Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)  (Read 29146 times)

timallard

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
  • designer
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #100 on: June 12, 2016, 12:05:35 AM »
Yes that is what I wanted to say ! Nearly the tenth of the power needed to unbalance the earth, that is not something that we should dismiss totally.
>> Consider direct heating of the oceans is Joules, 4.2 per calorie, radiative forcing is a secondary process of reflected energy so comparing those is a bit confusing seeing terawatts used for heat-flux in an ocean current to me, aside from the confusion on insolation vs human.

It's easier to use the 0.21w/m² for albedo-loss to compare yet for sea-ice the water temperature matters as the thermal-mass to melt it from below with a current, that's usually done in calories ... to correlate them is important for models.

Anyway, add in now that the clathrate emissions can be the cause of the polynyas on the Eurasian side, not warm Atlantic water mixing up, something to consider as these plumes are creating local air heating that effects land snowpack melt along with melting sea-ice from above.

Last year's FEEM talk has details & slides of the general plume locations & extent on all major shallow areas in 50m-70m water with deeper plumes, one described as an "Arctic methane megaflare".

[May 12, 2015 - FEEM Lecture: "Arctic Amplification, Climate Change, Global Warming"; albedo about 50-min into 1:43:26; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-qdbICw2f8]

The gas is captured by the ice until released at breakup then it's into the sky with a punch, these are what the construction technique learned closing Bering Strait is for, artificial atolls to create still-water conditions to refreeze them, there is no other feasible way to close them back down and they must be dealt with, emissions don't matter now to this process only how cold the water on the bottom is.

« Last Edit: June 12, 2016, 12:11:59 AM by timallard »
-tom

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #101 on: June 12, 2016, 01:47:24 AM »
Re: human stupidity and fossil fuels

I recall the Sorcerer's Apprentice when I think about burning coal. We have burned half a Teraton C since 1850 and got 20 ZJ of heat.  The exhaust has driven us to the present day radiative imbalance of 250 TW, which represents that same amount of heat added to the earth system every two years. A great deal of the exhaust will remain for hundreds of millennia, trapping heat all that time.

In short, we have got and will get a great deal more heat than we once bargained for. And every extra bit  of fossil carbon we burn will add to the fire in the sky for, essentially, ever.

I think I'll go play Sorcerer's Apprentice. But not the Disney version.

sidd


nowayout

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #102 on: June 12, 2016, 06:54:54 AM »
I guess, this one fits in here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/09/europe/britain-royal-navy-warships/

Britain's Royal Navy warships are breaking down because sea is too hot...

magnamentis

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 907
    • View Profile
    • Nexpaq Modular ARA iOS Software Mobile Computing Phones Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multipelsklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgie
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #103 on: June 12, 2016, 03:34:25 PM »
I guess, this one fits in here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/09/europe/britain-royal-navy-warships/

Britain's Royal Navy warships are breaking down because sea is too hot...


clear case of faulty construction (flawed design) though, either the cheapest got the contract or the profit was optimized or the engineers were incabable. no-one can say that, even if temps would have raised 5C which they did not, there must of course be a margin for extraordinary temps and conditions like they exist in several parts of the oceans.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2016, 03:39:35 PM by magnamentis »
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #104 on: June 15, 2016, 06:14:28 PM »
While this article is a couple of days old (and the topic is addressed in the Policy folder), the fact that the GOP led US House of Representatives would pass a bill condemning a carbon tax, is an example of human stupidity that amounts to a crime against nature:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-oil-party-republicans-denounce-carbon-tax.html

Extract: "On Friday, the US House of Representatives voted on a Resolution condemning a carbon tax. As The Hill reported:

Lawmakers passed, by a 237-163 vote, a GOP-backed resolution listing pitfalls from a tax on carbon dioxide emissions and concluding that such a policy “would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”

Six Democrats voted with the GOP for the resolution. No Republicans dissented.

The oil industry is scared of a carbon tax

ExxonMobil officially supports a carbon tax, but the company did not comment on the House Resolution prior to the vote. Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute, which is a key lobbying group of the oil industry, including ExxonMobil, publicly supported the anti-carbon tax resolution, as did Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) suspects that the Resolution itself originated from the oil industry:

And it’s not just a matter of lobbying by Big Oil and the Koch operation on how Republicans ought to vote; given their control over the Republican Party, it is very likely that the vote itself was brought up at their behest.

Since 2009, ExxonMobil has contributed at least $1.7 million to members of Congress who voted in favor of the resolution, according to an analysis by ClimateTruth.org.
There are some indications that GOP leadership pressured House Republicans to vote for the Resolution."
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 06:25:35 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #105 on: June 15, 2016, 11:35:15 PM »
While this article is a couple of days old (and the topic is addressed in the Policy folder), the fact that the GOP led US House of Representatives would pass a bill condemning a carbon tax, is an example of human stupidity that amounts to a crime against nature:


Stupidity on the part of the citizenry that elected them. Cupidity on the part of the Congressmen, and their bosses the Oilmen. They actually know better.


Terry

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #106 on: June 16, 2016, 07:53:06 PM »
The linked SkS article entitled: "Development banks threaten to unleash an infrastructure tsunami on the environment", presents yet another example of human stupidity.  The article indicates that by 2030 we will likely more than double the global total value of infrastructure.  Not only with this new infrastructure degrade the environment, but as almost none of it will be designed with adequate provision for abrupt climate change impacts, it is likely that a large amount of this infrastructure could become non-functional shortly after 2030 if the WAIS were to begin to collapse then.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/development-banks-infrastructure-tsunami-environment.html

Extract: "We are living in the most explosive era of infrastructure expansion in human history. The G20 nations, when they met in Australia in 2014, argued for between US$60 trillion and US$70 trillion in new infrastructure investments by 2030, which would more than double the global total value of infrastructure."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #107 on: June 16, 2016, 10:33:32 PM »
The linked reference discusses the critical need to improve our current grossly misleading integrated assessment models (IAMs), w.r.t. climate change impacts:

Nicholas Stern (Feb 2016) "Economics: Current Climate Models are Grossly Misleading", Nature, Vol 530, pp 407-409, doi:10.1038/530407a

http://www.nature.com/news/economics-current-climate-models-are-grossly-misleading-1.19416

Extract: "Nicholas Stern calls on scientists, engineers and economists to help policymakers by better modelling the immense risks to future generations, and the potential for action.

Current economic models tend to underestimate seriously both the potential impacts of dangerous climate change and the wider benefits of a transition to low-carbon growth. There is an urgent need for a new generation of models that give a more accurate picture."

See also:
Nicholas Stern (2015) "Why Are We Waiting?"
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/why-are-we-waiting
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 11:57:05 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #108 on: June 18, 2016, 07:22:44 PM »
The linked SkS article is entitled: "Timeline: How BECCS became climate change’s ‘saviour’ technology", and it explains that bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, BECCS, was originally conceived as a risk management approach to be implemented only if/when signs of abrupt climate change cross the threshold of recognition.  Unfortunately, policy makers have adopted BECCS as a savior technology that will allow them to continue with BAU behavior and not have to face the consequently, while choosing to continue to ignore the risks of abrupt climate change (e.g. say due to high values of ECS and/or the near-term collapse of the WAIS with continued BAU warming for another decade or two).  Such dependence on a savior technology instead of on hard work to rein-in our BAU behavior is another example of human stupidity:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/timeline-how-beccs-became-savior-tech.html

Extract: "But Obersteiner says the paper has, subsequently, been misinterpreted by some: “I think I am the inventor of the term BECCS as a tool to allow for ambitious climate targets. But the BECCS concept was unfortunately misused for regular [emissions pathway] scenarios and not in a risk management sense.”
He adds: “The argument of the 2001 paper was to use BECCS as a backstop technology in case we got bad news from the climate system (e.g. signs of abrupt climate change, unpleasant carbon cycle feedback). Thus, the strategy should be to plan climate mitigation for a still ambitious climate target without BECCS, but still prepare for it in terms of large scale afforestation and regeneration to be prepared for the backstop, if needed. All of the integrated assessment models (IAMs) are deterministic [ie, have a single outcome per model] and do not allow for risk management thinking.”"

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #109 on: June 18, 2016, 07:56:37 PM »
The radiative forcing pathways adopted by both IPCC and the Paris Pact modelers signal to engineers that there is little urgency to improve the sustainability of our global infrastructure, and consequently there is little chance that the coming infrastructure base (that is projected to double in size globally in the next fifteen years) will be meaningfully more sustainable than our current energy intensive infrastructure base.  For example the linked Vox article entitled: "We need lots more power lines. Why are we so bad at planning them?", discusses how challenging it will be to upgrade the US power grid, given that there are very few signals to power grid planner to encourage "better planning".  It is a clear sign of human stupidity to continue going the same thing and to expect a different result:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11881556/power-lines-bad-planning

Extract: "One of the fastest and easiest ways to boost renewable energy is to improve and expand electricity transmission, i.e., power lines. Smart transmission, in addition to its many other benefits, reduces both the engineering challenges and the cost of integrating renewables.
Unfortunately, the way transmission is planned today threatens to squander many of those potential benefits. Transmission planning badly needs to be reformed if the US wants to hit its ambitious carbon targets for 2030 and beyond.

Better planning would be better than worse planning any time, of course (that's why they call it "better"), but the need for better planning is particularly urgent at the moment.
First, it takes five to 10 years for transmission to go from planning to construction. If current market and policy trends in electricity continue or accelerate, as they are widely expected to, the landscape is going to look very different in 10 years, and even more different in the years following.
Policy-wise, the US carbon reduction goal for 2025 is challenging, but getting 80 percent reductions by 2050, which the US has also pledged, is exponentially harder. The power sector is entering a period of accelerated decarbonization that will continue until it hits zero carbon. Planning assumptions based on an extension of the status quo are disastrously off-base."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #110 on: June 20, 2016, 04:25:10 PM »
By primarily applying environmental regulations to limit GHG emissions, while essentially ignoring carbon pricing, we are promoting the green paradox, where we are encouraging the acceleration of the production of fossil fuel resources.  This is another example of human stupidity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_paradox

Extract: "The green paradox, identified by German economist Hans-Werner Sinn, is the observation that an environmental policy that becomes greener with the passage of time acts like an announced expropriation for the owners of fossil fuel resources, inducing them to accelerate resource extraction and hence to accelerate global warming."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #111 on: June 20, 2016, 07:02:45 PM »
The linked article is entitled: " The Multiplier Myth Why It Matters: Economic growth depends on real investment, not more spending."

To this libertarian thought I add that sustainable economics depends on investment in sustainable employment (not fossil fuels and not on waste):

https://www.progress.org/articles/the-multiplier-myth

Edit: That is to say that it matters what you work on (& invest in), and just stimulating for the sake of either inflated growth or for enriching the fossil fuel resource owners, it another example of human stupidity.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2016, 07:11:42 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #112 on: June 26, 2016, 11:53:24 AM »
Brexit, another example of human stupidity:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/a-pyrrhic-victory-boris-johnson-wakes-up-to-the-costs-of-brexit

Extract: "The deeper fear among Tory remainers now isn’t just of a recession. It’s about the rise of something new in British politics, unleashed when politicians with scant respect for truth meet desperate voters; and for the backlash to come, when it sinks in that Brexit hasn’t ended immigration overnight or magically given depressed communities their futures back."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #113 on: June 29, 2016, 02:32:22 AM »
When one of the smartest men in the world cites human greed and stupidity, it is probably time to take this thread seriously:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/stephen-hawking-greed-stupidity-greatest-threats-to-earth/2016/06/28/ffdf422a-3d7a-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_story.html

Extract: "Physicist Stephen Hawking says pollution, greed and stupidity are the greatest threats to Earth.

...

Hawking and King also discussed artificial intelligence. Hawking says governments seem to be engaged in “an AI arms race.”"
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #114 on: July 17, 2016, 07:47:18 PM »
In 2010 the Population Institute release a "Perfect Storm Scenario for 2030" that projected a world population of 8.3 billion by 2030:

https://www.populationinstitute.org/external/files/reports/The_Perfect_Storm_Scenario_for_2030.pdf

https://www.populationinstitute.org/about/

Extract: "The Population Institute (PI) is an international non-profit (registered 501(c)(3) organization) that seeks to promote universal access to family planning information, education, and services.  Through voluntary family planning, we strive to achieve a world population in balance with a healthy global environment and resource base.  PI was established in 1969 and is located on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC."


As of the end of June 2015 the UN estimated the world population to be 7.349 billion (see the third link) as of late July 2016 the same methodology (using median fertility & morality rates) results in an estimate world population of 7.437 billion people (see the fourth linked website).


https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_WPP_2015.pdf


http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Extract: "The World Population Prospect: the 2015 Revision provides the most recent data available (released on July 29, 2015). Estimates and projected world population and country specific populations are given from 1950 through 2100 and are released every two years. The latest revision has revised upwards the world population projections. Worldometers, as it is common practice, utilizes the medium fertility estimates."

Furthermore, the first attached image from the UN World Population Prospect: the 2015 Revision (see the fifth link), makes it clear that a world population of 8.3 billion by 2030 is not a "perfect storm" scenario (as postulated by the Population Institute in 2010), but rather it is a median projection

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/

Caption: "Explanation: These charts show estimates and probabilistic projections of the total population for countries or areas, geographical aggregates and World Bank income groups as defined in Definition of Regions. The population projections are based on the probabilistic projections of total fertility and life expectancy at birth, based on estimates of the 2015 Revision of the World Population Prospects. These probabilistic projections of total fertility and life expectancy at birth were carried out with a Bayesian Hierarchical Model. The figures display the probabilistic median, and the 80 and 95 per cent prediction intervals of the probabilistic population projections, as well as the (deterministic) high and low variant (+/- 0.5 child) of the 2015 Revision of the World Population Prospects."

Furthermore, using the UN's median population growth methodology the Population Institute provides an assessment of population vulnerability (see the sixth link) which provides the second attached image of the 20 nations that currently have the most vulnerable populations (which are also areas of high fundamentalist beliefs):

https://www.populationinstitute.org/demovulnerability/

This trend of "perfect storm" projections being replaced within a few years by "official" median projections, is yet another example of "human stupidity".  With this in mind, I list a few considerations that could transform the third attached image that projects a "pessimistic population" of 12 billion by about 2052, into an actual reality (resulting in a high risk of overshoot on the Earth's carrying capacity):

•   Conservatives pass legislation in key counties (including the USA) limiting support for family planning & contraceptives, worldwide.
•   Science assists in getting the widespread use of GMOs to be adopted around the world.
•   Philanthropists & NGOs reduces morality rates around the world.
•   Participants of the World Economic Forum (i.e. elites) implement a Fourth Industrial Revolution that supports larger world populations using high technology including: robotics, the Internet of things, AI and high rates of urbanization in Megalopolis's.
•   Fundamentalist in developing countries maintain high national fertility rates
•   Increasing global atmospheric CO₂ concentrations temporarily increase food production, followed by a collapse after 2050 to 2060.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 07:53:30 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #115 on: July 18, 2016, 12:14:00 AM »
By the miracle of compound investment, in February 2015 PWC projected (see linked pdf for mean value projections) that the world economy will be at least three times its current size even if the rate of growth starts to slow after 2020.  So unless the rate of the use of sustainable energy provides all of the associated new energy demand, and a circular economy recycles all of the associate new resource demand, we can expect both fossil fuel use and overshoot conditions to continue degrading Earth's systems:

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/the-economy/assets/world-in-2050-february-2015.pdf

Edit: For example, today 7 in 10 African still lack electrical power, and per the linked article Bill Gates is promoting means to provide all such Africans with electrical power by 2050.  While this is an admirable goal, it will make it hard to avoid an overshoot collapse circa 2050 to 2060:

http://www.techinsider.io/bill-gates-africa-needs-a-breakthrough-energy-miracle-2016-7

Edit2: For another example, the following linked article states that Bill Gates has started a chicken initiative to increase consumption in Africa:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Guide-to-Giving/2016/0707/Will-Bill-Gates-s-100-000-chickens-help-Africans-cross-the-road-to-prosperity
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 01:33:52 AM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #116 on: July 19, 2016, 10:06:01 AM »
The first linked course notes on overshoot indicates that we are already in overshoot which might either result in either collapse or oscillation (see first image).  It also makes a distinction between carrying capacity (which is a weak transitional condition) vs biocapacity (which can support a population indefinitely), see the second image:

http://www.bioinfo.rpi.edu/bystrc/courses/population/lecture12.pdf

While it is good to note that overshoot day in 2016 is on August 8th (vs August 13 in 2015), see the second link; my general sense on this topic is that globally we are headed for a collapse beginning between 2050 & 2060; while local populations will oscillate towards a new equilibrium.

http://www.overshootday.org/

This is a stupid position to find ourselves in:
« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 10:16:53 AM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #117 on: August 07, 2016, 06:59:54 PM »
The linked "working paper" from the UK's Centre for Climate Change Economics & Policy presents a very interesting case-study as to why so little action is currently being implemented to prepare society for the coming climate change disruptions; and asks: "Is co-producing science for adaptation decision-making a risk worth taking?".  Also, see the two attached cartoons:

James Porter and Suraje Dessai (March 2016), "Is co-producing science for adaptation decision-making a risk worth taking?" Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Working Paper No. 263, Sustainability Research Institute, Paper No. 96

http://www.cccep.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Working-Paper-263-Porter-and-Dessai.pdf

Abstract: "Over the last decade, researchers have repeatedly sought to understand why adaptation planning and decision-making have failed to progress as quickly as once hoped. A major concern is that policy paralysis and inaction have arisen due to practical difficulties of delivering climate science that can actually be used for adaptation decision-making. Non-scientific actors are increasingly called upon to help reverse this trend by deliberately co-producing science. Scientists and knowledge users are expected to work closely together to produce more usable climate information. To date, our understanding of the barriers that impede the co-production of science for adaptation decision-making come almost exclusively from the perspective of decision-makers, not scientists. This paper responds to that gap by drawing on documentary analysis of key Government texts and in-depth interviews (n=48) with climate scientists, government officials, and boundary workers involved in the UK’s latest climate projections, UKCP09. Our research shows that co-production is far from a neutral activity, but the contested outcome of intense political struggles over its meaning and application. Frictions, antagonism and power imbalances can develop between those involved over ‘who’ co-produces science and ‘how’ they do it, as constraints on scientists to deliver climate science that is both usable and world-leading prove irreconcilable. Not only do scientists and users understand usable science differently but other scientists distanced from the process understand and respond to it differently as well. This can create risks for scientists and the field more broadly. If scientists respond too strongly to user needs there is the risk of antagonizing peers and creating disagreements over whether climate science is being farther than it’s ready to go. If scientists don’t respond strongly enough to user needs there is the risk that users will not adapt or may make poor decisions instead. This raises the question of whether deliberately co-producing climate science for adaptation decision-making is a risk worth taking."

Extract: "Interpreting multi-model ensemble outputs is also problematic because:
'they provide no basis to advise users on whether a response "near the middle" should be considered more likely than one "at the edge", or if the actual response lies outside the modeled range altogether' (Met Office Scientist 6, Interview).'

'[What] really gives me confidence is the Bayesian framework... we've put our own interpretation on it... but it's all written down in the maths, it's there to debate... you can see it in black-and-white. It's just good science' (Met Office Scientist 3, Interview).'

'There was a feeling that we shouldn't be arguing about what we can do or can't do [scientifically] as that'll undermine the need for action. I was sympathetic with that view when UKCP09 started [in 2003] but I'm much less so now [2013]. I think the public needs to hear scientific disagreements, especially for serious things like climate change' (Climate Scientist 5, Interview).'

'Back in 2007, Judith Curry said 'we have to be really careful about what we attribute to climate change and what we attribute to natural variability, which we don't understand'... She was accused of being a denier... when it's a very reasonable thing to say from a scientific point of view but apparently you risk your reputation if you're too vocal about it' (Climate Scientist 1, Interview).'

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #118 on: August 07, 2016, 07:53:59 PM »
People tend to 'put on airs' when threatened by ignorance.  While such an approach may have value when being threatened by ignorant humans, or even by savage beasts; it has absolutely no value when being threatened by Earth Systems subject to increasing radiative forcing.  This is one reason why different groups (e.g. Democrats vs Republicans) waste so much time & effort posturing for authority; why collectively we are making so little progress in fighting climate change.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/put%20on%20airs

Extract: "When you put on airs, you act like you’re the master of something."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: August 08, 2016, 08:25:14 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #120 on: August 09, 2016, 11:52:45 PM »
While the "Conservative Scientists & its Consequences" thread has much more information on other recently identified positive feedbacks, and on recently identified negative feedbacks/forcings that are diminishing, I have extracted the following list of recent (since May 2016) references that explicitly indicates that ECS is likely well above that expected by AR5 (which can be added to those listed in Reply #13).  Such research indicates that collectively we are foolish to continue using a nominal value of about 3C for ECS when calculating our likelihood of staying below the 2C Paris Pact target limit:

1. The linked reference indicates that new research (from PlioMIP2) demonstrates that the climate sensitivity for the Pliocene was higher than previously believed (from PlioMIP1):

Kamae, Y., Yoshida, K., and Ueda, H.: Sensitivity of Pliocene climate simulations in MRI-CGCM2.3 to respective boundary conditions, Clim. Past, 12, 1619-1634, doi:10.5194/cp-12-1619-2016, 2016.

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1619/2016/

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1619/2016/cp-12-1619-2016.pdf

Abstract. Accumulations of global proxy data are essential steps for improving reliability of climate model simulations for the Pliocene warming climate. In the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (PlioMIP2), a part project of the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project phase 4, boundary forcing data have been updated from the PlioMIP phase 1 due to recent advances in understanding of oceanic, terrestrial and cryospheric aspects of the Pliocene palaeoenvironment. In this study, sensitivities of Pliocene climate simulations to the newly archived boundary conditions are evaluated by a set of simulations using an atmosphere–ocean coupled general circulation model, MRI-CGCM2.3. The simulated Pliocene climate is warmer than pre-industrial conditions for 2.4 °C in global mean, corresponding to 0.6 °C warmer than the PlioMIP1 simulation by the identical climate model. Revised orography, lakes, and shrunk ice sheets compared with the PlioMIP1 lead to local and remote influences including snow and sea ice albedo feedback, and poleward heat transport due to the atmosphere and ocean that result in additional warming over middle and high latitudes. The amplified higher-latitude warming is supported qualitatively by the proxy evidences, but is still underestimated quantitatively. Physical processes responsible for the global and regional climate changes should be further addressed in future studies under systematic intermodel and data–model comparison frameworks.

2. The linked reference indicates that corrected recent observations indicate that the most likely value of ECS may be as high as 4.6C (see attached plot of the time dependent curve):

Kyle C. Armour  (27 June 2016), "Projection and prediction: Climate sensitivity on the rise", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3079

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3079.html

3. The linked reference indicates that the climate responses (climate sensitivities) projected by advanced climate models generally match observations when apple to apple comparisons are made.  This is a useful finding as advanced climate models generally indicate that climate sensitivity values are towards the high end of the IPCC climate sensitivity range:

Mark Richardson, Kevin Cowtan, Ed Hawkins & Martin B. Stolpe (2016), "Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3066

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3066.html

4. The linked reference discusses paleodata to indicate that climate sensitivity increased from 3.3 - 5.6 (mean of 4.45k) at the beginning of the PETM up to 3.7 - 6.5 K (mean of 5.1K) near the peak of the PETM; and that if we burn only the easily accessible carbon reserves then GMST could increase by about 10C.  I note these climate sensitivity values are much higher than those inherent in the CMIP5 projections:

Gary Shaffer, Matthew Huber, Roberto Rondanelli & Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen (23 June 2016), "Deep-time evidence for climate sensitivity increase with warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2016GL069243

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069243/full


5. The linked Reuters article notes that NASA reported that a new satellite-based method have located 39 unreported sources of anthropogenic emissions that, when accounted for, increase our previously estimated amount of sulfur dioxide by about 12 percent of all such anthropogenic emissions from 2005 to 2014.  This indicates that the CMIP5 projections also underestimated the impact of this negative forcing source; which raises the prospect that climate sensitivity (ECS) is likely higher than the CMIP5 models indicate, and the linked Zhai et al (2015) reference analyses of the CMIP3&5 results conclude that the ECS is likely 3.9C +/- 0.45C:

Chengxing Zhai, Jonathan H. Jiang & Hui Su (2015), "Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065911

http://in.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-pollution-idINKCN0YO1PW

6. The linked reference uses an information-theoretic weighting of climate models by how well they reproduce the satellite measured deseasonlized covariance of shortwave cloud reflection, indicates a most likely value of ECS of 4.0C; which indicates that AR5 errs on the side of least drama:

Florent Brient & Tapio Schneider (2016), "Constraints on climate sensitivity from space-based measurements of low-cloud reflection", Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1


7. The linked article indicates that the contribution of sea-ice loss to Arctic Amplification is regulated by the PDO and that in positive PDO phases (like we are in now) there should be less Arctic Amplification.  Thus the fact that we are currently experiencing high Arctic Amplification during a period of highly positive PDO values gives cause for concern that climate sensitivity may be higher than considered by AR5:

James A. Screen & Jennifer A. Francis (2016), "Contribution of sea-ice loss to Arctic amplification is regulated by Pacific Ocean decadal variability", Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3011


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3011.html

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #121 on: August 11, 2016, 08:09:40 AM »
Sometimes art conveys human stupidity better than facts so I offer the following on the 2009 crowdfunded drama-documentary-animation hybrid entitled: "The Age of Stupid" (presenting a Liberal British viewpoint that as Brexist shows only goes so far in the Age of Stupid).  An underlying theme of the video is that we are collectively deluding ourselves about the existential risks of climate change (and overshoot) by around 2055+/-5:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Stupid

Extract: "The film is a drama-documentary-animation hybrid which stars Pete Postlethwaite as a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055, watching archival footage from the mid-to-late 2000s and asking: "Why didn't we stop climate change when we had the chance?"

Writing for The Guardian, environmental activist George Monbiot, who appears in the film, said its "message, never stated but constantly emerging, is that we all have our self-justifying myths. We tell ourselves a story of our lives in which we almost always appear as the heroes. These myths prevent us from engaging with climate change."

Here is a link to the official full-length version of the YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va_MVxpboqg

Edit: I guess one could say that "The Anthropocene" = "The Age of Stupid"
« Last Edit: August 11, 2016, 04:35:02 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #122 on: August 13, 2016, 01:40:55 AM »
In the linked article Scribbler indicates that we will collectively smash through the 490 ppm CO₂-equivalent level either by the end of 2016, or in early 2017; and that AR4 indicated that exceeding this level would commit us to exceeding the 2C target.  While I compliment Scribbler on his excellent work in general and this article in particular (including that in this article he points out that recent paleoclimate data indicates the ECS may likely be higher than assumed by AR4); he does not point out all of the factors that could contribute to us passing the 2C target sometime between 2035 and 2040, including:

1. NOAA's calculations of CO₂-eq use a GWP-20 for methane of 85 instead of the more accurate value of 105.
2.  Many masking factors are diminishing faster than the IPCC estimates including: faster reductions in aerosol negative forcing, faster loss of Arctic albedo, and faster reduction in net CO₂ absorption by vegetation.
3.  An acceleration of Hansen's ice-climate feedback as mass loss from ice sheets accelerate.
4.  Anthropogenic radiative forcing likely will remain close to that for RCP 8.5 for some time to come.

Sugarcoating the message will only increase the pain (see the attached image) we will all collectively feel all too soon:

https://robertscribbler.com/2016/08/12/smashing-through-490-ppm-fragmenting-prospects-for-avoiding-2-c-warming/

Extract: "Smashing Through 490 — Fragmenting Prospects for Avoiding 2 C Warming
“The IPCC indicated in its fourth assessment report that achieving a 2 C target would mean stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at around 445 to 490 CO2 equivalent or lower. Higher levels would substantially increase the risks of harmful and irreversible climate change.” –Johan Eliasch"

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #123 on: August 13, 2016, 09:52:22 PM »
Our collective inability to effectively address climate change is actually not an example of human stupidity, but rather an example of our collective mental illness (& inability to effectively deal with reality):
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #124 on: August 13, 2016, 10:07:21 PM »
It is insane to believe that mankind is exempt from the laws of nature in the Anthropocene just because it makes us feel good to think so:
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #125 on: August 13, 2016, 10:26:10 PM »
Now some words on sanity:
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

budmantis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1108
  • We dont get fooled again! No No! THE WHO
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #126 on: August 16, 2016, 07:37:32 AM »
In regards to human stupidity, it seems we continue to make the same mistakes because evolution tends to focus us on self-preservation and feathering our own nest. Although Homo Sapiens are far more advanced than Pan Troglodytes (chimpanzees), the overwhelming majority of us still have the mindset of the chimpanzee.

As far as repeating the same mistakes over again, I'm reminded of George Harrison's song: "While my guitar gently weeps".
"I think politicians should wear uniforms like race car drivers, so we could identify their corporate sponsors."  Unknown

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #127 on: August 16, 2016, 07:43:36 PM »
“There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.”
― Ronald Reagan

It is little wonder that Reagan was known as the Teflon man, as the above quote could be taken to mean almost anything that the reader/listener wants it to mean including:

(a) "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (where power lies in receiving credit);
(b) Let Keynesians toil without credit, while I lead the neo-liberal economic (& Earth consuming) drive to empower the 1%;
(c) If you define your group narrowly enough your tribe can readily benefit at the expense of others by reassigning risk & effort; and
(d) Be selfless, and unassuming, and you can accomplice miracles.
 
Furthermore, it is notable that when there is money to be made that neo-liberals (Reaganites) have no problem with managing risk using limit state criteria, including defining "maximum credible events" such as those for seismic design.  However, when it comes to potentially saving billions of human lives circa 2060 from the consequences of climate change, neo-liberals can only transfer risks & consequences to "others" while fighting to maintain BAU profit margins.

See:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reaganite
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #128 on: August 17, 2016, 10:59:40 PM »
The linked EIA article indicates that there is a "huge risk" that "both developed and developing countries spiral into a race to the bottom" possibly/probably allowing the accumulation of large banks of HFC stocks in the next 10 (ala China) to 15 (ala India) years, before any Montreal Protocol amendment takes effect.  Further as such HFCs already contribute one gigatonne of CO₂-e per year to the atmosphere, any further accumulation of additional banks of HFCs significantly accelerates the timing of the potential/probable global socio-economic collapse (possible from 2060 to 2050).  Furthermore, I note that such additional HFC emissions are not considered in the RCP scenarios:

https://eia-international.org/major-climate-commitment-closer-to-adoption-in-2016

Extract: "“Already, the HFCs used in refrigerators, air-conditioners, inhalers and other items are emitting an entire gigatonne of carbon dioxide-equivalent pollution into the atmosphere annually. Now, if that sounds like a lot my friends, it’s because it is. It’s the equivalent to emissions from nearly 300 coal-fired power plants every single year” – John F Kerry in his speech during the 3rd Extraordinary Meeting of Parties to the Montreal Protocol, July 22, 2016, Vienna

India stuck to its previously submitted amendment proposal of a freeze date in 2031 which will allow unrestrained HFC growth for 15 years from now. Other major developing countries including China, Brazil and Indonesia proposed to freeze HFC consumption close to 2025. A late freeze and a baseline set far into the future mean that developing countries lose opportunities for their industries to leapfrog dead-end technologies and allow a massive phase-in of climate damaging chemicals.

If developed parties do not inject ambition into their own reduction schedules there is a huge risk that overall ambition will be compromised, as both developed and developing countries spiral into a race to the bottom.
An ambitious agreement on HFCs is a must in Kigali if we want to retain the possibility of remaining within safe temperature limits on our planet."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #129 on: August 23, 2016, 12:22:40 AM »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Iceismylife

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #130 on: August 23, 2016, 09:13:15 PM »

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif

Still figuring out how to post a pic.  Click on the link and then what do you think reversion to mean? Or continued rising temps?  What is a bigger problem.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #131 on: August 23, 2016, 09:29:29 PM »

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif

Still figuring out how to post a pic.  Click on the link and then what do you think reversion to mean? Or continued rising temps?  What is a bigger problem.


Without Anthropogenic radiative forcing we would probably revert to the mean paleoclimatic trend line; however, with Anthropogenic forcing we are currently about 1.3C (on a 12-month running average basis) above pre-industrial so we are definitely experiencing warming now and for some decades to come.

If you go to the "Early Anthropocene" thread (in the Science folder), you will find arguments that the relatively flat GMSTs during the Holocene were associated with low levels of Anthropogenic radiative forcing (associated with farming, etc); however, the Anthropocene has now been defined to begin after 1945; because our non-linear acceleration of anthropogenic radiative forcing (due to modern global capitalism) is now far exceeding the paleoclimatic cooling trending line.  Thus global warming is a far greater problem than the risk of global cooling (unless we push so hard that we significantly slow the ocean's thermohaline circulation).

Edit: Also, please note that the paleoclimatic cooling trend requires the activation of natural negative feedback mechanisms (like dust clouds) to drive Earth Systems into a cool period; however, man can now suppress many of these natural negative feedback mechanisms (say by using good farming practices to minimize dust cloud formation).
« Last Edit: August 23, 2016, 09:39:36 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Iceismylife

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #132 on: August 23, 2016, 10:16:00 PM »
...
Edit: Also, please note that the paleoclimatic cooling trend requires the activation of natural negative feedback mechanisms (like dust clouds) to drive Earth Systems into a cool period; however, man can now suppress many of these natural negative feedback mechanisms (say by using good farming practices to minimize dust cloud formation).
Sometimes it is hard to see the forest for the trees.  Just looking at the graph. something like 11 times in the past 800,000 years it has gotten within 1.2 dC of where we are now. Four times it has gotten this hot or hotter, and two times it has gotten warmer than now and no times has it gotten 1 dC warmer than now.  Inference.  Between 1.2 dC cooler than now and where we are now there are things that naturally happen that tend to cool things off.  Not 100% effective but 63% effective. (7 times out of 11)  In between current temps and 1 dC warmer there is a 100% effective mechanism that prevents warming of a natural nature.

Are we able to overpower this natural beerier to warming? Should we?

This last question, should we, is real.  We are looking at the possibilities of Arctic cyclones blowing into the fall and I'm thinking that if we have lots of open water in the Arctic then we could get a warm center cyclone in November fed by the difference between open water 0C ish. and minus 10 dC or colder air temps.  That could blow all winter.  that would pump mid level water past Greenland's glaciers,  that would accelerate calving, that would trigger cooling.  We don't know what nature has up her sleeve, but there is something that has been 100% effective at cooling us back off over the past 3 million years.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2016, 10:44:18 PM by Iceismylife »

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #133 on: August 23, 2016, 10:54:18 PM »
We don't know what nature has up her sleeve, but there is something that has been 100% effective at cooling us back off over the past 3 million years.


As discussed in the linked thread on calibrating Earth Systems Models, ESMs, the CMIP6 models are currently being calibrated against paleodata (including both positive & negative feedback mechanisms) from the PMIP4 program.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1478.0.html

Such calibration efforts indicate that there is no "barrier" that is 100% effective at cooling us over the past 3 million years; only periods when the positive feedbacks outweigh the negative feedbacks (resulting in warming periods) or when the negative feedbacks outweigh the positive feedbacks (resulting in cooling periods); and the ESM's can calculate the balance between such net feedbacks and radiative forcing relatively well over the paleo-record.

Edit: As an example of how effective dust is as a negative feedback mechanism, the linked (open access) reference suggests that it is practicable to limit global warming to between 1.5 and 2C by the use of Iron Salt Aerosols (ISA) geoengineering, which mimics natural dust climate control:

Oeste, F. D., de Richter, R., Ming, T., and Caillol, S.: Climate engineering by mimicking the natural dust climate control: the Iron Salt Aerosols method, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., doi:10.5194/esd-2016-32, in review, 2016.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/esd-2016-32.pdf

Abstract. Power stations, ship, and air traffic are among the most potent greenhouse gas emitters and primarily responsible for global warming. Iron salt aerosols (ISA) exert a cooling effect on climate in several ways. This article aims firstly to examine all direct and indirect natural climate cooling mechanisms driven by tropospheric aerosol particles composed partly of iron and chloride, showing their cooperation and interaction within the different environmental compartments.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2016, 11:25:28 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Iceismylife

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #134 on: August 24, 2016, 04:21:02 AM »
Such calibration efforts indicate that there is no "barrier" that is 100% effective at cooling us over the past 3 million years; only periods when the positive feedbacks outweigh the negative feedbacks (resulting in warming periods) or when the negative feedbacks outweigh the positive feedbacks (resulting in cooling periods); and the ESM's can calculate the balance between such net feedbacks and radiative forcing relatively well over the paleo-record.
In aviation there was a sound barrier. It wasn't really a barrier it just took a new set of aerodynamic rules to follow and more robust structures.

The language used determines what is seen.  In between our present temperature and 1 dC warmer there is a mechanism in the environment that tends to start and perpetuate a cooling trend.  Calling this mechanism a negative feed back loop tends to limit what you see.  This mechanism has overpowered all warming inputs over the past 3 million years.  The dilution of the surface water in the Arctic slowing down the heat transfer from the equator comes to mind as a likely candidate.  This would tend to mean a lot of sea ice and difficulty in warm water from the south melting it.  Paint the north white with ice, snow and you overpower the radiative heating input from CO2.



Good models get good results bad models get bad results.

There was a super volcanic eruption 70,000 years ago. when you run that eruption through our current models you get it warming back up far faster than it did.  It was cold for 1,000 years after that event.  (The younger dryas was like that too.) My thinking is that the current models are over estimating CO2 and under estimating ice, snow cover loss as to relative importance.

Hansen et all has a paper that is a bit controversial that says rapid ice loss/sea level rise is possible.  When in starts is open to debate.  It is simply after the ice shelves collapse.

Those cold plumes in the Antarctic cold spot thread, what they say to me is this.  Cold water from heat loss from melting, less dense from dilution, and particularly with Ross concentrated flow leading to concentrated ice loss.  2 feet a day loss, how many feet to collapse?  How many days to failure? What duty cycle? How many years?  Ten years or less is not an outlandish estimate. IMHO  With NOAA having warned that 10 feet (two inches more than 3 meters) sea level rise is possible by 2050~2060 is the start of global cooling possible in that time frame?

Science is all about questioning your assumptions. Is reducing OC2 emissions in our best interest or is increasing it?  What is worse global cooling or global warming?

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #135 on: August 24, 2016, 06:36:26 AM »
At current CO2 level we have suppressed not just the next glacial stade, but the next two.

doi:10.1038/nature16494

i attach fig 4

budmantis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1108
  • We dont get fooled again! No No! THE WHO
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #136 on: August 24, 2016, 06:46:29 AM »
At current CO2 level we have suppressed not just the next glacial stade, but the next two.

Sidd: Without AGW would we be exiting the interglacial and beginning a new ice age? Looking over your post reminded me of a question from an article I read some years ago. Don't remember the source.
"I think politicians should wear uniforms like race car drivers, so we could identify their corporate sponsors."  Unknown

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #137 on: August 24, 2016, 06:59:51 AM »
"Without AGW would we be exiting the interglacial and beginning a new ice age?"

I think so. Ruddiman's work outlines significant early human forcings, but I think absent those, we were headed into glaciation.

sidd

Iceismylife

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #138 on: August 24, 2016, 05:59:55 PM »
My gut feeling is that soot at the start of the industrial revolution ended the little ice age.

Is there a Younger Dryas in the works?  Are we looking at enough ice loss fast enough to trigger cooling?

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #139 on: August 24, 2016, 06:18:52 PM »
My gut feeling is that soot at the start of the industrial revolution ended the little ice age.

Is there a Younger Dryas in the works?  Are we looking at enough ice loss fast enough to trigger cooling?

Mother Nature is a tyrant and will do what she wants regardless of what people's guts suspect.  What is included in state-of-the-art Earth Systems Models is not a negotiation process but rather is an effort to better reflect reality.  Thus clear evidence needs to be cited in order to influence climate model projections.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 08:55:21 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #140 on: August 24, 2016, 08:56:37 PM »
The following linked references all indicate that consideration of chaos theory's strange attractors in paleo-eras demonstrate that climate sensitivity is higher than traditional (AR5) climate modeling projections have assumed.  Thus while it has not finally been determined how quickly global temperatures will increase, I provide the following list (with a hat tip to Robert Scribbler) of atmosphere CO₂ concentrations vs long-term (paleo) global temperature increases. 

Furthermore, I note that per NOAA CO₂-eq at the end of 2015 was 486ppm using a GWP100 of 25 for methane; however, I note that if one uses the correct GWP100 value for methane of 35 instead of 25, then NOAA's calculated value for the CO2-eq for 2015 would be 518ppm (and rising) instead of 485ppm:

350-400 parts per million: 3 degrees (C) worth of temperature increase long-term.
400-450 parts per million: 4 degrees (C) worth of temperature increase long-term.
450-500 parts per million: 5 degrees (C) worth of temperature increase long-term.
500-600 parts per million: 6 degrees (C) worth of temperature increase long-term.
600-700 parts per million: 7 degrees (C)…
700-800 parts per million: 8 degrees (C)…
800-1200 parts per million: 9-12 degrees (C)…

1) Jones, R. N. and Ricketts, J. H.: Reconciling the signal and noise of atmospheric warming on decadal timescales, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., doi:10.5194/esd-2016-35, in review, 2016.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/
&
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/esd-2016-35.pdf

2) Roger Neville Jones & James Henry Ricketts (2016), "Atmospheric warming 1997–2014: hiatus, pause or regime?"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305989994_Atmospheric_warming_1997-2014_hiatus_pause_or_regime

3) Ragone, F., Lucarini, V. & Lunkeit, F. (2016), "A new framework for climate sensitivity and prediction: a modelling perspective", Clim Dyn, 46: 1459. doi:10.1007/s00382-015-2657-3

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2657-3

4) Anna S. von der Heydt, Peter Ashwin (Submitted on 12 Apr 2016), "State-dependence of climate sensitivity: attractor constraints and palaeoclimate regimes",  arXiv:1604.03311


http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03311
&
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03311v1.pdf

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #141 on: August 29, 2016, 01:04:52 AM »
The linked article indicates that by evolving in a world full of wick problems the human brain/mind has been wired to be an expert "guessing machine".  Furthermore, this article indicates past attempts to use Frequentist-type of thinking has led to limited progress in understanding the wick problem of mental illness, and it finds that Bayesian analysis to be much more effective evaluation tool given the complexity of mental disorders.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bayesian-reasoning-implicated-some-mental-disorders

Extract: "“The brain is a guessing machine, trying at each moment of time to guess what is out there,” says computational neuroscientist Peggy Seriès.

Guesses just slightly off — like mistaking a smile for a smirk — rarely cause harm. But guessing gone seriously awry may play a part in mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, autism and even anxiety disorders, Seriès and other neuroscientists suspect. They say that a mathematical expression known as Bayes’ theorem — which quantifies how prior expectations can be combined with current evidence — may provide novel insights into pernicious mental problems that have so far defied explanation.

Given the complexity of mental disorders such as schizophrenia and autism, it is no surprise that many theories of how the brain works have fallen short, says psychiatrist and neuroscientist Rick Adams of University College London. Current explanations for the disorders are often vague and untestable. Against that frustrating backdrop, Adams sees great promise in a strong mathematical theory, one that can be used to make predictions and actually test them.

Bayes figured out a way to put numbers to this process. By combining probabilities that come from prior evidence and current observations, Bayes’ formula can be used to calculate an overall estimate of the likelihood that a given suspicion is true. A properly functioning brain seems to do this calculation intuitively, behaving in many cases like a skilled Bayesian statistician, some studies show."

While in theory both Frequentist and Bayesian approaches are equally scientific; in practice the Bayesian approach is more suitable for tackling wick problems like mental health and climate change.  The problem with the Frequentist approach is that it is based on statistics from experiments/simulations, and if the experiments are not set-up to be infinitely repeatable then their PDFs will diverge from reality.  However, the Bayesian approach begins with a priori that is assumed to be flawed and which is thus corrected by new evidence to produce an improved posterior PDF that with a sufficient number of repetitions should towards reality.  I note that statistics are related to past/measured events, with true probabilities should be related to future reality.

In Replies #123 to 125, I indicate that mankind's demonstrated inability to deal effectively with climate change is actually an example of our collective mental illness as opposed to human stupidity.  Hopefully, the application of Bayesian logic to both mental health and climate change will bear fruit in the not too distant future.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #142 on: August 29, 2016, 10:06:59 AM »
The linked SciAm article is entitled: "The Most Important Number in Climate Change
Just how sensitive is Earth's climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide?"; and it points to increased use of Bayesian techniques to gain a better understanding of uncertainties in complex Earth System Model projections:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-most-important-number-in-climate-change/

Extract: "As the saying goes: all models are wrong, but some are useful. The impact of all of these real world uncertainties can perhaps be synthesized and made into one constraint to rule them all, a kind of master ring for climate change models based on Bayesian statistical techniques that estimates an overall uncertainty based on the probability associated with each contributing factor. "We haven't quite designed that experiment yet," Schmidt says. But "the path toward that synthesis is quite clear.""
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #143 on: August 29, 2016, 10:26:23 AM »
The linked (open access) reference uses Bayesian techniques to study regarding the challenges in updating people's belief system about the realities of AGW, when people come to opposite conclusions when presented with the same rational evidence.  This research highlights the challenges of using information to overcome the resistance of US neo-liberals (i.e. Reaganites) to acknowledging climate change risks:

John Cook & Stephan Lewandowsky (8 January 2016), "Rational Irrationality: Modeling Climate Change Belief Polarization Using Bayesian Networks", TopiCS, DOI: 10.1111/tops.12186


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12186/full#references

Abstract: "Belief polarization is said to occur when two people respond to the same evidence by updating their beliefs in opposite directions. This response is considered to be “irrational” because it involves contrary updating, a form of belief updating that appears to violate normatively optimal responding, as for example dictated by Bayes' theorem. In light of much evidence that people are capable of normatively optimal behavior, belief polarization presents a puzzling exception. We show that Bayesian networks, or Bayes nets, can simulate rational belief updating. When fit to experimental data, Bayes nets can help identify the factors that contribute to polarization. We present a study into belief updating concerning the reality of climate change in response to information about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The study used representative samples of Australian and U.S. participants. Among Australians, consensus information partially neutralized the influence of worldview, with free-market supporters showing a greater increase in acceptance of human-caused global warming relative to free-market opponents. In contrast, while consensus information overall had a positive effect on perceived consensus among U.S. participants, there was a reduction in perceived consensus and acceptance of human-caused global warming for strong supporters of unregulated free markets. Fitting a Bayes net model to the data indicated that under a Bayesian framework, free-market support is a significant driver of beliefs about climate change and trust in climate scientists. Further, active distrust of climate scientists among a small number of U.S. conservatives drives contrary updating in response to consensus information among this particular group."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Iceismylife

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #144 on: August 30, 2016, 06:00:25 PM »
My gut feeling is that soot at the start of the industrial revolution ended the little ice age.

Is there a Younger Dryas in the works?  Are we looking at enough ice loss fast enough to trigger cooling?

Mother Nature is a tyrant and will do what she wants regardless of what people's guts suspect.  What is included in state-of-the-art Earth Systems Models is not a negotiation process but rather is an effort to better reflect reality.  Thus clear evidence needs to be cited in order to influence climate model projections.
...

Afaik albedo-loss heat-gain is not in models as a dynamic property if at all.

...
Over estimating CO2, underestimating albedo.
I do not know the content of models.  I infer the presence of an imbalance in representation.  The quoted writing rings true to me.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #145 on: September 01, 2016, 10:59:04 PM »
I am sharing the following 2009 quote from the NRC, that indicates to me that people (across the spectrum) have no idea how to make decisions now for the world that will be coming by 2050:

"Government agencies, private organizations, and individuals whose futures will be affected by climate change are unprepared, both conceptually and practically, for meeting the challenges and opportunities it presents. Many of their usual practices and decision rules—for building bridges, implementing zoning rules, using private motor vehicles, and so on—assume a stationary climate—a continuation of past climatic conditions, including similar patterns of variation and the same probabilities of extreme events. That assumption, fundamental to the ways people and organizations make their choices, is no longer valid." National Research Council Panel, regarding climate change, 2009
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #146 on: September 05, 2016, 11:08:58 PM »
Prof. Ruddiman has kindly posted  a comment on the unforced variations september thread at realclimate regarding the early onset of industrial-era warming (  doi:10.1038/nature19082 ) in the light of his own work.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #147 on: September 06, 2016, 02:43:18 PM »
Coal rollers, a clear sign of human mental illness:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environment/rolling-coal-in-diesel-trucks-to-rebel-and-provoke.html?_r=0

Extract: "There is a new menace on America’s roads: diesel truck drivers who soup up their engines and remove their emissions controls to “roll coal,” or belch black smoke, at pedestrians, cyclists and unsuspecting Prius drivers."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

OrganicSu

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #148 on: September 06, 2016, 04:16:54 PM »
I saw a video of rolling coal a year ago. I am still sickened. My wish? One of these guys, strapped down, Guantanamo type impunity, streamed live to every other coal roller. Repeated until it stops.
Alternatively a court case to try someone like this for 'crimes against humanity' or 'facilitator of genocide'. The last time I called for such a court case was against at least 1 high level VW manager. That caused an outcry from members of this forum. Regarding that just remember those responsible are still enjoying their rewards. The pilage and wilful destruction, even when it is against the law, continues. To roll coal the law is broken, new laws are not needed. Acceptance or acquiescence of such has also got to stop.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11500
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #149 on: September 08, 2016, 02:33:05 AM »
I am sharing the following 2009 quote from the NRC, that indicates to me that people (across the spectrum) have no idea how to make decisions now for the world that will be coming by 2050:

"Government agencies, private organizations, and individuals whose futures will be affected by climate change are unprepared, both conceptually and practically, for meeting the challenges and opportunities it presents. Many of their usual practices and decision rules—for building bridges, implementing zoning rules, using private motor vehicles, and so on—assume a stationary climate—a continuation of past climatic conditions, including similar patterns of variation and the same probabilities of extreme events. That assumption, fundamental to the ways people and organizations make their choices, is no longer valid." National Research Council Panel, regarding climate change, 2009

For those who are more visual, the first image shows a traditional relationships demand & capacity pdfs for design of infrastructure; while the second attached image show how that traditional relationship changes with increasing forcing (such as will occur on infrastructure with continued AGW).  With enough coming radiative forcing only systems with a very long (resilient/adaptable) and fat-tailed capacity pdf will survive future climate change forcing.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson