used to price heating-degree-day (HDD) and cooling-degree-day (CDD) financial options. If there was a market for 50-year HDD/CDD options, then climate models (regardless of how mathematically sophisticated and grounded in physics) would drive the options prices.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
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.
-
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?
Prev 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 Next
