Strong Negative Feedback Found in Radiation Budget

[Trakar]

Yes, and that's all the more reason we need sound models to answer these questions specifically, because it's one thing to say we reduced emissions by 10 000 000 metric tons, and quite another to show what effect it is having on the current and future climate.

You'll get no disagreement from me that we should always seek to improve the models we have and use to understand the phenomena we model, but this shouldn't prevent us from acting on the models we have, especially given the consequences of inaction. Our climate understandings may be incomplete, but they are not insignificant.

 

[macdoc]

to show what effect it is having on the current and future climate.

just how much evidence do you need to understand the effect it has had and will have...

Total dodge...
It's very simple
It's getting warmer
We're primarily responsible due to fossil C02 emissions...

No model will change that reality nor the need to reduce C02 as rapidly as is feasible.

Aerodynamic models and theory and practice change constantly and improve constantly.
We still fly planes every day - we don't wait on "models".

Your position is ludicrous and I think many here just consider it a dodge to justify a "do nothing we don't know enough to act" approach.

 

[BenBurch]

...
Aerodynamic models and theory and practice change constantly and improve constantly.
We still fly planes every day - we don't wait on "models".

Your position is ludicrous and I think many here just consider it a dodge to justify a "do nothing we don't know enough to act" approach.

By that "logic" the Wright Brothers should have waited until they could model a 707 before trying to get off the ground.

 

[Furcifer]

just how much evidence do you need to understand the effect it has had and will have...

Total dodge...
It's very simple
It's getting warmer
We're primarily responsible due to fossil C02 emissions...

No model will change that reality nor the need to reduce C02 as rapidly as is feasible.

Aerodynamic models and theory and practice change constantly and improve constantly.
We still fly planes every day - we don't wait on "models".

Your position is ludicrous and I think many here just consider it a dodge to justify a "do nothing we don't know enough to act" approach.

lol, not a misrepresentation as usual, just a comprehension failure.

The effects of our efforts, Kyoto, stricter fuel economy standards etc. Get it?

Try reading things instead of sprining into your agenda mode.

(oh wait, you did manage to throw another strawman in there. I NEVER SAID WE SHOULD DO NOTHING. DO YOU COMPREHEND THIS?)

It's come to the point where you have no argument with me and your entire posts are just strawmen.

 

[a_unique_person]

By definition the average human being has an IQ of only 100.

I was in Mensa, and thought myself the least intelligent one there, I absolutely know I'm no genius, so this concept really scares me. I can't even imagine what it would like to have mental function operating at that low level.

But years here have shown me that a lot of people function at even less than average (which makes sense by definition) and wow, that's awful.

But the collective IQ is what I was talking about, it is about 25 to 50, by my estimate.

 

[uke2se]

lol, not a misrepresentation as usual, just a comprehension failure.

The effects of our efforts, Kyoto, stricter fuel economy standards etc. Get it?

Try reading things instead of sprining into your agenda mode.

(oh wait, you did manage to throw another strawman in there. I NEVER SAID WE SHOULD DO NOTHING. DO YOU COMPREHEND THIS?)

It's come to the point where you have no argument with me and your entire posts are just strawmen.

Could you look at my post above where I ask you to clarify your position on a few points?

 

[macdoc]

stricter fuel economy standards etc.

that hardly qualifies as uncertain science.....dodge and weave.
..shall we just not bother to upgrade the emission standards since according to you we have insufficient idea of the impact on the climate.
How about
There will be less fossil carbon....there is no particular need to quantify that.

Seems you are having a hard time making your position clear.
Answer questions that are put to you if you expect to get any respect in this forum on a topic that you struggle with.

for example

Could you look at my post above where I ask you to clarify your position on a few points?

 

[Furcifer]

that hardly qualifies as uncertain science.....dodge and weave.
..shall we just not bother to upgrade the emission standards since according to you we have insufficient idea of the impact on the climate.
How about
There will be less fossil carbon....there is no particular need to quantify that.

Seems you are having a hard time making your position clear.
Answer questions that are put to you if you expect to get any respect in this forum on a topic that you struggle with.

for example

Again with the strawmen??? Where did I ever say we shouldn't improve emission standards???

This is ridiculous, my position is clear, it's just you making up strawmen that confuses things. It's just a lame tactic on your part at this point.

Why do you insist on giving more money to politicians without making them accountable? Meeting Kyoto standards won't stop hurricanes you know. Building windmills isn't going to stop drought, so you trying to push AGW on people is fruitless.

You tell me how solar panels will keep the sea level from rising if you want to justify the US participating in Copenhagen

 

[uke2se]

Again with the strawmen??? Where did I ever say we shouldn't improve emission standards???

This is ridiculous, my position is clear, it's just you making up strawmen that confuses things. It's just a lame tactic on your part at this point.

Why do you insist on giving more money to politicians without making them accountable? Meeting Kyoto standards won't stop hurricanes you know. Building windmills isn't going to stop drought, so you trying to push AGW on people is fruitless.

You tell me how solar panels will keep the sea level from rising if you want to justify the US participating in Copenhagen

So, are you saying whatever we do it won't work, so we should do nothing? Because that's what it looks like you're saying.

 

[Furcifer]

Do you have any source that would lead you to think reductions aren't going to be enough?

If reductions aren't going to be enough, what would you propose instead?

Do you feel that if we assume that reductions aren't going to be enough and you can't think of anything more we can do, should we instead do nothing because the economic impact might be heavy no matter what we do?

Sorry uk, I responded yesterday but it didn't post??

Kyoto looks like at best we're going to get a 3% reduction from 1990 levels. That's 3% over 20 years, at that rate we'll be at 1990 levels by what 2400? If we double those efforts it will still be mid 22nd century or so before we get there. That's why reductions (like Kyoto) won't work.

We're probably going to have to physically remove it and add somethinng to the air to reflect incoming radiation in addition to reducing emissions. The reduction is going to come as a result of dwindling supply, not willfill cessation IMHO.

The last part is a strawman. I NEVER SAID DO NOTHING. EVER.

 

[uke2se]

Sorry uk, I responded yesterday but it didn't post??

No worries.

Kyoto looks like at best we're going to get a 3% reduction from 1990 levels.

First, I'd like a source for this, as different countries are having varied success. I'd also like to know if the 3% reduction figure is global or just for the nations that have ratified the accord, i.e, excepting the US and some others.

Finally, I'd like to ask you what is wrong with reducing emissions by 3% from 1990 levels. The Kyoto accord runs out in 2012, so it's at least a start. I agree that it isn't enough. I just don't understand how that backs up your position - although I am still not sure what your position is.

That's 3% over 20 years, at that rate we'll be at 1990 levels by what 2400? If we double those efforts it will still be mid 22nd century or so before we get there. That's why reductions (like Kyoto) won't work.

It won't work if we just let Kyoto run its course and leave it at that, no. That's why Copenhagen was so important. That failed - in my opinion in no small part due to denialism - and a new accord is sorely needed.

Again I'd like to ask your source for why reductions won't work. I understand your point that Kyoto didn't reduce emissions enough, but then again, why wouldn't reduction work? If we drastically reduce emissions, surely atmospheric CO2 levels would go down, right?

We're probably going to have to physically remove it and add somethinng to the air to reflect incoming radiation in addition to reducing emissions. The reduction is going to come as a result of dwindling supply, not willfill cessation IMHO.

But what are we going to add to the air, 3body? This sounds like defeatism to me, but knowing you I still think it's just an excuse for delaying further action. Please prove me wrong.

The last part is a strawman. I NEVER SAID DO NOTHING. EVER.

No, the last part was a question. A question isn't a strawman by the definition of the word "strawman". We're discussing realistic measures to combat AGW, and it seems to me that you are arguing for doing nothing because you argue that whatever measures taken already doesn't work, and nothing will work except something you apparently can't define (put something in the air/suck out the CO2).

At this stage, what is needed is acceptance of the scientific consensus: AGW is happening and it's a problem. There are people who's job it is to think about what we can do. It's going to cost you personally a lot of money. It's already costing me a lot of money. I'm willing to pay. Are you?

 

[Trakar]

Sorry uk, I responded yesterday but it didn't post??

Kyoto looks like at best we're going to get a 3% reduction from 1990 levels. That's 3% over 20 years, at that rate we'll be at 1990 levels by what 2400? If we double those efforts it will still be mid 22nd century or so before we get there. That's why reductions (like Kyoto) won't work.
...

Kyoto was intended to be a "first-step" measure, not the end-all solution to all emission issues, and it was more about building the framework for future international agreements and treaties, rather than taking substantive steps to actually resolve emissions issues or atmospheric contaminations.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sorry uk, I responded yesterday but it didn't post??

Kyoto looks like at best we're going to get a 3% reduction from 1990 levels. That's 3% over 20 years, at that rate we'll be at 1990 levels by what 2400? If we double those efforts it will still be mid 22nd century or so before we get there. That's why reductions (like Kyoto) won't work.

Kyoto was the prototype, to demonstrate that we could set up a working mechanism and co-operate with each other. Clearly, the human race is incapable of even that.

 

[Furcifer]

First, I'd like a source for this, as different countries are having varied success. I'd also like to know if the 3% reduction figure is global or just for the nations that have ratified the accord, i.e, excepting the US and some others.

Finally, I'd like to ask you what is wrong with reducing emissions by 3% from 1990 levels. The Kyoto accord runs out in 2012, so it's at least a start. I agree that it isn't enough. I just don't understand how that backs up your position - although I am still not sure what your position is.

That's back of the envelope and based on the US and Canada not meeting their targets. That's probably optimistic at this point. I haven't read much about projections, nor was I able to find any so that 3% figure stands as a talking point. Let's say it was even met, yes it is a starting point but it's pathetic and it's struggling to be met. What can we expect from Copenhagen? I've read a bit and while the initiative is excellent I don't see a lot of action towards it. Best laid intentions and all that right?

If we're going to discuss this you need to remember I fully support reducing CO2, it's just that I'm skeptical of the predictions if we don't the world is going to hell in a hand bag. I have no problem doing that. Take for instance the fact that I love cars, but I am able to separate the car as a tool and the car as an extension of my penis. I think it's ridiculous we continue to have 50 different models of cars. The should be 1 manufacturer with a 2 seater, a 4 seater and an 8 seater. That's it. You should have to demonstrate a need for anything above a 2 seater. The freedom to go anywhere at any time is good enough, above and beyond that it's a waste.

It won't work if we just let Kyoto run its course and leave it at that, no. That's why Copenhagen was so important. That failed - in my opinion in no small part due to denialism - and a new accord is sorely needed.

Again I'd like to ask your source for why reductions won't work. I understand your point that Kyoto didn't reduce emissions enough, but then again, why wouldn't reduction work? If we drastically reduce emissions, surely atmospheric CO2 levels would go down, right?

I don't think the math works out. When I look at the numbers for Canada, and our per capita output of CO2 and compare it to our energy use, 32% comes from oil. I'm not sure what percentage of that is used to generate electricity, but it is certainly a very, very small amount. 24% Natural gas, 25% hydroelectric (green) and 10% coal certainly go into making electricity as do the 7% nuclear and 1% renewable. We're on our way to getting rid of coal, hopefully made up by nuclear, natural gas and renewables, and we still can't meet our Kyoto target. Canada is already very green, but we sell our electricity to the US so we get hit with the burden of the CO2. So short of building about 20 more 5000 MW nuke plants we can't even begin to chip away at our CO2 emissions. And that isn't going to happen because people are more willing to deal with the threat of global warming than proliferation. We have to wait for Gen IV reactors before I can start shoving nuclear down peoples throats. So that's how hard it is here in Canada to reduce, and I can't see it going much better in the rest of the world. Canada is a leader in nuclear technology and we still have this problem.

But what are we going to add to the air, 3body? This sounds like defeatism to me, but knowing you I still think it's just an excuse for delaying further action. Please prove me wrong.

Volcanic ash? Some sort of CO2 eating nano dust? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure we need to start funding this type of research instead of counting tree rings.

At this stage, what is needed is acceptance of the scientific consensus: AGW is happening and it's a problem. There are people who's job it is to think about what we can do. It's going to cost you personally a lot of money. It's already costing me a lot of money. I'm willing to pay. Are you?

In my opinion this would be better approached as weaning ourselves off fossil fuels rather than "oh no the snow is melting run for high ground". I think people are willing to wait and see if all the doom and gloom really happens as people are predicting. I think the alarmists are making it that much harder to operate because people get mad. They get mad because despite what they are doing and despite the weather being not that bad, they're getting lectured at about something that really hasn't been proven. And I mean proven to the extent that people need to be lectured and scolded at by alarmists. Sound stupid? Yah maybe it is, but people aren't that bright.

Make it a challenge, maybe get some girls in bikini's or a mascot and "Get off the Gas".

 

[Furcifer]

We're discussing realistic measures to combat AGW, and it seems to me that you are arguing for doing nothing because you argue that whatever measures taken already doesn't work, and nothing will work except something you apparently can't define (put something in the air/suck out the CO2).

Your thoughts- Eliminate coal CO2 by 2030

CO2 Technology research center

Hitachi CCS

Solar radiation management

More here

This guy stole my idea

100 times cheaper than reduction says this guy: http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/january2010/globalsunblock

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't know if you've read this blog before?
http://bravenewclimate.com/

 

[Furcifer]

I don't know if you've read this blog before?
http://bravenewclimate.com/

Other than perhaps a few articles linked here no I haven't. I was actually looking for it a few days ago but couldn't remmeber the name, if it was "new climate change" or "brave climate change" or whatever.

 

[Cayvmann]

But the collective IQ is what I was talking about, it is about 25 to 50, by my estimate.

If my coworkers are any indication, then your estimate may be generous. And I work in IT, I was hoping to be amongst thinkers and nerds, but apparently anybody can get a certificate... Creationists, libertarians, and AGW deniers all around.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The counter-argument to Spencer and Braswell is also "in press" (in the Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer):

Based on the simulated results of the energy balance model, certain branches in spirals of the relationship between global mean surface temperature and TOA net radiation might represent climate feedbacks when the system had no any memories. However, climate systems with the same short-term feedbacks but different memories would have similar linear striation features. These linear striation features reflect only the fast response part of climate feedbacks and do not represent the total climate feedback even when the system memory length is minimal.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...d=918210&md5=6a9b90b4608e95acdcd14c103d80459a

(Item 1 - "can climate sensitivity be estimated..." as of the time of this post)

 

[CapelDodger]

If my coworkers are any indication, then your estimate may be generous. And I work in IT, I was hoping to be amongst thinkers and nerds, but apparently anybody can get a certificate... Creationists, libertarians, and AGW deniers all around.

Pretty much my experience as well. When I first heard of Asperger's my reaction was "that's what I've been talking about!"

I was lucky enough to get in early so I did meet some wonderful characters.