Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 Next
Comments 46801 to 46850:
-
Joel_Huberman at 01:45 AM on 4 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
Thanks, Dana1981, for a very useful article. I'm an American, and although I did pay some attention to the interesting report of Marcott et al (2013) and its analysis at Skeptical Science, I'm also very interested in the topic of fossil fuel subsidies. After all, as shown in one of your illustrations, we're the world champions at subsidizing fossil fuels.
Although it's difficult to calculate the total cost of wars over fossil fuels, I think it would be fair to attribute America's two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to oil and gas (pipeline rights in Afghanistan's case). After all, if those wars were not for fossil fuels, what were they for? Could they have been completely irrational?
-
Lanfear at 01:44 AM on 4 April 2013Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
"I apologize for the delayed response."
No worries, as you may have noticed, I take this with a slow pace, what with the holidays and everything.
"I have had the good fortune of rediscovering a recent paper"
Ahemm.. And I noticed that that paper already was in my archives, so I should have been aware of it. Problem being that the archives seem to grow more than what I am able to digest, let alone recall.
"As to the question about GISP2 temperatures and the MWP, that is more complex."
Yes, I should have been more explicit in this case. The root of this is, of course, the denialist fallacy where he/she makes the mistake of a) taking a single point of (proxy) measurement and then generalizing that to the whole globe as such, and b) not consider the fact that the y-axis is between -32 and -28°C.
Thanks for your effort, and the reminder of Kobashi et al. 2011.
-
Ger at 01:24 AM on 4 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
"The bulk of these direct subsidies go to petroleum products ($212 billion, or 44%), electricity ($150 billion, 31%), and natural gas ($112 billion, 23%). Electricity subsidies are included because they increase the consumption of coal and natural gas."
and
"The bulk of direct + indirect subisides goes to petroleum products ($879 billion per year, or 46%), followed by coal ($539 billion, 28%), natural gas ($299 billion, 16%), and electricity ($179 billion, 9%)."
How come the indirect subsidy on electricty? Isn't that included in the coal/gas/petroleum already?And then to think of that renewable electricity doesn't get a dime: FiT tariff is charged as an extra on all electrical power directly to the consumer (in Philippines it is as the FiT-All).
-
CBDunkerson at 23:54 PM on 3 April 2013Earth Encounters Giant Speed Bump on the Road to Higher Sea Level
Climate Bob, actually I suspect the uptick is due to the combination of flood waters (from the time of the dip) returning to the oceans and evaporated water from the severe droughts the past couple of years. Ice melt undoubtedly plays a part, but I don't think there has been a recent significant increase there. Basically, we have gone from having higher than average water on land (i.e. flooding) to lower than average (i.e. droughts).
-
chriskoz at 22:26 PM on 3 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
Bernard@8,
I agree and have to add at this point that politics, especially election campaign aspect, have nothing to do with economy. If Tony Abbott win in September (he will be the silliest OZ PM ever) he and his party would start implementing the policies that have nothing to do with their current promisses. Needless to say those promisses have nothing substantial: no real program, just sloganeering.
I'm not writing this because I support the incumbent Labor Party. I'm writing to show the sad reality that the "easiest" political campaign based on negativity and prying on and profiting from human addction to fosil fuels I pointed above @6, is the effective tool to gain popularity in our electorate. It's unbelievable but the sicence, be it climate or economics, must be simply ignored by average electorate (if you believe the polls), people just want to follow the "easiest" path, just like doping is the easiest for an addicted drug user. The effort required to break the dependence on FF is nowhere to be seen in such environment. And politicians who are prying on such dependence are doing lots of damage.
-
Philip Shehan at 18:18 PM on 3 April 2013The two epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair
An update on my previous post. My second comment has been posted without further reply from Mr Watts.
-
rockytom at 16:47 PM on 3 April 2013The Scientific Method
Thanks to all of the above for your comments regarding the scientific method post. I especially enjoyed the links provided by Tom Dayton and have read most of the statements in the links. In our textbook, Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis, we discuss the scientific method and attempt to distinguish hypotheses from theories although I'm not sure of the success of doing so. We illustrate the "scientific method" by giving examples of results; Darwin's "uncluttered mind" in formulating new hypotheses/theories (origin of atolls, the 'descent of man,' natural selection); T. C. Chamberland's 'multiple working hypotheses' and a few more.
-
Bernard J. at 16:17 PM on 3 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
Dana, add me to the list of folk who are interested in the (sadly, bastardised) economics underpinning human fossil fuel use.
Without pointing too fine a point on it, and at the risk of wandering toward political territory, it's troubling that the conservative opposition parties in Australia pander to economic the <i>status quo</i>, and diligently submit to the industry memes about the apparent ruinous economic consequences of trying to reduce emissions. From the politicians it's a combination of "...great big new tax...", "we need the jobs", "it would cost too much to go to renewables", "working families have so many bills already", and "if we don't sell it someone else will", with additional protestations along the lines of "no stinking government is going to tell me how to spend my money" from the public peanut gallery.
Again, I am leary of commenting politically here, but in the run-up to the federal election later this year it would be more than interesting to see Tony Abbott squarely challenged to comprehensively detail the costings for his policy of effectively <i>not</i> pricing carbon, and in so costing to include an honest assessment of the pork-barrelling that fossil fuel interests enjoy in Australia. It would be even more instructive to have Abbott tie this policy response to a similarly detailed demonstration of his understanding of all aspects of the relevant science, and of the implications of this science for the future, and how this understanding informs his resultant carbon-pricing policy.I'd really like to see coming from both sides of the election a policy informed by a scientifically-based cost-benefit risk analsyis, but especially from the conservatives who are virtually certain to win come September. Time for everyone to dust off their Garnaut reports, update, and show that they actually know what they're talking about...
-
Philip Shehan at 15:45 PM on 3 April 2013The two epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair
An insight into how Anthony Watts regards discussion of this question in his latest installlment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/quote-of-the-week-bad-eggs-in-the-marcott-et-al-omelete-recipe/#comment-1262484
Here is his response to a comment of mine:
Anthony Watts says:
April 1, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Ah jeez Shehan, give it up, the Marcott study is toast and your focus minutiae is a waste of everyone’s time . Stop defending the indefensible and get your head out of your posterior so you can see the mess they created. Start by reading Ross McKitrick’s essay on the main page.
And here are my responses (the second is yet to be posted):
Philip Shehan says:
April 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Mr Watts. Well pardon me for focussing on “minutae”. So much easier to make a general smear without examining the “minutae” The accusations against Marcott were based on the “minutae”, and I have examined them. That’s what scientists do. That’s what science is about. If you can’t hack having the claims in your articles examined, don’t put them up.
REPLY: Oh I can hack it, I just find your hacks tiresome and pointless- Anthony
Mr Watts, This section contains complaints by Pielke and commentators of some specific points Marcott’s thesis and the Science article he coauthored. These complaints and alleged inconsistencies are used to claim that Marcott and others are guilty of fraud, misconduct deceit lying etc etc.
I recognize that there are many commentators who think that comments should be confined to unexamined cheering agreement, mutual backslapping and rounds of “Boo Hiss Marcott Sucks and Shehan too LOL.”
I take the attitude that on what is billed as The World’s Best Science Blog”, there are actually some here who have the interest, scientific understanding and or intellectual ability to actually examine these claims in a scientific manner.
I know from experience that if I don’t go into “minutae” I have to keep coming back to correct misinterpretation or plain pigheaded stupidity and explain things in further detail.
For example. I pointed out that contrary to the rumour started by one of McIntyre’s readers and accepted without examination and repeated everywhere as established fact, Marcott’s thesis contains seven graphs with an uptick. I also pointed out that McIntyre’s puzzlement at the differences in the two graphs is in plain sight for anyone who wished to spend more than a few seconds looking at it.
I then get asked for a link. I provide it, but knowing people will still not read it before hitting the keyboard, nor after (ferd berple take note), I briefly quote from the thesis to explain what the graphs are showing. This is not pointless, but for those who are to stupid , lazy or ignorant to engage in a truly scientific debate and who do not want their prejudices challenged it may well be tiresome.
If people wish to critically examine my assessment of the evidence, they are welcome to do so with a clear reasoned argument with enough “minutae” to establish their case. Politely. That is how real scientific discussion is supposed to work
-
Climate Bob at 15:34 PM on 3 April 2013Earth Encounters Giant Speed Bump on the Road to Higher Sea Level
The sudden uptick in sea level rise as indicated on the NASA website can be partialy explained by the flood water returning to the sea but the amount of increase now exceeds this. I find it difficult to believe that it is due to warming of the oceans as this tends to be slow and gradual. The events that can give a quick increase would be glaciersfrom four sources. Greenland, Antarctica, land based mountain glaciers and smaller coastal glaciers could all add to the total in a relatively short space of time but I have not heard of any reports to that effect. It would be a worrying trend if that were the case.
-
chriskoz at 15:33 PM on 3 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
pansy@6,
Currently, those "mega rich people" you're "giving money" are fosil fuel industry. Not directly, but through the subsidies this article talks about. Are you feeling good about it?
You don't necessarily need to give that money to "carbon tax support and carbon trading" instead. That depends on the type of solution. E.g. Jim Hansen's "charge at the source and divident" scheme bypasses any carbon trading and distrubutes money back to your (citizen taxpayer) pocket with minimal administrative overhead. And you could use that extra money for e.g. buying solar panels and investing into other renewable energy sources. Would you not like it?
-
chriskoz at 15:13 PM on 3 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
dana1981@1,
Your comment is OT ;) but I can add to it that I think most of the valuable commenter crowd was stolen by realclimate.org where they just posted the analysis of Marcott 2013 paper, which appears to be over-popular in US. Strangely, Marcott 2013 does not draw so much interest here in OZ (where SkS also belongs at least geographically)
But back to the topic, it's a shame that the economics of climate change do not draw as much attention as it deserves. Even climate scientists like Mike Mann & Gavin from RC are saying: "if you want to want to help Earth, don't look at the research in climate (whatever you do there won't change the problem humanity is facing), look at the engineering slutions and their economy".
Your reported internalising of CO2 polution at the level of $100 per tonne would bring the total cost to 4trillions of 6% of global GDP. To put this number into perspective, the World War II cost us 3% of GDP that that was somewhat signifficant effort, according to the stories from my parents. So, it seems unbelievable that nowadays, the FF subsidies take twice that effort. Still, at $25 per tonne (current tax in OZ where I live) we spend 1.9trillions or 3% of GDP, so the effort at the same level as WW II. It does not feel like. The humanity dependency on FF must be enormous if those numbers are justified.
-
Bob Loblaw at 14:02 PM on 3 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
dana: my comment was entirely a personal one, in my current state of mind. I agree that posts on such topics are worthwhile...
-
dana1981 at 13:51 PM on 3 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
michael @2 - no, military costs are not included. Just direct subsidies and indirect costs via pollution and climate change. It would be very difficult trying to quantify military costs associated with fossil fuel interests.
Bob @3 - no worries, economics posts on SkS are always less popular than science posts. I still think it's an important subject to cover though. Ultimately a lot of climate denial boils down to a misunderstanding of economics - the fear that transitioning away from fossil fuels will be too expensive. In reality the opposite is true, it's continuing to pay for our fossil fuel addiction where the real high costs lie.
-
Bob Loblaw at 13:25 PM on 3 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
dana: sorry for the lack of comments, but I've been looking over my tax return stuff that needs to be filed before the end of April (Canada), and thinking about how much Steven Harper takes from me is depressing enough - it doesn't help to think too much about the amount he's passing on to rich gas and oil corporations...
-
michael sweet at 10:57 AM on 3 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
Dana,
Does this price include the cost of wars like Iraq where the US unsuccessfully tried to gain control of Iraqs oil? Much of the world defense budget is aimed at protecting fossil fuels.
-
dana1981 at 10:41 AM on 3 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
I'm going to leave a comment to keep my poor lonely post company!
-
curiousd at 09:59 AM on 3 April 2013New research from last week 23/2012
Question: Great new article by Parennin, et al . See in Science Magazine
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract
They do a careful correction for the effect in EPICA dome data in which one must correct for the following effect: Antarctic precipitation does not "lock in" an air bubble from having been connected by diffusion with the surface until the precipitation is so high above the bubble that solid ice has formedat the air bubble location . Since the oxygen 18/16 ratio is determined by the precipitation itself, this effect means that one observes an inherent lag of the CO2 level behind the temperature corresponding to a particular section of the ice core if one is not cognizant of the effect. Now from an apparent lag of CO2 behind temperature of 800 years with an error of 600 years, CO2 and temperature coincide to within the experimental error of 100 years in the EPICA dome data.
My question, then, is this: What is it about Law Dome data that makes this kind of error less important? Or is it less important? If we are saying, "Aha! CO2 started to increase about 1750, at the biginning of the industrial revolution, there better not be any 800 year errors in the dating of the CO2 there! (I have not been on SkS for some time, using the knowledge I gleaned here to good use...but needhelp again on this.)
Curiousd
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:24 AM on 3 April 2013Earth Encounters Giant Speed Bump on the Road to Higher Sea Level
chriskoz
Wipneus at Arctic Penguis, a regular at Neven's blog has done regression fits to the trends from PIOMAS for each month of the year
The fits are an exponential fit since that gave a better fit than any other type of curve. September goes to zero in 2015. But even the fit for April, which is maximum volume, is looking like 2030 or so. Obviously a caveat about projecting that far into the future but.
It's hard to say what the physics of winter ice formation up there will be in a warmer world. Arctic ocean warmer but the air will still be cold and it will be dark for months. Hard to say which will win out.
-
Rob Painting at 08:23 AM on 3 April 2013Earth Encounters Giant Speed Bump on the Road to Higher Sea Level
ianw01 - Yes, another commenter has pointed out the same thing, and it's something I've been looking in to for a while - moving heat into the deeper ocean will lower the rate of thermal expansion. This is a likely (partial) explanation for the sea level trend over the period of satellite-based observations, where sea level rise has been near-linear despite the acceleration in ocean heat content and land-ice contribution.
A candidate for a future SkS post for sure.
-
John Hartz at 04:35 AM on 3 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
Joe Romm extensively cites Dana's OP in his article, Making Sense of Climate Sensitivity: How The Economist And MSM Keep Getting It Wrong posted today (Apr 2) on Climate Progress.
-
Chuck123 at 20:35 PM on 2 April 2013Earth Encounters Giant Speed Bump on the Road to Higher Sea Level
CraigD@21,
At the Arctic Sea Ice Forum there has been discussion of this, including a posting of this link http://www.pnas.org/content/106/1/28.short to an article that shows evidence that thermodynamically a seasonally ice-free Arctic is an unstable state that transitions easily to a year-around ice-free state.
-
scaddenp at 13:10 PM on 2 April 2013To frack or not to frack?
Just for a look at some at myths (pro and anti) in fracking, I found this popular mechanics article useful. It annoyingly doesnt include links but I found it easy enough to use Mr Google to follow up on interesting stuff raised there. US context only. Vroomie, I think pipes with chemicals going through your aquifer are pretty minor risk but it would depend on your regulatory environemnt. Ie what are the rules about penetrating an aquifer (for any reason from fracking to putting in a bridge pile) and do regulators check the seal tests for each and every well.
-
JasonB at 12:47 PM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
This has to be one of the weirdest myths out there — a belief that science is so "fragile" that if some people are doing it "wrong" they can somehow create thousands of independent lines of envidence that all converge on the same, wrong conclusion.
What is even more remarkable is that there are people out there claiming to be scientists who think climate scientists are doing it "wrong", thus exhibiting two breathtaking displays of ignorance — first, that the scientific endeavour depends on people doing it the "right" way and that the normal standards of publishing, replicating, and responding won't sort out the wheat from the chaff in this case; and second, that they have somehow failed to notice that the whole of climate science and associated fields is a demonstration of normal scientific practices anyway.
Papers get published; others respond with refutations or enhancements; new data is added to the mix, bolstering some and refuting others; science progresses.
Mann's hocky stick is a perfect example of science progressing while non-scientists are still going on about whether the methods used in the original paper, fourteen years ago, were good or bad. Mann himself stopped using those methods long ago, yet still manages to produce hocky sticks along with a whole host of other researchers using new and different techniques.
Climate models, too, keep having more and more details added to them as computing power and techniques allow in the ongoing attempt to make them more useful and capture as much behaviour of the real world as practical. Science progresses. Failures fall by the wayside.
One of the great ironies, of course, is that the darlings of the "skeptical" movement — some of whom were mentioned already in this thread — are the very same people who have a history of trying to construct theories to support their preconceived beliefs, and of repeatedly being shown to be wrong, and then of effortlessly moving on to the next contrarian theory ("anything but AGW") hoping that they'll get it right this time (or, in some cases, simply refusing to acknowledge that the data has disproved their theory or their logic was flawed). Most of us don't care if they are putting the cart before the horse and doing their science "wrong" because we know that they're unlikely to arrive at the truth that way and therefore their ideas will fall by the wayside, but those who seem to care most strongly about doing it "right" also seem to have a massive problem actually recognising those who are doing it "right" and those who are doing it completely "wrong".
It seems instead to be the last, desperate refuge of those unable or unwilling to accept what the science has to say; if you don't like the result, assert that those who established it didn't do so "correctly".
-
ianw01 at 11:57 AM on 2 April 2013Earth Encounters Giant Speed Bump on the Road to Higher Sea Level
Could this anomaly in the rate of sea level rise be partially attributable to where heat is being added to the ocean?
To illustrate what I'm getting at, consider this: Based on fresh water having a negative thermal coefficient of expansion between 0C and 4C, someone might argue the drop in sea level is a sign that water between 0 and 4 C is warming. Obviously this is overly simplistic and is not the case for seawater. Figure 3.1 here shows that seawater does not have a negative coefficient. However, it does show that heating water in the 0C-10C range will result in much less expansion than heating water in the 10C-20C range.
So my layman's analysis says that we should not be too surprised that decreased rates of sea level rise coincide with a time when other evidence points to more heat going into the deep oceans.
-
nealjking at 11:32 AM on 2 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
As mentioned before: If there is a flat absorption coefficient across the spectrum, the discussion provided before gives the same result for zero-feedback temperature change as differentiating the S-B.
Not otherwise.
-
scaddenp at 10:25 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray - first, show me any science that uses the term CAGW. This is strawman material.
Continuing, the scientists mentioned are indeed climate scientists who have created true scientific discussion in the correct way - by publishing paper in which their methods etc. have been available for examination. The scientific method has kicked in and tested these ideas against experiement - and tossed them all out. "A" for effort, but still no other hypotheses in the air at the moment. I applaud the effort in one sense because, although motivated by ideology (eg see Spencer on what he thinks his role is) rather than the scientific quest, science depends vitally on a constant search for alternative hypotheses. This is doing it right.
Doing it wrong is saying one thing to your peers and another to the naive (public, congress); and pushing misrepresentations of science of political objectives (noting that environmentalists can be guilty of this too). In my opinion, doing it wrong it also trying make reality conform to your political prejudices but I think the scientific method and publication conventions are robust enough to filter out any poor science resulting from such an approach.
Hansen and the others change models as data and methods improve as indeed they must. Compare say Mann 98 with say Mann 2003. You want others? Idealogues dont change at all. All of your list fortunately agree on all the basic climate theory. They have however, all tried valiantly to find something else in the climate system that might give a low enough value for climate sensitivity so that action to mitigate isnt necessary. I wish they would put some of that energy into finding effective mitigation measures that is compatible with their political philosphy instead.
So are you looking for a good theory which accounts for climate - or an excuse to discount current theory because mitigation actions proposed so far are discordant with your politics? If the former, then perhaps take your specific questions about attribution of climate change to the appropriate topics here (use the search tool).
-
Kevin C at 07:55 AM on 2 April 2013Book review: Cold Cash, Cool Climate by Jonathan Koomey
Kevin:
So the author wants us to trust the experts only. But Feynman says to trust the experiments, and that experts can be wrong.
Kevin C has pointed out that even peer reviewed papers can be wrong, and not withdrawn.
There are two pretty fundamental points here. Let's start with the last one and work back.
It is a common mistake of readers here, and sometimes even authors, to assume that because something is in the peer-reviewed literature it is right. That is clearly false. Just count the proportion of scientific papers (in any field) which are disagreeing with a previous paper and you can see that actually a significant proportion of peer-reviewed papers (in any field) must be wrong.
The distinctive feature of the peer-reviewed literature is that by publishing in the peer-reviewed literature you are taking part in a social interaction which has evolved to select good information from bad. Not primarily at the review stage (which is just an initial junk filter), but in the long term response to a paper, which is crudely measured by citations and more accurately by review papers and consensus. (Hence my arugment that we need sociology as well as philosophy of science.)
Therefore, if someone cites the existance a peer-reviewed paper on either side of the argument as settling an issue, you are right to call them on it. So papers on their own don't settle issues. However, Feynman is no help either, because most of the systems we are interested in are sufficiently complex than any experimental result requires interpretation within the framework of thousands of other results, which are usually more conveniently summarised in terms of theories. To work from experiments alone requires you to rediscover modern science from scratch.
So either you need to study the literature sufficiently to be able to form a clear picture of the shape of the field, the areas where multiple lines of evidence agree and those where they disagree, the robustness of different observations, the potential confounding factors, and the diversity of opinion and its evolution over time. Something which in my own field took me (I guess) a decade of full time effort, although the process has continued since.
In other words, the development of expertise. So either you need to become an expert, or trust an expert. Now of course anyone can claim to be an expert without putting in the effort to obtain that expertise. So how are we to tell a real expert from a fake one? The most effective method to have evolved so far is on the basis of contribution to the field.
This is the same for every field of science. Journals are edited by and grants are awarded by panels recuited from the most prominent contributors to a field. This works because scientists tend to think rather highly of their own ability, are mostly in pretty rigorous competition with one another, and are therefore more than willing to demolish one-anothers work if it has weaknesses. Again, this is true in every field. If you want evidence that the same is true in climate science, read the climategate emails.
-
Chris Colose at 07:19 AM on 2 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
Since I was e-mailed about this, I'll chime in...
It doesn't matter what you define as the "no feedback climate sensitivity." Obviously, dT = dF/(4 σT^3) ...(or dF = 4σT^3 dT) is a natural reference system derived directly from the Planck law, and because there's very little uncertaintly in how to calculate it, it has traditionally been used as a reference system by which other feedbacks are evaluated against. In a climate model, this would be derived by perturbing the atmospheric temperature by, say, 1 K, and holding other variables constant (water vapor, etc) and then asking how much the infrared emission to space has increased (see e.g., Table 1 in Soden et al., 2006, "An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models"). The results are very close to the back-of-envelope calculation shown above.
In the real world of course, water vapor makes the infrared emission increase more slowly than the Stefan-Boltzmann law, so a greater temperature rise is required to accomodate the need to balance energy at the top of the atmosphere. If the system were dominated by negative feedbacks, then the flux adjustment would be more efficient than T^4, and you wouldn't need much temperature rise to balance the incoming sunlight.
If you wanted, you could just as well call your reference system one in which relative humidity stayed the same. This would make the "no feedback climate sensitivity" appear much larger, but then reduce the magnitude of feedbacks, since the water vapor feedback would now only consist of a small residual that resulted from any departures in the relative humidity field. In the same way, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not an adequte description of radiative transfer in a real atmosphere, yet still provides a convenient baseline which allows us to talk about 'feedbacks' in a meaningful way. It doesn't hurt the calculation too much that you have absorption to worry about, since "T" is evaluated at the top of the atmosphere and you need to eventually balance the fluxes regardless of what wavelength region they occur in. -
jgkoomey at 06:34 AM on 2 April 2013Book review: Cold Cash, Cool Climate by Jonathan Koomey
@Kevin: @shoyemore has given an excellent response, but I wanted to describe my own views on this. I'm the last person to unquestioningly adhere to the statements of any authority, and I'm all for questioning conclusions of all types, if that questioning is done in an informed manner. The technique I describe is meant to get people to think about why they think questioning climate science is OK when they don't know the first thing about the topic. I vividly recall a video in which a questioner in Australia tried to lecture my friend Stephen Schneider about how climate forcings were logarithmic and that this somehow invalidated the whole of climate science (wrong on multiple levels, and Stephen put the questioner in her place). The questioner would never have done this for a physicist lecturing on gravity, and I want to get people to think about why they think climate change is any different. From the perspective of a lay person, it isn't much different--there is extensive peer review, and errors are uncovered and corrected over time, just like for all other science. The incentives are the same as for other areas of science as well, so if they trust that science and related engineering (and they largely should, since it allows technological devices and systems to operate correctly) then they should trust the climate science also.
Of course, nothing will get in the way of a hard core denier believing what they want to believe, but we all need to find new and different ways to get the people who are "reachable" to rethink their beliefs. This technique has worked well for me in my lectures, but something different might work better for you. No one approach will work for all audiences, of course.
-
KenD at 05:31 AM on 2 April 2013It's not bad
Thanks, Bob and Bernard. Bob, I looked through some of the Arrhenius article, but I confess I'm not technical enough to home in on the best example of a prediction he made that has since come true. Bernard, if you were to place a bet on the minimum volume of Artic sea ice by 2023 (assuming C02 levels remain at or above current levels), what value you would bet on, assuming you want to keep your money safe?
-
Phil at 05:24 AM on 2 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
re: Pressure broadening.
A vibrational absorbtion has breadth because the rotational energy quanta differ in the ground and 1st levels of the vibration. Because of this difference transitions between the different rotational levels "fan out". This "fine structure" thus has tiny windows within the band through which radiation can pass (if its of the correct frequency of course!). Pressure broadens the individual rotational fine structure of the vibration thus reducing the size of these windows. Since the rotation of molecules depends on the mass of the nuclei, isotopes cause two sligtly different spectra to be overlaid;
Other things can affect the width of these bands; nuclear spin of the nuclei in the molecule is significant, especially for molecules containing Hydrogen. The other effect that may be significant is complexation - spectral absorbtion due to entities such as (CO2...H2O). These have vibrational frequencies similar to the lone molecule (and some extra) but significantly different rotational characteristics, which would make their spectra less window like. These entities were the subject of my Ph.D, and we occassionally speculated whether they played a significant effect in the greenhouse effect. To my (somewhat outdated) knowledge this question has not been answered.
-
Paul D at 03:45 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
John Russel "Global climate models are not, as you so accusingly describe them, "to prove the hypothesis of AGW ". They were firstly created to enable meteorologists to provide more accurate weather forecasts."
A 5 fold improvement in the case of the UK, Met Office. -
shoyemore at 03:45 AM on 2 April 2013Book review: Cold Cash, Cool Climate by Jonathan Koomey
Kevin,
The obvious question is "Who is an expert?". We accept advice from range of "experts" all the time, in fields where we have reduced competence - doctors, lawyers, car mechanics, plumbers, dieticians, gym coaches, tax accountants, counsellors, ...
If we apply Feynman's principle across the board, and eschew consultation with any expert, it actually makes modern life impossible. You might prefer to put Feynman's quotation in some context.
https://sphaerica.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/the-ignorance-of-experts/
The way I suggest to get around Feynman is of course to build up a "jury" of trusted experts. In his book Nonsense on Stilts (reccommended), philosopher and scientist Massimo Piglucci suggests criteria for experts:
- Examine the experts arguments logically
- Is there agreement with other experts ?
- Is there independent evidence of expertise (qualifications)?
- Examine possible biases.
- What is the track record of the expert?
This is as simple as getting a second opinion from a doctor or a mechanic. One, of course, one must still Trust, but Verify!, and there is no guarantee of error in a particular case.
The above list is an expansion of Koomey's question.
It is also disappointing to see Richard Feynman elevated to the level of infallible sage, a role he would have abhorred. We are as entitled to be as sceptical about Feynman's nostrums as about anyone's.
-
barry1487 at 03:33 AM on 2 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
Thanks again, nealjking.
"Chris Colose originally mentioned the pressure broadening to me, and he claimed it would slightly increase the overall probability of absorption. It would take a little reading to sort this question out."
I went for a casual trawl and found another realclimate article;
...Molecules composed of three or more atoms tend to act as greenhouse gases because they can possess energy in terms of rotation and vibrations which can be associated with the energy of photons at the infra-red range. This can be explained by theory and be demonstrated in lab experiments. Other effects are present too, such as pressure and Doppler broadening, however, these are secondary effects in this story.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/a-simple-recipe-for-ghe/
There they link to the following paper, which, if you have access, might interest you.
A precise measurement of the vertical profiles of carbon dioxide is required for reducing the uncertainty in the carbon budget. In order to achieve measurements of the vertical CO2 distribution with an uncertainty better than approximately 4 ppm, a precise knowledge of the pressure-dependent broadening and shift coefficients of CO2 absorption lines is indispensable.
-
BillEverett at 03:16 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
A brief comment on models in relation to the scientific method. First, there are big theories with names, etc., and there are little theories. Each theory is an expression of our understanding of how a part of the observable "real" world works. Big theories explain a reasonably large part; small theories explain a small part. Hypotheses or conjectures are "reasonable" proposed amendments to a theory.
A theory can be stated in words. A theory stated only in words is rather imprecise and open to multiple interpretations. A better statement of a theory is a mathematical equation (or system of equations) relating quantities representing measurable aspects (observables) of the world. Some equations are exactly solvable (analytically). Many equations are not exactly solvable. Many different techniques of numerical analysis have been developed (and are currently being developed) to deal with equations that are not exactly solvable. The large majority of contemporary numerical methods involve "computer simulation" approaches, and there are many different computer simulation techniques. (All the preceding statements about equations apply equally to systems of equations.) Hard science is not interested in imprecise theories that are open to multiple interpretations. Hard science is interested in precisely stated unambiguous theories, which means mathematical equations relating quantities that represent observables.
In this context, "theory" and "model" are essentially synonyms. The theory (model) is not the words we use to discuss or describe it. The theory (model) is the equations and the operational definitions of the measurable quantities involved in those equations.
-
shoyemore at 02:57 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
Kevin #31,
Ray did not say "surface warming". He said "climate change", and climate can be influenced in many directions when it comes to a range of phenomena.
Phil's chart (#37) shows that climate change is a multi-factor process, of which the human contribution is only one.
Ray was unaware of this, exposing his lack of understanding ... a strange lack for a scientist who (one would have expected) have examined the evidence for what he was propounding.
Phil actually summarises it very well. Human factors may dominate (that is the claim Ray should have been discussing), but there are other influences.
Moderator Response:[RH] All further discussion of "human contribution" needs to be taken to a more appropriate thread.
-
MA Rodger at 02:25 AM on 2 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
nealjking @88
It is entirely evident from your comment @76, @78 & @88 that the position you took @67 & @70 refers solely to the evaluation of forcing ΔF. I have not been at any time suggesting that Stephan-Boltzmann is so used, proposing rather that it is applicable (and indeed I have show it has been applied) to calculate zero-feedback-sensitivity λo.
So I shall end this interchange here although I shall be now to enquiing elsewhere as to the nature of those "models" reportedly used to calculate λo and report back if I glean any findings. -
barry1487 at 02:21 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
I kind of get what CN is saying. We have no 'need' to work out how the universe began, nor is the the matter a 'problem' that requires us to solve it. We ask because we are curious.
1. Define a question that may be answered analytically.
-
Bob Lacatena at 02:00 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
Climate Newbie, 40,
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think you're being a bit pedantic. So if we rephrase it are you happier?
- Define a question that needs an answer;
- Formulate an explanation for the situation;
- Determine or deduce a prediction based on the explanation;
- Perform tests or experiments to see if the explanation is valid.
-
Kevin8233 at 01:56 AM on 2 April 2013Book review: Cold Cash, Cool Climate by Jonathan Koomey
Koomey also suggests a higher-level approach that he’s found particularly effective:
If you hear someone using such talking points, try asking the speaker these questions: “Do you feel qualified to judge the current findings of the science on combustion, or gravity, or quantum physics? No? Why then do you opine on a topic that is equally complex but upon which you have no more mastery? Why do you think your judgment on these complex issues is the equal of that of people who have studied the topic for decades?”
Typically the speaker will reply with some statement of authority, like “I’ve studied engineering for years”, or “I’m a weather forecaster”, or “my uncle Joe the physicist said so”. Such responses are beside the point. Unless the speaker is an expert in the field, their opinions should be given no more weight than any other uninformed observer. Would you ask your allergist about the heart surgery your cardiologist recommends?
Given the above advice, it is difficult to reconcile with other quotes found on this site;
"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it." Richard Feynman
or
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman
or
Kevin C at 00:44 AM on 23 March, 2013
If it does not have the same title (or has revisions), then presumably the recursive fury paper will need to be withdrawn?
Papers are not retracted for requiring minor clarifications, or even for being subsequently shown to be completely wrong. Papers are retracted for serious misconduct or fraud.
So the author wants us to trust the experts only. But Feynman says to trust the experiments, and that experts can be wrong.
Kevin C has pointed out that even peer reviewed papers can be wrong, and not withdrawn.
So obviously, the answer is not that simple.
-
Bob Lacatena at 01:51 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
Climate Newbie, 37,
Many people misapply that Feynman quote. You might want to look at what I wrote about it a few years ago (after taking the time to put the quote into context by reading the entire speech from which it came, and recognizing the audience and goal of that speech).
-
Climate Newbie at 01:45 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
My own point of view is that the four step process outlined above is a better definition of engineering than science. My main beef is with the first step. Science is not about solving problems, it is about answering questions. When one presumes the existence of a problem, there is already an inherent bias toward prescibing a solution. Real science must start with the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. If that knowledge identifies problems, and possible solutions, that's wonderful, but that is not the essence of science.
Moderator Response: [JH] Your prior post was deleted because you provided no context for your quote. -
KR at 01:44 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
Climate Newbie - "...if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong"
Indeed. With that in mind, it's interesting to see how 'skeptic' predictions fare against the IPCC (skeptic predictions fare poorly). Raymond Pierrehumbert discusses some successful predictions here, and there's an interesting overview of successful climate model predictions - dating back to Arrhenius. Not to mention that has theory has repeatedly proved out over initial (incorrect) measures such as the UAH temperatures.
'Skeptic' predictions, whether of temperature, Arctic ice, or pretty much anything else? They don't fare very well against the data; they are (so far, at least) wrong.
-
Climate Newbie at 01:05 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman
Moderator Response: [JH} Posting quotes without providing context is skating on the thin ice of sloganeering. Please cease and desist. -
Climate Newbie at 01:02 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
[Science] is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. ... The obvious is sometimes false; the unexpected is sometimes true.
— Carl Sagan -
nealjking at 00:58 AM on 2 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
MA Rodger:
The fact that a back-of-the-envelope calculation happens to roughly match another roughly defined quantity does not give a good basis for concluding that that calculation is a valid explanation for the quantity. The linkage has to be shown by the relevant physics, some portion of which I have explained.
Based on what has already been discussed, the formula would match if:
- The entire infrared spectrum were covered by GHG bands (which it is NOT); AND
- The absorption coefficient were a constant function over that range (which it is also NOT).
Since in actual fact, neither are true, there is no applicability of this "derivation" to the EGHE. Don't fall into the freshman's fallacy of finding just some random formula that happens to give the right answer for some lucky combination and assuming that this explains the physics. It doesn't.
If you really want to understand what is going on in a fairly complicated problem like this, you're better off looking to see what people have done, rather than cooking your own explanation. Riccardo's article referenced in #85 would be a good starting point. Beyond that, I have mentioned books by Houghton, Pierrehumbert; and there is probably a paper in Archer's collection of "warming papers". Try looking for these sources before rolling your own. My impression is that the formula didn't get general agreement untiil the 1960's or so; about 100 years after the GHE was conceived. Why do you think the explanation is going to be as simple as that?
-
Phil at 00:10 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
The image below is taken from the SKS article Kevin quotes, and clearly show both natural and anthropogenic contributions to global warming.
Ray's point
I... have yet to be convinced that climate change is caused only by humans.
Is clearly valid when talking about climate change in general, but incorrect when talking about the specific instance of the climate change that is happening now, where have anthropogenic contributions have been shown to predominmate.
Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed image width. -
Tom Curtis at 23:59 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray @27, I don't think it is fair to Lakatos to say that is work "followed on" from Kuhn. It would be better to say that it "followed on" from Popper (whose student Lakatos was), differing from Popper almost exclusively in properly accounting for the Duhem-Quine thesis. Despite that, both Kuhn and Lakatos recognized the remarkable similarities of their theories. Indeed, both agreed that where it not for one issue, they would be essentially the same theory. That issue was "incomensurability", Kuhn's thesis that paradigms could not be understood from within the framework of competing paradigms. Lakatos rightly rejected that thesis as irrational, and clearly false.
The problem is, it is that thesis, and only that thesis that you appear to have drawn from Kuhn. You have flushed away all that is valuable in Kuhn, and retained only the dross. The simple fact is that if "paradigms"/"scientific research programs" are not incomesurable (as Kuhn would have it), then an acceptor of one paradigm can recognize what is valuable and what is dross in another paradigm. Given that, while there may be biases against unpopular or improbable theories, these biases will be a consequence of the fact that scientists are human and have human emotions. They will not be systemic, and they will not preclude original or valuable advances with any merit.
Indeed, the history of climate science shows that climate scientists are willing to try any theory that shows minimum plausibility. The extent of funding for research into Svenmarks theory of climate modulation by cosmic rays shows climate scientists do not, in general, supress rival theories.
Unfortunately the authors of those rival theories are not so generous. They appear to want their theories to be accepted without first meeting the tedious requirement of empirical confirmation that has been met by the standard theory. Indeed, the only epistomological bar placed on alternate theories is not empirical success, but only that it be "anything but CO2".
-
MA Rodger at 23:46 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
nealjking @78.
I shall be less cryptic than @77.
The forcing ΔF resulting from ΔCO2 is not at issue. As TAR describes this relationship can be presented usefully in its simplest form thus:-
ΔF = 5.35 In(C/Co) W/sq m
The issue at hand concerns only the global temperature change ΔT resulting from ΔF and specifically that change when feedbacks are zero. I have no definitive reference to state what method is used within climatology to calculate that value. Yet they do calculate it and do so with far more precision than ΔT with all feedbacks (as the relative imprecision of ECS estimates shows).
So what is that method?
(a) It is a "relatively straightforward" calculation according to AR4 so we seek nothing fancy.
(b) It yields a number "1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%)" (although that is for 4 Wm^-2) according to TAR.
(c) I recall from years ago many references saying it was calculated using the Stephan-Boltzmann equation but today I see nothing definitive to point you at.
(d) I do not recall seeing any alternative method for this calculation.
(e) And (bar internet searches topping out with a denialist force →100% Watts/sq page) I do find climatologists saying Stephan-Bortzmann provides a zero-feedback ΔT, eg Roe & Baker using it to calculate zero-feedback-sensitivity λo. Particulalry note Chris Colose posting at RealClimate who describes such a use of Stephan-Boltzmann as a 'back-of-envelope calculating' yielding λo=0.27°C/Wm^-2 while models yield λo=0.30-0.31°C/Wm^-2 or "about ~1.2°C" for double CO2.
Thus I can but conclude that Stephan-Boltzmann is applicable in the context of the enhanced greenhouse effect. And that it does yield a reasonable answer (ie. of 'about 1°C' which is what is commonly quoted). And while "models" are used to improve accuracy, Stephan-Boltzmann does a pretty good job without recourse to those "models" which is so often the point of departure for folk of a denialist disposition, this last point being why the methods used should perhaps be better known.
Prev 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 Next
