Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 Next
Comments 37901 to 37950:
-
dana1981 at 04:34 AM on 5 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R @3 - perhaps you missed this in the above post:
Doing nothing is betting the farm on a very low probability scenario. It's an incredibly high-risk path that fails to reduce the threats posed by the worst case or even most likely case scenarios.
-
Composer99 at 04:31 AM on 5 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R:
It must be said that assessments of mitigation measures, and of likely risks/impacts from climate change/global warming have already been done.
Examples:
IPCC AR4 Working Groups 2 (Impacts) & 3 (Mitigation)
The Stern Review
These reviews are, of course, several years old (the WG2 and 3 reports for IPCC AR5 ought to be out soon, I imagine) and have likely been overtaken by events (such as the precipitous decline in Arctic sea ice). Perhaps there are more recent reviews, but as it is these are both, to my knowledge, both comprehensive and conservative.
IIRC they both indicate some mixture of mitigation efforts is superior to do-nothing business as usual.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:27 AM on 5 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Central estimates of CS combined with a BAU emissions path is already bad enough. The fact that there is a potential for higher CS should be downright frightening to everyone. Including Dr Curry.
-
KR at 04:06 AM on 5 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R. - Curry also stated, in rather stark contrast to the science as summarized in IPCC AR4 WG2, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability:
"I don't know how concerned I should be about it — on what time scale that might happen, whether that's 100 or 200 years, what societies will be like, what other things are going on with the natural climate," Curry says. "I just don't know what the next hundred or 200 years will hold, and whether this will be regarded as an important issue. I just don't know." [Emphasis added]
A climate contrarian, indeed. Even the moderate impacts are large enough to be an issue, and that is the very low end of estimates - a realistic risk estimate will be much higher. Curry seems to think that the precautionary principle used in all other aspects of life just doesn't apply here.
Now, as to the evaluation of proposed solutions, the evidence indicates that mitigation is several times to perhaps an order of magnitude less expensive than "do nothing" adaptation. Again, Curry fails to use the precautionary principle.
Inaction, "business as usual", is a choice as much as any other policy, something frequently missed in these discussions. The mass of evidence indicates that "business as usual" is perhaps the most expensive option we have. And yet Curry (now, although not in 2007) continues to suggest that we "do nothing"...
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:04 AM on 5 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
RussR, if you expand the context even further, by reading the whole article, you will find that Prof. Curry's position is essentially that there is so much uncertainty about the science that we cannot justify action on that basis. So she has already assumed that doing nothing is as good an approach as any, i.e. the "if" is more or less taken for granted.
However the point of the cartoon is (rather obviously) that this uncertainty does not justify doing nothing by showing other examples where positive action is justified even where there is high uncertainty of a negative impact, because the cost associated with being wrong in taking no action is much higher than the cost of taking action needlessly. This is the whole point of insurance - we don't buy it because we think our houses will brun down, be we buy it because we cannot bear the cost if it did burn down. Likewise it is worth taking action to mitigate against climate change because we cannot bear the costs associated with the upper tail of the uncertainty, even if we think this is unlikely to actually happen.
-
PluviAL at 03:44 AM on 5 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
Good summary of a complex topic. It seems Science was not sufficiently castigated a) for getting the net effect of the science and economics wrong, b) for taking a political stand if not for the purpose of correct scientific consideration. If you are going to take a position representing science, it better be overwhelmingly correct.
On the other hand it seems that science, and the scientific mind are less than perfect. It seems a lot of the traditions of science are myopic in the effort to remain disciplined. It is easy to be disciplined if one stays in an scientifically intellectual rut. That is the situation of the environmental mentality. It seems the "can do" attitude is missing. Yes, the title and objective of this website is to be skeptical, but does that mean completely blind to alternate solutions?
Sadly it seems to be. I am so frustrated that a genuine (hypothetical) solution like Pluvinergy have received so little support, or even consideration from this community. The real objective of correcting the denialist community should be to offer real solutions, not just preventing them from denying reality. The way to fight is defend, run, or attack. We need to attack. Wind and PV are not real alternatives. Effeciency can go a heck of a long way to slove the problem, but it is not the solution either. Having an economics background, I full favor a strong carbon tax, but that is just a good start. The reason we are developing the tar-sands despite their awful economics and environmental effects is that wind and PV are not that much better. Check the numbers. This is why they need subsidy. The rest of the solutions are also imptent, we must lowe the price of energy by orders of magnitude, while repairing the biosphere at the same time. We can do it, if we try.
-
jja at 03:28 AM on 5 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
Land Use Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Conventional Oil Production and Oil Sands
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 8766–8772
energy source ------------net carbon/GHG changes (year 1 to 150)
------------------------------------(tonne CO2e/ha)
oil sands - mining---------------------3596 (953-6201)
% of total fuel life cycle emissions----------4 (.9-11)Data used in Congressional Research Analysis of Canadian Tar Sands
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42537.pdfoil sands - miningc,d,e,f
Moderator Response:[RH] Hotlinked URL.
-
Russ R. at 02:50 AM on 5 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
dana1981 and John Cook,
First, to set the record straight, you omitted the first half of Judith Curry's comment:
""All we can do is be as objective as we can about the evidence and help the politicians evaluate proposed solutions," she says. If that means doing nothing, "I can't say myself that that isn't the best solution."
Note the word "if", which is rather important to the context of the quotation.
Second, "doing nothing" can absolutely be the best (i.e. most rational) solution, if the expected costs of taking action exceed the discounted present value of the uncertain future net benefits that would result from the action. Again, note the word "if".
Lastly, this never was a binary question of "do something" or "do nothing". There are countless actions which could be taken, each of which has its own expected costs, projected future benefits, probability of success, and uncertainties around each of these. Each action has to be evaluated on its own merits, and not all actions are mutually exclusive. Some actions will rank higher than others, and the "do nothing" option will rank somewhere in that continuum.
Where "do nothing" ranks is currently unknown. I think it's a low probability that "do nothing" ranks highest, but that probability does exist.
If the evidence and an objective evaluation of proposed solutions shows that "do nothing" is indeed the best option, then I'd be in favour of doing nothing (which is exactly what Curry said). Why wouldn't you?
-
Composer99 at 02:35 AM on 5 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
The Dr Judith Curry "What-Me-Worry" Climate Policy™ also, IMO, omits the fact that the most effective means of attenuating or moderating the risks of climate change is mitigating climate change, rather than simply hoping for the best. A worst-case scenario depending on business-as-usual carbon emissions isn't going to happen if we avoid business-as-usual emissions.
-
Composer99 at 02:25 AM on 5 March 2014Skeptical Science now an Android app
Just wanted to note this app is available from Google Play store.
-
Doug Bostrom at 02:19 AM on 5 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Nice!
It's true: contrarians bang on about the costs of dealing with climate risk but are perfectly happy to pay insurance for payoffs they dearly hope they'll never have to receive.
The world as a whole spends several trillion dollars per year on insurance, all of which money we each individually hope is ultimately wasted, never to be seen or heard from again in our own lives.
Our minds are more than a bit of a mess when it comes to dealing with hazards and risk.
Looking at the intersection between people paying for insurance versus those with non-functioning or absent smoke alarms in their homes is an interesting perspective on human psychology: paying to protect property computes in our squishy wetware, paying or experiencing minor inconvenience to save lives does not.
W/climate change we see an enormous hazard that is beginning to quantify into dismal risk numbers but it's just so darned inconvenient to deal with. Let's think of something else instead.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:51 AM on 5 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
As a follow-up. The attitude of 'pursuing the best way to help others, particularly future generations', needs to be more popular than 'the pursuit of personal benefit'. There should be competition but it should be restricted to the development of the best understanding of what is going on and the most rapid development of a sustainable better future for all. Any unsustainable or damaging activity should only be allowed if it is clearly only an emergency short-term use with all benefit clearly going toward the development of a sustainable better future for all. And enjoying life and having fun is important, but it should never be done in a way that harms others (or the environment), or is done in a way that everyone else, especially all future generations, could not also do if they wished to.
Anyone who does not share that attitude should only have one clear choice, changing their mind.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:14 AM on 5 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
These 'discussions', 'debates' or 'arguments' cannot be allowed to occur without ensuring it is understood that developing a sustainable economy is essential and is fundamentally threatened by people getting away with benefiting from unsustainable and damaging activities.
When you evaluate the merit of this pipeline from a perspective of sustaining the economy any clear thinking person concerned about developing sustained economic growth would quickly conclude that burning fossil fuels is a threat because it is a fundamentally unsustainable activity. All of humanity cannot develop to benefit from it. And even just a few most fortunate humans would not be able to continue to benefit from it for very much of the hundreds of millions of years humanity should be developing toward enjoying on this amazing planet. Its prevalence and persistence in the economy would clearly be seen as a problem. And the popularity and profitability of it would be seen as clear indications of fatal flaws in the way societies and economies have been set up by humans. It would become clear that people who only care about their own maximum short term benefit any way they can get away with have been winning and creating damaging desires among the population to be like them. And that desire leads to horrible conflicts between the undeserving rich and power over the limited opportunity they all want the most benefit form. And like the way they became rich and powerful they personally suffer very little in their battles. Others suffer the consequences, including future generations. And it would be clear that much of the current population is not clear thinking, but has the cloudy mind of the deluded, a mind that is unwilling to better understand what contradicts the delusion they are immersed in, unwilling to realize how harmful and unsustainable the activity they desire to benefit form really is.
When you add to that clear reality the clear understanding of all the different damage caused by the unsustainable actions related to burning fossil fuels, not just the consequences of excess CO2, the unacceptability of prolonging the burning of fossil fuels for any purpose other than the rapid development of truly sustainable activity becomes crystal clear.
And that clear headed caring and considerate understanding cannot be denied once it is realized. And it is a massive reality. The truth is most of the current rich and powerful do not deserve the wealth and power they have, and they are not interested in rapidly developing a sustainable better future for all. The reality is they will fight viciously to maintain the delusion among the population that protects them. They do not want it understood that 'their wealth' is undeserved.
That leads to the clear understanding that this is not a debate about a pipeline. It needs to be approached as a fight to create clear thinking minds in as many people as possible, because the undeservingly wealthy are fighting to maintain the popular beliefs that are so profitable for them. And their actions ware clear in the Bush Presidency and the Harper days in Canada. When the Conservative Movement are able to get control of government they shut down any research that would contradict their interests and silence any reporting of government research that contradicts their interest and promote the desire among the population for 'a job, any job'.
This is not a debate about a pipeline. It needs to be seen as a battle in the war for the future of humanity, because that is what it really is. Those fighting for the development of caring and considerate civil society, and protection of consumers from harmful pursuits of profit, and all others fighting for environmental protection are fighting the same war. The delusion that the focus on the pursuit of personal benefit will actually result in any meaningful legitimate benefit for humanity must end.
-
dhogaza at 12:42 PM on 4 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
Bob Lacatena - thanks for letting us know you guys know about the quote escaping trick. I assume you guys know you can quote any input value from users, i.e. that standard SQL allows:
select * from foo where foo_int_column = '123'
as well as
select * from foo where foo_int_column = 123
?
This puts an end to any 123 union select blah blah nonsense for non-string input as well.
As you point out, you need to be sure to escape any apostrophe in the user's input as well as quoting their input. Doing both puts an end to sql injection mischief.
Something that helps is to have tools to process query variables that are always used. Back when I managed the now-obscure OpenACS project, each page declared query variable names and types, and type validation and quoting/escaping were done automatically. A programmer would have to do real work to avoid using the simple declarative syntax (i:integer etc) and after this approach was adopted more than a decade ago, AFAIK no site using the toolkit ever suffered from a successful sql injection attack.
-
Andy Skuce at 10:29 AM on 4 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
Mike@1 I agree that carbon pricing is the best solution, however it is off the table, politically speaking, in the US and Canada. Using KXL approval as a bribe to get the approval of the Republican Party or Canada's Conservatives for carbon pricing does not seem feasible to me. I would love to be persuaded that I am wrong on this.
Perhaps I should have emphasized carbon pricing more here, but, in my defence, I have written SkS articles on carbon taxes, in which I did not mention pipelines at all.
As for the idea that arguing against is a distraction from campaigning for carbon taxes or against coal, I would counter that with the observation that two of the most vocal campaigners against KXL, James Hansen and Bill McKibben, are hardly slouches when it comes to arguing for new policies or for the pressing need to stop burning coal. If only those who worry about activists being distracted did half as much as them.
davidnewell@4. Perhaps "inconsequential" was too strong, but I do object to somebody claiming that making a few relatively painless gestures means that they are doing their part, as if no more were required. When they then go on to shrug off the climate consequences of building a big new piece of fossil fuel infrastructure, the contrast is worth noting, I think. If anything is gratuitous, it is in starting out an editorial in a science journal by giving yourself a big, green pat on the back, as Marcia McNutt did.
-
ianw01 at 09:18 AM on 4 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
Nice summary, Andy.
That "Summary for Policy Makers" chart really needs more airtime. It clearly shows how it is only a question of when, not if, there will be very serious global effects of our addiction to CO2 from any source, unless we can halt the climb by following something like RCP2.6. (Yeah, right.)
Unfortunately the biggest uncertainty about climate change is merely which generation will get the really short straw.
-
tylab at 09:08 AM on 4 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
As much as I agree with many points in this article, I think this is ultimately a meaningless battle to fight. Whether or not the Keystone XL pipeline is built will not significantly affect how much oil is taken out of the ground and produced worldwide. It will just mean some other oil company in some other country will pick up the slack. Your argument that if Obama says no to the Keystone XL it will send a strong message to oil companies.. well I'm not so sure about that when simultaneously U.S. oil and gas production has skyrocketed from the U.S.'s speedy adoption of fracking. Symbolic victories bedamned, what matters is the impact we have on saving our environment and I'm totally unconvinced this will keep any oil from being burned in the end
-
scaddenp at 08:59 AM on 4 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
As with Tom, ditto for me. My post @41 has one possible outline that could be considerably expanded.
Moderator Response:[DB] Multiple authors can be credited, for those wishing to help write the post.
-
Tom Dayton at 08:57 AM on 4 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
I'm game to at least review drafts of an OP. I might be able to provide some raw material, too. You can tell what my perspective is from reading my comments on this thread.
-
Composer99 at 08:11 AM on 4 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Re: John Hartz's call for volunteers to write up an OP, I'd be willing to give it a shot, if no one with better scientific qualifications (read: any qualifications at all) steps up.
-
davidnewell at 07:50 AM on 4 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
"Nero fiddled", and sure enough, I hear the sound of violins.
Are the glaciers melting?
It's taken 150 years to ignorantly get ourselves into this peril: it will take 150 years of directed response to reverse the trend: isn't it time to move into "response" and let the late-adapters fogure it out?
-
John Hartz at 07:36 AM on 4 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
We need a volunteer to write an OP for this comment thread.
-
davidnewell at 07:34 AM on 4 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
I agree that Ms McNutt drew the wrong conclusion, but I think that saying:
"The Editor-in-Chief of the one of the world's most prestigious science journals should know that doing her part for minimizing global warming requires more than a few gestures which, although they set a good example, are inconsequential in terms of solving the problem.."
is also an incorrect and/or gratuitous statement.
-
John Hartz at 07:34 AM on 4 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
All: PanicBusiness has been banned from further posting on the SkS website. The person behind the PanicBusiness screen is the same person the was behind the Elephant In The Room screen. Sock puppetry is strictly prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Persons engaging in sock puppetry automatically lose their posting privileges.
-
John Hartz at 07:30 AM on 4 March 2014Models are unreliable
All: PanicBusiness has been banned from further posting on the SkS website. The person behind the PanicBusiness screen is the same person the was behind the Elephant In The Room screen. Sock puppetry is strictly prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Persons engaging in sock puppetry automatically lose their posting privileges,
-
David Lewis at 06:07 AM on 4 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
The US is increasing its own oil production faster than at any time in its history. (See: WSJ article). The increased production is due to implementation of new techniques, i.e. horizontal drilling and fracking.
In this context, its hard to see how US political activists can single out Canadian tar sand oil production as something that, if expanded, means it is "game over" for the climate, while they remain basically silent about their own soaring oil and gas production.
Stopping Keystone XL can be seen as a trade issue, i.e. the US is attempting to limit the ability of Canada to trade in a commodity the US is expanding its own production of.
The Keystone XL campaign seems to have originated in the ideas of Jim Hansen, who came up with the its "game over" slogan. In "Thoughts on Keystone XL", I wrote an analysis of Hansen's political ideas, by comparing the Hansen position to that of Stephen Chu. Chu, when he was head of the US DOE supported Keystone.
In "Rethinking Keystone XL" I argued that Obama was actually looking for something significant and meaningful to do when he raised the topic of climate change in his 2nd Inaugural Address. I suggested that the "movement" could, and should, tell him what that something is.
US activists could call on Obama, who still claims he is very interested in leaving a meaningful legacy on the climate issue, to implement regulation that would affect the price of all activities that emit carbon to the atmosphere that are engaged in on US soil.
PS. In "Keystone XL, One Head of the Hydra" I attempted to show how the pipeline industry can work around a cancellation of the part of the Keystone XL activists are calling on Obama to stop. It is a very flexible and fast moving industry.
-
John Hartz at 03:10 AM on 4 March 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Steve L & Phillipe Chanteau:
Your concerns are duly noted.
The sentence, "Some scientists got caught fudging data!" is clearly being made by the climate denier sitting atop the North Pole.
If folks in Deniersville draw attention to this particular toon, the more people will see it and will have a good chuckle.
-
mbryson at 02:44 AM on 4 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
Thanks for this, from a Canadian and Albertan -- an excellent summation, revealling just how untenable our national and provincial position has become. As one of the wealthiest nations and regions in the world, we must become part of the solution, not a determined outpost of bitterly destructive and short-sighted policies. Our governments' utter determination to serve the interests of one industry to the exclusion of any other considerations will not be changed from inside Canada (opposition parties across the board support pipelines and continued development of the tar sands). Those of us who see the endgame a little more clearly know that the sooner long-term economic and trade consequences of this obsession become clear, the better the chance that we and the world will manage to change direction and avoid catastrophic consequences.
-
Mike3267 at 02:36 AM on 4 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
I think Andy Skuce has the politics backwards. If Obama says he'll approve the pipeline if Canada agrees to X, and Canada says no to X, then the pipeline won't be built and the blame will shift to the Canadaian government.
But more importantly, this is just the wrong battle. If you are opposing jobs, profits and market forces generally, you are more likely than not to lose. Skuce acknowledges that "blocking the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure is an imperfect way of keeping carbon in the ground." This should be central stategic point, not just a tangental remark. We need a price on GHG emissions, and that should be our central focus. Obama could say to the House GOP that he will support Keystone if they lower carporate taxes and add a carbon tax. This starts to shift the focus of the debate.
See, for example:
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/11/271537401/economist-says-best-climate-fix-a-tough-sell-but-worth-it
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/699c1f18-8d79-11e2-a0fd-00144feabdc0.html
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:12 AM on 4 March 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Agree with Steve L. I can see the usual deniers claiming "SkS confesses that scientists fudged data" in big headlines and linking to the cartoon as a "source." That would be fit perfectly with their standard methods...
-
Composer99 at 00:53 AM on 4 March 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
MartinG:
IMO you are confusing effective communication strategies with propaganda.
Assuming a policy solution to global warming is required, domestic constituencies (voters) have to be willing to support political efforts to reach that solution. If the applicable science doesn't get communicated effectively to the public, who are unlikely to have the inclination or expertise to, say, wade through the entire IPCC AR4 or AR5, such a policy solution stands no chance of being implemented.
IMO you are also espousing a simplistically negative notion of propaganda (as a technique). What's your evidence that propaganda has only been used to "push false impressions" in the past, or that it "rarely has a lasting effect"?
(One of the most striking pieces of propaganda I can think of is "Rosie the Riveter", below. Is the "impression" being made upon the viewer false or unethical? Can you really say that it, and other propaganda encouraging women to work in factories in the US during the Second World War, did not have a lasting effect?)
-
MA Rodger at 21:22 PM on 3 March 2014Models are unreliable
PanicBusiness @682.
To truly get a handle on what you are on about, what would you consider defines "High sensitivity AGW supporters "?
And regarding the part of AR5 Figure 11.25 that you pasted in the thread above. Is this not what you have requested? A projection based on current climate science that you can compare to you own particular view that it is "very likely that in the coming five years there will be no significant warming or there will even be significant cooling."? Indeed if you examine Figure 11.25 you will find it is projection a global temperature rise of 0.13ºC to 0.5ºC/decade averaged over the next two decades.
And regarding your comment that "High sensitivity AGW supporters are either extremely unlucky(in a sense that an implausible scenario happens) or wrong." What you describe as an "implausable scenario" is presently explainable by the recent run of negative ENSO conditions. The underlying global temperature rise remains ~0.2ºC/decade which does not as of today indicate any "unlucky" 'hiatus' unless it is an accelerating rise in temperature that is being projected.
Of course, climate science is expecting such an acceleration, that being evident in AR5 Figure 11.25. However talk of acceleraton may not be very helpful for somebody still grappling with the concept of average global surface temperatures getting higher with time. Where many have difficulty when they reflect on global climate is the vast size of the system under examination. It functions on a different timescale to that we humans are used to. So it will not give definitive answers on the basis of 5 or 10 years data.
-
Steve L at 16:01 PM on 3 March 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Not a fan of the toon of the week this week. I don't think SkS should be either, since it violates an important guideline in how to debunk myths -- it promotes a backfire effect. In fact, when I saw it I asked myself, "Did some climate scientists get caught fudging data?" I realize that the cartoon is portraying AGW-deniers, so showing one make a false claim is accurate, but I suspect it nevertheless propagates that particular myth.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:03 PM on 3 March 2014Models are unreliable
Interesting. Here's the passage right next to Fig 11.25.
The assessment here provides only a likely range for GMST. Possible reasons why the real world might depart from this range include: RF departs significantly from the RCP scenarios, due to either natural (e.g., major volcanic eruptions, changes in solar irradiance) or anthropogenic (e.g., aerosol or GHG emissions) causes; processes that are poorly simulated in the CMIP5 models exert a significant influence on GMST. The latter class includes: a possible strong ‘recovery’ from the recent hiatus in GMST; the possibility that models might underestimate decadal variability (but see Section 9.5.3.1); the possibility that model sensitivity to anthropogenic forcing may differ from that of the real world (see point 5); and the possibility of abrupt changes in climate (see introduction to Sections 11.3.6 and 12.5.5).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:33 PM on 3 March 2014Models are unreliable
PanicBusinss... Curious if there was a reason you omitted the lower panel of the figure.
Also wondering why you would link to a tinypic without citing the actual location of the source material. This is located in AR5, Chapter 11, Fig 11.25.
What you fail to grasp is that there are a number of things that could be wrong with this. Models could be running hot. Surface temp readings could be reading low (poor polar coverage). More heat may be going into the deep oceans than anticipated. There may be an under counting of volcanic activity. There may be an under counting of industrial aerosols.
What we're likely to find is that it is some combination of these things. Problem for you is that, none of these would invalidate models since models are just a function of the inputs.
Ultimately what doesn't change is the fact that we have a high level of scientific understanding regarding man-made greenhouse gases. The changes in radiative forcing from GHG's relative to natural radiative forcing is large. That gives scientists a high level of confidence that we are warming the planet in a very serious way, regardless of how the models may perform on a short term basis.
-
DSL at 14:13 PM on 3 March 2014Models are unreliable
"If" is a lovely word, isn't it?
PB: "But I may not need it after all If there will be no significant warming in the next 10 years it will cast serious doubt on CAGW scenarios."
Yes, and if we find out that aliens have been manipulating our instruments, that will make a big difference as well. Perhaps you'll agree that such a scenario is unlikely. Upon what basis do you imply that "no significant warming" is likely? What model are you using, and is it "falsifiable" as you define it?
-
PanicBusiness at 14:10 PM on 3 March 2014Models are unreliable
But this picture of the models compared to actual temperatures appears to support that the AGW threat is less imminent than AGWists used to think. If there is no significant warming in the next few years, It suggests that High sensitivity AGW supporters are either extremely unlucky(in a sense that an implausible scenario happens) or wrong.
As seen in IPCC AR5
Moderator Response:[RH] Changed image width to preserve page formatting.
-
scaddenp at 14:08 PM on 3 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
DSL - I agree - I would love to hear the basis on which PB forms his/her opinion.
-
scaddenp at 14:04 PM on 3 March 2014Models are unreliable
Since the science never refers to "CAGW", perhaps you had better define it for us? And of course you are going to go on record as changing your mind if there is seriously significant warming in next 5 years? (I think there is a high likelihood of El Nino in that period) - or are you firmly of the opinion that surface temperature record has nothing to do with ENSO modes?
-
PanicBusiness at 13:28 PM on 3 March 2014Models are unreliable
Obviously not in the format I wanted, and It is very hard to infer actual confidence intervals as highlighted in 12.2.3:
These ensembles are therefore not designed to explore uncertainty in a coordinated manner, and the range of their results cannot be straightforwardly interpreted as an exhaustive range of plausible outcomes
But it does provide some predictions. The problem remains that it will be still very hard to publicly demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of this report. The reason for that is it is nearly impossible to recreate the predictions for a quantiatively defined scenario. Later it says explicitly that I will not get what I wanted. (But it is great that they acknowledge the need to have it)
In summary, there does not exist at present a single agreed on and robust formal methodology to deliver uncertainty quantification estimates of future changes in all climate variables.
But I may not need it after all If there will be no significant warming in the next 10 years it will cast serious doubt on CAGW scenarios.
-
DSL at 12:48 PM on 3 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PB: "I personally find it very likely that in the coming five years there will be no significant warming or there will even be significant cooling. If that happens I want the CAGW community to not come up with additional excuses, and hand-waving like it was totally expected."
Can you tell me how you arrived at that prediction? I'd like to repeat the method to see if I get the same result.
-
davidnewell at 12:12 PM on 3 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9B
I am reposting this here because I cannot find the "one Planet" thread which stimulated it. Coming back to this site and picking up where you left off is .. difficult.
=================
#48, One Planet
1. I find a resonance with your posts, perhaps because I am a "Safety Engineer", which runs a fine line between technical knowledge and "human factors". I find common cause with your apparent disdain for the “profit motive” as being an adequate guide for directing human activities.(The proper employment of “the profit motive”, however, and by extension “Capitalism”,) could lead to appropriate outcomes IF the “ultimate cost of goods sold” was expressed in the “purchase price”, in the current marketplace. This, however, requires “appropriate and accurate regulation”, which is not likely to eventuate. ..)
2. The educated participants hereabout tend to make enlightened projections AS IF those factors considered include consideration of the unknown “black swans” which lurk in the depths of changing complex systems.
There is no one here that can establish a “confidence interval” of their projections being accurate ten years into the future. The nature of “Nature” is un -quantifiable. No one knows which straw, when pulled out of the pile, will result in a collapse to another , lower, level of complexity: with unknown results: with the possible exception of knowing that the change will be considered “undesirable” by the humans which may survive.
3. Relatively soon, This site will become obsolete. Every person on Earth will become a “true believer” in “climate change”. Despite their conditioning, they will wish for things to be “as they were” before “The Anthropocene” began to degrade the “Greater Whole” of which we are a part. (capitalized because it is appropriate to do so, IMHO)
4. I cannot find the locus for my originally having posted this link, because I would like to defend against the puerile (as I remember it) objection to it's premise. (My current schedule makes my visits “erratic”, but I'm storing THIS URL in my word processor, so my defense of it can have continuity in one place.)
In my opinion, the brain-trust that this group represents should be directed towards evolving responses which include “Direct Air Capture”, because if this is NOT done: well, see #2, P 2, above.
David
PS If you have a beter idea for direct air capture, lay it out..
5. WWW.EarthThrive.Net
Near Term (25 years)
1.Direct Air Capture and Sequestration of CO2.Mid term (50 years)
2. Mitigating the Drought in the US Southwest
Long Term (150 years)
3.Significantly Influencing the Earth’s Hydrologic cycle
through increasing water vapor, cloud formation, and
terrestrial precipitation
Moderator Response:[JH] Unnecessary white spaces deleted.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:56 AM on 3 March 2014Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
Riduna:
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. is an atmospheric scientist. Junior is not. Senior carries different baggage, but they are both on the same train, hence it can be hard to keep them apart when reading about them.
-
Johnny Vector at 11:19 AM on 3 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9B
@BC: The link appears to be here:
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you.
-
Tom Dayton at 10:58 AM on 3 March 2014Models are unreliable
PanicBusiness, you wrote:
I want the AGWers (who are on supposed consensus) to state their predictions now and clearly as to how much surface temperature warming will happen in function of CO2 emissions with confidence intervals in the future. This is how you make predictions.
It seems you have not done much research. The IPCC has produced its AR5 report, containing those projections. One thing you absolutely must take into account is that the projections depend on assumptions about forcings such as greenhouse gas emissions, aerosols from volcanoes and humans, and solar intensity. Those are uncertain. We can't model each one of the infinite scenarios of forcings. So the IPCC defined a few scenarios that span the range of reasonable expectations of scenarios. GP Wayne has written an excellent explanation of the greenhouse gas emission aspects of those scenarios. How well the models project temperature depends in large part on how well the real world forcings match each of the scenarios. Even the best-matching scenario will not assume exactly the same forcings as happened in the real world. That is not an excuse, it is as unavoidable a problem as is the traffic condition that will actually happen during your drive to work, versus your beforehand scenarios of possible traffic conditions--the scenarios you use to decide when to leave for work.
The projections themselves are in the AR5. Projections from 2016 to 2050 are in the Near Term chapter; see figure 11.9. Projections beyond that are in the Long Term chapter.
-
davidnewell at 10:48 AM on 3 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
There appears to be a great number of would-be post-=adolescent yahoos whose primary aim is to screw up boards, (or corporate databases) and who download aps to effect that end from (usually) Eastern European sources, and try them out "just because they can".
THIS attack appears to be specifically malicious, though.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:47 AM on 3 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PB @33... I've continued this conversation on a more appropriate thread. Here.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:46 AM on 3 March 2014CO2 limits will harm the economy
PanicBusiness (from this previous thread)...
First, you're repeating a citation of the exact same article you posted before and adding no new content. That is considered sloganeering here at SkS. The fact of the matter is that regulations positive net impact on the economy. Larry Bell is presenting only the cost side of the equation while ignoring the net benefits. You can go to google scholar and read dozens of papers on the economic impacts of environmental regulations and see that there is actually a net positive result.
You still, also, seem completely oblivious as to what Figueres is saying relative to China. She's merely pointing out that it is far easier for China to take action on climate change. Figueres states,
“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.” [From your own link here.]That's not a value judgement on which system she prefers. It's just a point of fact. Because of their political system the can move far faster than we can in the west. I often point out that China is run like the world's largest private corporation, and the Chinese people are their customers.
If you want to have an open and honest conversation about this, I'm all for it. But you're definitely going to have to drop the dismissive attitude. The second thing you can do is support your claims with actual research rather than links to politically modivated people and groups like Larry Bell and the CEI.
-
Tom Dayton at 10:25 AM on 3 March 2014Models are unreliable
PanicBusiness, you wrote on another thread:
I personally find it very likely that in the coming five years there will be no significant warming or there will even be significant cooling. If that happens I want the CAGW community to not come up with additional excuses, and hand-waving like it was totally expected.
"The CAGW community" specifically disclaims the ability to predict temperatures for five year and even ten year spans. That's weather, not climate. So you've set up a strawman if you mean you want predictions from now for the next five years.
If instead you mean that in five years the trend over the previous 30 years (25 years ago from now, plus 5 years into the future) will be below the GCMs' projections, then first you will need to verify that result after having used the models to hindcast using the actual forcings during that period (Sun, aerosols, and greenhouse gases), or at least will have to statistically adjust the model projections to accommodate the actual forcings, as was done by Schmidt, Shindell, and Tsigaridis. To be thorough you should remove ENSO as well, though over a 30-year period it should average out to about zero. When I say 30 years, I mean really 30 years. Focusing on the last five years of a 30-year period is just looking at weather, so if the projections were within range for 29 years and in the 30th year dipped below the 90% range, you can't yell about that 30th year as if that is climate.
If after doing all that, five years from now the 30-year trend is below the 90% range of the model projections, then I would say that the projections were too high and that policies depending on those projections need to be modified. But the modifications of policy would not be to assume the models are "falsified" in the sense that they are useless. Instead, policies would need to be reworked to suit projections that are lower than those original projections, but lower only as much as indicated by the difference from the observations.
-
Riduna at 10:24 AM on 3 March 2014Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
The article calls ... "Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., a University of Colorado political scientist."
I thought he was an atmospherric scientist and, as such, should know what he is talking about - though he has a long record of showing the opposite.
Prev 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 Next
