Continuation of the open thread. Please use these threads to bring up things that are creating ‘buzz’ rather than having news items get buried in comment threads on more specific topics. We’ll promote the best responses to the head post.
Knorr (2009): Case in point, Knorr (GRL, 2009) is a study about how much of the human emissions are staying the atmosphere (around 40%) and whether that is detectably changing over time. It does not undermine the fact that CO2 is rising. The confusion in the denialosphere is based on a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly), led in no small part by a misleading headline (subsequently fixed) on the ScienceDaily news item Update: MT/AH point out the headline came from an AGU press release (Sigh…). SkepticalScience has a good discussion of the details including some other recent work by Le Quéré and colleagues.
Update: Some comments on the John Coleman/KUSI/Joe D’Aleo/E. M. Smith accusations about the temperature records. Their claim is apparently that coastal station absolute temperatures are being used to estimate the current absolute temperatures in mountain regions and that the anomalies there are warm because the coast is warmer than the mountain. This is simply wrong. What is actually done is that temperature anomalies are calculated locally from local baselines, and these anomalies can be interpolated over quite large distances. This is perfectly fine and checkable by looking at the pairwise correlations at the monthly stations between different stations (London-Paris or New York-Cleveland or LA-San Francisco). The second thread in their ‘accusation’ is that the agencies are deleting records, but this just underscores their lack of understanding of where the GHCN data set actually comes from. This is thoroughly discussed in Peterson and Vose (1997) which indicates where the data came from and which data streams give real time updates. The principle one is the CLIMAT updates of monthly mean temperature via the WMO network of reports. These are distributed by the Nat. Met. Services who have decided which stations they choose to produce monthly mean data for (and how it is calculated) and is absolutely nothing to do with NCDC or NASA.
Further Update: NCDC has a good description of their procedures now available, and Zeke Hausfather has a very good explanation of the real issues on the Yale Forum.
Yep, last time we had 2m/century, over 8 kyrs ago, there were no big cities on coastlines. Hmmm, there were no big cities anywhere.
A lovely bit of text:
“… Mother Nature does her calculations infinitely well, infinite detail, in real time. And she does them perfectly. We can never match that. We can simulate it in a variety of ways and we’re getting better, but we can never match what she can do. But she’s always in real time. She cannot predict tomorrow until she gets there. And we, as people, can outwit Mother Nature, because we can see ahead….
… And so, our role, out here, was not to calculate as good as she can—-we can’t—-but to anticipate what she would do if we did this and if we did this, because we can’t outthink her in terms of calculations, but we can outwit her, because we can look ahead as she does all her calculations in real time. And this is true, [it] has nothing to do with nuclear things. I’m talking about the whole world, all of nature, she’s calculating at every instant and doing it correctly, but she doesn’t predict tomorrow, and we can, and we can therefore build something so that tomorrow, when she goes to do this, we can outwit her. And so, I think it’s a terribly important concept, relevant to your question. Something cannot be done. If I’m clever enough, I can think of a way to outwit her, by doing something that she hasn’t done before or hasn’t experienced before and hasn’t anticipated yet. I can put something ahead of her. And so that’s a reason why I say I will not say that something can’t be done because, if I’m clever enough, I can probably find a way in which we can do it. But it may take a technology that’s not going to exist for another hundred years.”
That’s from pp. 24-25 of
UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project
Interview with Robert Brownlee
August 6, 2007
Septic: Either way, there will not be a disappearance of civilization from China, India, S. Korea, Japan, or the US (except possibly New Orleans.)
BPL: There will be if the crops fail and fresh water is suddenly scarce. You can’t run an economy if your workers are starving and fighting over the available resources.
Jim Galasyn, 106…
Is any of this data available in digital form, preferably an annual or monthly time series? If so, where? I’m compiling a climate time series database and I need all the info I can get, plus clear citations.
So far I have this:
Hadley dT 1850-2008
GISS dT 1880-2009
Lower 48 1880-2008
RSS dT 1979-2008
UAH dT 1979-2008
Borehole dT 1500-1980
CO2 1832-2008
industrial sulfates 1900-2000
volcanic forcing1890-1999
DVI 1500-1995
TSI (Lean) 1610-2000
TSI (Svalgaard) 1700-2007
Sunspots 1850-2005
GCR count 1953-2005
PDO 1900-2008
SOI 1866-2008
MEI 1950-2008
Sea ice 1870-2007
Sea level 1870-2007
Anyone, I can use further data, extension of series I have, etc. This is all annual time series data.
I’m thinking of making it available free to scientists and guys I like and selling it to anyone else. It’s all public domain information, but if you’re too lazy to Google stuff, I’m convinced people will pay for it.
DW: Sea levels have been rising consistently for 10,000 years.
BPL: Cite a source.
David Wright @ 1060 —
I know one of the pilots for MAF — Missionary Airlift Fellowship — who flies into, out of, and around Haiti. I received an e-mail from him this weekend, telling me that not only was he safe, but that the solar power equipment he had been using was working very well after the earthquake.
When people talk about “ZOMG! We needs the fuel!”, I tell them about another friend in Houston who had the only electricity in his area for two weeks or so after Ike. And how that compares to when I was in New Orleans right after Katrina and how much time was consumed searching for gasoline so we could have electricity.
These news stories need to be followed up with “… which is why we need renewable energy.”
Barton, I’m sure these data are in digital form somewhere, but we’d probably need to contact the authors individually.
For my Desdemona posts, I just chop the graphs out of the original papers. I often find myself wanting to plot trend lines when they’re absent; I’ve considered writing a little app that estimates values from the pixels in the graph, but I suspect the results would be underwhelming.
It’s great that you’ve collected all this! You might consider publishing it online using Swivel or something similar.
David: Oh…BTW I am NOT a paid “denialist” or shill of the oil industry. I fear that no one here will believe that, but like our hosts, this time is on me.
David, I believe you; your attitude is too reasonable and tolerant for you to be a denialist!
This is something the denialists can do to prove Climate Change to themselves, and do some good.
Go to your local hardware store. Buy enough insulation to properly insulate your attic. Adding insulation is like adding more CO2.
Before you add the insulation, observe how much energy a day you use heating your poorly insulated house.
Now, add the insulation.
Notice how much less energy you now use heating your properly insulated house. There should be no disagreement that insulation makes winter heating consume less energy.
Now, turn up the thermostat until the same amount of energy as before is used each day. Maintaining the same energy consumption is like the solar constant.
Take the temperature of your house when you finally reach the same daily energy consumption as before. It will be higher. This is Global Warming.
Now, turn the thermostat back down and energy your reduced energy consumption. You can also pat yourself on the back for doing the first thing to fight Climate Change.
I think sometimes people confuse “civilisation” and “humanity”. Humankind is a tenacious species, and we have learned both to adapt to our environment, and to adapt our environment to suit ourselves.
We aren’t going extinct any time soon. But there are worse things than extinction in our future….
Me @ 1159:
Grrr.
As an aside, this is one of the ways I determine how much electricity my clients are wasting — the later they turn on the heat in the season, and the sooner they turn it off in the season, the more they are wasting (high bills) or the better insulated they are (low bills).
OK, class, now pay attention. What have we learned in the past couple of months of concerted attack on climate scientists?
We’ve learned that scientists can be petty and careless at times.
We’ve learned that sometimes scientists exhibit poor judgment.
We’ve learned that scientists make mistakes and that it is usually the scientists themselves that correct those mistakes.
Now for the important lessons:
We’ve learned that the evidence showing we’re warming the climate is not diminished one iota by any of the above.
We’ve learned that the scientific consensus does not rest on the reputation of any scientist or group of scientists and that it doesn’t depend at all on any single result.
We’ve learned that science is a method of learning the truth about the physical world that is robust against both anti-science calumny and against even the folly and falibility of individual scientists themselves
The scientific evidence is intact, and it will still be there whether we do anything to address the crisis or not. We will not be able to say we weren’t warned.
Pay attention, class. There will be a quiz.
FunnyCatHerder,
Your insulation analogy is oversimplified, as most analogies are. I wish there were a simple way to explain to laymen the dynamics of climate, but I have yet to see one that leaves me without serious doubt.
For one thing, the analogy does not take into account convection which carries energy aloft, above the dense lower layers of atmosphere. Nor does it take into account the open “windows”, being the bands of IR which are not absorbed by GHG.
The atmospere is not sealed off as the building in your analogy. An increase in radiance (or convection) may result in an increase of energy flowing into space (not necessarily instantaneously of course).
[Response: All analogies break down, but they are still useful, the blanket analogy is a fine zeroth-order explanation. – gavin]
David Wright, A 15 micron photon emitted at an altitude of 10 km still passes within a wavelength of more than 10^14 CO2 molecules on its way to the radiative top of the atmosphere. You’ve still got a pretty good blanket on you even at cloudtop level.
Comment by David Wright — 19 January 2010 @ 1:55 PM
“Your insulation analogy is oversimplified…”
As Gavin says, no analogy is perfect, but in the case of the “atmosphere is like a blanket” there’s been some research performed on the mental model. That scientific investigation tells us thinking of the atmosphere as a blanket is an effective analogy, a very helpful mental model for the typical person trying to integrate AGW background science into their thinking.
Models are everywhere, and so often they actually work, even in ways you’d never dream.
ClimateProgress delivers appropriate rule-slap to mistweetment by journalist regarding Australian “Big Dry”:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/19/australian-scientists-media-tweets-climate-change-play-role-in-drought-the-big-dry/#more-16925
Guess what?
According to a journalist with Canada’s “National Post”, Google has joined the worldwide scientific conspiracy by “The Team” to promote Marxist wealth redistribution, cut down the tall trees so the short ones can get some light, force us to hunker on our haunches in muddy caves.
DeepClimate brings us the story:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/01/19/national-posts-lawrence-solomon-claims-google-censors-search-results/#more-1429
Apparently the ClimateGate proponents are upset that your average man on the street is not fuming about those darned emails. It’s another conspiracy! Perhaps they should try sandwich boards on streetcorners.
“Your insulation analogy is oversimplified…”
Really?
It’s quite a good one if that’s all you’ve got.
But one really good point from it is that the insulator stops 100% of the radiation and convection from the insulated body.
Yet, somehow, putting more on reduces the amount leaving.
And, despite producing absolutely NO heat itself, AND (and this is the really good bit), despite actually being COOLER than the body under it, the body it is lying over actually *warms*.
Kinda puts the kybosh on G&T’s assertion that this cannot happen because it breaks the laws of thermodynamics…
Ray,
“A 15 micron photon emitted at an altitude of 10 km still passes within a wavelength of more than 10^14 CO2 molecules on its way to the radiative top of the atmosphere. You’ve still got a pretty good blanket on you even at cloudtop level.”
You seem very knowledgeable about this.
If a photon passes within a wavelength of a CO2 molecule, what is the effect upon the photon? Is it absorbed by the molecule? If so, how quickly is the energy re-emitted from the molecule?
Another question regarding altitude.
Is it true that a photon emitted upward is less likely to be absorbed than one travelling downward? If so, that would appear to create a net vector, a flow of sorts, in the upward direction due to decreased density with altitude. Correct?
Sorry, but I’m unfamiliar with the term “zeroth order” can someone help me here?
If these are stupid questions, I’ll understand the lack of reply. I really don’t want to be an intrusive pest. Still skeptical but still learning.
“How do you see CO2 warming on a molecular level? Or any level? …this would be an interesting animation, wouldn’t it? If you produce an animation demonstrating a compelling depiction of the theory of CO2 warming, and how humankind aggravates it with emissions, and publish it for TV, I want a cut.”
It would be a good start to make an animation depicting the flow of IR and it’s absorption and re-radiation by CO2. Show how the molecules vibrate and such. That part is not “soft science” and so should be common public knowledge. So as to prevent criticism, it should demonstrate the proper percentages of wavelengths which are not absorbed and how they flow freely into space. Surely such an animation is within our present capability.
This is the kind of thing needed to educate the general populace. Aren’t we entitled to a fair demonstration since we are being asked to fund the mitigation efforts?
As I wrote earlier, there are some great youtube lectures and demonstrations by several universities related to other branches of science, why not climatology?
“Yep, last time we had 2m/century, over 8 kyrs ago, there were no big cities on coastlines. Hmmm, there were no big cities anywhere.”
Where do you see 2m/century? I’ve seen .4m/century projected, but never 2.
With regard to glacial retreat; I’ve seen articles about the well preserved bodies of ancient humans or tree trunks from 6000 year old forests, still anchored in the ground, having been revealed by receeding glaciers. Are these made up? If not, then it seems logical that glaciers can be expected to receed and grow by causes unrelated to human CO2 emissions.
“Models are everywhere, and so often they actually work, even in ways you’d never dream.”
As a sceptic, I’m inclined to trust a model used to test aerodynamics of a wing. A crash here and there does not disprove the theory of aerodynamics. No fear of flying here. It’s a small scale test containing complex laminar flow properties, but it still has relatively few variables.
I have very little confidence in the projections of climate models (degree and direction). Things get really flaky and difficult to model at extremely small and large scales. The models may be right, but given scale issue, the premium we’re being assessed, the high pressure sales pitch being made, and considering the degree of protection promised, I’m not buying (assuming I have a choice) at the moment.
David Wright asks: Aren’t we entitled to a fair demonstration since we are being asked to fund the mitigation efforts? …there are some great youtube lectures and demonstrations by several universities related to other branches of science, why not climatology?
Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2
ANIMATION: GLOBAL WARMING: carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect
Carbon Dioxide, CO2
Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance and Oceanic Heat Fluxes
GISS Lessons and Modules
Seriously dude, five minutes with Google.
Jim Galasyn,
Thanks, I’ve seen most of these graphics before.
This chart of the energy budget:
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/radiationbalance.jpg
Are those quantities estimated or are they based on real atmospheric measurements?
One might doubt the accuracy of the graphic insofar as they attempt to depict the amount of energy carried aloft through convection and general atmospheric circulation. Doesn’t circulation involve a huge amount of energy worldwide, circulating to higher altitude above the most effective portion of the GHG?
Beside that, incoming and outgoing energy is never really balanced, is it? Sometime more enters than leaves, sometimes the reverse. Is there any way to so accurately measure the total incoming and outgoing over the entire sphere?
The animations of the vibrating CO2 molecules also appear oversimplified. They show the molecules absorbing energy, then re-radiating, always downward. It might give one the impression that all emissions from CO2 only travel downward. That’s not really the case, is it?
I’m skeptical that to Google is to know.
> This chart
That’s probably the older version.
This paper has the updated chart
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf
along with includes the explanations, and footnotes, which will lead to what’s available in the way of answers to most of your questions.
Put the actual cite into Google Scholar to get the number of more recent papers citing it and see if there are any corrections.
To get better climate information, push for replacing the failing satellites and launching the ones sitting around waiting for rockets; or wait til the European and Asian climate science satellites go up, which will take a few years.
David Wright @1169, I am far from an expert. I am just a physicist who isn’t afraid to do the math. The estimate of CO2 molecules for instance is something you can easily extract from atmospheric pressure vs. altitude and temperature vs. altitude.
In a semi-classical approach, the electric field of the photon has a reasonable probability of interacting with the molecule if they pass within a wavelength or so. It turns out that this isn’t a bad approximation even quantum mechanically. Of course, the absorption cross section depends on the exact wavelength of the photon, the state of the molecule, etc. Even so, with ~10^14 opportunities to interact, there’s a pretty good chance of absorption.
Once absorbed, the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. While people typically think about the molecule relaxing via radiating a photon up or down, that’s not the dominant process. In reality, the vibrationally excited state has a lifetime of about a microsecond–an eternity on the timescale of molecular collisions. As such, the dominant relaxation mechanism in the troposphere is via collision with another molecule, imparting kinetic energy to both molecules. (Again, you can envision this semi-classically, since the vibrational state does involve internal kinetic energy of the constituent atoms.) Thus, absorption of a photon by a greenhouse actually heats the atmosphere directly, not just by back radiation.
And remember, the same atmospheric motion that elevates heat via convection, will transport the warmed (though still cold) air back down, and so the energy losses due to evaporation and convection are reduced. Hopefully that helps.
“http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/radiationbalance.jpg
Are those quantities estimated or are they based on real atmospheric measurements?”
Real measurements where possible. You have to do some calculation because some of them are nonlinear and changable, so you need to make an average figure based on the physics.
“Doesn’t circulation involve a huge amount of energy worldwide, circulating to higher altitude above the most effective portion of the GHG?”
No it doesn’t. On both counts.
“The animations of the vibrating CO2 molecules also appear oversimplified.”
In what way?
“It might give one the impression that all emissions from CO2 only travel downward. That’s not really the case, is it?”
Only if you want to be misled.
“I’m skeptical that to Google is to know.”
But like many self-proclaimed “skeptics”, you have no rationale for your skepticism, just belief that they are, as a matter of principle, wrong.
“I have very little confidence in the projections of climate models (degree and direction).”
Because you don’t know anything about them but what you need to know to think they are wrong.
“Things get really flaky and difficult to model at extremely small and large scales””
Nope, on really small scales, you don’t have climate. So not a problem. On large scales, UHI (as an example) has no discernable effect: most of the landmass isn’t urban and most of the earth surface isn’t land.
“The models may be right”
You don’t seem to think this is a possibility, else managing risk would make this statement you make a little later:
“I’m not buying”
an illogical and untenable situation.
In 1170, David asks: “Show how the molecules vibrate and such.”
Jim answers: Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2
David responds: “The animations of the vibrating CO2 molecules also appear oversimplified”
Seems David doesn’t want answers, he just wants to ask for them.
And david swings and misses more:
“If a photon passes within a wavelength of a CO2 molecule, what is the effect upon the photon? Is it absorbed by the molecule?”
Yes, if it is likely to be absorbed (duh).
If so, how quickly is the energy re-emitted from the molecule?”
many milliseconds. this has been said many times before.
“Is it true that a photon emitted upward is less likely to be absorbed than one travelling downward? If so,”
It isn’t.
At low levels, there’s more blocking of IR going out than there is going in.
At high levels, there’s more blocking of IR going in than there is going out. But at high levels, the temperature of the gas is low therefore the energy is likewise much lower (Stephan’s Law mixed with the Ideal Gas Law and atmospheric physics).
David Wright #1174,
Estimated based on a variety of measurements, as well as calculations, and constrained by the requirement of closing the budget. The chart you looked at is from Kiehl and Trenberth (1997). Hank already pointed you to the update by Trenberth, Fasullo, and Kiehl (2009).
The graph represents a budget of energy going up or down between the surface, atmosphere, and space. The movement of heat from surface to atmosphere by thermals and evaporation is shown. The total radiation to space from the atmosphere is also shown.
For many practical purposes, you can budget your earnings, your expenses, your savings and your spendable income without detailing how money circulates between wallet, mattress and kitchen jar. Likewise, detail on circulation probably is not needed for the purposes of presenting that energy budget.
No God’s-eye-view, unfortunately, but estimates based on measurements from various satellite instruments with varying coverage in space and time and various sources of error. TFK09 does give an estimate for the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. As Hank says, you should read the article, it will give you a feeling for the work behind that little graphic.
David, the best way to learn climate science is to study a college-level textbook.
The larger point is that you can hardly blame the climate science community for not trying to educate the public; if you’re serious about learning, there are plenty of excellent online resources. For example, try the Start Here link on this very site.
David Wright,
#1174 cont’d: “The animations … show the molecules … re-radiating, always downward.”
The accompanying text gets it right, though. And the CO2 molecule does a cool wiggle.
#1171: “…that glaciers can be expected to recede and grow by causes unrelated to human CO2 emissions”
Of course they did. You will find it useful to read the IPCC FAQ: What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?” and “How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?”
Annan and Hargreaves on climate sensitivity were mentioned back in the 400s. Now they are back with an important new paper on the reliability of the AR4 climate model ensemble.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/01/reliability-of-ipcc-ar4-cmip3-ensemble.html
Annan, J. D., and J. C. Hargreaves (2010), Reliability of the CMIP3 ensemble, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L02703, doi:10.1029/2009GL041994.
Abstract:
We consider paradigms for interpretation and analysis of the CMIP3 ensemble of climate model simulations. The dominant paradigm in climate science, of an ensemble sampled from a distribution centred on the truth, is contrasted with the paradigm of a statistically indistinguishable ensemble, which has been more commonly adopted in other fields. This latter interpretation (which gives rise to a natural probabilistic interpretation of ensemble output) leads to new insights about the evaluation of ensemble performance. Using the well-known rank histogram method of analysis, we find that the CMIP3 ensemble generally provides a rather good sample under the statistically indistinguishable paradigm, although it appears marginally over-dispersive and exhibits some modest biases. These results contrast strongly with the incompatibility of the ensemble with the truth-centred paradigm. Thus, our analysis provides for the first time a sound theoretical foundation, with empirical support, for the probabilistic use of multi-model ensembles in climate research.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041994.shtml
Definitely merits a head post update, and I would suggest, a guest post from Annan and Hargreaves.
[Response: This will be topic of the week, next week…. – gavin]
David Wright asks:”Sorry, but I’m unfamiliar with the term “zeroth order” can someone help me here?”
It comes from perturbation theory, a mathematical technique of sequential corrections, in order of importance. Wikipedia has an article on it.
David Wright says:”If these are stupid questions, I’ll understand the lack of reply. I really don’t want to be an intrusive pest.”
It depends on what you want. If you want the depth of understanding Gavin Schmidt does, it is going to take a lifetime commitment. As a skeptic, think on this – what prevents people who have the same feelings about climate theory as you from actually making the lifetime commitment? I will give you the answer: nothing, nothing at all. So what happens – people get into the area and realize that there is no scientific basis for such feelings.
A second option is to take a textbook written for people who have had calculus and calculus-based physics at the minimum as a prerequisite. Raypierre’s should be out soon.
The third is going to necessarily be lacking, but to do what you can. In the meantime, why not actually credit these hard-working people with some respect, and not assume they must be wrong because the implications of what they discovered is not something you like.
For example, about the greenhouse as a blanket – have you ever heard that as the explanation why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights? Is a statement that this ignores convection (which you brought up in response to the blanket analogy) really relevant for that level of explanation?
David Wright (1171) — No, not made up. Here some link for the Alps:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelcoro.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman
and indeed, climate responds (slowly) to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing
“According to current best estimates of climate sensitivity, the amount of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases added to Earth’s atmosphere since humanity began burning fossil fuels on a significant scale during the industrial period would be expected to result in a mean global temperature rise of 3.8°F—well more than the 1.4°F increase that has been observed for this time span. Schwartz’s analysis attributes the reasons for this discrepancy to a possible mix of two major factors: 1) Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than currently assumed and/or 2) reflection of sunlight by haze particles in the atmosphere may be offsetting some of the expected warming.”
Is this statement true, misleading, or an outright distortion?
[Response: It’s mostly true – but it implies that no-one has been thinking about the aerosols, which is not. I think they also underestimate the role of the ocean in causing a lag from equilibrium conditions – in models that has about a 0.5 deg C effect for a net forcing of ~1.6 W/m2. The ‘two major factors’ are really one major factor (the second) and some speculation. However, I haven’t looked at this paper in any depth and so my impression could change. – gavin]
1130 Gavin: [Response: But no one made such a claim. You are fighting straw men. – gavin]
Ray Ladbury warned that civilization would end by 2050.
Perhaps he meant stressed, as happened during the 30 Years War. Or in the USSR.
Septic, You will have to help me out and point me to where I made such a prediction. I do think climate change is a serious threat, but I would be loathe to place a date certain on when civilization will end.
re: 1189 and 1190 and The End
I’ve said or intended to say that I think the combination of AGW and Peak Oil will bring an end to civilization. And sooner — this century — rather than later. I think we’ll turn to shale oil, tar sands, and coal for fuel rather than wind, nuclear, or solar. The decline of easy petroleum will choke economic growth and depress agricultural yields, and it won’t diminish the grievances of Islamists. And pests, like the pine bark beetle, will take advantage of the increasing warmth to spread into defenseless ecologies. And that will be that.
But I’m an almost anonymous nobody. The scientists around here are either more optimistic or more guarded.
I’ve also become more and more misanthropic, but that’s also irrelevant.
David Wright says:
19 January 2010 at 1:55 PM
FunnyCatHerder,
Your insulation analogy is oversimplified, as most analogies are. I wish there were a simple way to explain to laymen the dynamics of climate, but I have yet to see one that leaves me without serious doubt.
For one thing, the analogy does not take into account convection which carries energy aloft, above the dense lower layers of atmosphere. Nor does it take into account the open “windows”, being the bands of IR which are not absorbed by GHG.
The atmospere is not sealed off as the building in your analogy. An increase in radiance (or convection) may result in an increase of energy flowing into space (not necessarily instantaneously of course).
If you want a different analogy consider the stratosphere as a ‘double glazing’ layer above the troposphere with the temperature profile below being determined b y the lapse rate (convection).
Johnhayte (1188):
The Schwartz paper has been discussed here at RealClimate (see the guest post by Tamino on “Climate insensitivity”). Tamino also has his own posting on his site. There have also been a handful of published articles commenting on the Schwartz analysis, and I don’t think it is considered a valid analysis by the climate science community.
1190, Ray Ladbury. I’m sorry; it was BPL, not you.
1021, BPL: BPL: By lying? Hate to tell you this, pal, but Letterman’s child really does face doom, or a good chance of it, if we don’t turn things around in the next few years. Doom as in “complete collapse of human civilization some time in the next 40 years.” If you think I’m exaggerating or being “alarmist,” you haven’t studied the situation carefully. I have.
I was arguing that a “complete collapse of human civilization” is unlikely, and Gavin said, twice, that I was debating a straw man.
Is there an easy way to search these threads, e.g. to search on the word “collapse” or words “collapse of civilization”?
“For example, about the greenhouse as a blanket – have you ever heard that as the explanation why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights? Is a statement that this ignores convection (which you brought up in response to the blanket analogy) really relevant for that level of explanation?”
I understand that CO2 and water vapor slow the outward flow of IR, but I visualize it less like an opaque blanket and more like a transluscent buffer which scatters IR. The flow is impeded, resulting in a warming effect, but within upper constraints (one being a reduction in greenhouse effect for each doubling of GHG).
Given what we know of geologic history, there appear to exist negative feedbacks which serve to constrain temperature from becoming too high or low. The most obvious candidate to me is the circulation of air, which naturally transports all gases (including greenhouse gases and those carrying sensitive heat) farther from the surface. Raising the heat on a pot of water increases convection.
The low temperature constraint being too low for human comfort seems worthy of more concern than the apparently survivable high constraint. I’m not sure what mechanism gets us out of a frozen glacial epoch. Thankfully, it appears to have done so rather regularly.
Regardless, humans and other beasts have survived both extremes in the past. So long as we are able to maintain some level of civilization, we will be better prepared than before to insulate ourselves from either eventuality.
We should all be aware that catastrophe could strike tomorrow and change everything. A study of human mitochondral DNA seems to indicate that around 70,000 years ago our species was reduced to a population of several thousand individuals. A bolide strike is one theorized cause.
It’s logical to bet that we will run out of fossil fuel and probably nuclear fuel one day. We should do everything we can to conserve the energy sources we have, not out of fear but in a calm, natural progression. One day we may really need the energy to survive. IMHO oil should be reserved for the production of plastics, composites and other tangible goods rather than being
burned. Natural gas is a much cleaner fuel, available domestically in large quantities (Google “shale gas”) and has little to no use beside fuel. Safe nuclear energy processes are highly probable in the next few decades. Coal should be a last resort IMHO. Wind, wave and solar energies are too diffuse (space inefficient) and unreliable to support society on their own, unless and until we become super-efficient.
In the past 50 or so years we progressed from inefficient vacuum tubes to microprocessors in the field of electronics. We will likely develop similar efficiencies in transportation and energy fields in the coming decades, if only for economic reasons.
There is no sense in harboring fear that civilization or humanity is in danger. Fear is the least productive of human states.
There’s an optimist beneath this cranky, skeptical exterior.
David Wright says: 20 January 2010 at 9:11 PM
“Fear is the least productive of human states.”
True, and we can drive into a brick wall we can plainly see, passively awaiting our fate in serene calm or in abject terror, or we can swerve around the wall or stop prior to impact, motivated by reason or fear.
What’s your point?
Also, could you point me to where you found a description of still-rooted trees that had been covered and then exposed by a glacier within the last 10,000 years?
Doug,
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/aktest/frontiers.Par.83299.File.dat/blmfi77.pdf
or,
http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRRvol60_1_59-65.pdf
“What’s your point?”
I guess the point is that we are more likely to survive and/or prosper by addressing problems such as energy useage rationally, rather than from a standpoint of (arguably irrational) fear.
“True, and we can drive into a brick wall we can plainly see”
This statement reflects a common emotion we all feel from time to time. It’s probably been with us since we became self-aware. The future may appear to us as a brick wall, or a cliff, until we step forward and realize that our fear, like the future, existed only in our imagination. It never turns out as we imagined.
You were expecting reruns?
“I was arguing that a “complete collapse of human civilization” is unlikely, and Gavin said, twice, that I was debating a straw man.”
Except you didn’t say you were debating a “completel collapse of human civilisation”, were you septic.
Go back and pick up your past post again.
David,
I always run into someone who doesn’t like the blanket analogy because the atmosphere isn’t something solid, like the thermal blanket I have that, well, that also isn’t solid. Or that isn’t solid like the insulation I just told you to put in your attic. Or that it isn’t solid like a t-shirt you might wear under a shirt to give you a little added warmth.
How is it that we understand “dress in layers” and we don’t understand incremental increases in “insulation”?
All it takes for insulation to warm (or cool) something is for it to slow down heat transfer. Going from R-3 insulation to R-6 insulation — and neither of those is considered “good” — will increase the resistance of heat movement.
DW: There is no sense in harboring fear that civilization or humanity is in danger.
BPL: There is if civilization is actually in danger.