tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post8259357305579512902..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: How many gates?eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-58994838050321812762010-02-04T17:45:22.041+01:002010-02-04T17:45:22.041+01:00Marco,
I agree to your conclusion. As long as the ...Marco,<br />I agree to your conclusion. As long as the sensitivity is significant - be it 1 or 6 degrees - there is reason for the public to decide on a climate policy, which means to consider the possibilities, advantages and disadvantages of the different options - reduction of emissions, adaptation, regional and global geoengineering and maybe other measures. The choice of the mix of measures is to large extent a value-based <i>political</i> decision, and does not follow directly from the scientific analysis.<br />This is the logic of the Honest Broker - which is to supply the political system with the needed knowledge to arrive at a value-consistent decision, but without saying <i>which</i> decision.<br />A significant issue related to the sensitivity is the timing of the warming. The higher the sensitivity, the earlier the expected impacts. Indeed, part of the political decision process is the timing of measures.<br /><br />I recommend Pielke's book "The Honest Broker". Not expensive and a relatively easy read.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-85683175568679218932010-02-04T17:00:24.976+01:002010-02-04T17:00:24.976+01:00@Eduardo:
I agree that there is a range of possibl...@Eduardo:<br />I agree that there is a range of possible climate sensitivities, and that those differ amongst the models. However, the most likely climate sensitivity lies around 3 degrees, from the studies I have seen so far and think(!) I understand.<br />Of course, there is a lot to discuss here, but even with a mere 1.5 degrees climate sensitivity I think you will agree that we can expect major changes of regional climates and significant increases in e.g. sea level.<br /><br />From a scientific point there thus is a lot still to discuss. From a policy point of view the question is whether to take the high, middle, or low estimate as starting point, or to wait until there is less uncertainty. This also depends on the possible outcome. Since I do not see much positive outcomes even with low climate sensitivity, I'd prefer we do something now.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-51954147987254105172010-02-04T13:52:27.537+01:002010-02-04T13:52:27.537+01:00@ 14
Anonymous wrote 'Also, we hear about th...@ 14 <br /><br />Anonymous wrote 'Also, we hear about the logarithmic decay of the warming effect of CO2 - characterised as adding additional curtains to keep the light out. But this does not seem to be taken into account in the models. Or perhaps it is.'<br /><br /><br />This effect is certainly included climate models. The logarithmic dependence of the CO2 forcing is due to the fact that currently most of the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 takes place in the 'wings' of its absorption bands. To calculate the absorption and emission properties of CO2 in the atmosphere requires quite a lot of computing power and almost all models apply some simplifications.<br /><br /><br />Anonymous wrote :'The CO2/carbon cycle is complex, and it is my impression that we really don't know very much about it' . This is a bit of a sweeping assertion, I think. The carbon cycle is not completely understood, for instance there is no satisfactory explanation for the change of CO2 concentrations between glacial and interglacial periods (concentration difference of about 100 ppm). But 'we do not know very much..' is a quite personal vieweduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-23215346202497014522010-02-04T13:41:02.039+01:002010-02-04T13:41:02.039+01:00@32 Marco,
how can you be so sure about the value...@32 Marco,<br /><br />how can you be so sure about the value of climate sensitivity? If you are so certain, you should then accept that all models in the IPCC AR4 are wrong. In this table I cannot find any with a a climate sensitivity of exactly 3 degrees<br /><br />http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html#table-8-2<br /><br />So there must be an uncertainty, for at least some of the models to be right. How large it is? There are several approaches to estimate the sensitivity, but all of them rely on assumptions that are difficult to prove: for instance, sensitivity is independent of forcing (glacial, recent and future), the Bayesian approach is correct (lots to discuss here..), <br /><br />Perhaps was your argument rather that sensitivity is larger than 1 degree? Maybe, but then why do models have different sensitivities? Would you agree that at least some aspects<br /> are not 'settled' ?eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-16997535922661227712010-02-04T08:25:25.989+01:002010-02-04T08:25:25.989+01:00@Hans Erren:
The 3 degrees climate sensitivity com...@Hans Erren:<br />The 3 degrees climate sensitivity comes from *many* different approaches. Meehl et al is just one of many such approaches. See also:<br />http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html<br /><br />And I know Pielke Sr's claims, but apparently his claims don't find much support in the literature (see also his latest Klotzbach et al article, contradicting one of his former articles (Lin et al) after a mistake was corrected in the latter).Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-24305545152858616422010-02-03T23:46:14.875+01:002010-02-03T23:46:14.875+01:00Excellent post and writing style. Bookmarked.Excellent post and writing style. Bookmarked.how to olliehttp://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Ollie-Going-Through-the-Motions&id=3442459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-89124574648638673542010-02-03T22:41:52.804+01:002010-02-03T22:41:52.804+01:00@Marco
I assume that you are aware that a 3 degree...@Marco<br />I assume that you are aware that a 3 degree climate sensitivity goes hand in hand with a huge 20th century sulphate aerosol cooling (Andronova and Schlesinger, 2001; Meehl et al., 2004)? And that sulphate emission in the Netherlands at the moment has reached the level of 1880 (D. Stern, 2005)?<br />So al warming since the 70's can be blamed on the sulphate cleanup?<br />Unless the sulphates don't cool that much, but then CO2 cannot warm that much.<br />Also the IPCC oligarchy has systematically kept land use change out of the equation (Pielke Sr), which brings CO2 climate sensitivity even further down <br /><br />http://www.vkblog.nl/bericht/287371/De_koude_erfenis_van_Stephen_Schneider_uit_de_koude_oorlogHans Errenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17187651692955617994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-25043763077604799142010-02-03T15:39:17.145+01:002010-02-03T15:39:17.145+01:00@itisi69:
Have you checked why Santer et al makes ...@itisi69:<br />Have you checked why Santer et al makes the comments about the "auditors" at climateaudit? You seem to be rather hypocritically critical of strong words by "the AGW cabal", and don't mind the same strong words from the other side. Moreover, you are quoting private e-mails, which often use figurative language. "I'd rather chop my arm off", a common expression, but certainly not something anyone would actually really do.<br />I hope you are also aware that Ben Santer has received death threats ever since 1996 because of his work on climate change. That reduces one's willingness to be kind to 'the other side'. Richard Allen recently showed an e-mail his university had received, demanding he'd be fired for lying about climate change. How wonderful!Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-53254126616445513592010-02-03T11:14:18.481+01:002010-02-03T11:14:18.481+01:00Lindzen: "Climate of Fear", "Global...Lindzen: "Climate of Fear", "Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence." http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220<br /><br />"I also challenge you to show me where Gavin Schmidt calls a 'contrarian' or 'skeptic' climate scientist a "denier", "flat-earthener", "schoolboy scientist", "prat" or worse. If you cannot find such quotes, I expect you to apologise."<br />You are surely joking. Read my message again, I never said Schmidt utter those words. I mentioned several people. All these words are used by the AGW cabal. <br /><br />Ben Santer even goes phisycally: "I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley." or "I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. "<br /><br />and then the infamous words of Jones: "I can’t see either of these papers being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the “peer-review literature” is! "<br /><br />Keep on trolling Marcoitisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-2335828675477269322010-02-03T10:48:24.450+01:002010-02-03T10:48:24.450+01:00Also. I am prepared to post under my chosen pseud...Also. I am prepared to post under my chosen pseudonym. But this site doesn't seem to allow that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-22663042207336493812010-02-03T07:35:58.714+01:002010-02-03T07:35:58.714+01:00@Anonymous: if you want to know where the climate ...@Anonymous: if you want to know where the climate sensitivity comes from, you can start here:<br />http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.htmlMarcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-84451129532840715132010-02-03T05:32:47.726+01:002010-02-03T05:32:47.726+01:00To Dennis and Anonymous:
'I would say there a...To Dennis and Anonymous:<br /><br />'I would say there are some climate scientists that do science for science's sake.' (Dennis)<br />'My agenda is only in the truth of the matter' (Anonymous)<br />Others state that they are only in it because they are curious.<br /><br />I think this is worth another discussion: 'for science's sake, truth, pure curiosity' as opposed to 'agenda, interest, politics'. Are they really opposed, or shouldn't we see them as different, but related? This is a new discussion, I guess.<br /><br />So far, thanks for the interesting conversation, Anonymous; I appreciate your openness!Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-6363168015879581842010-02-02T21:08:50.502+01:002010-02-02T21:08:50.502+01:00Werner. Re your question in 17 about my agenda (n...Werner. Re your question in 17 about my agenda (note - this is the second time I have prepared this. When I pressed 'publish' it told me that there was a conflict. Delete if this is a duplicate). <br /><br />Do I have an agenda? I'm not sure that I do other than wanting to learn the truth of the matter, whatever that may be. <br /><br />I am a retired professional engineer. In the course of my career I was involved in quite a few feasiblity studies up to $1 billion. <br /><br />Anyone who has been involved in such studies knows that they are subject to stringent due diligence. The financiers (generally the banks) engage a independent group to go through the feasibility study to check the calculations, and to generally confirm that the feasibility study is soundly based. The due diligence process includes engagement of a specialist model checking firm who go through the financial models line by line to check they are right. <br /><br />Further, in the later stages of my career I spent quite a bit of time in the commercial/financial world, and frequently participated in due diligence exercises, often involving teams of lawyers. For example, in preparing prospectuses for equity fund raisings, the standard requirement is to prepare a hard copy due diligence file that provides the supporting documentation for every material statement made in the document. This is designed to protect directors in the event of later legal action in that they can prove that they did what a reasonable man would do to check the facts underlying those material statements. <br /><br />Anybody who has worked in the project financing world can confirm the truth of my statements. <br /><br />I think that you will find that many skeptics are retired engineers. For a start, they generally DO have strong backgrounds in science, particularly physics and chemistry, maths and statistics, as well as model building and testing. They are not klutzes. <br /><br />Second, the fact that they are retired means that they have the time to delve into the debate in more detail than most. <br /><br />For my part, I have been following the climate debate for over ten years now. This mainly involves spending several hours each day participating at the various blogs on both sides of the debate. I make a point to visit blogs on the 'warmist' side and also on the 'sceptic' side. I also read the primary literature where I can, and I am a close observer of how the mainstream media handle the issues. <br /><br />I have been somewhat surprised at the lack of critical thinking demonstrated by many of those concerned about anthropogenic CO2 emissions. One of the questions that I ask people who are concerned about CO2 is 'how do you know it is a problem'. The answer that I generally get is that 'the IPCC says so' or 'the climate scientists say so' or 'the science is settled' or 'there is a consensus'. <br /><br />What I DON'T see is independent due diligence to an engineering standard. I DON'T see climate scientists even making the case as to why they make the assumptions regarding feedbacks that they use to justify their +/- 5 degC warming from a doubling of CO2. <br /><br />In the course of my career I have had quite a bit to do with Pacific Islands, and understand that these are (as Darwin said) generally built as coral atolls on the tops of volcanic edifices. These can rise and fall causing changes in local sea level. Sea level is an interesting example of the lack of critical thinking. <br /><br />I could go on, but I will cease here. My agenda is that I am interested only in the truth of the matter. Let the cards fall where they may.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-16954660495881480992010-02-02T20:50:23.074+01:002010-02-02T20:50:23.074+01:00@itisi69: I've seen many (really many) article...@itisi69: I've seen many (really many) articles which quoted Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, even Singer throughout the last decade. Revkin even frequently refers to several of these people!<br /><br />I also challenge you to show me where Gavin Schmidt calls a 'contrarian' or 'skeptic' climate scientist a "denier", "flat-earthener", "schoolboy scientist", "prat" or worse. If you cannot find such quotes, I expect you to apologise.<br /><br />I also don't see why tamino and rabett using the occasional strong terminology somehow supports your initial claim about the information. I could point to Wattsupwiththat and climateaudit as some counter-examples (with the former several times worse than tamino or rabett).<br /><br />Substance, please, not unsubstantiated smears.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-58590394945098025002010-02-02T19:52:19.333+01:002010-02-02T19:52:19.333+01:00*sigh* I give up...
yes Marco, there was a fair ...*sigh* I give up... <br /><br />yes Marco, there was a fair and balanced discussion in the media the last decade where contrarian and sceptic climate scientists have been given ample room for their view without the danger of being outcasted by the likes of Schmidt, Rabett, Tamino, Monbiot, Revkin et al, or being called a "denier", "flat-earthener", "schoolboy scientist", "prat" or worse. Nothing of this happened, I'm sorry, I was wrong... <br /><br />*sigh*itisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-3091032073016214792010-02-02T19:05:25.352+01:002010-02-02T19:05:25.352+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-37776388370907085732010-02-02T16:48:15.066+01:002010-02-02T16:48:15.066+01:00Werner
I would say there are some climate scienti...Werner<br /><br />I would say there are some climate scientists that do science for science's sake. They are interested in generating new knowledge and understanding. Of course this is an opinion and I have no facts to back it up. I think you would find this type of scientist is not seeking glory, fame, notoriety, etc. and hence is typically quiet and unheard of in the political foray of 'public' climate science. Maybe we should always qualify which side of science we are talking about. Then again, maybe I am just naive in imagining such a science in this day and age.Dennis Braynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47034945658706678952010-02-02T16:45:40.504+01:002010-02-02T16:45:40.504+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.itisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-24486004935569217732010-02-02T16:08:15.481+01:002010-02-02T16:08:15.481+01:00Itisi69, you are pointing to some examples, but fa...Itisi69, you are pointing to some examples, but fail to prove your claim that only warming is mentioned in the media, and always as catastrophic etc etc.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-10730820310355215942010-02-02T15:08:59.815+01:002010-02-02T15:08:59.815+01:00Thanks, Anonymous, you indeed answered my question...Thanks, Anonymous, you indeed answered my question. I am a slow thinker, obviously, so I had to ask the same question twice. <br />I cannot really follow you on the field of the scientific Co2 discussion, I am kind of handicapped in the world of numbers. But I am (hopefully) pretty good in the slippery field of culture. <br />That's why I am so persistent and want to come back to the question of the 'agenda' - part of my question you did not answer explicitly. Doesn't everybody in the climate business have a hidden or open 'agenda'? The observations, calculations etc. are mostly done in relation to someone else's calculations, isn't it? Sure, you are indeed a 'sceptic'; others are indeed 'alarmists' or something that is more difficult to label, such as Hans' position (neo- or post-sceptic maybe??? -:)); however, everybody in this business indeed seems to have an open or a hidden agenda. Do you agree?Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-85039158806229433402010-02-02T15:08:15.991+01:002010-02-02T15:08:15.991+01:00Marco, have you been on this planet lately? Ever h...Marco, have you been on this planet lately? Ever heard of Jim Hansen's "Tipping Points"? "Copenhagen is the last chance to Save the Planet" (Stern, Brown)?<br /><br />"But maybe I'm just one of those people who looks beyond the screaming headlines and actually reads the report including all the qualifiers ("Likely", "ossible", "perhaps", "may", etc.)." So do I, and therefore those reports are not very usefull and disingenious. Like me saying: Like, possibly, perhaps I can win the Lottery.itisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-73702992340545721542010-02-02T12:40:37.825+01:002010-02-02T12:40:37.825+01:00@itisi69: Could you please give some examples of t...@itisi69: Could you please give some examples of the dichotomy you claim?<br />From what *I* have seen and read the climate science field is filled with warnings that global warming does not mean that all areas will warm. Some will, some don't, some may even cool. For *most* of the coral reefs, warming events are a much graver danger than cooling events, simply because the former occur more frequently. That warming is "beyond repair" is a mockery of the warnings sent out by climate scientists. However, we should be aware that even stopping CO2 emissions completely will not immediately stop global warming. Just like stopping CFC emissions doesn't mean the ozone layer started to repair itself right away.<br /><br />But maybe I'm just one of those people who looks beyond the screaming headlines and actually reads the report including all the qualifiers ("Likely", "ossible", "perhaps", "may", etc.).Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-43486768031969473992010-02-02T12:39:27.010+01:002010-02-02T12:39:27.010+01:00Werner. You asked me to comment on my position re...Werner. You asked me to comment on my position relative to the position adopted by HVS on CO2. <br /><br />I had thought that the answer was implicit in what I wrote. However, to be explicit: The CO2/carbon cycle is complex, and it is my impression that we really don't know very much about it. <br /><br />There is dispute about even the variability of CO2 levels in atmosphere over time, and from place to place as Beck points out. I realise that Beck is 'discredited', but perhaps he is correct. My understanding is that all he is doing is pulling together historic measurements of CO2 in atmosphere. <br /><br />But more importantly, do we really understand how CO2 actually operates to affect global mean temperature? For example, Bjorn (above) makes some interesting observations. <br /><br />Also, we hear about the logarithmic decay of the warming effect of CO2 - characterised as adding additional curtains to keep the light out. But this does not seem to be taken into account in the models. Or perhaps it is. <br /><br />My most serious concern is that those concerned about the problem have been asked for some time now to provide a detailed 'engineering feasibility study' quality exposition proving that doubling CO2 levels will lead to a rise in global mean temperature of +/- 5 deg C. Now my understanding of the physics is that it is generally accepted that doubling can lead to around 1 degC warming, some 75% of which may have already happened. To get to 5deg C requires assumptions about positive feedbacks. This is a controversial area, and it seems that some argue that feedbacks are actually negative or neutral (meaning no warming from CO2 increases). It would seem that this aspect of the science is not settled. <br /><br />At another level, I really find it hard to believe that a trace gas, present as one part per 2631 parts, can really have such a massive impact as to cause global mean temperatures to increase by 5 deg C. <br /><br />So yes. I do not accept the 'consensus' view on CO2's role in warming. <br /><br />The flaws/problems with the temperature record bring into doubt even if there is warming. And if there is, it seems that it is regional, not global. Though none of the warmists ever talk about that. <br /><br />In the context of what is emerging about poor quality science and misrepresantation of results etc now burgeoning around the globe, are you really surprised that I am a sceptic??<br /><br />I trust that I have now answered your question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47500293671798537172010-02-02T10:43:18.853+01:002010-02-02T10:43:18.853+01:00"However, warming events are much more common..."However, warming events are much more common." <br />More or less common, doesn't really matter. Question is why warming is anthropogenic, catastrophic, beyond repair and cold is natural and not even mentioned in the global press and on "Save The World" climate summits?itisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-51417656764591140272010-02-02T07:57:22.397+01:002010-02-02T07:57:22.397+01:00@itisi69:
cold probably isn't all that well fo...@itisi69:<br />cold probably isn't all that well for coral either. However, warming events are much more common.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.com