Poll

Who is more Incoherent?

MKing
7 (77.8%)
RE
2 (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 8

AuthorTopic: Waste Based Society  (Read 207332 times)

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: Snowleapard said
« Reply #675 on: July 25, 2013, 07:15:21 PM »
Quote
It is unusual to find myself in agreement with MKing. 

No it isn't.

Perhaps i should read more of his posts,  :) maybe you are correct there.

Since I have read your posts, you have been a climate change denier.

I do not deny climate change is happening.  In fact i think it's likely.  Where i have disagreement relates to your religious certianty as to climate change's alleged human cause, that its current direction and its supposed inevitable result.   I accept CO2 is a factor, but i think recent events suggest strongly it is not in the driver's seat.  

You have consistently refused to argue the science of Earth's energy budget, GHG absorbtion frequencies or black body energy absorbing characteristics.

That is because i think the burden of proof is on the proponents of a theory and, in this case (AGW) i consider that burden unmet.  Furthermore when the future predicted by a theory does not arrive, i'm likely to be even more demanding of its new and improved version..


And, yeah, it's not a published paper. I did not say it was. I said it was a no bullshit, solid science based article.

If you have specific problem with Russell's climate modeling or the PETM heating mechanism, let's hear it. But by going on about the corrupt left right thing and the Rockeffelers, you are perpetuating the corrupt and poisonous status quo by avoiding the central issue.

And that is that BIG OIL wants the "CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL" factual science to GO AWAY.


You, JUST LIKE THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY,  do too. WHY?

Quote
they failed to predict the current failure of temperature to respond to rapidly increasing CO2 over the last decade. 
That statement is incorrect and I have the charts to prove it HERE: Shame on you!

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=559.msg27545#msg27545

I went there and read your post but did not find any evidence that the decade long pause in global temperature rise was predicted by ANY in the "warmist" camp.

Quote
Given the sucess of human climate prediction thus far i'd say we just don't know.



The Tobacco Strategy

The scientific community has established that the burning of fossil fuels is significantly and negatively changing earth’s climate; however, the fossil fuel industry is challenging this in order to protect their profits. They are using a strategy which is not new and was previously used first by the tobacco industry and then by the chemical industries with regard to acid rain, the ozone hole and DDT. Since it was used for the first time by the Tobacco Industry, Naomi Oreskes coined the term “The Tobacco Strategy” in her book entitled “Merchants of Doubt”.


The Tobacco Strategy is predicated upon buying time by sowing doubt. Given enough time, the truth must prevail so it is impossible to win these battles and the Contrarians are fully aware of this. However, if the inevitable is delayed by several decades, that is several decades of profit in the coffers of the industries that sponsor this strategy. Thus, profit is the motive and “The Tobacco Strategy” has been shown to be a very profitable strategy.

Sowing doubt is extremely easy since there is always a lack of certainty in the scientific community. Scientists state hypotheses and develop evidence to support the hypotheses but can never state with 100% certainty that a hypothesis is true. However, even when the confidence expressed by the scientific community is established to be 98%, there remains a two percent uncertainty with which doubt can be sowed among the gullible public.

The scientific community itself is manipulated to sow doubt against itself. There are always elements in the scientific community on the fringes who oppose mainstream science and these scientists, oftentimes with legitimate scientific credentials, are recruited to write pseudoscientific articles and give lectures to the unwary. Sham institutions such as the CATO Institute and the Heartland Institute are created to give the pseudoscience a facade of legitimacy.

In addition to the scientists on the fringe that are recruited, there unfortunately are those that prostitute themselves for financial gain. The financial gain is significant since these scientists knowingly embark upon a cause which ensures them of a negative legacy.

As discussed earlier, the Tobacco strategy is not new and has been used several times in the past. There is thus a wealth of experience from which to draw upon and unfortunately it is being used by the Climate Change Contrarians with consummate perfection. Unfortunately, the consequences of using this strategy to argue against Climate Change will be far more serious than past “Tobacco Strategy” campaigns.

Robert J. Guercio, October 11, 2010

*The information and ideas for this blog come from the book “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes


http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/the-tobacco-strategy/

There might very well be folks on oil company payrolls doing exactly what you suggest, ie anything to protect their profits.   I wouldn't work for them though, and i'm unlikely to spend enough attention on this subject to collect a paycheck anyway.  To much physical work to do here. 

It was in the sixties today in Vermont this 25th of July. That is EVIDENCE of GLOBAL WARMING. But some fossil duel tool out there will try to twist it. I'll explain the loopy jet stream from lowered equator to the poles temperature gradient if you like.

It was even colder here this morning (low 51F).  If you think it entertaining, sure, explain why increasing cold is another sign of global warming!  Do you think if, when politicians can skate to work on the Potomac, that they will still be telling us it is warming?!

Or you can keep pretending it's all one big conspiracy to take your SUV away. You'll be singing a different tune in a couple of years (from snowleapard to hot snowleapard).

Laugh all you want. No one can stop this shit now. Have a nice day.

I'm not laughing, i think climate change MAY be happening, and COULD be serious.  Even if there is NO temperature change continued weather volitility could cause crop failure and famine. 

You say you know the cause, direction and future result.  I don't think anyone knows for sure.


"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3339
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Snowleapard said
« Reply #676 on: July 25, 2013, 07:35:50 PM »
You say you know the cause, direction and future result.  I don't think anyone knows for sure.
You are absolutely right.  The problem is, by the time we do know for sure, it will be far too late to do anything about it.  We are very probably already well past the point of preventing climate change, now it's a question of surviving it.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: Waste Based Society
« Reply #677 on: July 25, 2013, 08:06:25 PM »

CO2 is the same way with trapping radiated heat from the Earth.  It's already trapping almost all it can.  NASA has even done studies showing that the planet is almost completely dark in the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs.  So the fact that we're not getting additional warming doesn't mean that the CO2 didn't cause the original warming.

And even if temperatures are leveling off and CO2 is absorbing all it can, does that mean we're scot-free?  No way!  So many other things influence climate: water vapor levels, reflectivity, plant cover, smoke, sulfur dioxide, dust, volcanic eruptions, to name a few.  You can't just look at one factor, or a few years, and declare a trend.

Yes.  I agree.  Even adding one more factor, water vapor, raises interesting questions.

 Likely CO2   is trapping all it can.  Either because it is at its capacity, or (more likely) all that can be trapped in it's shared spectrum with water vapor is being trapped by their combined efforts.  There are more than 30 times as many water vapor molecules in the air as CO2 molecules, and water vapor has a more effective fingerprint spectrum.  It is also much more variable. This means water vapor will usually overwhelm whatever CO2 does.  In addition humans are responsible for less than 5% of the CO2. Thus the question: Exactly how is human produced CO2 responsible for global warming?  And yes, it is the religious focus on only one factor (CO2) that bothers me here.
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: Snowleapard said
« Reply #678 on: July 25, 2013, 08:18:18 PM »
We are very probably already well past the point of preventing climate change, now it's a question of surviving it.

I'm not sure we were ever in a position to prevent it.   We are stuck with surviving the increasing weather volitility and whatever comes after that though.
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Waste Based Society
« Reply #679 on: July 25, 2013, 09:46:59 PM »
Quote
I went there and read your post but did not find any evidence that the decade long pause in global temperature rise was predicted by ANY in the "warmist" camp.

WTF! ??? The charts show there has BEEN NO decade long pause IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISE! The "PAUSE" was in the RATE of RISE!. The median temperature ANOMALY WAS CONSISTENTLY above the norm! From the year 2000 to 2010 was the HOTTEST DECADE ON RECORD! Where do you GET this stuff?

I am watching you pile assumption upon false premise upon assumption and sadly shaking my head. ICE FUCKING SKATING ON THE POTOMAC!!?

Don't forget to buy some ice skates.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 10:28:31 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Some INFORMATION, rather than DISinformation about Climate models
« Reply #680 on: July 25, 2013, 09:50:21 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ADf8-rmEtNg#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ADf8-rmEtNg#&fs=1</a>

Climate modeling and types of graphical output bird's eye view animation


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/keSIFLMZHWU#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/keSIFLMZHWU#&fs=1</a>

Discussion of climate models, alleged flaws, groupthink accusations, computer hardware limitations, accuracy of data input, reliability of predictions, how models are revised and how often, and their improvement over the years.

The precautionary principle as a present justification for ending fossil fuel use is also discussed along with the capability or not of present technology to adapt to climate change. The bottom line is that civilizational resiliency is reduced as risk increases.

All the climate models AGREE, and the steadily increasing frequency and strength of severe weather events damaging infrastructure CONFIRM, that RISK is inreasing.

IOW WE KNOW ENOUGH TO BAN FOSSIL FUELS RIGHT NOW!

Every year we delay will increase the risk to civilization, not exponentially but more so than linearly.  :emthdown: :P :(


So REMEMBER ALL THE PEOPLE OUT THERE a few years from today who want us to do NOTHING NOW.     

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
MKing said
« Reply #681 on: July 25, 2013, 10:19:50 PM »

Quote
You mean they predicted the recent lull in temperature increases? Really? That comes as a bit of a surprise, as of late people seem to be trying to explain how it is that during the the highest CO2 emitting decade in all of human history we end up with stable temperatures?




SEE ABOVE CHART: In this chart the RATE of increase in the UPWARD ANOMALY flattened but the median INCREASE in the UPWARD TEMPERATURE ANOMALY was some degrees ABOVE the NORM. That means the INCREASE has not abated.




SEE ABOVE CHART: SHOW ME THE "TEMPERATURE FLATTENING" YOU ARE REFERRING TO...

Right, YOU CAN'T SHOW IT TO ME BECAUSE THAT DAD BLAMED TEMPERATURE IS STILL GOING UP!!! THAT IS NOT TEMPERATURE "STABILITY" SIR!

Sorry PAL, it's 2013, not 2011 when you were imagining a trend.  ;)

Try again.  :icon_mrgreen:



Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline WHD

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
    • View Profile
Re: Waste Based Society
« Reply #682 on: July 26, 2013, 06:38:14 AM »
Quote
I'm a free market kind of guy, I don't believe anyone should receive a nickel in subsidies for anything. Let the world compete, let the most rapacious bastard win!

Hey Mking,

Stand...right...about...there!


Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: Waste Based Society
« Reply #683 on: July 26, 2013, 10:45:01 AM »
Quote
I went there and read your post but did not find any evidence that the decade long pause in global temperature rise was predicted by ANY in the "warmist" camp.

WTF! ??? The charts show there has BEEN NO decade long pause IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISE! The "PAUSE" was in the RATE of RISE!.

In many cases temperature charts are assembled from databases that were purged of their lower reading datapoints.  When i have time, i'll get into that and other official fraud in detail.  For purposes of discussion i'll accept this one at face value:





SEE ABOVE CHART: In this chart the RATE of increase in the UPWARD ANOMALY flattened but the median INCREASE in the UPWARD TEMPERATURE ANOMALY was some degrees ABOVE the NORM. That means the INCREASE has not abated.


The chart shows the departure from 100 yr average (anomoly) of world temperature in each year (degrees C above/below average NOT rate of increase/decrease) in red, with the individual year's range in gray, and an unspecified moving average in blue.

The median temperature ANOMALY WAS CONSISTENTLY above the norm!

TRUE, But the total anomoly over the entire period shown does not exceed 0.8C and it IS declining.

From the year 2000 to 2010 was the HOTTEST DECADE ON RECORD!

TRUE, but it has stopped increasing, as shown by your own chart, and YOU are in denial!
   

Where do you GET this stuff?

It would not be difficult to come up with a list of climate scientists and organizations from the warmist camp who have admitted to "the pause" and/or are "worried" about it.  It will however, take some time to compile the list, assemble quotes, links, and verify them.  Currently I am short of time, but i'll get back to you on this, if you like.

I am watching you pile assumption upon false premise upon assumption and sadly shaking my head. ICE FUCKING SKATING ON THE POTOMAC!!?

Assumptions?
Well yeah that (spoken in jest), contains my assumption about the ability of the average politician to face an unexpected reality.  I'm not assuming that IS the reality, and regardless of the direction of change, i still doubt the politicians will accomplish much more than King Canute
.



Don't forget to buy some ice skates.

All set.  Thanks.  Have a warm day!   :icon_mrgreen:
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
MKing said
« Reply #684 on: July 26, 2013, 04:08:22 PM »
Quote
Who in the WORLD has ever said anything about temperature STABILITY?

Um... YOU did.  :icon_mrgreen:

Quote
...highest CO2 emitting decade in all of human history we end up with stable temperatures?

And then you said this:
Quote
... the temperature has NEVER been stable,..

I certainly agree with you that temperatures are NOT stable. 
I have NEVER said they were stable now. I have said they are going STEADILY UP.  That's what the climate models say and I think they are spot on!


What's more, the world, despite having a LOWER average temperature than it had 4.5 billion years ago, is heating up! Of course, we can accuse each other of cherry picking time periods to justify our divergent positions, but my position is based on the paleoclimate PETM GHG heat forcing evidence, not some 600 million year span chart when even the ocean basins did not exist (I can prove that too) AND from the modern charts and mathematical models which are routinely updated with empirical observed and accurately measured climate data.

So cherry pick away if you must but remember you have stated clearly here that your interest is in WINNING (i.e. the most "rapacious" consciense free plunderer), not integrity, truth or morality. All those things are just silly baggage that prevents capitalists from effective "competition' (i.e. predation). Consequently you must accept the ASSUMPTION by any reader that you will resort to subterfuge, mendacity and cherry picking if it suits your purpose in winning a debate. It's not personal, just business. I understand.   


Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Snowleapard said
« Reply #685 on: July 26, 2013, 05:13:43 PM »
Quote
TRUE, But the total anomoly over the entire period shown does not exceed 0.8C and it IS declining

The ANOMALY is not the temperature reading. In order for the sequential, year after year temperature to be flattened (not rising from year to year) the ANOMALY MUST BE ZERO, not 0.8 C as is the REALITY.

Quote
... 0.8C and it IS declining

The ANOMALY (departure in degrees C from the median temperature) MUST BECOME NEGATIVE in order to justify the claim that the TEMPERATURE has stopped increasing and instead is decreasing as a justification for the hypothesis that global cooling is taking place.

Here is what you are attempting to do. You say, correctly, that correlation is not causation. GOOD! That's why scientists use a lot more inputs than just CO2 in their models. You neglect this truth and fixate on any trend in a number of years to say, AHA!, looky here, the CO2 is going up and the temperature is going down! At this point you flip the "correlation is not causation" logic on its head and say LACK of CORRELATION proves CO2 doesn't have beans to do with global temperatures!

Ya CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, Snowleapard. Which is it going to be? The correct scientifically objective answer is to look at other GHG correlation, the granularity of the graph and the time scale. Mathematical models are used to design engines, aircraft, consumer goods, cars, houses, time and motion studies, integrated circuits, computers and many other technologically demanding and high number crunching applications.

Yet you want to disparage the accuracy of incredibly complex mathematical climate models (spreading DOUBT about NOT KNOWING in order to justify DOING NOTHING is DISPARAGING the science, whether you will ever admit it or not) based on the belief that some negative feedback mechanisms were left out.

Well, I've got news for you, Guy McPherson, a scientist in his own right, has listed FIVE POSITIVE FEEDBACK MECHANISMS that ARE NOT in the models. That means the IPCC global temperature increases projected in the models are STILL TOO CONSERVATIVE.

Quote
The Arctic is defrosting as warm Atlantic waters rush through the Fram Strait instead of skirting the southern coast of Greenland. This is an important event, regardless of the deafening silence exhibited by the mainstream media.

How important? First consider the background, from the perspective of long-time climate scientist James Hansen and colleague Makiko Sato, who report the disaster awaiting us at just a couple of degrees warmer is truly catastrophic (although they downplay the likelihood we’re already committed to this outcome.)

Suffocating lifestyle

At the same time Arctic ice is melting, the planet is losing its lungs.
Catastrophic drought in the Amazon has it emitting carbon dioxide more rapidly than the United States.

Simultaneously, permafrost is thawing and methane stored in eastern Siberia is venting into the atmosphere at an alarming rate.

Methane, by the way, is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Against this background, it’s easy to foresee a rapidly and profoundly warming Arctic as a trigger for accelerated responses such as the release of more methane hydrates and fewer reflective white surfaces, such as ice sheets and areas covered with snow.

These extremely dangerous feedbacks, which forecasters did not expect until the planet becomes a couple of degrees warmer than the baseline, could trigger runaway greenhouse. In other words, any of these events — never mind all of them at once — could lead directly and quickly to the extinction of you, me and everyone in between.

Is that important enough for you? Or do you still want to debate it with the likes of these guys?

- See more at: http://transitionvoice.com/2011/03/extinction-event/#sthash.CNHssq6f.dpuf

Quote
We know Earth’s temperature is nearly one degree Centigrade higher than it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution. And 1 C is catastrophic, as indicated by a decades-old cover-up. Already, we’ve triggered several positive feedbacks, none of which were expected to occur by mainstream scientists until we reached 2 C above baseline global average temperature.

We also know that the situation is far worse than indicated by recent data and models (which are reviewed in the following paragraphs). We’ve known for more than a decade what happens when the planes stop flying: Because particulates were removed when airplanes were grounded, Earth warmed by more than 1 C in the three days following 11 September 2001.

In other words, Earth’s temperature is already about 2 C higher than the industrial-revolution baseline. And because of positive feedbacks, 2 C leads directly and rapidly to 6 C, acidification-induced death of the world’s oceans, and the near-term demise of Homo sapiens.

We can’t live without life-filled oceans, home to the tiny organisms that generate half the planet’s oxygen while comprising the base of the global food chain (contrary to the common belief that Wal-Mart forms the base of the food chain). So much for the wisdom of the self-proclaimed wise ape.

With completion of the on-going demise of the industrial economy, we’re there:

We’ve crossed the horrifically dire 2 C rubicon, as will be obvious when most of the world’s planes are grounded. Without completion of the on-going demise of the industrial economy, we’re there: We’ve crossed the horrifically dire 2 C rubicon, as described below. Joseph Heller, anybody?

I’ve detailed the increasingly dire assessments. And I’ve explained how we’ve pulled the trigger on five positive-feedback events at lower global average temperature than expected, while also pointing out that any one of these five phenomena likely leads to near-term human extinction. None of these positive-feedback events were expected by scientists until we exceed 2 C warming above the pre-industrial baseline.

http://www.collapsenet.com/free-resources/collapsenet-public-access/item/8363-guy-mcpherson-were-done








The above charts tell the story that you simply do not want to deal with. They are EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS, not mathematical model predictions, even though ALL those readings and many more have been incorporated in the multiple  terabyte size data bases of the climate models (that continue to grow in complexity and prediction accuracy because of this).

Fine. Do your thing.
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Waste Based Society/Methane
« Reply #686 on: July 26, 2013, 05:32:06 PM »
I am enjoying my perch on the sidelines and the wrestling match you guys are having...

Am in no way versed in the literature or competent to assert an opinion here, but would ask if you attended to a link JoeP posted yesterday as part of his invaluable news feed, which I reposted on the Diner Mars Colony on FB.
It's an interview between the Gurdian's Nafeez Hamed and Professor Peter Wadhams. Wadhams authored a paper in the journal Nature which argues that the release of a 50 Gigaton (Gt) methane pulse from thawing Arctic permafrost could destabilise the climate system and trigger costs as high as the value of the entire world's GDP. The East Siberian Arctic Shelf's (ESAS) reservoir of methane gas hydrates could be released slowly over 50 years or "catastrophically fast" in a matter of decades – if not even one decade – the researchers said.

You'll be shocked to learn that not everyone agrees. But as I read the article, I could feel my scrotum start to shrink. Make of it what you will, but I gotta think that a bunch of fresh methane blooms added to whatever effect anthropogenic global warming has had can't be good for the virus that infests the earth's surface-- whatever the cause.

And it is likely too late to do a damned thing about it.

Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist
Professor Peter Wadhams, co-author of new Nature paper on costs of Arctic warming, explains the danger of inaction

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/24/arctic-ice-free-methane-economy-catastrophe




A new paper in the journal Nature argues that the release of a 50 Gigatonne (Gt) methane pulse from thawing Arctic permafrost could destabilise the climate system and trigger costs as high as the value of the entire world's GDP. The East Siberian Arctic Shelf's (ESAS) reservoir of methane gas hydrates could be released slowly over 50 years or "catastrophically fast" in a matter of decades – if not even one decade – the researchers said.

Not everyone agrees that the paper's scenario of a catastrophic and imminent methane release is plausible. Nasa's Gavin Schmidt has previously argued that the danger of such a methane release is low, whereas scientists like Prof Tim Lenton from Exeter University who specialises in climate tipping points, says the process would take thousands if not tens of thousands of years, let alone a decade.

But do most models underestimate the problem? A new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) projects that the Arctic will be ice free in September by around 2054-58. This, however, departs significantly from empirical observations of the rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice which is heading for disappearance within two or three years according to Nature co-author and renowned Arctic expert Prof Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar ocean physics group at Cambridge University.

If Prof Wadhams is correct in his forecast that the summer sea ice could be gone by 2015, then we might be closer to the tipping point than we realise. To get to the bottom of the scientific basis for the Nature paper's scenarios, I interviewed Prof Wadhams. Here's what he had to say:

How long do we have before the Arctic summer sea ice disappears?

Given present trends in extent and thickness, the ice in September will be gone in a very short while, perhaps by 2015. In subsequent years, the ice-free window will widen, to 2-3 months, then 4-5 months etc, and the trends suggest that within 20 years time we may have six ice-free months per year.

Why do the climate models not match empirical observations - and why is your estimate of the Arctic sea ice disappearance so different from most model projections?

The modellers did not pay sufficient regard to observations, especially of ice thickness. They considered certain physical processes in the model, then when the rate of retreat greatly outstripped the predictions of the model, they ignored the observations and stuck with the model. A very great physicist, Richard Feynmann, said that when a model comes up against measurements that contradict it, it is the measurements that must be preferred and the model must be abandoned or changed. Scientists who have a lot of their credibility bound up in a model are reluctant to do this. Then there are a number of key processes that can only be represented if the model has a very fine grid scale, such effects as the break-up of ice due to waves generated in the large areas of open water that we now have in summer; or the additional weakening of the ice by meltwater pools that melt their way right through the ice sheet. A modeller who represents all these fine scale processes is Wiselaw Maslowsky (Monterey) and his models agree with my empirical predictions.

Our global emissions trajectory is already on track to breach 2C in coming decades. What does a 2C world imply for the Arctic melt and the potential for methane release?

We are already in a 2C world in terms of the heating potential of carbon dioxide that we have already put into the atmosphere. The heating will reach 2C before 2050 and will then go on to 3-4C globally by the end of the century. Even a 2C world involves the probable loss of Arctic sea ice for much of the year (and 4C for most of it), which will ensure maximum methane release from the exposed shallow seas of the continental shelves.

What does the loss of the Arctic summer sea ice mean for the climate? How will this impact on society and the economy?

Our own model shows that the methane release from the ice retreat will add about 0.6C to global warming by 2040. Adding on the faster sea level rise, and trend towards greater extremes in weather (due to jet stream displacement) means increased risk of catastrophic floods in less developed countries and a decrease in food production at a time when world population is rapidly increasing.

What is the link between permafrost melt, methane release and the loss of the Arctic sea ice? After 2015, if the Arctic becomes ice free in the summer, is there a heightened danger of methane release?

The loss of sea ice leads to seabed warming, which leads to offshore permafrost melt , which leads to methane release, which leads to enhanced warming, which leads to even more rapid uncovering of seabed. If a large release has not occurred by 2016 the danger will be continuously increasing. It is thought that at 2-3C of global warming, which means 6-8C of Arctic warming, methane release from permafrost on land will be greatly increased.

Some people say that a catastrophic methane release over 10 years - your worst-case scenario - is a very low probability event and we don't really need to worry about it. What's your response to that?

Those who understand Arctic seabed geology and the oceanography of water column warming from ice retreat do not say that this is a low probability event. I think one should trust those who know about a subject rather than those who don't. As far as I'm concerned, the experts in this area are the people who have been actively working on the seabed conditions in the East Siberian Sea in summer during the past few summers where the ice cover has disappeared and the water has warmed. The rapid disappearance of offshore permafrost through water heating is a unique phenomenon, so clearly no "expert" would have found a mechanism elsewhere to compare with this.

Would Arctic experts agree with you?

I think that most Arctic specialists would agree that this scenario is plausible.

What about scientists like Prof Tim Lenton, a climate tipping point expert, who argues that a methane release is a long-term problem, not an immediate danger?

His earlier conclusions are out of date. His oft-cited paper on tipping points is two years old now and was based on literature surveys rather than direct research. An ice-free summer (September) Arctic is clearly nearly upon us, and will be achieved within three years or less - this is plain from the observational data on ice extent (satellites) and thickness (submarines and altimeter satellites). I am sure that he is about to revise his views if he hasn't already done so.
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
MKing is "HUMBLE" TOO!
« Reply #687 on: July 26, 2013, 05:49:46 PM »
Quote
I'm a free market kind of guy, I don't believe anyone should receive a nickel in subsidies for anything. Let the world compete, let the most rapacious bastard win!
Quote
Rapacious

given to seizing for plunder or the satisfaction of greed. 2. inordinately greedy; predatory; extortionate: a rapacious disposition.

Quote
So no, there is no point to subterfuge, mendacity or cherry picking, there is just information interpreted different ways with different perspectives and the variety of opinion is delightful. Resorting to the sort of things you claim would be like cheating at solitaire, there is just no point.

Sorry, I left out your boundless humility in describing your outlook in WINNING the debate that global climate WARMING is not occurring by claiming the mathematical models are flawed which justifies maintaining the fossil fuel subsidies in place while claiming it is FASCISM and FORCED TAXATION to use said subsidies for Renewable Energy instead. Hmmm...It does have a kind of conscience free psychopathic logical ring to it.  :icon_mrgreen: Sort of like "Heads I win, Tails you lose". Sounds like you really do admire that "rapacious" mindset A LOT.

And really, old chap. When you use the words "stable" and Temperatures" in the same sentence,
Quote
...highest CO2 emitting decade in all of human history we end up with stable temperatures?  :icon_scratch:  :icon_mrgreen:
it's rather easy for people to make the horrible misinterpretation of your words that leads them to the sad and "erroneous" conclusion that you were talking about TEMPERATURE STABILITY. The term "incoherent" used by RE comes to mind. :icon_mrgreen:

I will be more careful about interpreting your words in the future. Ah, the difficulty of the geniuses among us to communicate with we lowly plebians. It must be tiresome to deal with  such low paltry challenges to your wordsmithing. I'm happy to have provided a bit of mindless entertainment for you.  ;)
« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 08:24:13 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Surly
« Reply #688 on: July 26, 2013, 08:05:32 PM »
Excellent article. I love it when someone, like you, that doesn't suffer fools or bullshit easily, brings a truth filled article into a debate. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

So, let us begin. The article is consistent with my prediction that the first ice free summer in the arctic will be in 2017 (I think 2015 is a bit early but 2050 is way too conservative). I have been predicting this since last summer.

Quote
You'll be shocked to learn that not everyone agrees. But as I read the article, I could feel my scrotum start to shrink. Make of it what you will, but I gotta think that a bunch of fresh methane blooms added to whatever effect anthropogenic global warming has had can't be good for the virus that infests the earth's surface-- whatever the cause.

And it is likely too late to do a damned thing about it.


The take away from the article goes beyond your statement.
How so? Because IF the information in the article is accurate as to imminent massive methane inputs into the atmosphere, we HAVE the justification NOW for a crash program to go fully renewable energy, no matter how much we must drop our living standard and carbon footprint (to net ZERO or LESS), which entails the immediate prohibition of the burning of ALL FOSSIL FUELS, PERIOD!

I predict you are NOT going to get agreement on that from my "debaters" because they are adverse to government money now collected for fossil fuel subsidies being used for renewable energy and will scream FASCISM if fossil fuel use is outlawed. In fact, the "new ice age" that Snowleapard is worried about will arrive in Hell before Snowleapard and MKing agree to outlaw fossil fuel use.  :icon_mrgreen:

However, if you get an article saying everything is hunky jake, you'll get no argument from either of those fine fellows. MKing sees it as a choice of cigars, rather than objective science so anything that requires ACTION to stop burning fossil fuels will be IMMEDIATELY railed against by both Snowleapard and MKing as hysterical alarmism or Rockefeller Big Oil, CIA, HAARP global conspiracy to deprive people of their freedom. Never mind that a few of those organizations and objective scientific inquiry don't always get along, the BOTTOM LINE is that FOSSIL FUELS MUST NOT BE BANNED because (WHATEVER! :angry4: ). FREE EXXON MOBILE MARKET YES! TREE HUGGER PINKO COMMIE/CIA/flawed mathematical models/mad scientists NO! ;)

Quote
A very great physicist, Richard Feynmann, said that when a model comes up against measurements that contradict it, it is the measurements that must be preferred and the model must be abandoned or changed. Scientists who have a lot of their credibility bound up in a model are reluctant to do this.

There's a bit more to it than that. IF your hypothesis for a civilization damaging impact is born out by your climate model, there is enormous pressure to downplay it. If, on the other hand, your model predicts blue skies, fair winds and lots of big oil profits (no impact of fossil fuel burning on climate), you are guaranteed top billing in government white papers and various scientific journals BECAUSE you are NOT ENDANGERING THE ENERGY RESOURCE EXTRACTION STATUS QUO.

Every scientist working on these models knows he will be ferociously ridiculed if some forecasted positive feedback mechanism does not produce the predicted rise in temperature, melt of some glaciers, the polar cap, Greenland's ice cover or whatever. The pressure to be conservative is HUGE. Consequently, the models CONSISTENTLY understate the risk.

If, as IS happening, events occur prior to the predictions, there are NO industry negative repercussions for the scientific mathematical modeling team.

Both MKing and Snowleapard have it exactly backwards by claiming the models exaggerate the risk and the predicted temperature rise. But they have that CIGAR they want to smoke and think I am a killjoy for wanting to take away their fun, regardless of their protestations to the contrary or claims of boundless, 'let the chips fall where they may', slavish devotion to truth, objective scientific data, Apple pie and Wildebeest hunting.  :icon_mrgreen:

Yes, Surly, we are in DEEP SHIT! And yes, until we stop burning fossil fuels, it will get worse. :(
 But no, it isn't over YET. Sure, already it looks like millions will die. But billions won't.

And when those millions start to get offed by the climate and the roaring waves along coastal cities, a crash program will be instituted and this silly, stupid debate propagated by the fossil fuelers about the need to "WAIT AND SEE" if it is true that eating shit is harmful for our health will be ended once and for all.

It ill be a pleasure to hear the SOUND OF SILENCE from them when TSHTF as to severe climate events caused by GHG heat forcings.

But until then, we will have to listen to perpetual hemming and hawing about the DOUBTS about the future by quoting that famous "climate scientist" and wise fellow on future matters Yogi Berra:

On global temperatures: 

Quote
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future"


Quote
  "I never said most of the things I said."

Quote
  "It ain't the heat, it's the humility."

Quote
When asked what time is was......" you mean now?"

Quote
"I don't know (if they were men or women fans running naked across the field). They had bags over their heads."


On mathematical climate models and there predictive ability:

Quote
"The game's isn't over until it's over."

Quote
"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going because you might not get there."

Quote
"We made too many wrong mistakes."


Quote
" If the world were perfect, it wouldn't be " 

Quote
"It's like deja vu all over again." 

Quote
  It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future" 


On proper algorithm math for climate models: 

Quote
"I usually take a two hour nap from one to four"

Quote
"A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore."

Quote
"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical."


On proper Objective Scientific Behavior:


Quote
"Never answer an anonymous letter"

WHAT THEY WILL SAY WHEN THEY CAN NO LONGER DENY GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL

Quote
"The future ain't what it used to be."     :icon_mrgreen:



Dinner will be served soon for the Fossil Fuelers






 
« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 08:37:39 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline WHD

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
    • View Profile
MKing Said:
« Reply #689 on: July 26, 2013, 09:21:59 PM »

MKing is not a climate change denier, and can recite chapter and verse on all the climate change evidence which abounds across the US of A.


Hey, somebody please alert me when MKing posts some evidence of ANYTHING.

Quote
Vermont was buried under mile high glaciers not that long ago. Humans melted all that ice too did they? And imagine that, it was all caused before there was even a fossil fuel industry conspiracy of some sort to blame it on!

Well, good thing temperatures aren't rising, or CO2 being @ 400ppm - wait! Must be a coinky-dink.  :multiplespotting:

Nothing to worry about here! LOL.


[/quote]


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2938 Views
Last post February 27, 2016, 12:50:34 AM
by RE
4 Replies
1760 Views
Last post December 17, 2015, 02:01:54 AM
by azozeo
21 Replies
3904 Views
Last post March 23, 2016, 04:44:52 AM
by g