Climate change

[PassedOut]

So tell me again, what are the consequences of minimal action (eg continuing the slow move towards cleaner energy sources) that you know (100%) will occur? Forget "potential consequences" - one of the potential consequences of orbiting the Sun is that we collide with a dark asteroid next week wiping out all life on Earth. Playing the potential disaster card has little to do with science.

That's where we differ -- it's precisely the potential consequences that cannot be forgotten or ignored.

 

No one knows "100%" what will occur, and I certainly hope that whatever is actually done in fact does not turn the situation into a catastrophe. But we do know that pumping billions of tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere every year causes at least a portion of global warming, and that portion is under mankind's control. Your "dark asteroid" is not. We don't know for sure exactly what will happen when, for example, melting of the permafrost releases more and more methane into the atmosphere. We do know that the rapid and potentially irreversible melting of ice on Greenland and Antarctica would be a catastrophe.

 

It's a mistake to forget about potential consequences -- even when those consequences are not certain to happen -- if those potential consequences are catastrophic and we have ways to address them. I didn't lump Judith Curry with the crackpots and pinheads (and you know that), and it's always right for scientists to question, criticize, examine, and refine. The issue here is about mitigating risk.

[Al_U_Card]

That's where we differ -- it's precisely the potential consequences that cannot be forgotten or ignored.

 

No one knows "100%" what will occur, and I certainly hope that whatever is actually done in fact does not turn the situation into a catastrophe. But we do know that pumping billions of tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere every year causes at least a portion of global warming, and that portion is under mankind's control. Your "dark asteroid" is not. We don't know for sure exactly what will happen when, for example, melting of the permafrost releases more and more methane into the atmosphere. We do know that the rapid and potentially irreversible melting of ice on Greenland and Antarctica would be a catastrophe.

 

It's a mistake to forget about potential consequences -- even when those consequences are not certain to happen -- if those potential consequences are catastrophic and we have ways to address them. I didn't lump Judith Curry with the crackpots and pinheads (and you know that), and it's always right for scientists to question, criticize, examine, and refine. The issue here is about mitigating risk.

And that mitigation's relative importance is measured how? Dollar value? Less tangible parameters? What price compliance.? Any price? Our entire GNP for how many degrees C? Can we be more specific than spewing and we're all gonna die?

[PassedOut]

And that mitigation's relative importance is measured how? Dollar value? Less tangible parameters? What price compliance.? Any price? Our entire GNP for how many degrees C? Can we be more specific than spewing and we're all gonna die?

No one says "we're all gonna die." Only alarmists who fear free markets throw out foolishness like "our entire GNP."

[cherdano]

Zel, I am curious: do you know what the greenhouse gas effect is and how it works precisely?

[Zelandakh]

Zel, I am curious: do you know what the greenhouse gas effect is and how it works precisely?

As it happens I do, perhaps not perfectly in terms of the precise mechanisms behind stratoshperic cooling and other upper atmosphere heat transfer effects but well enough. Very early on I naively looked up the greenhouse effect for CO2 and was shocked to find out how negligible it is once the proportion of gas gets above a certain level. Thankfully I did not stop there but looked further into feedbacks, which is to some extent the secret of the whole thing. If the only issue was the direct greenhouse effect, AIU would be correct for the most part.

 

The problem that JC and others raise is that these feedbacks can be modelled in many different ways. And inputs from such natural forces as clouds and ocean currents are also still not really known. The result is that it is difficult to separate the natural from human activity and thereby pinpoint an exact sensitivity for the overall effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. And this sensitivity turns out to be critical when it comes to the models. In fact, the long term trend in models tends to match the built-in sensitivity almost precisely, with much of the complexity serving as noise around this trend line.

 

My view has for some time been that we have the technology available to resolve the issue, for example through aeroforming devices (artificial trees). Rather the question is about who ends up footing the bill. I do try to keep abreast of advances in climate science though and tend to go through a mass overview every few years in addition to scanning some key websites that I keep as favourites every now and then. What I object to is when people publish a chart, paper or article and try to claim it says something beyond what it does. Climate science is an area that has few absolutes. Different sources very often contradict each other and there are serious issues with the reliability of some of the statistics used.

 

On BBF, obviously AIU is the chief abuser of this and that is why I perhaps sometimes come across on the pro side. However, I am just as willing to post something on the skeptical side when I see someone overstepping the bounds. I do wish that more links to balanced articles were posted here but as everyone else seems to have a fairly polar position by now, the chances of this becoming a regular occurrence seem to have faded beyond hope.

[Al_U_Card]

No one says "we're all gonna die." Only alarmists who fear free markets throw out foolishness like "our entire GNP."

So, would you be willing to spend 2 billion to save 2 million children from....malaria?

 

How about 2 trillion to save 50 million climate "refugees"? (That MAY be created IF modeled, worst case scenarios, come to pass in a thermagheddon end-of-humanity-as-we-know-it)

 

Think of all those children, who are all gonna die, if we don't (and haven't to date) take the necessary steps because the free market is spending elsewhere.

 

Hyperbole notwithstanding, the kids are real and so is their plight.

[PassedOut]

The same Ben Santer that changed the 1995 attribution statement from no discernable effect to mankind having an influence?

 

The same Ben Santer that said that 15 years of no global temperature rise would falsify the (his) models and them changed it to 17 when 15 years had passed?

 

The same Ben Santer who,in the climategate emails, said that he wanted to do bodily harm to opponents of his stance on global warming?

 

Yup, just a typical climate scientist, for sure...

I see that there's an article about you in the Guardian: Doubts about the science are being replaced by doubts about the motives of scientists and their political supporters.

 

The politics of climate change poses a stark dilemma for anyone wanting to push back against the purveyors of post-truth. Should they bide their time and trust that the facts will win out in the end? Or do they use the evidence as weapons in the political fight, in which case they risk confirming the suspicion that they have gone beyond the facts? It is not just climate scientists who find themselves in this bind. Economists making the case against Brexit found that the more they insisted on agreement inside the profession about the dangers, the more it was viewed with suspicion from the outside by people who regarded it as a political con.

 

Post-truth politics also poses a problem for scepticism. A healthy democracy needs to leave plenty of room for doubt. There are lots of good reasons to be doubtful about what the reality of climate change will entail: though there is scientific agreement about the fact of global warming and its source in human activity, the ultimate risks are very uncertain and so are the long-term consequences. There is plenty of scope for disagreement about the most effective next steps. The existence of a very strong scientific consensus does not mean there should be a consensus about the correct political response. But the fact of the scientific consensus has produced an equal and opposite reaction that squeezes the room for reasonable doubt. The certainty among the scientists has engendered the most intolerant kind of scepticism among the doubters.

 

Not all climate sceptics are part of the alt-right. But everyone in the alt-right is now a climate sceptic. Thats what makes the politics so toxic. It means that climate scepticism is being driven out by climate cynicism. A sceptic questions the evidence for a given claim and asks whether it is believable. A cynic questions the motives of the people who deploy the evidence, regardless of whether it is believable or not. Any attempt to defend the facts gets presented as evidence that the facts simply suit the interests of the people peddling them.

[PassedOut]

My view has for some time been that we have the technology available to resolve the issue, for example through aeroforming devices (artificial trees). Rather the question is about who ends up footing the bill.

That technology is promising, for sure, but I'm skeptical about whether it will "resolve the issue" if the temperatures start to escalate rapidly, with large methane releases from the melting permafrost and with greater heat absorption following the loss of snow cover and arctic ice. And even if this (and other) technologies do resolve the issue in the future, that approach amounts to forcing our children and grandchildren to pay for devices needed to clean up after our irresponsible behavior, diverting money that they could use to advance their own interests.

 

In my experience, it's unwise to place a great deal of trust in untried technologies, however promising they seem. To me, the fact that we can't say for certain that the eventual impact of our releases won't lead to catastrophic melting argues against taking that risk.

[Zelandakh]

That's where we differ -- it's precisely the potential consequences that cannot be forgotten or ignored.

Potential consequences should indeed not be ignored but they should be weighed against the probability of their occurrence and against the cost of taking out insurance against the event happening. This is after all why nuclear power stations are being built even though the potential consequences of failure are higher than most alternatives and, on a more mundane level, why we might choose to fly rather than taking the train.

 

The "billions of tons" expression is a favourite of yours and is generally employed to provoke an emotional response. Of course there are many things that man does that impact on the environment - about 8 million tons of plastic dumped in the ocean every year with a total of about 5 trillion pieces floating about; increasing levels of dichloromethane in the atmosphere; the effects of fertlisers, herbicides and pesticides on rivers and other waterways; the usage of antibiotics leading to the creation of more potent and resilient forms of disease; acid rain (the forgotten effect of fossil fuel burning); electromagnetic fields generated in urban areas; slash and burn farming; and many, many more.

 

Look into many areas and the potential consequences are terrible. Nuclear weapons can go missing, biological agents can escape containment, lottery software can get cracked allowing a rogue organisation to obtain billions of dollars. Should the USA therefore scrap all of its weapons, stores of diseases and state lotteries? Sometimes the known risks of taking preventative measures are greater than the potential consequences of not doing so.

 

Now I am not saying that that is the case for climate change. What I am saying is that such decisions have to be made understanding what the risks and probabilities are and without allowing emotive but meaningless arguments to sway the case. Those that deal in absolutes are missing the point. Even the IPCC grossly overstates their certainties in many areas imho. What would be great is if scientists were able to discuss the issue without the political backdrop but sadly it seems as if that ship has long since sailed. Therefore I regard the work of JC, arguably the most distinguished scientist on the skeptical side, as highly valuable and practically essential reading for anyone strongly interested in the subject.

 

The link I provided at her website is one that discusses these risks and uncertainties in some degree of detail. Rather than repeat large chunks of that article, I would suggest that you read it. In particular, the 3 further links that JC provides relating to "fat tails" might of particular interest to you:-

Tall tales and fat tails

Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail

Worst case scenario versus fat tail

 

...and in addition this one, which refers to climate change alarmism. This is a large and difficult area but one in which JC is particularly active. It was indeed the original basis for her creating her website. It would be wrong for me to say that I personally have a complete understanding of all of the probabilities and uncertainties (I'm a maths graduate not a computer) but at least these articles should provide us with some sort of frame of reference for further discussion if you want to continue this. If nothing else, it has to be more interesting than 2 year old graphs being posted without reference to their origin or sources.

[Daniel1960]

Potential consequences should indeed not be ignored but they should be weighed against the probability of their occurrence and against the cost of taking out insurance against the event happening. This is after all why nuclear power stations are being built even though the potential consequences of failure are higher than most alternatives and, on a more mundane level, why we might choose to fly rather than taking the train.

 

The "billions of tons" expression is a favourite of yours and is generally employed to provoke an emotional response. Of course there are many things that man does that impact on the environment - about 8 million tons of plastic dumped in the ocean every year with a total of about 5 trillion pieces floating about; increasing levels of dichloromethane in the atmosphere; the effects of fertlisers, herbicides and pesticides on rivers and other waterways; the usage of antibiotics leading to the creation of more potent and resilient forms of disease; acid rain (the forgotten effect of fossil fuel burning); electromagnetic fields generated in urban areas; slash and burn farming; and many, many more.

 

Look into many areas and the potential consequences are terrible. Nuclear weapons can go missing, biological agents can escape containment, lottery software can get cracked allowing a rogue organisation to obtain billions of dollars. Should the USA therefore scrap all of its weapons, stores of diseases and state lotteries? Sometimes the known risks of taking preventative measures are greater than the potential consequences of not doing so.

 

Now I am not saying that that is the case for climate change. What I am saying is that such decisions have to be made understanding what the risks and probabilities are and without allowing emotive but meaningless arguments to sway the case. Those that deal in absolutes are missing the point. Even the IPCC grossly overstates their certainties in many areas imho. What would be great is if scientists were able to discuss the issue without the political backdrop but sadly it seems as if that ship has long since sailed. Therefore I regard the work of JC, arguably the most distinguished scientist on the skeptical side, as highly valuable and practically essential reading for anyone strongly interested in the subject.

 

The link I provided at her website is one that discusses these risks and uncertainties in some degree of detail. Rather than repeat large chunks of that article, I would suggest that you read it. In particular, the 3 further links that JC provides relating to "fat tails" might of particular interest to you:-

Tall tales and fat tails

Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail

Worst case scenario versus fat tail

 

...and in addition this one, which refers to climate change alarmism. This is a large and difficult area but one in which JC is particularly active. It was indeed the original basis for her creating her website. It would be wrong for me to say that I personally have a complete understanding of all of the probabilities and uncertainties (I'm a maths graduate not a computer) but at least these articles should provide us with some sort of frame of reference for further discussion if you want to continue this. If nothing else, it has to be more interesting than 2 year old graphs being posted without reference to their origin or sources.

 

Zel,

I tend to agree. The "potential" consequences are all over the place. One could even compare it to North Korea and its ICBMs. The potential consequences are catastrophic, but the possibility of them occuring are largely unknown. Should we strike first, to prevent a "potential" castrophe? The consequences of such an action are better known, but are they preferred over doing nothing?

 

Climate action is similar, perhaps even less certain. While we know the consequences of a North Korean first strike, we do not know the outcome of doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Many scientists claim that the negative effects of increased levels will not overcome the positive effects, until global temperatures rise ~1.8C. We are not even sure what CO2 level would prompt such a rise. Many proposals to combat rising CO2 levels are lacking in details. How can we accomplish such goals, without the needed understanding. Without a viable alternative, going completely carbon-free in global energy production would be a disaster for all. Our infrastructure would crumble. Committing to a 50% reduction, which would double or triple energy costs is better, but still rather burdensome on those who can least afford it. Perhaps some day we will develop the technology need to replace current energy sources. But until that day, placing onerous burdens on the people, in order to mitigate a "potential" problem, seems rather foolish.

[Al_U_Card]

If an asteroid is discovered and found to be on a collision course with the earth, I know that the observations are reliable and the calculations are valid for the prediction of imminent disaster.

The climate models use so many theorized and estimated factors that they cannot even predict next year's temperature and are not fit for the purpose of determining policy for future climate conditions. CO2 is their whipping boy but what if it turns out that the sun, or orbital perturbations or ocean circulation are vastly more relevent?

Changing the climate has yet to be linked to CO2 EXCEPT in the model projections that have thus far proven to be grossly inaccurate. Time for a reality check.

[Zelandakh]

CO2 is their whipping boy but what if it turns out that the sun, or orbital perturbations or ocean circulation are vastly more relevent?

Some JC articles discussing these points:-

Possible underestimation of solar forcing

Possible Links between undersea volcanoes and Milankevitch cycles

. Ocean cycles have, for example, offered a potential answer to the observed 30 year trends within the temperature record through the

Stadium wave hypothesis

The role of oceans in climate science

 

Of course, the direct answer to your question is really another question - what if they are not? There is not a reputable scientist anywhere claiming that the current evidence supports any alternative mechanism being the main driver for the warming.

[Al_U_Card]

Some JC articles discussing these points:-

Possible underestimation of solar forcing

Possible Links between undersea volcanoes and Milankevitch cycles

. Ocean cycles have, for example, offered a potential answer to the observed 30 year trends within the temperature record through the

Stadium wave hypothesis

The role of oceans in climate science

 

Of course, the direct answer to your question is really another question - what if they are not? There is not a reputable scientist anywhere claiming that the current evidence supports any alternative mechanism being the main driver for the warming.

"There is not a reputable scientist anywhere claiming that the current evidence supports any alternative mechanism being the main driver for the warming."

 

Argument from ignorance. Despite this, the only "evidence" for CO2 having a significant contribution resides in the models (parameterized to show this) and their amplification of water vapour effects. (Water vapour, the real greenhouse gas, n'est-pas?) The latest grand solar maximum has certainly contributed to the most recent rise in global temperatures as part of the latest warming since the little ice age. Current and future (projected) solar inactivity may well slow this warming trend, if it has not already started to do so. Adjustments to temperature reading notwithstanding.

[Zelandakh]

"There is not a reputable scientist anywhere claiming that the current evidence supports any alternative mechanism being the main driver for the warming."

 

Argument from ignorance. Despite this, the only "evidence" for CO2 having a significant contribution resides in the models (parameterized to show this) and their amplification of water vapour effects.

You realise that even scientists on the skeptical side estimate an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in the 1.6-2.0 degree range? The idea that CO2 has no significant contribution is so far from the observed data as to fall into PassedOut's "crackpot" bucket. What is true is that the median ECS used in models is around 3.4 degrees, almost double the value skeptics claim from observations, and this is something that probably needs to be addressed in the next generation of models. But, as so often in climate science, it depends on how you go about calculating the climate sensitivity. Calculate it differently and you can get as high as 3.0 degrees. What you cannot do from good quality observations is produce an ECS of negligible magnitude - sorry but that is just rubbish.

[Daniel1960]

You realise that even scientists on the skeptical side estimate an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in the 1.6-2.0 degree range? The idea that CO2 has no significant contribution is so far from the observed data as to fall into PassedOut's "crackpot" bucket. What is true is that the median ECS used in models is around 3.4 degrees, almost double the value skeptics claim from observations, and this is something that probably needs to be addressed in the next generation of models. But, as so often in climate science, it depends on how you go about calculating the climate sensitivity. Calculate it differently and you can get as high as 3.0 degrees. What you cannot do from good quality observations is produce an ECS of negligible magnitude - sorry but that is just rubbish.

 

High climate sensitivies are derived by high feedback factors. In the absence of high feedbacks, the climate sensitivity is much lower. The following paper gives a brief, but complicated analyses:

 

https://www.ma.utexas.edu/mp_arc/c/11/11-16.pdf

[cherdano]

High climate sensitivies are derived by high feedback factors. In the absence of high feedbacks, the climate sensitivity is much lower. The following paper gives a brief, but complicated analyses:

 

https://www.ma.utexas.edu/mp_arc/c/11/11-16.pdf

 

"Complicated", but obviously non-sense.

[cherdano]

Very early on I naively looked up the greenhouse effect for CO2 and was shocked to find out how negligible it is once the proportion of gas gets above a certain level.

Can you quantify this? Can you provide a reference?

[Zelandakh]

"Complicated", but obviously non-sense.

Here is another one in the same style from the same author. I think he is a physicist because I found a number of papers under the name in that general area. Exactly why he tried to transfer from neutron stars to climate is unclear but I could not find anything more recent than the 2011 paper linked by Daniel so it would seem likely that the switch was unsuccessful.

[cherdano]

Here is another one in the same style from the same author. I think he is a physicist because I found a number of papers under the name in that general area. Exactly why he tried to transfer from neutron stars to climate is unclear but I could not find anything more recent than the 2011 paper linked by Daniel so it would seem likely that the switch was unsuccessful.

 

Lol:

. But, if the temperature of black body is infnite,

the Kirchhoff law, on which the Schwarzschild equation is based, has not been found. Surprisingly,

climate scientists have ignored this inconsistency until Weaver and Ramanathan

[11] have resolved the problem in 1995.

 

I think he should change careers and start proving that pi is rational. Would be just as beneficial, but there would be fewer idiots being misled by what he does.

[mike777]

posters continue to ignore....as well as most people that solar will continue to make huge...fast gains in market share regarding electrical generation.

 

I fully grant these gains in energy and medicine rely in innovation when it comes to nano

[Daniel1960]

"Complicated", but obviously non-sense.

 

The only nonsense is those who refuse to understand the physics and mechanisms involved. Granted, he took some liberties in mixing clouds in with water vapor. Clouds have a very different affect, which is not uniform. Many differing climate sensitivity calculations stem from whether the cloud feedback is a net positive or negative. To quote Joni Mitchell, "we really don't know clouds at all."

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n4/full/ngeo2398.html

[Al_U_Card]

This just in: Continued low solar activity will tend to encourage formation of a blocking high over Greenland. This, in turn, affects the flow of the jet stream leading to much colder winters in Europe.

 

Maybe some of those "future" climate refugees would be kind enough to send you some global warming? ;)

[Zelandakh]

This just in: Continued low solar activity will tend to encourage formation of a blocking high over Greenland. This, in turn, affects the flow of the jet stream leading to much colder winters in Europe.

This paper? Or did you have another in mind?

 

One additional event linked with low solar activity is the Greenland ice sheet melting more quickly due to warm water being diverted in that direction. Presumably you would encourage that as providing more habitable land for people to live and grow food on... :unsure: Shame about the land in other parts of the world falling under the resulting sea-level increase. :lol:

[Daniel1960]

This paper? Or did you have another in mind?

 

One additional event linked with low solar activity is the Greenland ice sheet melting more quickly due to warm water being diverted in that direction. Presumably you would encourage that as providing more habitable land for people to live and grow food on... :unsure: Shame about the land in other parts of the world falling under the resulting sea-level increase. :lol:

 

It seems as if scientists are conflicted as to the cause of the changes in Greenland. Last year, phys.org published an article in which it claims that increased clouds is raising the temperature in Grrenland by 2-3C, resulting in accelerated melt.

 

https://phys.org/news/2016-01-greenland-ice-sheet-cloudy.html

 

Then last month, the same site publishes an article stating that a marked decrease in clouds is responsible for the temperature rise and accelerated melt.

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-summer-sunshine-greenland-ice.html

 

I wonder what they will say has been responsible for the stark increase in Greenland's ice mass this year.

 

http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

[Winstonm]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/07/12/one-of-the-biggest-icebergs-in-recorded-history-just-broke-loose-from-antarctica/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_iceberg-810am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c2d1be31bbb6

Scientists announced Wednesday that a much anticipated break at the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica has occurred, unleashing a massive iceberg that is more than 2,200 square miles in area and weighs a trillion tons.

 

In other words, the iceberg — among the largest in recorded history to splinter off the Antarctic continent — is close to the size of Delaware and consists of almost four times as much ice as the fast melting ice sheet of Greenland loses in a year. It is expected to be given the name “A68” soon, scientists said.

 

“Its volume is twice that of Lake Erie, one of the Great Lakes,” wrote researchers with Project MIDAS, a research group at Swansea and Aberystwyth Universities in Wales that has been monitoring the situation closely by satellite