Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

McIntyre is now reduced to self parody.

http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/12/mo-money-mo-problems/

You're enjoying the show too, aren't you ? We always knew this would come, but it's sooner than I expected. Then again, so have quite a few things, like Arctic sea-ice being on its farewell tour.

 

[Furcifer]

The problem isn't well meaning scientists or lay people. It's those people that have the well known disorder, the Authoritarian Liberal Progressive Controller Personality Disorder whether or not it has morphed into the full blown megalomelanoma of EcoFascism.

That combined with their lack of science background. I've spent almost a week explaining how a constant 1% increase is linear when you're talking about the rate of emissions. You'd think something as simple as "It's 1% then it's 1% and then it's 1%, so it doesn't change and it therefore constant" would be a no brainer but it isn't, it's always a fight over the simplest of things.

In addition to wanting to control everything they want to appear like they are experts. It doesn't take very long to see they lack some very basic fundamentals. By I try to help them when I can, it's part of being skeptical in a room of believers.

 

[Reality Check]

So what? Forgive me for pointing this out, but I find this is quite typical of the alarmist mindset. There's such a panic about the problem they don't stop to think about "what".

So what. Forgive me for pointing this out yet again, but I I am not an alramist and find your assumption that I am insulting.

What did the $13 Billion spent on carbon trading do for the problem last year? What effect did all of the wind turbines erected, and the billions spent, do last year, that's "what".

I would say little since the trend is still upwards.

The "what" is that no one with any knowledge of the situation expects the reductions to be instantly reflected in the measurements. What they expect initially is a decrease in the rate of increase of the rate of increase.
I would expect a time lag in results given that there are reservoirs of CO2( e.g oceans and forests) but would have to do some research to confirm this (unless a more knowledgeable person here knows). So the last years Mauna Loa data probably does not not reflect the CO2 emitted in the last year but the CO2 emitted in the last several years.

People like the make the analogy that this is a car heading for a brick wall. Now we're pumping the brakes and nothing is happening but the guy in the back seat keeps screaming "pump harder!". Without a working speedometer it's impossible to tell if if it's working or if we're just exercising our legs.

That is an insane analogy - there are many working speedometers. The Mauna Loa observations are just one such 'speedometers'.
And once again: No one expects the emission reduction to work instantly like brakes.

A better analogy would be a car heading for a brick wall with a properly functioning speedometer. Some people are pressing on the accelerator. Some people are pressing on the brakes. At the moment the the people pressing the accelerator are winning. The CO2 emission controls are allowing the people pressing the brakes to press them harder. Hopefully the brakes will take effect and stop the care before it hits the wall.

You're going on faith because you'll notice the good folks at Mauna Loa say otherwise.

There is no faith invoved. The fact is that spenting money to reduce CO2 emissions will reduce CO2 emissions and you agree with mne below.

I'm not saying these don't reduce CO2, it's obvious they do, what I'm saying is you're going on faith that this is an effective way of dealing with the problem.

Your are wrong: Since CO2 is the primary driver of global warming, it is physically obvious that reducing CO2 will reduct global warming.

Whether the current steps being taken are effective or not is important for the future.

If these measures don't have any effect on the problem then the immediacy of them being implemented isn't as great.

If measures don't have any effect on the problem then the immediacy of them being implementedon a larger scale is even more immediate.
One more time: If you send money on reducing CO2 emissions then CO2 emissions will be reduced.
Obvuoulsy the amount of money being spent is not enough to reduce CO2 emissions enough to show up in the current data. The solutions include

• Spending more money.
• Spending the same amount of money more effectively.
• Stop spending money, crossing your fingers and hoping that 97% of climate scientists are wrong .

If that's the case then it stands to reason alarmism is hurting our effort not helping it. That's something to consider.

The current policies on CO2 reductions are not based on the minority opionions of alarmists or deniers or warmers or any other climate cranks.
They are based largely on the scientific evidence but with a dollop of politcial considerations that are outside of the scope of this thread (and section of the forum).

 

[CapelDodger]

The only reason holocaust denial comes to everyone's mind is because it's the most well known because it's the most offensive and insane.

As I mentioned, I think AGW denial is the better known these days. Holocaust denial had its arc, but it really went away by the 21stCE. Even European Nazis have given up on it (in public, and who knows from Lithunia anyway?), and with Moslems being the new Jews, why harp on about all that?

This "offence" line is painfully fabricated, but this is where the deniers are going as reality inexorably cuts the ground from under them. All that bile is going to get turned inwards, mark my words. That always happens with European Nazis, so why not with AGW deniers?

 

[Reality Check]

So it's linear and 0.5%, that's even less alarming. Thanks.

No - it is not linear but the average annual increase over the 10 years is about 0.5% (0.537%).

You can fit a straight line to this data but you can generally fit a straight line to any set of data if you throw away most of it.

The fact is that the 30 years of data from Mauna Loa are not linear. They start with a certain rate of increase and end up with a larger rate of increase.

This is something a high school student with a ruler can see: there is no way to put a straight line through the 30 years of Mauna Loa that falls inside of the annual changes in the data. The annual changes are much, much larger than the measurement error.
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/tren...nnmean_mlo.txt has a yearly average uncertainty of 0.12 ppm. The annual changes are ~6 ppm.

 

[ThunderChunky]

That combined with their lack of science background. I've spent almost a week explaining how a constant 1% increase is linear when you're talking about the rate of emissions. You'd think something as simple as "It's 1% then it's 1% and then it's 1%, so it doesn't change and it therefore constant" would be a no brainer but it isn't, it's always a fight over the simplest of things.

In addition to wanting to control everything they want to appear like they are experts. It doesn't take very long to see they lack some very basic fundamentals. By I try to help them when I can, it's part of being skeptical in a room of believers.

I have a science background and I still don't know if I understand you. An annual 1% increase is not linear, it's exponential. I suppose what you might mean is the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 (or emissions, whichever value you are using) is constant. That's somewhat of a pedantic point. The rate of emissions is not the rate of increase of emissions. Two distinct values.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's still possible to refer to them as AGW deniers but still review their books, engage them in debate and debunk their work. The term doesn't carry all of these other associations you want it to. This is what the deniers want because it would serve their main goal which is to get people to think of them as an oppressed minority which is hogwash.

Absolutely, playing the victim. This is the community which has dedicated itself to calling named individuals corrupt liars and entire scientific disciplines fraudulent "junk-science"; many members of said community have been involved in denying other environmental hazards; but they want to be the victims. Just like any failing cult.

 

[Mikemcc]

I have a science background and I still don't know if I understand you. An annual 1% increase is not linear, it's exponential. I suppose what you might mean is the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 (or emissions, whichever value you are using) is constant. That's somewhat of a pedantic point. The rate of emissions is not the rate of increase of emissions. Two distinct values.

If we are looking at emissions, the situation is even more non-linear!

Graph of emission data taken from here.

 

[Reality Check]

And dodge noted. I asked when we could see a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and the current accepted sensitivity of +2.5C at the current rate of 0.5% but nobody has been forthcoming.

The reason that no one has answered your "doubling of atmospheric CO2" question is two-fold:

1. It depends on the future emission of CO2.
2. The estimates for the various scenarios are easy to look up, e.g. see Carbon Dioxide: Projected emissions and concentrations.

 

[Reality Check]

lol, I Googled "climate model study impact 1% increase in CO2 per year " and these were the papers on the very first pages. That's the furthest thing from cherry picking.

I agree that is not cherry picking. But there are signs of incompetence in your research

1. Do not use Goggle to research scientific subjects because you will get millions of web pages included. Use Goggle Scholar if you have no access to anything else.
   Then you have about 134,000 papers to look at rather than millions of results.
2. Do not just throw the first X results into the thread. That is spamming.
   You need to read and understand each paper's abstract at least. If the abstract does not ccontain your search term then read the paper. If you do not have access to the paper then posting the citation is close to spamming.
3. Strongly consider restricting your results to the last decade or so.
   Otherwise you will (as you have) pick up older papers using outdated models that have been shown to be wrong (or limited in their application).

 

[Furcifer]

I have a science background and I still don't know if I understand you. An annual 1% increase is not linear, it's exponential. I suppose what you might mean is the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 (or emissions, whichever value you are using) is constant. That's somewhat of a pedantic point. The rate of emissions is not the rate of increase of emissions. Two distinct values.

We were talking about climate models and emissions scenarios that could lead to a +7C planet.

When they input the CO2 level it's based on a compound 1% increase. The increase is always 1% above the previous years levels (at least in most surveys, some use ranges, but most use the 1%)

The actual increase is constant at 0.5%, but it seems many of the models just use CO2 and not all of the GHG's. Apparently that's why they use 1%, and it makes sense. Unless of course the purpose of the study is only about emissions levels, then they tend to use ranges.

I know it's just people being deliberately naive, no one could be this clueless. If you happened to say "The velocity due to gravity is constant" I wouldn't think twice about it because I know enough to know you meant acceleration. Why this has taken a week of explaining is quite frankly bizarre. Every year we release more CO2 into the air, it's about 1% greater every year.

Maybe I'm just not seeing something here? It seems so basic.

 

[Ferguson]

That just doesn't make sense. A constant is linear by definition. You are wrong.

I don't know if you understand physics or not but you're saying here amounts to "a constant acceleration isn't constant because the velocity increases". It pure baloney.

No, it isn't. You are wrong.
You're still acting like you don't understand percent. A constant acceleration would be 'the speed increases 10mph/h.' If the acceleration is 10%/h it is absolutely not constant, it's geometric.

 

[Furcifer]

No, it isn't. You are wrong.
You're still acting like you don't understand percent. A constant acceleration would be 'the speed increases 10mph/h.' If the acceleration is 10%/h it is absolutely not constant, it's geometric.

If the acceleration is 1.01g it's constant. I'm absolutely positive.

 

[Furcifer]

No, it isn't. You are wrong.
You're still acting like you don't understand percent. A constant acceleration would be 'the speed increases 10mph/h.' If the acceleration is 10%/h it is absolutely not constant, it's geometric.

I'm going to explain this as best as I can. It seems pretty straightforward to me but here goes.

The increase is an average. So as I've pointed out, it the acceleration increase to 1.01g after a year, that's 1%.

Over the following year the acceleration goes from 1.01g to 1.0201g. That's an increase of 1%.
The next year there is another 1% increase, the acceleration goes from 1.0201g to 1.030301g.

It should be very obvious the increase is constant at 1%. Not the difference, or delta increase, the percentage increase in acceleration. It's 1% every year.

Why is this so hard to understand

 

[CapelDodger]

We were talking about climate models and emissions scenarios that could lead to a +7C planet.

No we weren't.

When they input the CO2 level it's based on a compound 1% increase.

It was in the models you referenced, but they weren't global climate models. They were designed to investigate particular aspects of climate response to warming, such as tropical storm behaviour and deep ocean heat-uptake.

"They" do not always input a 1% cumulative increase in CO₂ into global predictive models. In fact the models are run against a suite of emissions scenarios, because nobody (not even you) knows what the actual emissions outcome will be. Many will involve falling emissions at some point in the scenario.

The increase is always 1% above the previous years levels (at least in most surveys, some use ranges, but most use the 1%)

No they don't. Surveys? You seem to be a little adrift.

The actual increase is constant at 0.5%, but it seems many of the models just use CO2 and not all of the GHG's.

If your model is built to probe tropial storm behaviour in a warming and warmed world you're not going to factor in methane from premafrost melt. You'll go with CO₂ and water vapour, which is quite enough to be getting on with.

Apparently that's why they use 1%, and it makes sense.

It seems to have become standard when emissions are an arbitrary factor, from the number of references you've Googled up. It doesn't apply to global predictive models, of course.

Unless of course the purpose of the study is only about emissions levels, then they tend to use ranges.

They use ranges for what? This is semantically void.

I know it's just people being deliberately naive, no one could be this clueless.

You prove yourself wrong.

If you happened to say "The velocity due to gravity is constant" I wouldn't think twice about it because I know enough to know you meant acceleration.

I'd think "he doesn't have a clue", and I'd be right.

Why this has taken a week of explaining is quite frankly bizarre. Every year we release more CO2 into the air, it's about 1% greater every year.

With all the promise that exponentiality always brings. Linear gets you there in the end, but exponential is the smart way to riches.

As to CO₂ emissions, the data is so noisy that a 1% annual increase in the rate of emissions is not discernible with any statistical significance. We're talking the second derivative here.

[quoe]Maybe I'm just not seeing something here? It seems so basic.[/quote]

That's the Dunning-Krueger factor. You know so little that you believe you know all that matters, and most of what you think you know ain't so.

 

[mhaze]

I'm going to explain this as best as I can. It seems pretty straightforward to me but here goes.

The increase is an average. So as I've pointed out, it the acceleration increase to 1.01g after a year, that's 1%.

Over the following year the acceleration goes from 1.01g to 1.0201g. That's an increase of 1%.
The next year there is another 1% increase, the acceleration goes from 1.0201g to 1.030301g.

It should be very obvious the increase is constant at 1%. Not the difference, or delta increase, the percentage increase in acceleration. It's 1% every year.

Why is this so hard to understand

I think I can explain it. It's because you are one of those Global Warming Deniers. So if you say something it's Wrong. So it doesn't matter what it is, it must to the True Follower of the Right Path of Warm, be cast into the evil pit. Especially if he finds it confusing, that's the work of the devil incarnate.

Saving the world is a serious business.

 

[shadron]

I think I can explain it. It's because you are one of those Global Warming Deniers. So if you say something it's Wrong. So it doesn't matter what it is, it must to the True Follower of the Right Path of Warm, be cast into the evil pit. Especially if he finds it confusing, that's the work of the devil incarnate.

Saving the world is a serious business.

Perhaps it is a problem in definition rather than in sarcastic politics. You'd best stay at home and sleep in late.

If you apply a linear rate to a function, the result in the value of the function is exponential. It is that way with compound interest - the rate of interest is a constant, but the result (in money) is exponential.

TBP applies a linear rate to growth, thinking that means linear growth. It doesn't; it implies exponential growth. An analogy is that linear acceleration (say, 1g, or 9.98 m/sec/sec) doesn't result in linear velocity, but rather in exponential velocity (1mph, then 2mph, then 4mph, then 8...), and seriously exponential distances.

I think what TBP wanted to imply is a constant increase over time (zero acceleration), but he unfortunately used a percentage, which grows over time just as the number it is applied against grows. 1% in term of a value of 100 is 1, but next year, when the value is then 101, it is 1.01, and the year after that 1.0121, and so on, such that the value doubles (grows to 200% of the original) every 70 years.

"For there abide these three: linear, arithmetic and exponential; but the greatest of these is exponential (by far)."

[What really amazes me is that this went on for about 60 posts with no explanation as to what is happening. If I've ruined anyone's fun, I sincerely regret that.]

 

[Furcifer]

No we weren't.

Don't play semantics, no we (you and I) weren't, tshaitanaku and I were.

It was in the models you referenced, but they weren't global climate models. They were designed to investigate particular aspects of climate response to warming, such as tropical storm behaviour and deep ocean heat-uptake.

Ridiculous. You obviously don't know the difference between a atmosphere ocean general circulation model and a GCM, but none the less the first one was run on the MIT 2D climate model.

"They" do not always input a 1% cumulative increase in CO₂ into global predictive models. In fact the models are run against a suite of emissions scenarios, because nobody (not even you) knows what the actual emissions outcome will be. Many will involve falling emissions at some point in the scenario.

Strawman. Nobody said they always do it. I made this very clear. You know this and you're lying.

No they don't. Surveys? You seem to be a little adrift.

"Studies", this should be obvious. Again, feigning ignorance is beneath you. Use your comprehension skills.

If your model is built to probe tropial storm behaviour in a warming and warmed world you're not going to factor in methane from premafrost melt. You'll go with CO₂ and water vapour, which is quite enough to be getting on with.

The study you're talking about was run on the MIT model. You're not even close.

It doesn't apply to global predictive models, of course.

Source please.

They use ranges for what? This is semantically void.

lol, they use ranges because the actual value is unknown. The study we just discussed in the moderated thread used 0.8% to 4%. A range represents a high and low end of the unknown variable. This is basic science.

With all the promise that exponentiality always brings. Linear gets you there in the end, but exponential is the smart way to riches.

Well once in a blue moon we agree.

As to CO₂ emissions, the data is so noisy that a 1% annual increase in the rate of emissions is not discernible with any statistical significance. We're talking the second derivative here.

Nonsense, look at tshaitanaku's numbers in the moderated thread. You don't even need a calculator to see they average to 0.5%

That's the Dunning-Krueger factor. You know so little that you believe you know all that matters, and most of what you think you know ain't so.

When you say "It's 1%, then 1% then 1% then 1% then 1% then 1% then 1%" and somebody says "That isn't constant" you shake your head and weep a little. You have to.

 

[Furcifer]

Back on topic: Are Skeptics Changing Their Minds?

Yes.

Alarmists are creating skeptics and here is a recent study showing how it's bad for business

Why dire climate warnings boost skepticism.

 

[mhaze]

Back on topic: Are Skeptics Changing Their Minds?

Yes.

Alarmists are creating skeptics and here is a recent study showing how it's bad for business

Why dire climate warnings boost skepticism.

You don't say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXvpDoGrRGU

You mean instead of feeling guilty people are just realizing this stuff totally sucks?