|
Post by gridley on May 6, 2009 15:23:46 GMT
OK, I'd like to consider a set of 8 cases based on three yes/no questions:
Is AGW (oceans will rise, cities will fall...) real? Is AGC (Anthro Global Cooling, also often called 'mitigation'; the reversal of AGW by human action) possible? Will AGC steps be taken?
I'll also bring up two outputs: will there be a benefit from taking the AGC steps if taken, and will there be a disaster of some sort?
As I see it, the cases break down as follows:
EDIT: changed "AGW is (not) real" to "AGW is (not) dangerous" in an attempt to clarify my question.
If AGW is dangerous, AGC is possible, and such steps are taken, there is a benefit and no disaster. (Case 1) If AGW is dangerous, AGC is possible but no such steps are taken, there is a disaster (warming). (Case 2) If AGW is dangerous, AGC is not possible, but steps are taken anyway, there is no benefit and a disaster (warming). (Case 3) If AGW is dangerous, AGC is not possible, and no steps are taken, there is a disaster (warming). (Case 4) If AGW is not dangerous, but AGC is possible and steps are taken, there is no benefit and a disaster (cooling). (Case 5) If AGW is not dangerous, AGC is possible but no steps are taken, nothing happens/no disaster. (Case 6) If AGW is not dangerous, AGC is not possible but steps are taken, there is no benefit and a disaster (economic). (Case 7) If AGW is not dangerous, AGC is not possible, and no action is taken, there is no disaster. (Case 8)
So in one case there is a benefit to acting (Case 1). In three cases there is not. In five cases we have some sort of disaster (three warming, one cooling, one economic).
What do you think will happen?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 6, 2009 16:08:29 GMT
AGW is real, and with no action will be a disaster.
Significant mitigation is possible.
Some mitigation will happen, but it will be too slow and may be too late because by acting late it will be more expensive and less effective.
Much mitigation will have benefits *in addition* to the benefits of reducing warming.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 6, 2009 20:59:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on May 6, 2009 21:55:40 GMT
AGW is real. Action is possible to mitigate it (but not avoid it entirely). There will be some benefits to some of the actions, as well as additional costs.
Reducing the use of fossil fuels is a benefit to everyone (with the possible exception of the CEOs of fossil fuel companies), and will help reduce the impacts of AGW. It lessens local air pollution, reduces the income available to hostile regimes who are enemies to the US and our allies, reduces the income that ultimately flows to terrorists such as Al Queda and reduces the necessity of the US and our allies to station troops in the middle East where they aren't wanted by most of the locals anyway. And by the way, it reduces the amount of greenhouse gasses added to the atmosphere, so reduces the amount of future warming.
Supporting alternative energy will create new jobs which are needed now. Supporting energy efficiency will reduce the cost of goods and services, as most energy efficiency projects pay back their initial cost within a few years of being enacted.
Failure to act will result in huge costs in the coming decades. Whole countries will need to relocate. Many farming areas will become unproductive due to long term droughts or flooding. Sea level rise will take many square miles of valuable coastal land, or require huge seawalls to protect valuable property.
In a worse case scenario, failing to act could result in high enough warming to trigger some very bad negative feedbacks, such as the melting of a large portion of the methane hydrates found in the Arctic Ocean and other coastal areas. That would probably be similar to the PETM extinction event 55 million years ago that destroyed 90% of the life on the planet.
The choice is basically to pay a little now with a lot of long term benefits, or pay a lot later.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on May 6, 2009 22:02:26 GMT
You'll note that the author only looks at the ocean heat content from 2003 to 2007. Basically, the sun went from maximum (dual peak in 2001 and 2003) to minimum during this time, which should have lead to between 0.1 and 0.2 degrees of global cooling, and therefore, a loss of ocean heat content. Instead, the ocean heat content was essentially flat during this time.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 6, 2009 22:08:45 GMT
It would appear that even with evidence from their own systems showing that AGW is not happening - the AGW proponents are set on 'apocalypse'.
Ken at least read the Argo float paper in the link above your post.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 6, 2009 22:21:52 GMT
You'll note that the author only looks at the ocean heat content from 2003 to 2007. Basically, the sun went from maximum (dual peak in 2001 and 2003) to minimum during this time, which should have lead to between 0.1 and 0.2 degrees of global cooling, and therefore, a loss of ocean heat content. Instead, the ocean heat content was essentially flat during this time. Ken "Accordingly, he assumes zero heat accumulation for the full 6 year period (2003-2008), yielding a deficit of 5.88 x 1022Joules (Pielke, “Update…”). Loehle’s work, which was not yet known to Pielke in February of 2009, has a much smaller margin of error (±0.2)."This is not 'flat' it is dropping when the AGW hypothesis is that it should be rising creating an ever widening gap between forecast and actual OHC. Nor is this something that can be called 'weather' over that long a period. It will be nice to have more measurements as the Argo constellation remains sending data but just the metrics obtained already are enough.. As the author shows there are no ways that it can be claimed that the 'heat is stored up' with the GHG rising at a far higher rate than expected there is a steady drop in Ocean Heat Content. An impossibility if AGW energy budget hypothesis is true. This significant drop in OHC has to be formally explained or the current AGW hypothesis is falsified.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on May 6, 2009 22:56:40 GMT
steve writes: AGW is real, and with no action will be a disaster.
35 mH
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 6, 2009 23:02:09 GMT
You'll note that the author only looks at the ocean heat content from 2003 to 2007. Basically, the sun went from maximum (dual peak in 2001 and 2003) to minimum during this time, which should have lead to between 0.1 and 0.2 degrees of global cooling, and therefore, a loss of ocean heat content. Instead, the ocean heat content was essentially flat during this time. kenfeldman, Would you do us the distinguished honor of citing where in IPCC AR4 there is an allowance for cooling of .1-.2 degrees due to anything solar? Or is that for just a month or two and wouldn't show up on the radar? It is customary to include references, but since you likely just overlooked that minor detail, you get a pass. Using the New York Times may not be a safe choice however
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 6, 2009 23:17:30 GMT
As I see it, the cases break down as follows: You left out all the more realistic cases. Such as: AGW is real, AGC is possible, No steps are taken, AGW was never a threat of a disaster. and my favorite more typical government scenario: AGW is real, AGC is possible, despite that the wrong steps are taken, so economic damage results and nothing ecologically happens anyway because AGW will be taken care of naturally.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on May 6, 2009 23:53:59 GMT
I did, and I noted that the author of the paper was relying on data from 2003 to 2007. When corrected for errors in the Argo floats and XBTs, the data show a slight increase in ocean heat content.
It's certainly not unexpected, given the decrease in solar forcing and the short time period (2003 to 2007). Longer term data (1950 to 2003) show a large increase in ocean heat content, consistent with AGW.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on May 7, 2009 0:10:07 GMT
For how long have the floats been operating?
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on May 7, 2009 2:07:24 GMT
AGW is not real, AGC is not possible, there is disaster when the next ice age hits. There is a global 'optimum' when natural GW occurs. Which comes next, disaster or optimum, and when, can not be predicted. (Case 9)
Some time in the future the earth will grow colder, naturally. Some time in the future the earth will get warmer, naturally. And man can't do squat about either.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 7, 2009 4:41:22 GMT
You left out all the more realistic cases. Such as: AGW is real, AGC is possible, No steps are taken, AGW was never a threat of a disaster. and my favorite more typical government scenario: AGW is real, AGC is possible, despite that the wrong steps are taken, so economic damage results and nothing ecologically happens anyway because AGW will be taken care of naturally. [/quote] The whole concept of catastrophic, CO2 based AGW hypothesis is based on unsupported assumptions. (1) That CO2 sensitivity is high...totally unsupported. (2) That feedbacks are strongly positive...totally unsupported. (3) That the optimum temperature for mankind and the planet is the 1940-1980 average...totally unsupported. (4) That tiny increases above that temperature are horribly damaging...totally unsupported. Without 1, 2 and 3 all being correct, 4 isn't even something that can be pondered. There's been no substantial increase in temperature or even an increase we could say with certainty was caused by CO2 in the first place...#1 is unlikely Feedbacks in nature are almost always pushed to the edge of their maximum working ranges where they become negative (often STRONGLY negative)...it's actually rather silly to assume #2 Temperatures have been higher through much (most?) of the interglacial and man/animals did JUST FINE. In fact, man seems to have done BETTER during these times. Also, WE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE COLD WEATHER during the last cold period. It's highly unlikely that #3 is correct. The ONLY doomsday scenario requires that contrary to all data and history...that CO2 sensitivity is high, that feedbacks are high and that 1940-1980 temperatures are the ONLY good temperature range for life...beyond which even small increasees lead to incredible hardship.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 7, 2009 11:37:12 GMT
It would be nice if this were true. But the blog article is clearly un-auditable and potentially a falsification given that it includes data on heat content up to 2009 with a downward trend from Willis when the data in the Willis reference 1) refers to sea level, not heat content, 2) only goes to mid-2006 and 3) is trending *upwards* in the last year.
|
|