tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post5580557631228042774..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Interview with Eduardo Zoritaeduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17468837730151908282013-02-18T16:25:35.207+01:002013-02-18T16:25:35.207+01:00@72
Dear Eduardo, thanks for the comment. I was i...@72<br /><br />Dear Eduardo, thanks for the comment. I was irritated by the textual neighborhood of a solid conservation law and the max entropy production hypothesis. <br /><br />>How can we be sure that that 'correct' <br />>physical theory just manage to fit the <br />>available data and maybe one successful <br />>prediction by chance ? <br />A look into the history of physics might be helpful. We can learn how the SYSTEM of physical theories evolved over centuries, with some enduring zigzags at its outer classical and higher dimensional boundaries (high energies, large/tiny scales, complexity in condensed matter etc.). Today its kernel is robust, has large regions where, e.g., elements like quantum or relativistic rules overlap with Newtonian rules. Such a look may help for judging about theories/models. <br /><br />Besides measurement or observation or gedankenexperiment, another instructive test of a theory is technology. If physics-based technology allows you to go to the Moon and securly back to mama, then most parts of the physics behind that endeavour were probably correct. But I dont want to open the stage here for climate engineering.<br /><br />>Why should a correct physical theory <br />>be cast in mathematical terms ? <br />Latin was the language of the Roman Empire, and Math is the language of the Physics Empire. Not more, not less. There is mutual <br />enrichment between bookkeeper math and stormy forward phys. <br />Another question is how future intelligent machines will change reasearch in theoretical physics, as e.g. teaching goes already today increasingly into the web. Africa listens to Lenny Susskind, for example. It's time to put (exciting) climate lectures onto the web, and this for free, please, and no 'monologues with camera'.<br /><br />>do mathematics exist or are they <br />>created by humans ? <br />Math (not the applied version) may possibly be reduced to the notion of infinity. Infinity is the math expression of the essential/non-essential divide, a construction of the human decision maker for survival in a complex dynamic world full of chances and necessities. <br /><br />Remains the question whether climate science is real science, a growing burocracy, an industry, or both? Where begins science and where engineering, where simple modern practice?<br /><br />Or happens science only when we either by chance discover new things (America, for example) or when we solve important riddles/enigmas? Enigmas are the driver of the hungry brain and thus: Where are the enigmas of the climate machine?<br />Eduardo, thanks for your provocating thoughts!<br />HelmutHelmut Z. Baumerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10506229344520590477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-36619210172021348982013-02-17T21:53:08.530+01:002013-02-17T21:53:08.530+01:00@71
Dear Helmut,
'A principle of max entropy...@71<br /><br />Dear Helmut,<br /><br />'A principle of max entropy production, mentioned in the interview with Hans v. Storch,<br />does not belong to the secured knowledge..'<br /><br />You are completely right, but notice that I categorized those principles as 'guiding'. With that I meant principles that may be helpful in the search of the correct equations<br /><br />At least physical sciences are in a comfortable<br />situation' <br />I would say that physical sciences are in a ''more' comfortable situation. However, 'correct ' physical theories usually do not arise by a magic wand . There are usually one among many failing theories. How can we be sure that that 'correct' physical theory just manage to fit the available data and maybe one successful prediction by chance ? Why should a correct physical theory be cast in mathematical terms ? do mathematics exist or are they created by humans ? <br />'eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-6317065211226682942013-02-17T15:58:35.189+01:002013-02-17T15:58:35.189+01:00@Dr.Zorita:
A principle of max entropy production...@Dr.Zorita:<br /><br />A principle of max entropy production, mentioned in the interview with Hans v. Storch, <br />does not belong to the secured knowledge of physical sciences. It is rather an <br />obscure speculation. I recommend to read Ilya Prigogine and Herrmann Haken. <br /><br />@Objectivity of science. <br />At least physical sciences are in a comfortable <br />situation: If you search the internet with your smartphone, you prove <br />billionfold the notions and ideas of theoretical physics about virtually <br />strange things like quasi-particles, e.g. electron holes in semiconductors and the like. <br /><br />@Climate science part of physics? <br />Yes, it IS a special part of physics and covers changes on Earth-like planets<br /> with and without human populations. <br />Humans are a (possibly singular) perturbation of this class of problems.<br />The consequences of climate for society are NOT a matter of physics. <br />If we mix that then we arrive where we are: <br />at a total mess called today inter- or trans-disciplinarity ...<br />Best blogging, HelmutHelmut Z. Baumerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10506229344520590477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-29014725590372357722013-01-20T21:28:03.774+01:002013-01-20T21:28:03.774+01:00Eduardo, Mark Lynas' book "six degrees&qu...Eduardo, Mark Lynas' book "six degrees" is not based on a high emission scenario, but discusses what each degree of temperature rise would mean for the planet, one degree at a time (up to six).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-82313104383231971772013-01-20T14:54:24.131+01:002013-01-20T14:54:24.131+01:00Dear Eduardo,
I guess my information comes primar...Dear Eduardo,<br /><br />I guess my information comes primarily from what is discussed on the internet, (and some threads in the peer reviewed literature that I follow), but not so much books. In the six or seven years I've been following this I can't recall a controversy about the emissions scenarios. Perhaps I'm not following the right blogs. In any case thank you for correcting the link and taking the time to clarify these issues. I look forward to your future posts.Alex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-73890243821826508932013-01-15T00:41:35.421+01:002013-01-15T00:41:35.421+01:00@67
Alex,
sorry for the broken link. This is the...@67<br /><br />Alex,<br /><br />sorry for the broken link. This is the correct one http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/03/11/3-transient-vs-equilibrium-climate-responses/<br /><br />I think the high-end scenarios have been indeed discussed before. For example, Mark Lynas' book 'Six degrees' has to be based on one of those high emission scenarios.eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-48349127343764831412013-01-11T09:41:42.581+01:002013-01-11T09:41:42.581+01:00Dear Eduardo,
The link to Isaac Held's blog i...Dear Eduardo,<br /><br />The link to Isaac Held's blog is broken - I would be very grateful if you could tell me which of Isaac Held's posts you were referring to. There are a few possibilities.<br /><br />I admit that I do worry that with China and India raising massive, growing populations out of poverty by burning fossil fuels, the rate of increase of CO2 emissions could continue to accelerate. Maybe the A1FI scenario is not unrealistic?<br /><br />Which reminds me - along with the question of, "just what if the skeptics are right?", these emissions scenarios are also hardly ever discussed. I find this strange - perhaps this is another casualty of the polarised war between the climate change skeptics and alarmists. They've drawn their trenches along each side of the climate sensitivity issue and nothing else important seems to get discussed.Alex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-78898010366425557712013-01-08T00:25:28.292+01:002013-01-08T00:25:28.292+01:00Alex,
There are tow competing parameters: the sen...Alex,<br /><br />There are tow competing parameters: the sensitivity and the vertical diffusivity. You are right that, keeping the diffusivity constant, the heat in the pipe line becomes smaller for smaller sensitivities. This is nicely explained in <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.de/2012/10/interview-with-eduardo-zorita.html?showComment=1357545573834#c7526218976711576502" rel="nofollow">Isaac Held's blog</a>. But if you go the model list that I linked in my previous comments and focus on the low-sensitivity models, say around 2K, you can see that the TCR is still 61% for model #21 or 75% for model #16.<br /><br />Regarding the increase in CO2 concentrations, he 2000's has been a decade of strong growth, maybe anomalous (?). Taking a longer term perspective since 1950 or so, one gets a growth of 0.7% per annum. Nonetheless, I would agree with you that GHG concentrations of 700 ppm or higher in such a short time span is well into unknown territory. <br />My general point is that whereas an ECS of 3K or higher is indeed a serious threat, an ECS of 1.5 K or lower would give us a much longer time to adapt or mitigate (except for ocean pH). The sense of urgency is different in these two scenarios, I thinkeduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-75262189767115765022013-01-07T08:59:33.834+01:002013-01-07T08:59:33.834+01:00Dear Eduardo,
The observation in Hansen et al. (&...Dear Eduardo,<br /><br />The observation in Hansen et al. ('Climate response times: Dependence on climate sensitivity and ocean mixing', Science, 1985) suggests that systems with low climate sensitivity might reach equilibrium quite quickly relative to systems with high sensitivity. Are you sure it is reasonable to assume that when TCR is about 1/2 even when ECS is as low as 1.5?<br /><br />And as for your assumption about the emissions scenario I've been hearing that CO2 has been increasing at something like 2 or 3%/year since the IPCC SRES of 2000 - I guess you feel this is alarmism?Alex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-63271311407630532842013-01-06T14:50:24.542+01:002013-01-06T14:50:24.542+01:00Alex,
I was roughly assuming a business as usual ...Alex,<br /><br />I was roughly assuming a business as usual scenario, close to 1% per year of GHG concentrations. The long term increase in the last decades is a bit lower than that, but I think for the same of the argument the accuracy is enough.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html" rel="nofollow">Here</a>, you can find the relationship between equilibrium sensitivity and transient climate response (i.e. the warming attained at CO2 doubling with a 1% per year increase in concentrations) for the IPCC TAR models. The 'warming' in the pipeline varies substantially, depending on the vertical ocean diffusivity and on the rate of forcing growth, but you can see in the table that TCR is roughly half of ECSeduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-15532558252955804722013-01-06T13:12:52.737+01:002013-01-06T13:12:52.737+01:00Dear Eduardo,
You said above that a value of 1.5 ...Dear Eduardo,<br /><br />You said above that a value of 1.5 C for sensitivity implies a warming of about 0.8 C in 2100. So what are you assuming about the atmospheric CO2 levels in your analysis? <br /><br />If the CO2 level gets to 1000ppmv in 2100 and is ~400ppmv at the present then this would represent 1.25 doublings of CO2. If we disregard any 'warming in the pipeline' then shouldn't we get about 1.25 * 1.5 = 1.9 C with a little extra 'in the pipeline'?<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />Alex HarveyAlex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-23953985635484020932013-01-06T09:36:24.125+01:002013-01-06T09:36:24.125+01:00Dear Eduardo,
You write above that a sensitivity ...Dear Eduardo,<br /><br />You write above that a sensitivity of 1.5 would imply a warming of 0.8 by 2100.<br /><br />The CO2 level now is close to 400ppmv. I suppose a sensitivity of 1.5 implies a transient climate response close to the equilibrium sensitivity(?).<br /><br />I can't see how you can find a value as low as 0.8 by 2100 unless you're assuming a very low projection of CO2 emissions.<br /><br />We are exceeding the upper bound of the A1FI emissions scenario. So a CO2 concentration of >1000ppmv by 2100 isn't unrealistic is it?<br /><br />1000ppmv is about 1.25 doublings of CO2 relative to the present. Thus, surely if ECS was 1.5 C then the rise at 2100 would be around 1.5 * 1.25 which is about 1.9 C.<br /><br />In any case I am interested to know what the CO2 concentrations are you assume at 2100 and why.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />Alex HarveyAlex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-79438168166977373802012-12-02T17:11:15.554+01:002012-12-02T17:11:15.554+01:00"What I miss among some sceptics is that they..."What I miss among some sceptics is that they apply a biased scepticism."<br /><br />This is dead on correct. <br /><br />Eduardo...I have said it before, but you are a prince of a man. Really respect you and would buy you some serious beers were we ever together.<br /><br />You take care, please. Very, very proud of you for your honesty.<br /><br />P.s. Interestling...I have the distinction of being the very first person who had a post moderated on this site. Weeks after it opened and when the policy was 100% free speech. (Not complaining, I deserved what I got. Like to mix some childish games in along with the serious comments.)<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-52622026699071269572012-11-07T00:41:18.717+01:002012-11-07T00:41:18.717+01:00@58
Dear Alex,
you should send the congratulatio...@58<br /><br />Dear Alex,<br /><br />you should send the congratulations to the Klimazwiebel. I was not awarded not the Nobel Piece Prize..<br /><br />You are right that lately there has been a slew of papers suggesting a lower climate sensitivity than the IPCC range, or at least in the lower part of that range. If that were true it would be something to congratulate all of us, but I remain sceptic until the evidence is more solid and this can take years. The recent lack of warming may be an indication of lower sensitivity or an indication of larger internal variability or both. If the cause is internal variability, then warming should resume more strongly than before.<br /><br />If climate sensitivity turns out to be close to 1.5 degrees or less, I think hat the case for urgent reduction of GHG emissions would be much weaker. That value of sensitivity would imply a warming of about 0.8 or so in 2100, roughly the amount we have seen in the 20th century. It as been noticeable but certainly not catastrophic. Also, a sea-level rise of 20 cm would be perfectly manageable. The argument that emission reductions could be delayed until more efficient technologies are available would sound quite reasonable. Emissions would have to be eventually cut, but not immediately.eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-29972274980579101602012-11-06T20:51:20.945+01:002012-11-06T20:51:20.945+01:00@57
Dear Anonymous, some comments on yours:
“…it d...@57<br />Dear Anonymous, some comments on yours:<br />“…it does not surprise me that you do not at all question the 5th polynomal that Humlum uses. My BS meter went into hyperdrive on that one.” <br />And how is your BS detector doing on the graphs showing an almost perfect correlation of increasing CO2 and average global temperatures? Yes, those that you link @ 20? No BS-D overdrive on those? What happens if you just fiddle with the scales of T and CO2?<br /><br />“What you apparently do not get from the IPCC reports is that CO2 forcing is small on a short time-scale, and easily drowned by the larger interannual variability”.<br />Do actually IPCC reports tell us about this drowning [of CO2 effects] by natural variability? Maybe, at least you say they do, but I know the last IPCC report (FAR SYR 2007) states, no pondering here, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations…” and continues as reinforcement “This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations”.<br />So, I have to agree with you: I do not get from IPCC reports (the pondering) that you suggest I should notice.<br /><br />“Humlum shows a nice and easy picture, but one that simply does not correspond to reality”. <br />Well, He just plots the data and, up to that point, that is a factual representation of nature (a picture of reality, if you like, with regard to those 2 parameters)…the interpretation of what the plot means is what may be a matter for argumentation. It would be interesting to know which fit (linear or polynomial) has a better goodness of fit, don’t you think?<br /><br />“Regarding your comment on making decisions on a solid scientific basis: have you consider the question of adding CO2 to our atmosphere? Is there a solid scientific basis to claim that that is safe? Your case of thalidomide is a good one: we added it to women's bodies with disastrous consequences…”<br /><br />You are missing the point I was trying to convey to Eduardo. My point is that attempting to fight an illness (AGW) for which we do not know its severity (maybe severe cAGW, maybe a non-illness GW) we may jump into spending resources on expensive solutions (renewals) that do not solve anything (either because we are not the cause of the illness or because we cannot make a dent on the problem) and perhaps have harmful consequences for human beings. The resources so spent will not be available for other, perhaps more profitable, ventures. If so, the citizens of our society will pay dearly for any mistakes we made if we are not cautious.<br /><br />For example, the green-minded EU may be loosing jobs and energy-demanding industries to cheap-coal-fuelled China, and that is neither decreasing the global CO2 emissions nor giving more job opportunities to EU-citizens. I get the impression that you seem convinced the problem we are confronting is so serious that requires to fulfil such prices (in human welfare, or sacrifices). <br /><br />Well, I do not think the scientific evidence for concluding so is still in sight. I have come to love our Open-Society and it would be a pity if we lost it based on, however well-minded, misinterpretations (if they are indeed so).<br />Sorry, but my argumentation on thalidomide was intended as an example of a cure for a mild or non-illness situation (morning sickness/sleep) with undesired severe consequences.<br />Best, Alfonso<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47719403102198440752012-11-06T14:02:49.531+01:002012-11-06T14:02:49.531+01:00Dear Eduardo,
Thank you for taking the time to re...Dear Eduardo,<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to respond. Of course, there's no obligation to respond. Congratulations for the Nobel Piece Prize. :)<br /><br />Your position on climate change is more or less exactly the same as mine. Of course, I am not a scientist, so perhaps it is meaningless when I say it.<br /><br />Nonetheless, if I had to make a wild guess on climate sensitivity - the lack of recent warming in the ocean - Loeb et al. 2012, Hansen et al. 2012, Levitus et al. 2012 - recent paleo papers like Schmittner et al. 2011, Koehler et al. 2010 - papers on lower than modelled transient climate response like Gillett et al. 2011 - lack of warming in Antarctica - lack of acceleration in sea level rise - then the Schwartz et al. papers, not to mention those Lindzen papers that must not be mentioned :) - I would bet on a lower climate sensitivity - while fully agreeing with you that there's no way of ruling out values greater than 4 - and I'm sure there are other papers that could be pointed to that support this.<br /><br />Still, this is tempting - especially to people who can't really evaluate the science - right? It's easy to get the _impression_ that sensitivity is lower than the IPCC says.<br /><br />So you haven't answered my main question - which is the hypothetical question. _What if_ the equilibrium climate sensitivity is lower? What if it's 1.5 degrees celsius per doubling of CO2 instead of 3? Most skeptics would declare victory. <br /><br />But would it really change anything? Isn't it true we would still need to stop emitting CO2 in order to avoid future climate change - even if sensitivity was as low as 1.5?<br /><br />My feeling is that if this hypothetical question was discussed more it might resolve a lot of argument with skeptics - or at least move the rather boring arguments that have been going on for many years to a more interesting question.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />Alex HarveyAlex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-81140581190724100272012-11-04T22:03:38.965+01:002012-11-04T22:03:38.965+01:00Alfonso, I only now noticed your response, and it ...Alfonso, I only now noticed your response, and it is one that unfortunately is not surprising to me. In particular it does not surprise me that you do not at all question the 5th polynomal that Humlum uses. My BS meter went into hyperdrive on that one.<br /><br />What you apparently do not get from the IPCC reports is that CO2 forcing is small on a short time-scale, and easily drowned by the larger interannual variability. You really need long time-scales to see it pop out of the signal. For example, a large El Nino or La Nina can cause + or -0.2 in global temperatures on an annual basis. That's about 10 years of CO2 forcing (assuming 3 degrees/doubling). Add the solar cycle, which can also give +/- 0.1 or so, and you can get 15 years of CO2 forcing completely drowned by internal variability.<br /><br />The difference between CO2 forcing and the other two I just mentioned is that CO2 forcing is unidirectional upwards as long as we emit more CO2 than is taken up by natural sinks. We have no reason to assume that ENSO (the El Nino's and La Nina's) will remain in a phase that offsets the CO2 forcing (as it currently is, with two La Nina's in 2010 and 2011 dragging temperatures downward). And even if that does happen, this is not necessarily good either: it just means the heat is stored in the oceans, with as yet unknown consequences.<br /><br />There's also little reason to assume that the solar output will reduce for the next few decades to the extent that it offsets CO2 forcing.<br /><br />Humlum shows a nice and easy picture, but one that simply does not correspond to reality. His method to "refute" CO2 as the main driver for long-term increases in global temperatures is false, as it focuses on the short-term wiggles. Whether he does this on purpose or simply cannot see the difference between the two, I do not care. Fact is that his analysis is exactly the misleading picture of reality that you assign to others.<br /><br />Regarding your comment on making decisions on a solid scientific basis: have you consider the question of adding CO2 to our atmosphere? Is there a solid scientific basis to claim that that is safe? Your case of thalidomide is a good one: we added it to women's bodies with disastrous consequences, which we only found out later. We started in a situation where we did not know enough of what that would do. Yet you reverse the situation for CO2: adding it to the atmosphere you consider OK, even though we have no solid scientific basis to say it is safe. And now those who want to go back to baseline (no further increase or even reduction) are those who need to show this causes no harm? This is the opposite of your thalidomide example! In medical sciences, but also in the case of e.g. pesticides, you now have to show that adding a compound to the environment is clearly offset by the advantages. No such analysis has ever been done for CO2, so following your thalidomide example there is no solid scientific basis to allow any emissions of CO2 into the environment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-82955133257305658812012-11-04T15:00:06.416+01:002012-11-04T15:00:06.416+01:00Dear Alex,
thank you for your reminder. I oversaw...Dear Alex, <br />thank you for your reminder. I oversaw your very first question.<br />Yes, I think you are right. Realclimate and the Klimazwiebel cannot be compared. Although we at the Klimazwiebel have a Piece Nobel Prize Winner as well :-) , Realclimate have, in my view, a stature, a vision and a mission, which t I at least certainly do not have. l. So I tend , sometimes too often, to let the readers discuss among themselves. But this time you asked me directly, so my apologies.<br /><br />I would not say I am a lukewarmer. Lukewarmers defend the position that warming will occur but more slowly and probably not so strongly as some alarmist say. My position is that we cannot know. There are simply too many things we dont understand well enough. I would like to believe that climate sensitivity is low, but my left side of the brain - or the right, I dont know for sure - tells me that this is just a believe. The present estimations of climate sensitivity range between 1.5 and 4.5, but we cannot objectively attach probabilistic to any number in between. People that apply Bayesian methods come up with probability distributions, but those are in turn also partially based on expert judgment. I would be much happier if modelling groups working independently will come up wit models with the same climate sensitivity. This is clearly not happening.<br /><br />What I definitively support is to convey the whole information, including what it is known and what is not known. This is why sometimes I react more emotively when I see articles or opinions that just gloss over the huge unknowns in climate research. The science in not settled by a mile, but in both directions. I think it is as wrong to say that climate sensitivity is 3 degrees than to say that the temperature trend in the recent decades disproves anthropogenic warming.<br /><br />As far as I can tell, Steve does not have a clear position on this. Most of his blogs, if not all, are aimed at unveiling what he thinks are errors, mistakes, exaggerations in climate research. I would miss in his blog the same criticism about papers and blogs written by 'skeptics'. Too often he hurls personal comments that I dislike. But I also should say that I learned quite a lot from his blogposts in his initial years. After Climategate he has become too political.eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-38639851173625088082012-11-04T13:13:06.272+01:002012-11-04T13:13:06.272+01:00Dear Eduardo/Hans,
The question I asked above is,...Dear Eduardo/Hans,<br /><br />The question I asked above is, in my view, an important one. It seems to me this blog is of little use if questions from the lay public are always ignored. I'll have to say Gavin Schmidt is pretty good at answering questions.<br /><br />I have read just about all of Eduardo's posts here, and I was particularly interested in those posts on sea level rise and an interesting one on the 20th century temperature record. I would have guessed, to be honest, that he is himself a luke-warmer. Is there a material disagreement with his position and that of Steve McIntyre as far as the central question of climate sensitivity is concerned?<br /><br />Regardless, the question 'what if the lukewarmers are right' is never considered. It's always "alarmists are wrong!" "No the deniers are wrong!" The implications of a weak skeptical position need to be discussed more.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Alex HarveyAlex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-1584397393604595082012-10-24T08:03:20.505+02:002012-10-24T08:03:20.505+02:00@53 and 48
Dear Eduardo (and Anon…),
Observers of ...@53 and 48<br />Dear Eduardo (and Anon…),<br />Observers of GW may have got the idea that CO2 was a dominant driver of warming from (not conveniently pondered) statements found in IPCC reports:<br /><br />TAR SPM Figure 4 footnote: “The warming over the last 50 years due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be identified despite uncertainties in forcing […] Changes in natural forcing during most of this period are also estimated to be negative and are unlikely to explain the warming.”<br /> <br />The figure I refer to above lends credibility to the concept (widely held by the common citizen) that “levels of CO2 exert a dominant effect” over internal natural forcings since, according to models, in the absence of anthropogenic emissions a expected cooling during the period should have been observed.<br /><br />Consequently, Anon, the idea that “CO2 is a main driver of temperature” if wrong should be refuted, and I think Humlum is correct in analyzing its faults. No strawman debunking here, just fighting a misleading oversimplified picture of reality. We observers deserve a clearer picture of the facts, and I thank people like Humlum that attempt to do so.<br /><br />Eduardo, I have no major disagreements about your concerns as you state them. You are convinced the risk we are facing is important and should be confronted sooner than later. You may be right (I think that the problem is that nobody knows the answer to the question of how dangerous is CO2 for our planet) but being a Spaniard you also know that “el remedio puede ser peor que la enfermedad”. That is not a minor concern. In the history of health sciences there are numerous examples of remedies that were more harmful than the maladies they attempted to cure (i.e. thalidomide just for one).<br /><br />For me there is a home message to learn from this. Science-based decisions should be taken when a solid scientific basis for the facts is known and after balancing the pros and cons of acting over the perceived risks (I’m not particularly fond of Post-normal “science”).<br /><br />Failing to act that way will only harm Science (and maybe even human life).<br /><br />Best to both<br /><br />Alfonso<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-80287231923335745432012-10-23T18:26:01.459+02:002012-10-23T18:26:01.459+02:00@16 Alfonso,
the argument would go a bit like thi...@16 Alfonso,<br /><br />the argument would go a bit like this.<br />To detect the effect of CO2 in the temperature record does not necessarily mean that CO2 is the major driver. You only need a good statistical method that is able to see the needle in the haystack. There is sometime confusion about this.<br /><br />However, if we can detect its effect now, when the concentrations are relatively minor, what would happen when they continue to rise ? It is quite logical to think that CO2 can become the major driver in the future because it will be an unabated forcing. Nothing is completely certain but the risks are certainly big. <br />Furthermore, there are reasons other than climate to move towards sustainable energy sources, and especially very good reasons not to continue burning coal. <br /><br />Maybe if the debate had been posed in these terms in 1992, we would be by now much furthereduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-78026398757832132762012-10-22T02:33:42.855+02:002012-10-22T02:33:42.855+02:00Hans von Storch #39,
Thanks for the "degrees...Hans von Storch #39,<br /><br />Thanks for the "degrees" of fact stability; I adopted this instantaneously.<br /><br />Your assumption of my parlance is not quite right. Indeed I would use "your" version, if speaking to a professional audience since it is more correct, better style, and less attackable to just report what has been observed. I would perhaps use the version you put in my mouth when speaking to a lay audience, because the formula "can not be explained" requires an understanding of what has been tried to explain, in order to transport my idea of this fact's degree of stability.<br /><br />Anyways, to look for whether a formulation reflects the construction process or not is a nice idea.<br /><br />Afraid I can't speak for "my friends" here, but I am happy you assume I have friends ;).hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-62252118972725969842012-10-22T02:15:43.764+02:002012-10-22T02:15:43.764+02:00(cont.)
Your example with the ZEIT-article: There ...(cont.)<br />Your example with the ZEIT-article: There is a problem I am facing not the first time, and that is ignoring which community exactly regards something as a stable fact. Even inside natural science, often the contructor will present the new fact with way more caveats and much more cautiously than his collegue from the field next door, who wants to use the result in her own research. When economists, politicians or journalists (in no particular order) step in, a new fact may be created that might lose all connections whith what was constructed originally. "Actors in media, politics and civil society" may indeed amplify and temporarily stabilize ascientifc claim as a fact, but I would claim this only happens in the media/politics/civil society - sphere and has no bearing on how this claim is perceived in the scientific community. This of course doesn't mean these unscientific facts were not important -- on the contrary. You bring up the hockey stick issue and that is a nice illustration. The authors were never shy to admit the huge uncertainties in MBH98/99. Mann even complained that his work was also exaggerated and presented as a much more stable fact than appropriate by political interest groups. De Freitas/Soon/Baliunas criticisms were immediately seen as flawed and ignored, in science that is, not by the blogging civil society or american politicians though. Five years later, "unprecedented warming" had very much stabilized in the scientific community (notwithstanding von Storch and Zorita's 2004 critique of MBH's and others' statistical method) but this was (and apparently still is) not reflected in the perception of the lay audience (if "sceptical" blogs are any indication). Similar issue with extreme weather events. You will really need to work with drugs to get a scientist in the field to state as "fact" any attribution to global warming (except heatwaves perhaps). Yet, just because a politician or Peter Höppe do this, a disagreement in science is constructed, which you can't see inside the scientific community. In general, facts in science are a) way more uncertain but b) way more stable than it appears from reading the ZEIT and the pertinent blogs.<br /><br /><i>which of the many statements from climate science could be regarded as stable facts?</i><br /><br />Quite some which form the basis of climate models, but there is not enough space in the margin to list them all. As a "higher level" stable fact I would consider the radiative forcing of CO2, N2O, CH4.<br /><br />Thanks again for your comment. That really made me think.hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-12185826626236165402012-10-22T02:14:57.315+02:002012-10-22T02:14:57.315+02:00(cont.)
Your example with the ZEIT-article: There ...(cont.)<br />Your example with the ZEIT-article: There is a problem I am facing not the first time, and that is ignoring which community exactly regards something as a stable fact. Even inside natural science, often the contructor will present the new fact with way more caveats and much more cautiously than his collegue from the field next door, who wants to use the result in her own research. When economists, politicians or journalists (in no particular order) step in, a new fact may be created that might lose all connections whith what was constructed originally. "Actors in media, politics and civil society" may indeed amplify and temporarily stabilize ascientifc claim as a fact, but I would claim this only happens in the media/politics/civil society - sphere and has no bearing on how this claim is perceived in the scientific community. This of course doesn't mean these unscientific facts were not important -- on the contrary. You bring up the hockey stick issue and that is a nice illustration. The authors were never shy to admit the huge uncertainties in MBH98/99. Mann even complained that his work was also exaggerated and presented as a much more stable fact than appropriate by political interest groups. De Freitas/Soon/Baliunas criticisms were immediately seen as flawed and ignored, in science that is, not by the blogging civil society or american politicians though. Five years later, "unprecedented warming" had very much stabilized in the scientific community (notwithstanding von Storch and Zorita's 2004 critique of MBH's and others' statistical method) but this was (and apparently still is) not reflected in the perception of the lay audience (if "sceptical" blogs are any indication). Similar issue with extreme weather events. You will really need to work with drugs to get a scientist in the field to state as "fact" any attribution to global warming (except heatwaves perhaps). Yet, just because a politician or Peter Höppe do this, a disagreement in science is constructed, which you can't see inside the scientific community. In general, facts in science are a) way more uncertain but b) way more stable than it appears from reading the ZEIT and the pertinent blogs.<br /><br /><i>which of the many statements from climate science could be regarded as stable facts?</i><br /><br />Quite some which form the basis of climate models, but there is not enough space in the margin to list them all. As a "higher level" stable fact I would consider the radiative forcing of CO2, N2O, CH4.<br /><br />Thanks again for your comment. That really made me think.hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-22249515150553175642012-10-22T02:14:12.568+02:002012-10-22T02:14:12.568+02:00Reiner,
thank you very much for your extensive co...Reiner,<br /><br />thank you very much for your extensive comment. You actually took great care to address my problems -- and I guess it helped. The first observation is that your definition of "fact" is different from what I used. It is more of an operational nature (fact is what is accepted as such by some relevant community), whereas what I'll call now a capitalzed "Fact" refers to an at least very good approxiamtion of an "objective truth" about nature, independent of who accepts it or not. You were right that I cannot even claim that this exists and a the same time chicken out of a real philosophical argument. Yet, its what I believe, and I am at least in large company. In the first paragraph of the interview with Andy Lawrence (Eduardo's <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.ch/2012/10/interview-with-eduardo-zorita.html?showComment=1350685780094#c3793607710631547520" rel="nofollow">link</a>) this Astronomer demonstrates quite some differentiated awareness about the social process of construction, yet holds that in the end we find the "objective truth about the world". I think that is a typical mindset for natural scientist.<br /><br />The good news is, I don't need to decide this in order to profit from the paradigm and venture point of STS which you linked so nicely to exmples. Mainly because for the problems at hand (possibly corresponding very much to those that Ravetz et al. label "post-normal"), the policy relevant scientific questions cannot (yet) be answered by Facts; we only have facts with varying degrees of stability. I can see how it is important to study the life cycle of these facts, how they relate to different actors, interest groups, otherwise defined communities and that is STS' job here in my understanding. Surely this is important with respect to how science does and/or should influence policy, but I find it also very interesting to look at how policy relevance might modify the scientist's quest for Facts.<br />(to be continued)<br />hvwnoreply@blogger.com