Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

Barry Bickmore rips Spencer's model to pieces here:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-3/

As stated before, I don't do blogs when it comes to issues of science, and am not sure that professor Bickmore qualifies as a published climatologist, but I believe I have had occassion to read some of his work before and seem to recall it being well supported, reasonable and firmly based in appropriate evaluations of the science. After I have finished my personal analysis of Dr. Spencer's paper I will take a look at this link. Anyone who is familiar with the issues of Dr Spencer's earlier papers and proposals understand the flaws and errors in his previous presentations and this latest paper sounds like a derivative of those earlier presentations, so it would not surprise me at all if the current paper is thoroughly flayed and exposed over the coming weekend.

 

[Furcifer]

excellent explanation.

No it's terrible. But there's a distinct lack of critical thinking when it's supports a person's political motivations.

Without the sensitivity and feedback of C02 both in warming a cooling ( when it's not Anthro C02 it's not a forcing it's a feedback ) then the earth could not cycle between ice and less ice as the Milankovich cycles on there own are insufficient to account for the shift.

This isn't consistent with scientific evidence. (or it just doesn't make sense as written)

Along come us and messes up the slow drift towards another ice age due to orbitals and digs up a bunch of sequestered fossile carbon, burns a lot of forest releasing carbon trapped there, plows a bunch of ground releasing more carbon and grazing huge herds of methane producing cattle to stoke the warm up even more.

Which is in effect a good thing.

So somewhere about 2 thirds the way down the Holocene drift from Holocene Optimum to next ice age the global energy balance lurched away from the drift to cooler to an accelerating upward curve to warmer.

So it should be cooling, but it's warming, but it isn't, or at least not as much

To climate and C02 levels not seen in many millions of years......

And yet still seen within the natural cycle.

Without the sensitivity to C02 ( and other GHG like methane ) - there cannot be these changes......tracked both now and historically when previous releases of C02 occurred from the Deccan Traps.

Incorrect use of the word "sensitivity".

So Spencer et al have the monumental task of trying to stay within known atmospheric physics yet try to postulate some as yet unknown negative feedback that would make the certainty of a +4 C rise into an unlikely event by 2100.

Or just the incorrect assessment of radiative forcing as it pertains to irradiance.

The problem is he has to explain at the same time why it did not occur some 12 million years ago when

a) C02 concentrations were high
b) the global temperatures were also high......

If the temps went up then.....as atmospheric/oceanic physics dicate.....why NOW would that mechanism not work.

bottom line - its a fools quest

Aerosols and albedo are the obvious answer.

 

[macdoc]

ANY clouds are transient and so fall more into weather variations than climate and even persistent clouds like monsoon conditions for part of a year can be a mixed bag of negative and positive feedbacks depending on terrain and latitude.
For instance heavy cloud over ocean or land at night will prevent re-radiation to space but during the day will up the albedo.

My suspicions are net effect is close to zero or slightly positive feedback.

 

[Furcifer]

Big difference between acknowledging that in the current paradigm of predominatly fossil-fuelled energy generation, a drop in economic activity is likely reflected in a decrease of the rate of CO2 emissions,...and your assertion that the statement by Capel* was "...patently false and couldn't be further from the truth...", as you were called upon.

*(CapelDodger's statement - "...The strength of an economy is not defined by the amount of carbon dioxide it generates." and as he further qualified in the context of the rest of his post "...Economies which are scrabbling to cope with the impacts of AGW will not be strong, despite the fact that repairing damage counts towards GDP. Strong economies are sustainable, at least in the medium-term, and the fossil-fuel model is not. It was the model which got us where we are but it's not the model of the future. Things change. Economies can be ahead of the game or they can be like the USA today, fading fast and living in denial.").

I think you're confusing emissions with efficiency.

I say that because it's a well established fact improvements in energy efficiency (which inherently reduce emissions) promote economic growth.

In turn, the economic growth results in more energy being used and hence more emissions.

There's a short period where the improvements to efficiency reduce emissions and the growth remains unchanged. I believe this is where you are falling short on your analysis.

If you're still confused here is a graphic showing the direct correlation. It's irrefutable (notice the dips in the economy are in step with the dips in emissions, it's fairly well pronounced in every graph, check out Mexico in the mid 90's)

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/energy_consumption_economic_development_and_co2_emissions_selected_latin_america_countries

You'll note at the bottom of the graph the authors words: The old “rule” saying that pollution is an unavoidable side effect of energy use, which again is a prerequisite for economic growth, is not valid where decision makers have a will to think differently.

Indeed it may be decoupled and emissions reduced while the economy continues to develop...someday. Currently however that isn't the case.

 

[macdoc]

Crock - Sweden's emissions have dropped while GDP has risen.

You are claiming it "has to be" and in reality it's a choice.

 

[CapelDodger]

Positive feedback is real. It's well studied and scientifically sound.

So is negative feedback. It isn't well studied. There's no money in it.

When in doubt, slander the scientists.

Once the alarmists run out of positive feedbacks to study they will be forced to acknowledge the bias.

Scientists will be observing the positive feedbacks for a good while yet, and learning more about them in the process. We've all learnt that two (ice-area and permafrost) are more active than expected during a warming phase.

If negative feedbacks emerge, they will be observed and more will be learned about them. Have you observed any yourself yet?

Don't forget this is a relatively new area of science. There's so much more to learn it would be foolish and irresponsible to to make any judgement calls now.

And therefore nothing should be done now or soon. Don't worry : nothing substantial will be done soon.

 

[CapelDodger]

So they're increasing, and there's been no reduction in emissions. Which is the opposite of what I was saying.

Indeed. Reality often is the opposite of what you say. In fact you're known to say things which are the opposite of other things you say.

And the "alternative" at the time was coal, which people would complain about as well.

Which does not invalidate the point I was making.

What's "medium-term" mean anyways?

For modern capitalism, short-term is this year's profit, medium-term is next year's profit, and long-term is anything beyond that.

No because there were gross inefficiencies.

So what? In your peculiar system, CO₂ emissions are the measure of an economy's strength. Efficiency must, then, weaken an economy if it reduces CO₂ emissions.

More doublespeak. You actually claimed in this thread that emissions dipped world wide during the recession. Now you can't see the direct correlation. Not surprising.

Emissions were greater before the recession, but the world economy was not strong. It was, in fact, weak to the point of widespread failure. The correlation is not particularly close.

It's a phrase intended to point out the ridiculous nature of speculating on what could have been.

It's hardly speculation to say that gas not already burned would still be available.

If the automobile wasn't invented we'd also be in a better place in terms of CO2 emissions. Of course the world would be in a completely different place in history.

Not necessarily very different. Ways of living, working and fighting wars have been shaped by the internal combustion engine, but much else would have remained the same. And Peak Oil wouldn't be such a problem. Economies might well have been stronger, in fact.

 

[Furcifer]

You may not care as is evidence by your support of a crank scientist in your equally futile quest to downplay the reality and the scale of consequence of AGWbut if he fails in one region of science his thinking is flawed.

Incorrect, I have no support for this crank scientist. I just care about the science. I'm able to separate the two and focus on the facts as the yapply to the issue of global warming.

There is fact every reason to think his approach and conclusions would be flawed in this case and they are.....only a few like minded cranks as fellow travellers.

If anything he shows how easy it is to restrict the variables and get the desired outcome from climate models.

You make a comment about NASA admits and per usual not a smidgeon of support

Excuse me, I thought you knew this, it's common knowledge.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/22apr_ceres/

"Clouds remain one of the largest uncertainties in the climate system's response to temperature changes," laments Bruce Wielicki, a scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center. "We need more data to understand how real clouds behave."

Those of us who actually read the science are quite familiar with model limitations.

nor do you evidence the scale of uncertainty C02 levels were also high.

It's already been cited in this thread. As they say "You can give a horse google but you can't teach him to read". At least I think that's what they say.

So what physics has changed that would all of a sudden introduce some phantom negative feedback.

You're mistaken, physics doesn't change, it remains a constant in this Universe.

Perhaps in fact the "uncertainty" lies in the direction of a positive feedback - magnifying the role of GHGs.

Possibly. It would be foolish to make a determination one way or the other with such little information as we have.

Uncertainty cuts both ways......and recent evidence shows that indeed clouds under some conditions are minor magnifiers and under other conditions show minor negative feedback. Bottom line - it's irrelevant in the larger picture tho quite relevant to regional degree of change such as monsoons and perhaps storm development.

Unfortunately it's not irrelevant and remains the largest uncertainty. It's the goal of science to remove that uncertainty.

If NASA you say is correct in the "largest uncertainly" perhaps you should in turn accept NASA's position....

As is usual, I am correct.

It's getting warmer
We're responsible

And it's easily manageable.

so what's it to be?? you going to cherry pick NASA conclusions to fit your agenda of downplaying AGW??

I'm not downplaying AGW, it's potentially very serious. But that yet to be determined. In the mean time technology exists to mitigate the problem, if ever one should actually arise.

or face the reality of a rapidly - in geologic frame of reference - changing global climate with the change magnified in the northern regions.

Change is good.

The evidence is long in......trying to deny it's reality or unfolding consequences becomes like Spencer's ID quest.......in the realm of pathos.

This has become a tired war cry. I'm sure once you've read as much about climate science as I have you will share my view on climate change. It's just a matter of removing yourself from the politics and instead focusing on the science.

 

[Furcifer]

When in doubt, slander the scientists.

Please resist the urge to do so.

If negative feedbacks emerge, they will be observed and more will be learned about them. Have you observed any yourself yet?

What do you mean if? The science is just beginning to understand feedback, every month there a new mechanisms being discovered and studied.
And yes, I've observed that clouds make it cooler. That's a feedback.

And therefore nothing should be done now or soon. Don't worry : nothing substantial will be done soon.

Too late, things are already being done to reduce emissions. Sorry

 

[Furcifer]

Crock - Sweden's emissions have dropped while GDP has risen.

A few million of a several billion. If you familirize yourself with statistics you will see how ridiculous it is to use such an insignificant percentage as a representative for anything. It's like saying everyone is capable of running a 10 second 100m or a 4 minute mile.

You are claiming it "has to be" and in reality it's a choice.

Strawman. I never claimed it "has to be". I said "that's what it is". I can fantasize about a time when CO2 emissions aren't directly related to economic growth, but it's just that, a fantasy.

 

[Furcifer]

My suspicions are net effect is close to zero or slightly positive feedback.

If those are your suspicions I suggest you wait for the next partially cloudy day and find a thermometer. Record the temperature (this is called empirical evidence) under a cloud and then in full sunshine. Post them here for analysis and we will determine if clouds are a positive or negative feedback. I think you'll be surprised.

 

[Trakar]

You may not care as is evidence by your support of a crank scientist in your equally futile quest to downplay the reality and the scale of consequence of AGW but if he fails in one region of science his thinking is flawed...

A person's religious beliefs are rarely of significance to their scientific capacity or understandings. There are certainly exceptions to this, but unless there is direct evidence that someone's religious beliefs are a source of distorted scientific understandings, those beliefs are irrelevent to the discussion of their scientific work or expositions. I have God beliefs, but I do not believe that God is responsible for climate change any more than I believe He will save us from its perils. Roughly 1 out of 4 of the climate scientists I know have religious beliefs, as compared to nearly half of the chemists and physicists I know. Point being, unless there is a demonstrable link between one's science and one's religion, such connections are without merit or relevence to the discussion of anyone's scientific understandings.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by macdoc
Without the sensitivity and feedback of C02 both in warming a cooling ( when it's not Anthro C02 it's not a forcing it's a feedback ) then the earth could not cycle between ice and less ice as the Milankovich cycles on there own are insufficient to account for the shift.

This isn't consistent with scientific evidence.

Please explain why you feel that this is inconsistent with the scientific evidence and cite the evidence you feel contradicts this apparently mainstream climate science understanding.

"The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka" - http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ...nd_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_420_ka.pdf

"Role of deep sea temperature in the carbon cycle during the last glacial" - http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/lea/pdfs/Martin 2005 Paleo.pdf

 

[Trakar]

...http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/energy_consumption_economic_development_and_co2_emissions_selected_latin_america_countries

You'll note at the bottom of the graph the authors words: The old “rule” saying that pollution is an unavoidable side effect of energy use, which again is a prerequisite for economic growth, is not valid where decision makers have a will to think differently.

Indeed it may be decoupled and emissions reduced while the economy continues to develop...someday. Currently however that isn't the case.

I agree with your source: "...More efficient use of energy may entail economic growth and a reduction in energy use. Energy efficiency may very well be an economic driving force. With an increasing use of sustainable energy sources, the link between energy use and greenhouse gas emissions may be decoupled as well. The old 'rule' saying that pollution is an unavoidable side effect of energy use, which again is a prerequisite for economic growth, is not valid where decision makers have a will to think differently."

I disagree with your characterization. Tomorrow never comes when you procrastinate necessary and vital changes and are satisfied with the way things are.

CO2 is a pollutant

"MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL." - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

"Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act" - http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

Climate change due to lack of accounting for this externality represents the greatest market failure in the history of economics -
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....easury.gov.uk/d/Part_I_Introduction_group.pdf

Coal is prohibitively expensive in full cost accounting when used for electrical production.
"Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal" - http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full cost of coal.pdf

 

[Trakar]

...What do you mean if? The science is just beginning to understand feedback, every month there a new mechanisms being discovered and studied.
And yes, I've observed that clouds make it cooler. That's a feedback.
...

"This isn't consistent with scientific evidence. (or it just doesn't make sense as written)"

"A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade" - http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

"...My analysis suggests that the short-term cloud feedback is likely positive and that climate models as a group are doing a reasonable job of simulating this feedback, providing some indication that models successfully simulate the
response of clouds to climate variations..."

"Simulation of seasonal variation of marine boundary layer clouds over the eastern Pacific with a regional climate model." Lei Wang, Yuqing Wang, Axel Lauer, Shang-Ping Xie. - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1

I guess much depends upon what types of clouds one sees and when one sees them,...but if you begin properly qualifying such statements with all of these conditions and quantifying exactly which type of clouds one is more predominantly seeing,...it rather obliviates the perception you were trying to convey.

 

[Trakar]

ANY clouds are transient and so fall more into weather variations than climate and even persistent clouds like monsoon conditions for part of a year can be a mixed bag of negative and positive feedbacks depending on terrain and latitude.
For instance heavy cloud over ocean or land at night will prevent re-radiation to space but during the day will up the albedo.

My suspicions are net effect is close to zero or slightly positive feedback.

Your suspicions seem well supported by most available research and scientific observation, though the trending is more toward *significantly* positive, for clouds in general.

 

[Trakar]

A few million of a several billion. If you familirize yourself with statistics you will see how ridiculous it is to use such an insignificant percentage as a representative for anything. It's like saying everyone is capable of running a 10 second 100m or a 4 minute mile.



Strawman. I never claimed it "has to be". I said "that's what it is". I can fantasize about a time when CO2 emissions aren't directly related to economic growth, but it's just that, a fantasy.

Then you admit that such is mere correlation under the current paradigm and not, as you argued, a fixed and unalterable connection? A baby step perhaps, but the opening of minds and the disruption of dogma are ever so.

 

[Furcifer]

I disagree with your characterization. Tomorrow never comes when you procrastinate necessary and vital changes and are satisfied with the way things are.

That's irrelevant. CO2 emissions are directly tied to economic growth. Saying otherwise is fantasy and patently false.

CO2 is a pollutant

Not really. For the majority of the biomass on this planet it's essential to sustaining life.

There's something ironic about your misrepresentation and the fact that Coca Cola has a long running ad campaign with polar bears drinking a carbonated beverage.

 

[Furcifer]

Indeed. Reality often is the opposite of what you say. In fact you're known to say things which are the opposite of other things you say.

It's just an artifact of the constant goal post shifting. Answers will change as fast as the questions change.

Which does not invalidate the point I was making.

It does actually. Your "point" doesn't account for the simple fact that electricity is a necessity in this modern world. That's a major flaw.

For modern capitalism, short-term is this year's profit, medium-term is next year's profit, and long-term is anything beyond that.

With that in mind your argument makes no sense.

So what? In your peculiar system, CO₂ emissions are the measure of an economy's strength. Efficiency must, then, weaken an economy if it reduces CO₂ emissions.

Nope. It's offset by growth. It's a well proven economic fact.

Emissions were greater before the recession, but the world economy was not strong.

That doesn't make sense, there's no recession if the economy wasn't strong to begin with.

It's hardly speculation to say that gas not already burned would still be available.

Incorrect. If it was cheap it would have been used. That's basic economics.

Not necessarily very different. Ways of living, working and fighting wars have been shaped by the internal combustion engine, but much else would have remained the same. And Peak Oil wouldn't be such a problem. Economies might well have been stronger, in fact.

Incorrect. There's considerable economic growth as a result of he internal combustion engine. It made things more accessible, easier to transport and easier to process. There are no "economies" without the internal combustion engine.

 

[Furcifer]

Crock - Sweden's emissions have dropped while GDP has risen.

Their GDP took a hit in 2008 actually and it decreased in 2010. All that aside More than a third of Sweden’s energy supply depends on imports.
Source: "http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_se_en.pdf

Meanwhile Canada is a net exporter of energy. It's a basic economic fact, if you import that much energy your emissions are going to be lower.

You're not looking at the big picture and trying to understand how economies work and how emissions are generated.