|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 28, 2009 10:21:26 GMT
Icefisher, Another point I was going to make was that nautonnier was transferring the responsibility for all the alleged predictions of non-disaster onto scientists, but scientists weren't responsible for them all. This attack on scientist's role that you are continuing is not about scientists as witch doctors, it is about whether politicians base their decisions on the facts, or whether they can get away with using superstition/advice from the richest lobbyist/what they read in the Daily Mail that morning, to make a decision. If I include in that list astrologists (eg. Ronald Reagan) I'm almost back on topic. Steve - I think that you are incorrect. As a scientist / researcher it is your responsibility to ensure that people do not pick up the wrong implications from your research. So should a politician take firmly hold of the wrong end of the stick and start making policy based on those incorrect understandings, it is essential that the scientists involved publicize the politician's errors. This is not what we see - is it. What is happening instead is a funding feeding frenzy on 'climate research' preferably of the apocalyptic kind. Even in fields that one would not normally associate with climate it has become de-rigeur to put some passing reference to climate in the research in the hope of increasing the chance of (further) funding. So some scientists are actually feeding the misapprehensions of the politicians. This is also seen in some research and scientific journals and organizations that have 'nailed their AGW colors to the mast' and now cannot accept research results that are contrary to their avowed position. This is extremely unhealthy for science but it is entirely what can be expected after its politicization. Scientists in the EPA and NASA find they are not allowed to have results that go against AGW, and we are treated to the unedifying spectacle of NASA's Hansen and Al Gore working together in a Senate hearing to set it up on a day that is likely to be hot and crippling the air conditioning. Is this a disinterested and dispassionate scientific approach?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 28, 2009 10:49:38 GMT
Nautonnier,
My disagreement is along a number of lines. Scientists were not behind all the issues you mention. Just because no disaster occurred does not mean no action should have been taken because many decisions are based on a risk analysis, and many problems are prevented by changes that take place. A sceptic was recently criticised for lack of understanding of probabilities for saying that "what is the point of knowing that something will happen with 30% probability if you don't know how accurate the 30% figure is". But one interpretation of this statement is very valid - if you have a procedure for making assessments (in this case the scientific process) and on the whole the procedure leads to acknowledged improvements, then you ignore the procedure at your peril. While you can't claim that your prediction *will* come about, your successful track record means that people can no longer claim that BAU is the least risky option.
Of course I don't recognise your picture of a funding frenzy based on apocalyptic science since there is an apocalyptic scenario facing either us or our descendents, and our politicians are not able to take it seriously because too many people are convinced by the lies and distortions of the lobbyists.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 28, 2009 16:25:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 28, 2009 17:08:47 GMT
This is quite an embarrassing document. To paraphrase, the case seems to be that since it was warmer in the past when there were no SUVs around, and since in the past warming preceded rises in CO2 levels, CO2 cannot be the cause of the current warming. And since CO2 is released from the ocean when it warms, that must be where the CO2 comes from. And since warming on Mars is not related to co2....And since CO2 is saturated... Basically it is a stringing together of denialosphere talking points. Obviously the Russians aren't bored with them yet. The relevant scientific publication appears to be this: Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union (2004), 2004:541-542 Cambridge University Press About the long-term coordinated variations of the activity, radius, total irradiance of the Sun and the Earth's climate Habibullo I. Abdussamatov which is a summary of a conference presentation which has no data (so can't be audited). The abstract contains: Of the two referenes, Aguilar 2003 is a press release and Reid is a review article whose abstract suggests it doesn't support the claim in Abdussamatov's abstract. I submit that this is a nonsense piece.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 28, 2009 22:34:58 GMT
Nautonnier, My disagreement is along a number of lines. Scientists were not behind all the issues you mention. Just because no disaster occurred does not mean no action should have been taken because many decisions are based on a risk analysis, and many problems are prevented by changes that take place. A sceptic was recently criticised for lack of understanding of probabilities for saying that "what is the point of knowing that something will happen with 30% probability if you don't know how accurate the 30% figure is". But one interpretation of this statement is very valid - if you have a procedure for making assessments (in this case the scientific process) and on the whole the procedure leads to acknowledged improvements, then you ignore the procedure at your peril. While you can't claim that your prediction *will* come about, your successful track record means that people can no longer claim that BAU is the least risky option. Of course I don't recognise your picture of a funding frenzy based on apocalyptic science since there is an apocalyptic scenario facing either us or our descendents, and our politicians are not able to take it seriously because too many people are convinced by the lies and distortions of the lobbyists. Steve As I have said elsewhere - this type of simplistic risk analysis is fine if there is only one risk. But this is not the case. So lets do some very simple steps in risk analysis: What _is_ the risk? By the end of the century the atmospheric temperature _might_ rise by ~1 oC. (Probability we could argue about but lets say just for this example 30%) What would happen? Possible that some low lying areas may be inundated some islands become uninhabitable Possible that grow line moves further North increasing crop yields Possible that some arid areas may become more arid while some become wetter. What is the global cost if it does happen?Some gains some losses possibly around par some island and low lying nations may lose land area others would see crop yield increases. What is the cost of avoidance of the risk?Huge several industries in the 'developed world' are likely to fail. Cost of energy in the USA will increase from $1000 - $3000 per family some areas/countries such as UK will have rolling blackouts and power outs. Probably several $trillion Will the avoidance work?Probably not. If the risk as stated does exist the warming will continue and it may take centuries for CO 2 to leave the atmosphere. So with AGW there is a low probability of a non-problem and avoidance is hugely expensive and probably will not work. How about World Hunger? What _is_ the risk? World wide starvation - probability 100% it is already happening What would happen? People (not polar bears) dying of hunger at the rate of more than the current rate of 19000 per day continuing and may get worse if temperatures get colder or if more crops are used for bio fuel and less support from first world countries that are going bankrupt from AGW prevention strategies What is the global cost if it does happen of it happening?There is already a cost estimated to be more than $12Billion in Africa alone. The human cost is huge. What is the cost of avoidance of the risk?Perhaps $500B with crop land paid to stay fallow in 'first world' countries put to use to grow crops for 3rd world countries. Plus irrigation schemes and crop agricultural research and development raised back to its previous levels. Will the avoidance work?Yes schemes have already worked in some areas. So with AGW there is a relatively low probability that there may be problems that cause some islands and low lying areas to flood but food production would increase. Prevention would be hugely expensive damaging to the developed world and probably not work. Whereas with world hunger the probability is 100% people are dying as you read this at the rate of 19000 a DAY and avoidance is relatively inexpensive and works as it has done in the past. From what you are saying you would prefer that funding is given to ameliorating potential AGW which may not be a huge risk, rather than ACTUAL world hunger and a recorded death rate from hunger of 19000 per day many of which could easily and cheaply be saved. Risk analysis is a case of judging which risk you allocate funds to that will most effectively ameliorate the risks. I would not allocate ANY funding to AGW risk amelioration. But then its a judgement call people actually dying - against possibly losing land so I understand there may be disagreements.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 28, 2009 23:25:29 GMT
This is quite an embarrassing document. To paraphrase, the case seems to be that since it was warmer in the past when there were no SUVs around, and since in the past warming preceded rises in CO2 levels, CO2 cannot be the cause of the current warming. And since CO2 is released from the ocean when it warms, that must be where the CO2 comes from. And since warming on Mars is not related to co2....And since CO2 is saturated... Basically it is a stringing together of denialosphere talking points. Obviously the Russians aren't bored with them yet. The relevant scientific publication appears to be this: Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union (2004), 2004:541-542 Cambridge University Press About the long-term coordinated variations of the activity, radius, total irradiance of the Sun and the Earth's climate Habibullo I. Abdussamatov which is a summary of a conference presentation which has no data (so can't be audited). The abstract contains: Of the two referenes, Aguilar 2003 is a press release and Reid is a review article whose abstract suggests it doesn't support the claim in Abdussamatov's abstract. I submit that this is a nonsense piece. What do you think of this part: "According to the calculations carried out both in our laboratory and by foreign colleagues, the direct influence of a bicentennial variation in the TSI accounts for only about half of the amplitude of change in the global temperature of the Earth and only at first. The other half is an indirect impact: with a change in the temperature comes a change in the reflectivity of the earth's surface and change in the concentration of water vapor, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, each of which additionally and sharply accelerates further change in temperature."
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 28, 2009 23:43:40 GMT
This is quite an embarrassing document. To paraphrase, the case seems to be that since it was warmer in the past when there were no SUVs around, and since in the past warming preceded rises in CO2 levels, CO2 cannot be the cause of the current warming. And since CO2 is released from the ocean when it warms, that must be where the CO2 comes from. And since warming on Mars is not related to co2....And since CO2 is saturated... Basically it is a stringing together of denialosphere talking points. Obviously the Russians aren't bored with them yet. The relevant scientific publication appears to be this: Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union (2004), 2004:541-542 Cambridge University Press About the long-term coordinated variations of the activity, radius, total irradiance of the Sun and the Earth's climate Habibullo I. Abdussamatov which is a summary of a conference presentation which has no data (so can't be audited). The abstract contains: Of the two referenes, Aguilar 2003 is a press release and Reid is a review article whose abstract suggests it doesn't support the claim in Abdussamatov's abstract. I submit that this is a nonsense piece. What do you think of this part: "According to the calculations carried out both in our laboratory and by foreign colleagues, the direct influence of a bicentennial variation in the TSI accounts for only about half of the amplitude of change in the global temperature of the Earth and only at first. The other half is an indirect impact: with a change in the temperature comes a change in the reflectivity of the earth's surface and change in the concentration of water vapor, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, each of which additionally and sharply accelerates further change in temperature." Well well sounds like CO 2 effects are 'just a feedback' perhaps they should be removed from all the absorption charts?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 29, 2009 8:58:41 GMT
This is quite an embarrassing document. To paraphrase, the case seems to be that since it was warmer in the past when there were no SUVs around, and since in the past warming preceded rises in CO2 levels, CO2 cannot be the cause of the current warming. And since CO2 is released from the ocean when it warms, that must be where the CO2 comes from. And since warming on Mars is not related to co2....And since CO2 is saturated... Basically it is a stringing together of denialosphere talking points. Obviously the Russians aren't bored with them yet. The relevant scientific publication appears to be this: Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union (2004), 2004:541-542 Cambridge University Press About the long-term coordinated variations of the activity, radius, total irradiance of the Sun and the Earth's climate Habibullo I. Abdussamatov which is a summary of a conference presentation which has no data (so can't be audited). The abstract contains: Of the two referenes, Aguilar 2003 is a press release and Reid is a review article whose abstract suggests it doesn't support the claim in Abdussamatov's abstract. I submit that this is a nonsense piece. What do you think of this part: "According to the calculations carried out both in our laboratory and by foreign colleagues, the direct influence of a bicentennial variation in the TSI accounts for only about half of the amplitude of change in the global temperature of the Earth and only at first. The other half is an indirect impact: with a change in the temperature comes a change in the reflectivity of the earth's surface and change in the concentration of water vapor, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, each of which additionally and sharply accelerates further change in temperature." Now there is a man who wants to have his cake and eat it
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Oct 30, 2009 0:26:12 GMT
So lets do some very simple steps in risk analysis:
What _is_ the risk? By the end of the century the atmospheric temperature _might_ rise by ~1oC. (Probability we could argue about but lets say just for this example 30%)
Or to be more realistic in the current global climate situation... By the end of the century the atmospheric temperature _might_fall by ~1-2oC.
At this point we need to have abandoned the silly CO2 nonsense and forged ahead with a massive nuclear program to protect our country against the Al Queda mentality of the climate alarmists or millions will freeze to death.
Still some bright people alive from before you were spawned steve.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 30, 2009 0:48:44 GMT
So lets do some very simple steps in risk analysis: What _is_ the risk? By the end of the century the atmospheric temperature _might_ rise by ~1oC. (Probability we could argue about but lets say just for this example 30%) Or to be more realistic in the current global climate situation... By the end of the century the atmospheric temperature _might_fall by ~1-2oC. Entertain me further, what is your chosen probability for that temperature drop?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 30, 2009 0:56:47 GMT
So lets do some very simple steps in risk analysis: What _is_ the risk? By the end of the century the atmospheric temperature _might_ rise by ~1oC. (Probability we could argue about but lets say just for this example 30%) Or to be more realistic in the current global climate situation... By the end of the century the atmospheric temperature _might_fall by ~1-2oC. Entertain me further, what is your chosen probability for that temperature drop? I am old and unless science reallllllly accelerates, my prediction for end of century temp won't affect me. The probability of a 1.0-1.3C drop in temps from mean 1980-2000 temps is 60%. For all you younguns on here......please note that Sig called it right on!
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 30, 2009 6:17:24 GMT
I don't like to go with such narrow estimates...I'm a wimp. Casting my net wide since we are talking about a whole century I'd say .5C anomaly (+/- .7C).
There is absolutely NO reason to believe we're warming faster than that and its quite likely that between the solar minimum and the cold period that we'll lose quite a bit of our warmth until the middle of the century.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 30, 2009 9:57:51 GMT
So lets do some very simple steps in risk analysis: What _is_ the risk? By the end of the century the atmospheric temperature _might_ rise by ~1oC. (Probability we could argue about but lets say just for this example 30%) Or to be more realistic in the current global climate situation... By the end of the century the atmospheric temperature _might_fall by ~1-2oC. At this point we need to have abandoned the silly CO2 nonsense and forged ahead with a massive nuclear program to protect our country against the Al Queda mentality of the climate alarmists or millions will freeze to death. Still some bright people alive from before you were spawned steve. There probably are, kiddo. But you aren't in that group. I'm glad you don't do my risk analyses.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 30, 2009 13:07:05 GMT
Re: Abdussamatov 'paper'.
This paper is a big disappointment. Abdussamatov has been quoted by various sources over recent years and the hope was that the Russians had something new or different to offer. Remember 2 Russian researchers have placed a bet with James Annan that temperatures would be lower in the post-2012 period than they were in the 1998-2003 period.
It appears that they have nothing more than a few outdated reconstructions on which their cooling hypothesis is based. It now looks likely that the solar/climate link will completely unravel in the next few years.
BUT this does not neccessarily deal a mortal blow to the sceptic argument. Abdussamatov is not the only one using outdated TSI reconstructions. The IPCC also use them in order to explain the early 20th century warming period. One of the points I have been trying to make over the past 12 months or so is that the lack of solar variability is just as inconvenient to the AGWers as it is to the sceptics. The Arctic warmed almost 2 degrees between 1910 and 1940 - see the GISS zonal record. Oh yeah - that's another point I've been trying to make, i.e. - GISS doesn't always support the AGW position.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 31, 2009 13:18:59 GMT
Re: Abdussamatov 'paper'. This paper is a big disappointment. Abdussamatov has been quoted by various sources over recent years and the hope was that the Russians had something new or different to offer. Remember 2 Russian researchers have placed a bet with James Annan that temperatures would be lower in the post-2102 period than they were in the 1998-2003 period. It appears that they have nothing more than a few outdated reconstructions on which their cooling hypothesis is based. It now looks likely that the solar/climate link will completely unravel in the next few years. BUT this does not neccessarily deal a mortal blow to the sceptic argument. Abdussamatov is not the only one using outdated TSI reconstructions. The IPCC also use them in order to explain the early 20th century warming period. One of the points I have been trying to make over the past 12 months or so is that the lack of solar variability is just as inconvenient to the AGWers as it is to the sceptics. The Arctic warmed almost 2 degrees between 1910 and 1940 - see the GISS zonal record. Oh yeah - that's another point I've been trying to make, i.e. - GISS doesn't always support the AGW position. So why will the solar/climate link unravel? Outdated TSI reconstructions? Post 2102 period? Might be a hard bet to collect on.
|
|