Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences  (Read 669301 times)

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2041
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #350 on: November 18, 2014, 03:59:45 AM »
Jai, reference please. . .

here you will find dozens of references and graphs I have linked.  Please consider that you also have the freedom to post valuable links and information that contributes to our greater understanding.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

icefest

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #351 on: November 18, 2014, 05:22:37 AM »
I have no time for expensive, enormous carbon footprint white elephants that pollute a third party environment, ruin the visual amenity of vast tracts of land and water now and endanger numerous migrating  birds
Evidence please. Peer reviewed and not published in a tabloid. Must inlude comparisons to the alternative power source that you suggest.
The way out of fossil fuels is not to burn more of them to build things that ultimately dont pay back on the energy they have consumed in the making
Evidence please. To proove that this is true you'll need to show that all current ones don't and not just give an example of a single one that didn't. Or give a decent theoretical proof that they cannot work. Peer reviewed and published, as with the other piece.
need alternatives as back up when not working.
Please give evidence that other power generators don't need backup for when they don't work. I'l like to know how to get power from a non-working other power plant.
I dont get why you get so cross just because I throw up the conservative view - I have been entirely honest with my viewpoint as I assume are you. What is wrong with engaging and asking questions or offering a view.
Because:
I dont believe a single one of my 'facts' to be erroneous or exaggerated but I am not trying to back up any science here I am trying to make a point about engaging the likes of me in your opinion.
So you are saying that unfounded opinions carry as much value as a scientifically justifiable one?
With your last post you have absolutely failed to convince me of anything and I am just less alarmist - it rather proves the point I am making.
The one where you refuse to believe in provable reasoning?

Compare, the Nordic forests of the 12th century to today, the bony fish biomass from then to now.what got me
Where is the evidence? Post the links.
I was watching a video on u tube by Jim Steele on ocean acidification having read about the plight of oyster fisherman in Washington State and checked his unlisted sources, it is a skeptical video but relevant to the situation and I was just checking.
You should take the time to re-examine what he says and check it for accuracy. He has made many significant errors in interpreting scientific data in the past.
Open other end.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #352 on: November 18, 2014, 06:16:21 AM »
I am just logging on to say that I am traveling for three days, so I will not be posting much.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #353 on: November 18, 2014, 07:01:51 AM »
Why do we not hear more discussion of how Climate Change will magnify the Anthropocene crisis (overpopulation, water & mineral resource depletion, biodiversity loss, etc) ? Omitting these problems from IPCC risk assessments seems a recipe for failure, not to mention unscientific.

[Video] 60 Minutes: Depleting The Water
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/depleting-the-water/



A 2012 report from the director of National Intelligence warned that within 10 years "many countries important to the United States will experience water problems ... that will risk instability and state failure..." and cited the possible "use of water as a weapon or to further terrorist objectives."

[Reporter] Lesley Stahl: Water is the new oil.
Prof Jay Famiglietti: It's true. It's headed in that direction

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4936
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #354 on: November 18, 2014, 07:35:53 AM »
Re: Wind

reference in the last comment should read

"... the series by Jerome a Paris on eurotrib.com"

The a is supposed to have an aigu (acute) accent on it
The "la" was inserted by a misfunctioning french neuron

But really, read the series, very good. And while you're over there, read the Chris Cook series on gaming oil markets. Cook also has a long series on alternative accounting, which is good, but to me, rather tedious.


sidd

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 713
  • Likes Given: 467
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #355 on: November 18, 2014, 09:08:56 AM »
For the sake of transparency I want everyone to know I've disabled mark's profile for the ASIF, with the following text:

Quote
mark, you keep regurgitating climate denier talking points and disinformation, and you keep responding like an insulted princess when people point this out to you. It's costing me too much time and energy to keep an eye on what you write, the EROEI is too low.

"I am incredibly concerned about the future of this world and worry for the sake of my kids - CO2 increase is not even in my top 3 however -"

I suggest you direct your energies towards solving your top 3 problems.

Good luck,

Neven

I've also snipped the insulted princess parts from his latest comments, as they annoy me even more than the slavish redistribution of disinformation.

Sorry for taking so long, I like to give people second/third chances, and try to maintain a breadth of opinion to stimulate discussion, but I draw the line at structural repetition of denier talking points.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #356 on: November 18, 2014, 09:15:50 AM »
At last. Thank you, Neven. My morning cup of coffee tastes better already!
[]

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2589
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #357 on: November 18, 2014, 09:45:37 AM »
Yes, many thanks. It's a hard line to walk, determining just how trollish someone has to act before they get the axe.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2041
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #358 on: November 18, 2014, 07:53:25 PM »
Schwartz et. al has some very interesting observations.  Did the AR5 suffer a fatal error in allowing bad-faith actors within their consensus model to  intentionally move ECS to the downside?



(open access)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EF000273/pdf

Earth’s Climate Sensitivity: Apparent Inconsistencies in Recent
Assessments
Stephen E. Schwartz1, Robert J. Charlson2, Ralph Kahn3 and Henning Rodhe4

Quote
1. What degree of confidence can be placed in the large reduction in the magnitude of
negative aerosol forcing and resultant increase in total forcing
over the industrial period,
as assessed in AR5 versus AR4?

2. Given the increase in forcing adopted by AR5 relative to that of AR4, why is there so
little decrease in the assessment of ECS adopted by AR5
relative to that of AR4, as would
be expected from energy-balance considerations?

3. Why, especially in AR5, is there such a great difference between the likely range of ECS
given in the assessment, 1.5 to 4.5 K/(3.7 W m-2), and that inferred from the likely range
of forcing over the industrial period, together with observed increase in GMST and
planetary heating rate, 1.2 to 2.9 K/(3.7 W m-2)?

4. Why are the values of F – N in the CMIP5 model calculations of climate change over the
twentieth century systematically lower than the range of this quantity determined as the
AR5-assessed likely range
of forcing minus the observed planetary heating rate (Figure
1)?

Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #359 on: November 19, 2014, 01:28:39 AM »
Much of the discussion in this thread has focused on the question of whether scientific reticence (erring on the side of least drama, ESLD) has lent scientific support to the calibration of GCMs to simulate climate sensitivities (fast, intermediate and slow feedback mechanisms) that are too low for use when projecting future (say to 2100) global temperatures (particularly process-based IPCC projections of mean global surface temperatures).  Obviously, this has been such a point of contention that the likely range of ECS used in the IPCC AR5 model runs was increased from 2 to 4.5 C in AR4 to 1.5 to 4.5 C in AR5.  Furthermore, since AR5 was published, references such as Smith et al 2014 (which includes some of the original authors of the RCP scenarios) have raised questions of bias in climate models:

Steven J. Smith, Tom M. L. Wigley, Malte Meinshausen & Joeri Rogelj, (2014), "Questions of bias in climate models", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 4, Pages: 741–742, doi:10.1038/nclimate2345

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2345.html

See Shindell's response at:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2346.html
« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 08:56:25 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

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4936
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #360 on: November 19, 2014, 06:10:38 AM »
My French neuron is really misfiring: "Jerome a Paris" on eurotrib.com clearly should have a grave accent on the second "a" not an acute accent ...

Of course, the string "Jerome a Paris site:eurotrib.com" returns the right results regardless of diacritic

sidd

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #361 on: November 19, 2014, 09:13:41 AM »
Some scientists and policy makers have proposed to immediately limit the emissions of short-lived climate forcers, SLCF, (like black carbon and methane) as a means of buying more time until policies can be implemented to better control CO₂ emissions in order to remain below 2 C below preindustrial temperature levels.  However, the following linked reference demonstrates that neglecting the links between SLCFs and CO₂ emissions leads to overestimating the climate benefits assumed by early regulation of SLCF until CO₂ emissions can be brought better under control:

Rogelj, J., M. Schaeffer, M. Meinshausen, D. T. Shindell, W. Hare, Z. Klimont, G. J. M. Velders, M. Amann, & H. J. Schellnhuber (2014) Disentangling the effects of CO2 and short-lived climate forcer mitigation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1415631111.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16325.abstract

Significance: "Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our times. Human activities, like fossil-fuel burning, result in emissions of radiation-modifying substances that have a detectable, either warming or cooling, influence on our climate. Some, like soot (black carbon), are very short lived, whereas others, like carbon dioxide (CO2), are very persistent and remain in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia. Importantly, these substances are often emitted by common sources. As climate policy is looking at options to limit emissions of all these substances, understanding their linkages becomes extremely important. Our study disentangles these linkages and therewith helps to avoid crucial misconceptions: Measures reducing short-lived climate forcers are complementary to CO2 mitigation, but neglecting linkages leads to overestimating their climate benefits."

Abstract: "Anthropogenic global warming is driven by emissions of a wide variety of radiative forcers ranging from very short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs), like black carbon, to very long-lived, like CO2. These species are often released from common sources and are therefore intricately linked. However, for reasons of simplification, this CO2–SLCF linkage was often disregarded in long-term projections of earlier studies. Here we explicitly account for CO2–SLCF linkages and show that the short- and long-term climate effects of many SLCF measures consistently become smaller in scenarios that keep warming to below 2 °C relative to preindustrial levels. Although long-term mitigation of methane and hydrofluorocarbons are integral parts of 2 °C scenarios, early action on these species mainly influences near-term temperatures and brings small benefits for limiting maximum warming relative to comparable reductions taking place later. Furthermore, we find that maximum 21st-century warming in 2 °C-consistent scenarios is largely unaffected by additional black-carbon-related measures because key emission sources are already phased-out through CO2 mitigation. Our study demonstrates the importance of coherently considering CO2–SLCF coevolutions. Failing to do so leads to strongly and consistently overestimating the effect of SLCF measures in climate stabilization scenarios. Our results reinforce that SLCF measures are to be considered complementary rather than a substitute for early and stringent CO2 mitigation. Near-term SLCF measures do not allow for more time for CO2 mitigation. We disentangle and resolve the distinct benefits across different species and therewith facilitate an integrated strategy for mitigating both short and long-term climate change."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Michael Hauber

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #362 on: November 19, 2014, 09:45:48 AM »
Much of the discussion in this thread has focused on the question of whether scientific reticence (erring on the side of least drama, ESLD) has lent scientific support to the calibration of GCMs to simulate climate sensitivities (fast, intermediate and slow feedback mechanisms) that are too low for use when projecting future (say to 2100) global temperatures (particularly process-based IPCC projections of mean global surface temperatures).  Obviously, this has been such a point of contention that the likely range of ECS used in the IPCC AR5 model runs was increased from 2 to 4.5 C in AR4 to 1.5 to 4.5 C in AR5.  Furthermore, since AR5 was published, references such as Smith et al 2014 (which includes some of the original authors of the RCP scenarios) have raised questions of bias in climate models:

Steven J. Smith, Tom M. L. Wigley, Malte Meinshausen & Joeri Rogelj, (2014), "Questions of bias in climate models", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 4, Pages: 741–742, doi:10.1038/nclimate2345

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2345.html

See Shindell's response at:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2346.html

The biases being claimed are in simple models, and are studied by comparing the results of simpler models to the CMIP5 model results as utilised by IPCC.  There is no claim the the climate models as used by the IPCC are biased within these studies.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #363 on: November 19, 2014, 07:19:39 PM »
Abrupt SLR

Quote
the following linked reference demonstrates that neglecting the links between SLCFs and CO₂ emissions leads to overestimating the climate benefits assumed by early regulation of SLCF until CO₂ emissions can be brought better under control:
Some time ago. I came across Adrian Williams work for UK Department of Environment Food and Agriculture (DEFRA). I think DEFRA tried to bury the work which showed beef and lamb (and cheese) had very large carbon footprints due to methane emissions from ruminants.  See "Can DEFRA be trusted with the climate?"  http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/can-government-be-trusted-with-the-climate/

If my comments are correct that's another example of why scientists might be conservative and reluctant to bite the hand that funds them.

I tend to believe the scientists and policy makers that have "proposed to immediately limit the emissions of short-lived climate forcers, as a means of buying more time" and I do see the linking issue for some sources of SLCFs and CO2 but surely this linkage is small for methane emissions from ruminants.

Also what about paddy fields? There are other ways of growing rice.

The authors do say
Quote
CH4 only has a few sources that are linked to, and thus possibly affected by, CO2 mitigation (e.g., CH4 release from fossil-fuel extraction)

They also say
Quote
Early action on CH4 is less important for limiting warming to below 2 °C: also when delaying CH4 reductions by three decades, a similar effect on maximum warming during the 21st century remains
This worries me.  Does this conclusion assume there are no serious feedback/tipping point issues that will be encountered in the 21st century? Haven't we discussed "missing feedbacks" in climate models?

What if we decide it's dangerous to go above 1.5 °C or 1 °C?

Some climate scientists have suggested we cannot keep below 2 °C under current conditions. Is this relevant?
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #364 on: November 19, 2014, 08:02:16 PM »
Geoff,

I think the way to think about this issue is that society needs to keep pressure on reducing all radiative forcings and that we cannot afford to give CO2 a little more time (it needs to be cut back now).

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

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #365 on: November 19, 2014, 08:25:11 PM »
The linked reference indicates the negative forcing from recent volcanic aerosols was stronger than previously estimated; thus indicating that climate sensitivity (for periods without significant volcanic activity) is likely higher than previously assumed:

D. A Ridley, S. Solomon, J. E. Barnes, V.D. Burlakov, T. Deshler, S.I. Dolgii, A.B. Herber, T. Nagai, R. R. Neely, A.V. Nevzorov, C. Ritter, T. Sakai, B. D. Santer, M. Sato, A. Schmidt, O. Uchino and J. P. Vernier, (2014), "Total volcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI:10.1002/2014GL061541

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061541/abstract

Abstract: "Understanding the cooling effect of recent volcanoes is of particular interest in the context of the post-2000 slowing of the rate of global warming. Satellite observations of aerosol optical depth (AOD) above 15 km have demonstrated that small-magnitude volcanic eruptions substantially perturb incoming solar radiation. Here we use lidar, AERONET and balloon-borne observations to provide evidence that currently available satellite databases neglect substantial amounts of volcanic aerosol between the tropopause and 15 km at mid to high latitudes, and therefore underestimate total radiative forcing resulting from the recent eruptions. Incorporating these estimates into a simple climate model, we determine the global volcanic aerosol forcing since 2000 to be −0.19 ± 0.09 Wm−2. This translates into an estimated global cooling of 0.05 to 0.12 °C. We conclude that recent volcanic events are responsible for more post-2000 cooling than is implied by satellite databases that neglect volcanic aerosol effects below 15 km."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #366 on: November 19, 2014, 10:15:11 PM »
AbruptSLR

Agreed.

I do have in my memory a conversation, from a few years ago, telling me that Myles Allen was briefing UK Government people that current methane emissions didn't matter much because it will have degraded to CO2 before "the peak".

I think that's a flawed and dangerous argument but my informant thought it was influential.

This paper seems to support that view.

My hope is that soon we will be cutting the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere by extracting it and storing/fixing it but (of course) stopping emissions is easier.

I hope to find out more about the state of geoengineering next week and find out if CO2 atmospheric extraction is in the wings.
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2041
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #367 on: November 19, 2014, 10:49:34 PM »
AbruptSLR

Agreed.

I do have in my memory a conversation, from a few years ago, telling me that Myles Allen was briefing UK Government people that current methane emissions didn't matter much because it will have degraded to CO2 before "the peak".

I think that's a flawed and dangerous argument but my informant thought it was influential.

This paper seems to support that view.

My hope is that soon we will be cutting the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere by extracting it and storing/fixing it but (of course) stopping emissions is easier.

I hope to find out more about the state of geoengineering next week and find out if CO2 atmospheric extraction is in the wings.

Geoff,

this view is inconsistent with the current science that shows methane emissions provide significant additional forcing mechanisms through the process of oxidation.

http://co2now.org/Know-GHGs/Methane-%7C-CH4/methane-and-climate-science.html

Quote
The direct radiative forcing (warming) due to the CH4 concentration increase in the industrial era (i.e. after 1750 AD) is 0.48 W/m2 (Forster et al., 2007). Increasing methane concentration also contributes a radiative forcing indirectly, through tropospheric interactions that influence ozone concentrations, increasing stratospheric water vapor (of which it is the main source), as well as providing a small additional source of CO2 (methane, in its destruction, is oxidized to CO2). If these indirect effects are taken into account, the radiative forcing due to anthropogenic (from human origin) methane increase is estimated at ~ 0.85 W/m2 , as compared to 1.66 W/m2 for CO2 (Forster et al., 2007).

In addition, near term forcing produces near term warming which will work to release carbon cycle and frozen soil feedbacks faster.  This is a primary concern with a potential ice-free arctic in 2030 vs. 2080.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Michael Hauber

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #368 on: November 19, 2014, 11:17:01 PM »
The linked reference indicates the negative forcing from recent volcanic aerosols was stronger than previously estimated; thus indicating that climate sensitivity (for periods without significant volcanic activity) is likely higher than previously assumed:

D. A Ridley, S. Solomon, J. E. Barnes, V.D. Burlakov, T. Deshler, S.I. Dolgii, A.B. Herber, T. Nagai, R. R. Neely, A.V. Nevzorov, C. Ritter, T. Sakai, B. D. Santer, M. Sato, A. Schmidt, O. Uchino and J. P. Vernier, (2014), "Total volcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI:10.1002/2014GL061541

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061541/abstract

Abstract: "Understanding the cooling effect of recent volcanoes is of particular interest in the context of the post-2000 slowing of the rate of global warming. Satellite observations of aerosol optical depth (AOD) above 15 km have demonstrated that small-magnitude volcanic eruptions substantially perturb incoming solar radiation. Here we use lidar, AERONET and balloon-borne observations to provide evidence that currently available satellite databases neglect substantial amounts of volcanic aerosol between the tropopause and 15 km at mid to high latitudes, and therefore underestimate total radiative forcing resulting from the recent eruptions. Incorporating these estimates into a simple climate model, we determine the global volcanic aerosol forcing since 2000 to be −0.19 ± 0.09 Wm−2. This translates into an estimated global cooling of 0.05 to 0.12 °C. We conclude that recent volcanic events are responsible for more post-2000 cooling than is implied by satellite databases that neglect volcanic aerosol effects below 15 km."

That is part of an explanation for why the warming rate in recent years has been slower than predicted.  It in no way implies that climate sensitivity should be revised upward.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2041
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #369 on: November 20, 2014, 04:45:18 AM »
Micheal,

instead of simply asserting that something someone says isn't true, can you EXPLAIN why it isn't true?  Just going around and saying, "you're wrong!" doesn't really prove your point.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4936
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #370 on: November 20, 2014, 05:25:54 AM »
Don't want to speak for Mr. Hauber, but my takeaway from the paper is that negative volcanic aerosol forcing over first decade of this century was larger than included in models. Says nuttn about the sensitivity of those models. I disagree with Mr. AbruptSLR  where he says
"indicating that climate sensitivity (for periods without significant volcanic activity) is likely higher than previously assumed"

Sensitivity is unaffected by this paper. All it points out is that volcanic aerosols were underestimated. Perhaps Mr. AbruptSLR meant that we would see more warming in a period without such negative forcing, in which case I agree with the sentiment but not the expression.

sidd

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2041
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #371 on: November 20, 2014, 09:01:12 AM »
I thought that Mr. ASLR was suggesting that the intensity and duration of Aerosol forcing for volcanoes was underestimated and that, by association, the overall aerosol and secondary cloud forcing factors were also underestimated.  As shown in the Schwartz 2013 graphic I posted earlier, this would imply a lower forcing and coupled with the higher OHC (as shown in durack et. al.) a higher heat rate, the value of (F-N) would be much lower and project the likely ECS value toward the upper range and even beyond.

and I will say it again, this projection does not include the forcing of frozen earth, carbon cycle, or arctic albedo from ice collapse. . .just feel I have to throw that in every time I look at modeled forcing based observations of the past 3 decades. . .
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #372 on: November 20, 2014, 10:28:37 AM »
Jai

Quote
In addition, near term forcing produces near term warming which will work to release carbon cycle and frozen soil feedbacks faster.  This is a primary concern with a potential ice-free arctic in 2030 vs. 2080.

Perhaps someone should tell Myles Allen and the UK Government.
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #373 on: November 20, 2014, 01:54:52 PM »
Don't want to speak for Mr. Hauber, but my takeaway from the paper is that negative volcanic aerosol forcing over first decade of this century was larger than included in models. Says nuttn about the sensitivity of those models. I disagree with Mr. AbruptSLR  where he says
"indicating that climate sensitivity (for periods without significant volcanic activity) is likely higher than previously assumed"

Sensitivity is unaffected by this paper. All it points out is that volcanic aerosols were underestimated. Perhaps Mr. AbruptSLR meant that we would see more warming in a period without such negative forcing, in which case I agree with the sentiment but not the expression.

sidd

sidd,

I my view, one of the fundamental issue that needs to be clarified in this thread is related to the interpretational debate over the meaning of the word ‘probability,’ with the frequentists on one side claiming a probability assignment is really nothing more than an assignment of the frequency of occurrence of a given outcome of a trial, and the Bayesians on the other side claiming a probability assignment is a state of knowledge.  Roughly speaking, statistics generally describe information we already know or data we’ve already collected, whereas probability is generally used to predict what might happen in the future.  In other words, probabilities can only be accurately formulated from statistical data if that data arose from a perfectly repeatable series of experiments or observations.

I myself prefer the Bayesian interpretation of probability and I am concerned that many scientists today act as frequentists, using incomplete models to perform repeatable thought experiments in order to produce frequency curves that they believe represent true probability distribution curves. However, in a non-stationary chaotic world it is difficult to say whether these frequency curves are hiding Black Swan events, or even Dragon King events.  In the real complex world we are conducting an experiment involving climate change that we do not get to repeat, as most of the non-linear changes to feedback factors are effectively irreversible in our lifetimes (or even societies lifetime).  Therefore, I believe that society would be well advised to adopt the "Precautionary Principle" and to be very careful when deciding whether "masking factors" are temporarily hiding greater climate sensitivities, that could indeed emerge from the "fog of war"/uncertainty as either a Black Swan, or a Dragon King, event.

Cautiously yours,
ASLR
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 02:12:12 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #374 on: November 20, 2014, 02:54:09 PM »
In another cautionary manner, I would like to note that society is currently following a BAU (similar to RCP 8.5) pathway, and while we all hope that we will drop down to a lower pathway soon, I believe that it is denialist to at least not acknowledge that for at least several years to several decades it is possible to exceed the RCP8.5 scenario.  For example, it the US concludes negotiations with Iran in a favorable manner, this would end the current restrictions on Iranian oil production which would further drop oil prices and promote fossil fuel emissions.  Another example is that currently holding banks are allowed to own fossil fuel stocks, which they can manipulate to drive-up fossil fuel prices; however, it is possible/probable that new regulations will limit this practice thus dropping fossil fuel prices and promoting more emissions.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #375 on: November 20, 2014, 03:40:00 PM »
I'm totally behind what Abrupt is saying here. Just look at Svalbard, for instance: No–one ever predicted its winter temperatures (and rainfall!) would resemble those of Bergen (Western Norway (mainland)) as early as in the 2010s. It hadn't before in recent memory, so how could it?
[]

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #376 on: November 20, 2014, 05:42:35 PM »
In my view, one of the fundamental issue that needs to be clarified in this thread is related to the interpretational debate over the meaning of the word ‘probability,’ with the frequentists on one side claiming a probability assignment is really nothing more than an assignment of the frequency of occurrence of a given outcome of a trial, and the Bayesians on the other side claiming a probability assignment is a state of knowledge.  Roughly speaking, statistics generally describe information we already know or data we’ve already collected, whereas probability is generally used to predict what might happen in the future.  In other words, probabilities can only be accurately formulated from statistical data if that data arose from a perfectly repeatable series of experiments or observations.

I myself prefer the Bayesian interpretation of probability and I am concerned that many scientists today act a frequentists, using incomplete models to perform repeatable thought experiments in order to produce frequency curves that they believe represent true probability distribution curves. However, in a non-stationary chaotic world it is difficult to say whether these frequency curves are hiding Black Swan events, or even Dragon King events.  In the real complex world we are conducting an experiment involving climate change that we do not get to repeat, as most of the non-linear changes to feedback factors are effectively irreversible in our lifetimes (or even societies lifetime).  Therefore, I believe that society would be well advised to adopt the "Precautionary Principle" and to be very careful when deciding whether "masking factors" are temporarily hiding greater climate sensitivities, that could indeed emerge from the "fog of war"/uncertainty as either a Black Swan, or a Dragon King, event.

Cautiously yours,
ASLR

AbruptSLR brings up a very good point. I think most today agree that frequentist methods are more susceptible to assumptions and omissions (I'll skip the details).

Today's best statisticians are generally pluralistic and use all methods when applicable to give them a more comprehensive perspective. However, Frequentists quite often identify as "anti-Bayesians" and politically Conservative. Much has been written about this, and this group still holds a lot of power and influence in academia and politics.

In essence it helps Conservatives do what they always do, ignore all that conflicts with their rigidly ideological worldview.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 06:02:29 PM by TeaPotty »

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #377 on: November 20, 2014, 06:32:03 PM »
From translating Joel Bakan's great documentary «The Corporation», I know a lot about so–called 'externalizing'. In short, the corporations, large and small, love to externalize costs (and consequences), while of course keep the profits. This means that you and I (and the forests, the fish, oceans, atmosphere) have to take the cost of running their business, so that they can secure a profit.

I suspect that a so–called 'conservative' (who, mind you, does not conserve very much at all) is also a person that supports this habit of externalizing costs and side–effects of doing business, and, therefore, by way of necessity, also supports «conservative climate science», where the real dangers or the enormous scope of the danger is not supposed to be properly emphasized.

Were it to become frontpage news, their way of making a profit would pretty soon be outlawed.
[]

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2041
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #378 on: November 20, 2014, 06:38:02 PM »
"First, assume a can opener."  Said the economist.

Imagine if the Allies were run by economists instead of tacticians in WWII.  "first lets assume an unlimited amount of land territory that the Nazis can take. . ."

In the world of subjective reality and indeterminate futures, it is an intellectual crutch to rely on statistical methods to predict the future.  It is a fallacy of human thought to ascribe extreme outlier "black swan" status to events that could (even should) have been predicted.

Such was the 2007-2008 economic collapse.  This was, by any rational analysis a "dragon king" event. (a system-driven fast-feedback toppling of the global economy)  However, when looked at it in hindsight, Nicholas Taleb called the collapse a "classic" black swan event (in his book "black swan).

The evidence of this being a semi-intentional systemic fast-feedback driven collapse is shown in the analyses of Karl Marx and Kondratieff as well as the prescient market analysts that were telling people to get the hell out of stocks in 2006.

So in the real world, we live in a state of constant threat and threat assessment, avoidance and, (if necessary) adaptation. 

It is in the communication of a potential threat that we find the arguments based on statistical models.  This is because these threats often require extraordinary measures for amelioration.  This "policy inertia" requires much higher material "proof" than a simple risk/reward model.   The "proof" of threat is much higher due to the exorbitant adaptions required.

Like when hitler invaded Poland, vs. simply annexing Austria.

This is why ALL informal polls of climate scientists show a MUCH higher impact of climate change in coming years than the "likely" range in the IPCC.  These impacts are often significantly higher, between 150% to 400%.

This is why the earth must experience a truly catastrophic climate-associated event, one that causes the "hot frogs" to jump out of the pot before it begins to boil. . .
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 06:31:37 AM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #379 on: November 21, 2014, 05:40:11 AM »
Bayesian logic makes extensive use of inductive logic, and Bayesian techniques can help to determine allowable climate sensitivity values, as often the estimated climate sensitivity values are based on data that are sparse, noisy or biased, and/or all of these. Using Bayesian logic, estimates of climate sensitivities based on observations/measurements can be compared with previously projected values, and observing a difference, the projections can be "corrected" by arbitrarily subtracting off the discrepancy.  When new data are collected, these too may disagree with the new predictions, and if so, another "correction" is applied, and so on.
Kelly and Tan, 2011, built a preliminary integrated assessment model to test how fat tails (for temperature change PDFs) due to uncertainties in the climate system affect economic growth, and examined whether, and how fast, uncertainties could be diminished through Bayesian learning.  This research found that if the climate system is close to equilibrium then Bayesian learning will quickly provide evidence against fat tail uncertainties; while if the climate system is not close to equilibrium (implying that true climate sensitivity is high) then Bayesian learning occurs more slowly, and the implications of a fat tail on the demand loading distribution would have a significant increase in the risk of failure.  Weitzman, 2009, argues that fat tails reflect the "deep structural uncertainty for the low-probability, high-impact catastrophes" and that: "… It is inherently difficult to learn from finite samples alone enough about the probabilities of extreme events to thin down the bad tail of the PDF because, by definition, we don't get many data point observations of such catastrophes".  Therefore, I find it disturbing that recent climate sensitivity measurements have not lead to an elimination of the fat tail for the climate sensitivity PDF.

Kelly, D.L. and Tan, Z., (2011), "Leaning, Growth and Climate Feedbacks" 2011 Camp Resources XVIII, University of Miami, August 15, 2011.

Weitzman, M., (2009a), "On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change," Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, pp. 1-19.

Weitzman, M., (2009b), "Additive damages, fat-tailed climate dynamics, and uncertain discounting"; Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 3, pp. 1-29.

What does the Bayesian interpretation of probability tell us about reductionism? The key to the Bayesian interpretation is the notion that, if probabilities represent our states of knowledge, measurements update these states of knowledge. Thus knowledge is gained in an incremental manner which is the essence of reductionism. Thus probabilities, in a Bayesian context, are absolutely reductionist.  Reductionism does not preclude the existence of what might be called emergent phenomena (such as a Black Swan climate change event), but it does imply the ability to understand those phenomena completely in terms of the processes from which they are composed (given a suitably sophisticated well calibrated Earth System Model).  Thus with sufficient Bayesian learning possible Black Swan events (which may be predictable by the "Butcher" but cannot be forecast by the "Turkey") can be revealed to society at large (hopefully in time to do something about it).
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #380 on: November 21, 2014, 07:53:59 AM »
As an aside , and losing it on the bayesian , lagrangian arguments I would like to make the argument that within the ocean acidification side of the climate change issue we have plenty of examples of bold individuals willing to put numbers on the unique extent the current carbon spike and how it compares to carbon excursions past. With a history of papers published ( 2004 -eighteen papers  published ) and 
in 2013 ( 374 papers published ) there has been incredible advances in our knowledge base. I have only kudos to the individuals involved and wonder how would one explain or rationalize the whole concept of "conservative science" or the critiques in arguments above re. Acidification? Maybe climate science moves separately in the various fields but for a ten year history of  acidification the science has moved incredibly quickly and the boldness of the individuals involved maybe should stand in counterpoint to the reticence otherwise criticized on this page. Even the IPCC has highlighted this issue.

  http://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2014/11/20/promoting-international-collaboration-on-ocean-acidification-data-management/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FlRgb+%28Ocean+acidification%29



 




AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #381 on: November 21, 2014, 06:24:55 PM »
Bruce,
I certainly am not questioning the bravery, or integrity, of the vast majority of scientists.  However, the IPCC has a process-based procedure for advising policymakers what to do about climate change.  Furthermore, most policymakers do not look beyond the official approved Summary for Policymakers (SPM) linked below, in order to make their decisions: 

IPCC:  "CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 SYNTHESIS REPORT
Approved Summary for Policymakers", 1 November 2014

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf

Below I have extracted all of the guidance offered to policymakers from the SPM regarding ocean acidification.  There is no mention of the fact that ocean acidification can act as a positive feedback mechanism to accelerate climate change, despite all of the good research that is available in the literature.  I would image that most policymakers would read the following extracts and would conclude that ocean acidification is not too bad yet and that they have other pressing matters and then they would move on without taking action to more aggressively reduce CO₂ emissions.  While individual scientists may be doing brilliant work, the integration of available facts is being watered down by the IPCC process-based methodology to the point that the policymakers think they can wait a few more decades before taking more aggressive action:

Extracts: "Since the beginning of the industrial era, oceanic uptake of CO2 has resulted in acidification of the ocean; the pH of ocean surface water has decreased by 0.1 (high confidence), corresponding to a 26% increase in acidity, measured as hydrogen ion concentration.

The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic CO2, causing ocean acidification.

Some impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms have been attributed to human influence (medium confidence).

Earth System Models project a global increase in ocean acidification for all RCP scenarios by the end of the 21st century, with a slow recovery after mid-century under RCP2.6. The decrease in surface ocean pH is in the range of 0.06 to 0.07 (15–17% increase in acidity) for RCP2.6, 0.14 to 0.15 (38–41%) for RCP4.5, 0.20 to 0.21 (58–62%) for RCP6.0, and 0.30 to 0.32 (100–109%) for RCP8.5.

The overall risks of future climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change, including ocean acidification. The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger abrupt and irreversible change remain uncertain, but the risk associated with crossing such thresholds increases with rising temperature (medium confidence). For risk assessment, it is important to evaluate the widest possible range of impacts, including low-probability outcomes with large consequences.

Marine organisms will face progressively lower oxygen levels and high rates and magnitudes of ocean acidification (high confidence), with associated risks exacerbated by rising ocean temperature extremes (medium confidence). Coral reefs and polar ecosystems are highly vulnerable.

There is high confidence that ocean acidification will increase for centuries if CO2 emissions continue, and will strongly affect marine ecosystems."

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

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #382 on: November 21, 2014, 07:35:48 PM »
I could name a good long list of scientists that I believe have covered the long term downsides to ocean acidification and yes the IPCC report doesn't really match the terror that an honest evaluation of that information should evoke. But. Good policy should be well informed policy and to read the Summary for Policymakers and not take the time to then read the science articles responsible for the policy outline
is laziness . I suppose most people in power are overly dependent on staff and hiring people to read and understand the science for them. That is however no excuse for not understanding important science issues as they relate to policy and decision making. So is it reticence in the IPCC policy statement or the attributes and candor we expect from politicians that is really the problem?
 How do we choose elected representation and what is the limit to what money will buy? Those aren't issues likely to self resolve and I am afraid the window of opportunity to get it right is rapidly closing.
No amount of good governance will turn this bus  around if we get down this road to far. I am not very optimistic and nobody likes to be told what they can't do, so putting positive spin on annihilation is all we get even from those few elected representatives that are up to date on the science. 
 To sum , it isn't the scientists that help write the executive summary we should worry about as much as the apparent willingness of the public to be duped.
 I am a fisher man/farmer with zero formal education so it bothers me that people just don't give a crap enough to study up themselves. We get the governance we deserve , the planet will pay the price



 

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4936
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #383 on: November 21, 2014, 09:31:08 PM »
I suppose most people in power are overly dependent on staff and hiring people to read and understand the science for them. That is however no excuse for not understanding important science issues as they relate to policy and decision making. So is it reticence in the IPCC policy statement or the attributes and candor we expect from politicians that is really the problem?
 How do we choose elected representation and what is the limit to what money will buy? Those aren't issues likely to self resolve and I am afraid the window of opportunity to get it right is rapidly closing.
No amount of good governance will turn this bus  around if we get down this road to far. I am not very optimistic and nobody likes to be told what they can't do, so putting positive spin on annihilation is all we get even from those few elected representatives that are up to date on the science. 
To sum , it isn't the scientists that help write the executive summary we should worry about as much as the apparent willingness of the public to be duped.

For the USA, please see: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310

"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
 
Politicians are bought and sold by fossil interests. It is not the vast majority of the public who are to blame, they have no control in the USA. Elected representation is a joke. Money cannot buy everything, but it can buy enough, and is already deeply invested in climate hell. And we see the apparat of ubiquitous surveillance already brought to bear against those who attempt populist challenge to fossil interests. One possibility is that the plutocrats can be induced to turn on each other, which they will, in any event, but only  after they destroy the middle class. But that will be difficult to engineer in time. Outside the USA there are more hopes, but so few, always so few.

I think that eventually, (and perhaps too late for places like Bangladesh) climate disaster will force even the likes of the Koch brothers to back down. By then many will be dead or destitute. Unfortunately that is a long way away. Unless the fossil fuel oligarchy can be brought to heel, and quickly, in a generation their names will be a hissing and a curse in the mouths of dying multitudes all over the globe.

sidd

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #384 on: November 22, 2014, 07:09:05 PM »
A lot of interesting articles this week. First is a lecture that lays out a foundation for the main narrative shift that must occur for humanity to properly address our current crisis.

"Promoting conservation as primarily not about preventing human-caused extinction, but primarily about sustaining ecosystem services, is this fundamentally anthropocentric frame. Its implicit in the term even. Its 'those' ecosystems serve 'us'." [11:30]

I think all scientists need to frame climate change within the spectrum of our Anthropocene crisis. It's becoming increasingly dishonest to talk about Climate Change as if it occurs independently of the ecosystem and its creatures we need to survive. Discussing our planet as a commodity of profit at some uncertain risk to uncertain projections of future loss is exactly what Business-As-Usual is.




The Magical Thought That's Assumed in Climate Studies
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-20/the-magical-thought-that-s-assumed-in-climate-studies.html

There's a huge gap between the volume of pollution emitted every year and how much scientists say we can safely send aloft... The carbon overshoot could grow by 2030 to 40 percent.

...two degrees doesn't say much to normal people when you're talking about the temperature of a planet... At the rate we're going, the budget may burn up by the 2040s. Now, in finance, the notion of a budget deficit make sense. When someone overspends, he pays the money back at a later date. Ecological deficits make less sense. How do you pay the ground back in carbon minerals once they've been vaporized and are hanging in the atmosphere?

Whenever anyone starts talking about negative emissions, "the feasibility of these assumptions still needs to be explored," the UNEP writes. That "feasibility" phrase seems like a charitable euphemism to suggest that a key tool in fighting climate change is still magical thinking, and that the dominant, de facto world policy on climate change is to hope that it won't get as bad as scientists think it will.




Meanwhile this week...

Hottest October And Year To Date On Record Globally, NOAA Reports
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/20/3594961/hottest-october-on-record-globally/

2014 is almost certainly going to be the hottest year on record worldwide — probably by far

The years 2013 and 2014 are the only years on this list not to begin during a mature El Niño event.




Heatwave frequency 'surpasses levels previously predicted for 2030'
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/17/heatwave-frequency-surpasses-levels-previously-predicted-for-2030

...the frequency of heatwaves in parts of Australia has already surpassed levels previously predicted for 2030

They kill hundreds of people and the fact they are accelerating beyond the predicted trends is a concern

“We’re not looking at these things in a linked-up way, we don’t seem to recognise the relationship between the number and intensity of heatwaves on bushfires, and the impact on droughts,” he said. “It’s an inconvenient truth and people don’t want to face the truth.”




To my surprise, actual research has been published on my theory that the religious hold beliefs that reinforce Climate Inaction:

A Big Reason Climate Change Isn’t A Priority: The Apocalypse

The fact that half of Americans cite the end times as a cause of recent severe weather events suggests a kind of fatalism that would certainly lead to less urgency when it comes to issues like climate change. Even many of those who believe in climate change -- and about one-quarter of Americans don't, per the survey -- seem to think natural disasters are part of something that is preordained. In addition, 39 percent of Americans say God would not allow humans to destroy the Earth (53 percent disagree). So, apparently, most of those who believe we're in the end times also believe God would intervene. Basically at least four in 10 Americans see little reason for a human response -- or, at least, doubt things will wind up being catastrophic.

Fifty-seven percent say God “gave humans the task of living responsibly with animals, plants and other resources, which are not just for human benefit,” while 35 percent say God gave humans all that “solely for their own benefit.”

Just 5 percent rate it as the No. 1 issue, behind things like immigration, education and the wealth gap.







AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #385 on: November 22, 2014, 11:47:21 PM »
The philosopher C. D. Broad once wrote: "Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy".  Therefore, it is not surprising that for a politically charged topic like abrupt climate change that the IPCC process-based GCM projections would over-emphasize deductive logic (which typically follows Frequentist thinking), and under-emphasize inductive logic (i.e. to avoid accusations of bias).  Furthermore, science is one of the most competitive professions around, and scientist set a high burden of "proof" on new theories; which helps to explain scientist's tendency to err on the side of least drama regarding claims of possible abrupt climate change.  Scientists are smart, and if they were responsible for public safety instead of for avoiding accusations of bias, they would make more use of induction (and Bayesian logic) in order to reduce the risks of Black Swan, or Dragon King, abrupt climate change events. 

One example of a such a possible Black Swan abrupt climate change event is that: as China, America and Europe progressively restrict GHG emissions, that economic resources/capital may likely flow into developing countries (e.g. India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan and Nigeria) that may likely be willing to allow relatively high GHG emissions in exchange for higher economic growth rates (rather than waiting for green to develop sufficiently to allow them to share in the "good life"); which will keep the world near an RCP 8.5 pathway until at least 2050.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 11:57:31 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #386 on: November 23, 2014, 02:49:42 AM »
Just to show how clever scientists can be, the extract from the following link, indicates that the ACME project is initially most concerned about: (a) the water cycle, (b) biochemistry, and (c) the cryosphere.  All three are potential sources of strong positive feedback:

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/08/25/acme/

Extract: "The project, called Accelerated Climate Modeling for Energy, or ACME, is designed to accelerate the development and application of fully coupled, state-of-the-science Earth system models for scientific and energy applications. The plan is to exploit advanced software and new High Performance Computing machines as they become available.

The initial focus will be on three climate change science drivers and corresponding questions to be answered during the project’s initial phase:

 (Water Cycle) How do the hydrological cycle and water resources interact with the climate system on local to global scales? How will more realistic portrayals of features important to the water cycle (resolution, clouds, aerosols, snowpack, river routing, land use) affect river flow and associated freshwater supplies at the watershed scale?
(Biogeochemistry) How do biogeochemical cycles interact with global climate change? How do carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles regulate climate system feedbacks, and how sensitive are these feedbacks to model structural uncertainty?
(Cryosphere Systems) How do rapid changes in cryospheric systems, or areas of the earth where water exists as ice or snow, interact with the climate system? Could a dynamical instability in the Antarctic Ice Sheet be triggered within the next 40 years?
Over a planned 10-year span, the project aim is to conduct simulations and modeling on the most sophisticated HPC machines as they become available, i.e., 100-plus petaflop machines and eventually exascale supercomputers. The team initially will use U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science Leadership Computing Facilities at Oak Ridge and Argonne national laboratories."

see also:
http://catalog.data.gov/dataset/climate-change-science-institute/resource/aa2d6619-45ab-4b7a-88cb-cd8587158e6e

especially see:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/35/14118.full

Extract: "The highest emission scenario currently being considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, which would bring CO2 concentrations up to 2,000 ppm, which is in the upper reaches of the range considered in ref. 2. Even this scenario can be considered somewhat optimistic, in that it assumes that the annual growth in CO2 emissions rate (which has been hovering around 3% for decades) will tail off by 2060 and that the emissions rate will cease growing altogether by 2100, whereafter emissions will trend to zero; unrestrained growth could easily dump twice as much carbon into the atmosphere."

Also, the previously discussed linked article (by Sherwood et al 2013 & published after the cut-off for AR5) indicates that ECS is somewhere between 3 and 5 C.

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-cloud-mystery-global-temperatures-4c.html

Furthermore, the following linked article discusses how increasing uncertainty increases to probability of a high climate sensitivity value:

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-uncertainty-isnt-climate-complacencyquite.html

Also, it is worth noting that the linked article about paleo findings indicate that long-term Earth System Sensitivity is higher than previously thought:

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Franks_et_al_2014_GRL_new_stomatal-CO2_proxy.pdf

Also there are many articles in the Antarctic "Forcing" thread that discuss various positive feedback factors that are more active than previously expected, such as the higher biochemical activity discussed in the following linked article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7516/full/nature13604.html
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 04:57:29 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #387 on: November 23, 2014, 06:13:38 PM »
The linked website discusses the importance of the water cycle on climate sensitivity and emphasizes how much we have to learn (which increases our risk of high climate sensitivity):

http://www.wcrp-climate.org/index.php/decala-prediction/26-grand-challenges

Extract of critical issues:
"- Climate and hydrological sensitivity
- Coupling clouds to circulations
- Changing patterns
- Leveraging the past record
- Towards more reliable models"

Also see:

http://www.wcrp-climate.org/images/documents/grand_challenges/GC4_Clouds_14nov2012.pdf
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #388 on: November 24, 2014, 10:19:59 AM »
To follow-up on the importance of refining the uncertainties associated with cloud feedback; the linked reference indicates that the short-term feedback for the clouds evaluated was likely positive.


A.E. Dessler, "A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade", Science, vol. 330, pp. 1523-1527, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1192546

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523

Abstract: "Estimates of Earth's climate sensitivity are uncertain, largely because of uncertainty in the long-term cloud feedback. I estimated the magnitude of the cloud feedback in response to short-term climate variations by analyzing the top-of-atmosphere radiation budget from March 2000 to February 2010. Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of 0.54 ± 0.74 (2σ) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive. A small negative feedback is possible, but one large enough to cancel the climate’s positive feedbacks is not supported by these observations. Both long- and short-wave components of short-term cloud feedback are also likely positive. Calculations of short-term cloud feedback in climate models yield a similar feedback. I find no correlation in the models between the short- and long-term cloud feedbacks."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #389 on: November 24, 2014, 06:28:27 PM »
I thought that I would like to point-out that while we are typically discussing global climate sensitivities and global feedback mechanisms in this thread; regional climate sensitivities & regional feedback mechanisms can also be calculated.  When regional climate sensitivities are carefully considered it becomes more clear that several key areas of the global (including portions of the Tibetan Highlands, West Antarctica, and the Arctic) have higher climate sensitivities than the rest of the Earth (ie they are already warming faster than the rest of the Earth); and with continued warming: as "slow feedback" mechanisms are transformed into "fast feedback" mechanisms, in these key areas, global climate sensitivity may well accelerate faster by 2100 than as projected by GCM's calibrated to sensitivities from the observed in the paleo record.

Edit: the linked reference provides discussion of how the Tibetan Highland are warming faster that surrounding areas (which in my opinion indicates that more warm air and dust will be carried from this key area into the Arctic, and if so, it will contribute to an acceleration of Arctic amplification):

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/114008
« Last Edit: November 24, 2014, 06:45:45 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #390 on: November 25, 2014, 08:01:00 PM »
While the IPCC Probability Distribution Function, PDF, for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, looks so well researched and robust, I would like to make the following comments (in addition to my comments made previously in this thread) on this matter:

(1) First, as the PDF for ECS is skewed to the right, increasing uncertainty increases the likelihood of high values of ECS being correct.  The first image from Shaping Tomorrows World illustrates how this is the case (see the link and caption below):

www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org

Caption for first image: "Chances of 5C warming (red line) in response to distributions of estimates centered on 3C warming but with differing uncertainties.  The top left panel shows the least uncertainty, and least chance of exceeding 5C, the bottom right shows most uncertainty and most chance of exceeding 5C. Credit: www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org"

(2) The second attached image is from Kelly & Tan, 2011 (referred earlier in this thread), which presents how iterative cycles (500 cycles here) of Bayesian Learning slowly converges a very conservative (denialist) ECS - PDF to pre-assumed value of 4C.  This emphasizes that: (a) PDFs for ECS change the more observations/measurement that we make; and (b) The fact that the PDF for ECS has been slow to converge towards a single true value, provides support for the position that the current effective ECS maybe appreciably higher than 3C.

Caption for second image: ""Experiment 2" Convergence of PDF on Pre-Assumed Climate Sensitivity of 4.0 (average of 500 simulations), from Kelly & Tan, 2011."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #391 on: November 26, 2014, 12:19:50 AM »

(2) The second attached image is from Kelly & Tan, 2011 (referred earlier in this thread), which presents how iterative cycles (500 cycles here) of Bayesian Learning slowly converges a very conservative (denialist) ECS - PDF to pre-assumed value of 4C.  This emphasizes that: (a) PDFs for ECS change the more observations/measurement that we make; and (b) The fact that the PDF for ECS has been slow to converge towards a single true value, provides support for the position that the current effective ECS maybe appreciably higher than 3C.

Some pedantry:
I think the 500 simulations are to smooth out random effects it is actually iterated 160 times each with 1 year of data.

While the blue curve is denalist in having high chances of ECS less than 1.5C, I would expect a denialist pdf to have negligable probability of ECS being above 5C. That blue curve must have over a 5% chance of ECS being above 6C and is declining so slowly that at the top end the curve looks to also have some alarmist characteristics to me.
/pedantry

Comments
As a 1970 prior, I would suggest more chance of ECS being below 0.5C but this really doesn't matter much as the data soon rules this out. (Hence I suggest in classifying a pdf of ECS as denialist or alarmist more attention should be given to the top end than the bottom end.)

I would also move the mode probability to a higher level, so in that sense I would be less denialist than the curve suggests.

The image shows that after 60 years we have very good knowledge of ECS. If ECS acts as a single constant number, this may well be the case. However in reality ECS will vary with the climate state, so I doubt that the value of ECS can be restricted to such small ranges as indicated by year 60 and year 160 curves.

Note how after just 10 years of data, the fat tail has almost disappeared. We have a lot more years of data since IPCC First AR, so shouldn't our pdf for ECS be almost symmetrical by now? Why do you retain the view that there is a fat tail on the high side for ECS?



AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #392 on: November 26, 2014, 12:53:39 AM »
crandles,

I had hesitated to post the image by Kelly & Tan, 2011, as it only represents a thought experiment to illustrate in theory how Bayesian Learning might apply to climate sensitivity.  As this is only a thought experiment, there is no need to relate it to our actual situation (perhaps I should not have referred to a PDF from a thought experiment as denialist).

I primary point in referring to the Kelly & Tan 2011 figure was to point out that in fact the current AR5 PDF for ECs is broad and that many years of study has not yet narrowed; and that per Bayesian Learning this fact may support a true value of ECS meaningfully higher than 3C.

Best,
ASLR

Edit: For those interested in reading a somewhat long debate about ECS and TCR you can find one at the following link:

http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #393 on: November 26, 2014, 02:10:29 AM »

I primary point in referring to the Kelly & Tan 2011 figure was to point out that in fact the current AR5 PDF for ECs is broad and that many years of study has not yet narrowed; and that per Bayesian Learning this fact may support a true value of ECS meaningfully higher than 3C.


If ECS was meaningfully higher than 3C then that image suggests a major effect that we should see is the low end of the range rising not insubstantially as we gain another 5 or 10 years data.

AR5 says:
Quote
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TS TFE.6, Figure 1; Box 12.2}

The lowering of the lower limit of the range would normally suggest the lower end of the range rather than the upper end.

The range getting wider rather than the normal expectation of it getting narrower seems to me to suggest the data or our understanding of climate and climate sensitivity is all over the place.

Thus the conclusion of Kelly and Tan does not seem to follow from the fig 5 image you posted. On looking at the paper,
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~gradconf/ZhuoTan.pdf
I see you need to show fig 4 as well as fig 5 to show the papers conclusion that learning is slower with high ECS.

The paper seems a bit unclear perhaps even contradictory to me. It states

Quote
A hight(sic) climate (sic) has two effects on the learning dynamics. First, as temperature is higher, signals are stronger, hence reduce the learning time. Second, since our prior locates further away from the true value, it takes longer to learn. The results shown here indicates that the second effect overweigh the first.

This seems to suggest to me that if climate sensitivity is lower than expected then learning will also be slower than if sensitivity is close to the expected level. Thus the abstract saying
Quote
Learning occurs more slowly if true climate sensitivity is high.

does not seem to have been shown by the paper.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #394 on: November 26, 2014, 02:36:12 AM »
Perhaps this is a better paper on effect of learning:

The effect of learning on climate policy under fat-tailed uncertainty
In Chang Hwang and Frederic Reynes and Richard Tol

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/53681/1/MPRA_paper_53681.pdf

fig 1 suggests the fat tail lasts longer.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #395 on: November 26, 2014, 05:00:06 AM »
crandles,

Thanks for the link.

The following link leads to John Fasullo's explanation of why IPCC AR5’s lower bound for ECS and TCR should be revised upward:

http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/John-Fasullo-guest-blog-def.pdf

This discussion includes the following quote:

"In short, I argue that although IPCC’s conservative and inclusive nature may have justified such a reduction at the time of their report, the evidence accumulated in recent years argues increasingly against such a change."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Michael Hauber

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #396 on: November 26, 2014, 10:56:36 AM »

(1) First, as the PDF for ECS is skewed to the right, increasing uncertainty increases the likelihood of high values of ECS being correct.  The first image from Shaping Tomorrows World illustrates how this is the case (see the link and caption below):


This would be true no matter the shape of the distribution and has nothing to do with the fact that ECS is skewed to the right.  With the requirement for a consensus it would be likely that the IPCC would overestimate the uncertainty, rather than underestimate it.  This is illustrated well by what you posted in another thread:

If anyone has the patience to read through the long dialogue on climate sensitivity at the following website, it addresses many of the points being discussed in this thread:

http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/

This discussion has three different people with three different opinions on climate sensitivity.  Each opinion is narrower than the IPCC consensus view.  If the three are forced to hammer out a consensus then the only option would be to expand the uncertainty range of the consensus to include them all.  None of the participants would be happy about it, but unless they can force the other parties to abandon their opinions it is the only option.

Another interesting aspect of this discussion is the total absence of any argument that climate sensitivity may be at the high end of the IPCC range.  Nic argues for the low end and James for the middle.  John does not argue for the high end, but disputes the IPCC's decision to reduce the low end from 2 to 1.5, which he argues ' may have justified such a reduction at the time of their report, the evidence accumulated in recent years argues increasingly against such a change'
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 713
  • Likes Given: 467
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #397 on: November 26, 2014, 11:44:37 AM »
Another interesting aspect of this discussion is the total absence of any argument that climate sensitivity may be at the high end of the IPCC range.  Nic argues for the low end and James for the middle.  John does not argue for the high end, but disputes the IPCC's decision to reduce the low end from 2 to 1.5, which he argues ' may have justified such a reduction at the time of their report, the evidence accumulated in recent years argues increasingly against such a change'

That's because ClimateDialogue is a platform for amplifying the voice of climate skeptics arguing for inaction, paid for by the Dutch tax payer. It has provided the person behind it, Marcel Crok, to develop and strengthen ties with the GWPF (the old banking boys network for promoting laissez-faire oligarchy capitalism).
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 746
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #398 on: November 26, 2014, 11:57:24 AM »
And because of that some/many prominent climate scientists do not want to cooperate with climatedialogue.org, such as Jim Hansen, for example.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #399 on: November 26, 2014, 12:02:03 PM »
James Annan reaction to Kelly and Tan 2011
Quote
My first reaction is that it's a shame that this silly fat tail stuff persists in the economics literature years after it was debunked in climate science ;-)