A letter from a reader (reproduced with permission):
Dear RealClimate team:
I have a background in biology and studied at post-grad level in the area of philosophy of science. For the last few years, I have been working on a book about the logic of argument used in debates between creationists and evolutionists.
About a year ago I decided it was time to properly educate myself about climate science. Being perhaps a little too influenced by Harry M Collins’ “The Golem” (and probably too much modern French philosophy!), I was definitely predisposed to see group-think, political and cultural bias in the work of climatologists.
On the whole, though, I tried hard to follow the principles of genuine skepticism, as I understood them.
Obviously, there are plenty of ill-considered opinions to be found either side of any issue, but only the most ignorant person could fail to see the terrible intellectual gulf between the quality of so-called skeptic sites and those defending the science behind the AGW thesis.
What convinced me, though, is that the arguments made by a few sites like yours are explicit and testable. In particular, it is useful that RealClimate sticks to the science as much as possible. It has been a lot of hard work to get here, but I am now at a point where I understand the fundamentals of climate science well enough to articulate them to others.
For my part, I am grateful to you guys. I hope it gives you some small amount of satisfaction to know that your work can convert readers who really were skeptics in the beginning. I use the word ‘skeptic’ carefully – the one thing most commonly absent from the so-called ‘skeptics’ is authentic skepticism.
By the way, my book is an attempt to categorise the various logical errors people fall into when they search for arguments to support a conclusion to which they have arrived at a priori. It will now have a few chapters on global warming.
All the best,
You seem to be convinced that energy will be in short supply based on the things people were saying a few years ago.
What were people saying a few years ago? I base my comments on here and now. Always keep in mind: it’s about flow rates, not reserves, and about net energy, not gross. 100 years ago we got about 100 barrels of oil for the use of 1 barrel. Now? We get between 11 and 20, depending on who you ask.
That might have been appropriate when we were assuming that cars had to run on gasoline or diesel fuel.
Comment by Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co. — 14 March 2010 @ 3:36 AM
You seem to think we can replace oil as fast as we are losing it. Have you read what the IEA has said recently? Did you read the recent statements out of Kuwait? When natural declines are north of 9% a year, and total decline is north of 6%, new fields have to come up with a new Saudi Arabia every 1.5 years just to run in place. We haven’t found as much crude as we have used for 25 years running.
Efficiency only gets you so far: The US used about 15 mb/d around 1980, before the crash we used over 20 mb/d despite efficiency gains of 30%+ over that time period.
Besides, fossil fuels are not the only shortages we face. Phosphates? Not pretty. Etc. A car economy? Either the car goes, or we do, at least as a daily mode of travel.
Are we smarter than yeast?
Nope, I don’t think so. Ask Al Bartlett.
Cheers
So ccpo you succeed in being self contradictory in two sentences ! if being expensive makes people use less, there is absolutely no guarantee that it is “economically neutral”. Given the fact that money invested in alternative energy is distracted from elsewhere, the total amount of wealth produced has no reason to stay constant.
I think you are ignoring your own logic here. If carbon goes up, but you get more money to pay for it, where’s the problem? If oil wells are replaced with windmills, where’s the problem?
But, no we cannot build out renewables fast enough to deal with decline rates in crude oil, declining return on investment of crude oil, etc. At least, not yet.
This a question of productivity : does it increase globally , or does it decrease ? given the very different costs and applicability of fossil fuels vs electricity, it would be very unlikely that they give the same economical productivity.
Huh? Electricity isn’t a fuel.
”I suppose I’m also comfortable with slowing the economy because we need to, anyway. You can’t run the future on the lower energy availability we face. Even if we successfully transition to “renewables,” there will be a few decades where there is an energy deficit.
”
So you admit that renewable cannot produce the energy of fossil fuels…
False. I don’t think they can over the next 40 years or so.
That’s not a question of rate
Huh? Rate has to do with extraction of crude.
China’s growth has been sustained at a very high rate through the use of fossil fuels. Why not through windmills and solar panels, if they were equivalent at the end?
Comment by Gilles — 14 March 2010 @ 2:48 AM
Who said they couldn’t at the end? (I do think “the end” is going to very, very different from today.) I was pretty clear in saying the problem is in the interim. That said, there is nothing – nothing – as fungible as crude. (Just one more little complication on the Road to Complexity.)
Cheers
First off, your relationship between fossil fuel use and prosperity is specious. In fact, the relationship is between the products of energy use and prosperity. Fossil fuels just happen to be popular and convenient sources of energy. Where other sources of energy or increased efficiency can displace fossil fuels, there is no loss long-term in prosperity for a reduction in fossil fuel use.
Secondly, you seem to imply that the impacts of increasing temperature scale linearly. I suspect that is not the case. Some impacts will be negligible until thresholds are reached. Sea-level rise, disruptions in weather systems and loss of biodiversity are examples of impacts that will get worse as thresholds are achieved.
Finally, the impacts of climate change are not necessarily greatest for those who get the most prosperity from the activities that are causing the warming. You basically have to integrate over the entire globe for your sensitivity comparison to make sense. While that might seem reasonable from a disinterested, macro/global perspective. It doesn’t make sense for actual human beings.
Comment by MartinJB — 14 March 2010 @ 9:27 PM
You are quite wrong in assuming there is anything quite as fungible as crude oil. Gilles is correct about one thing: the 2nd Law pretty much means we are headed for some very bad times. If you think this isn’t so, try looking at the curves of oil production and consumption, population and GDP for the last 150 years. They are all parabolic… or were. Chance? Nope.
I encourage all and sundry to get to know the issues of complexity, population, energy and Liebig’s Minimum as well as you know climate. Look at phosphorus, e.g.
A perfect storm cometh. Hard. No system can handle infinite growth.
Cheers
Climate Audit and several other sites provide very real counter arguments to many AGW theories.
Comment by Tom S — 15 March 2010 @ 12:50 PM
No, they don’t. If you get labeled a pariah, that is why. Go ahead, give one counter argument. Just one.
netdr #343 this whole discussion of the meaning of feedbacks in the climate system vs. the same terminology in engineering is really old.
Feedbacks in climate are much more complex than in engineering. Take water vapour for example. An increase in water vapour caused by heating only occurs where there is water available, and is a different mechanism than the original trigger (the forcing) so there is no reason that it should continue to amplify the initial warming after reaching the limit of available water or stabilising at the same relative humidity as before temperatures rose. If you look at acoustic feedback, a specific signal is feeding back on itself and will increase to the limit of the amp. A very different scenario.
“There is one of those simple replies available to netdr when he pontificates:
Venus”
I don’t know any positive feedback to a variation of forcing on Venus.
The problem in positive feedback is that the domain of stability is very narrow, since the f factor must be between 0 and 1. So if an order of magnitude of 10^-1 or less is safe, but hardly visible, on the other hand an order of magnitude close to 1 is dangerously close to the runaway threshold. Actually the transition from glacial to interglacial periods has positive feedbacks (the decrease of albedo through melting of land ice caps) but they are indeed characterized by large amplitude fluctuations, whereas the Holocene climate has been rather stable. So I agree with netdr, a strong positive feedback in the current conditions is strange.
#333 VeryTallGuy
I really liked your post. Some of my best friends are Engineers. Even within the different fields of science we us different terminology. Or should I say we use the same words that have different meanings within those fields. I’m so glad I came to this site.
I’ll just say one thing for me. Had the e-mail scandal not occurred I probably wouldn’t have visited this site. So in a way, for me anyway, a bad situation in which things were twisted lead me to a place that really put the science right there in front of me.
Thanks again RC, you guys do a fantastic job.
#343 netdr
“Mother nature seems to follow the KISS principal. [Keep It Simple Stu***] If it works she does it again and again.”
I think you are being to simplistic when you talk about Mother Nature working on the basis of KISS. There are many things within nature and biology that are far from simple. The list would go on and on. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and take it to mean that within the confines of what you want to argue and those limit at what you are looking at this moment that Mother Nature keeps things simple. The list would be too long, but I’ll just point in the direction of quantum physics and say that Mother Nature doesn’t KISS.
“When the overall feedback of the system turns positive the system is unstable. ”
Really?
You never used Op Amps, then???
#335, #345, Jean B.:
– 100 Million refugees: This is about 1/4 of the population of the U.S., not a family picnic. And where do you expect to get a 20X in GDP from?
– Also, by focusing on mitigation instead of prevention, you omit another aspect: Building dikes is not going to do anything about the decreasing pH of the ocean due to increase in dissolved CO2. This is expected to wipe out coral reefs over the next 50 years, with very negative consequences for fish populations. Makes that picnic even harder to provide!
– Forests: Artificial forests address ONLY the CO2 issue; but as I mentioned before, protection of the Earth’s biodiversity is, for me, the over-riding need, for which rainforest cannot be replaced. I don’t know why you quoted the peer-reviewed article in your link, as it contradicts your claim, saying directly: “Amazon forests did not green‐up during the 2005 drought”. Indeed, this article is discussed in a recent posting at this site, https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/up-is-down-brown-is-green-with-apologies-to-orwell/ . The bottom line: “Rainforest persists above a threshold of rainfall, below which one finds savanna. If this threshold is crossed a landscape dominated by rainforest can ‘flip’ to savanna. Therefore a ’slight’ reduction can lead to a ‘dramatic’ reaction. Of course, evidence of a shift to a new lower rainfall climate regime is needed, and evidence of large areas of forest close to that rainfall threshold would be required for the IPCC statement to be reasonable; there is ample published evidence for both.”
#342, Gilles:
– You contrast the cost increase due to the difficulty of extraction of power from non-conventional fossil fuels to that due to an imposed carbon tax: That would be an interesting point, except that we have plenty of conventional fossil fuels (e.g., coal) to carbonize our way into a warm future. The purpose of a carbon-tax/cap&trade approach is to give the cost advantage to renewable power-generation methods, over the conventional fossil fuels (coal and oil), to achieve a socially desirable maintenance of the planet.
– You say that dealing with a displaced population is no big deal: But a displacement of 100 Million people (about 1/4 of the population of the U.S.) is a much bigger deal than dealing with the unforced migration of 300,000 over 40 years.
Neal J. King reminds Gilles: “- You say that dealing with a displaced population is no big deal: But a displacement of 100 Million people (about 1/4 of the population of the U.S.) is a much bigger deal than dealing with the unforced migration of 300,000 over 40 years.”
I’m sure he’s not too concerned. After all, the partition of India went so well. [sarcasm off]
#343, netdr:
I think that you have a point, but I think that VeryTallGuy’s remark (#333) is also apropos:
There are positive feedbacks (or amplifying factors), including:
– The fact that when ice caps have melted, the planetary albedo is reduced, so more sunlight is absorbed
– Higher temperatures lead to melting of methane ices from tundra and from the ocean bottoms, increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere
– Higher temperatures lead to increased water-vapor in the atmosphere, another greenhouse gas
There are also negative feedbacks, including:
– Possible increase in cloud cover, which actually can be a negative or positive feedback depending on altitude
You have a point about overall stability: But the stability is provided because of the infrared radiation escape-hatch at the top of the atmosphere: As the Earth heats up, the entire atmosphere heats up, until the amount of IR escaping from the IR photosphere catches up to the net radiative income from the Sun. So, you are right that a dollop of CO2 will not cause the planet’s temperature to go off the scale; but it is also right that the temperature increase will be larger than that calculated from simply doing the radiative-transfer calculations, because of the amplifying factors that change the ingredients of those calculations (such as additional methane, additional light absorption).
Furthermore, Venus seems to be an example of a planetary atmosphere that has gone too far.
Therefore, I don’t see any basis for your claim that “warming will be less than 1 deg-C for a doubling of CO2.” Such an estimate requires a detailed calculation: Currently accepted estimates seem to run from 2 to 4.5 deg-C. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity .
Consequences of such temperature increases have been described in Mark Lynas’ “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet.” Leading up to the Copenhagen meeting, the estimates I heard was that even a strong effort to limit CO2 production would not stop a +2 deg-C increase.
#333, VeryTallGuy:
Small but important point: The radiation out to space does not conform to the Stefan-Boltzmann law for blackbody radiation: If it did, we wouldn’t have a greenhouse effect.
@realclimate,
is any thinking going on relating to this?
netdr,
Your argument that systems with positive feedback are unstable is utterly ignorant. Positive feedback exists in a large variety of systems in nature–form cells to semiconductors. You are basing your opposition to climate science on a fallacy. Several PhDs in physics on this very board have cited examples in nature and yet you refuse to acknowledge them.
Jean B.,
#335: “this GRL 2009 peer-reviewed paper”
– doesn’t say what you think it says (that’s two in a row now). It says the Amazon didn’t green during the 2005 drought. Duh!
#345: “Can you tell me what’s absurd with that reasoning ?”
If you need to ask, I think it will take a very long time to explain it to you. It’s not absurd to say environmental migrants, like all migrants, will need housing. What is absurd is to pretend that’s all there is to it. Those forced to migrate, mainly the poor and marginal, do not only leave their houses behind. They leave their livelihoods, infrastructure and physical capital, meagre as these may be; they leave their social networks and their local culture. In situ adaptation (which may, among other things, involve dikes, yes) may often be preferable, if not always possible. Where people do have to resettle, they will not only need housing, they will need employment opportunities, access to basic infrastructure (water and sanitation), access to social services, and the capacity to adapt to a new socio-cultural environment. To be sure, they may also encounter new opportunities to improve their lot, and they have resources and skills of their own. But large-scale involuntary migration still poses huge challenges to local, national, and international governance structures. It requires efficient planning; resource mobilization and redistribution; political good will to care for the vulnerable and overcome xenophobia. A one-dimensional, simplistic approach like “Just build houses” is a recipe for failure. It certainly is no basis for pronouncements about costs and benefits of adaptation vs. mitigation.
And lest we forget, the houses that people are forced to leave are not just brick and mortar, they are homes and hearths, meanings and memories.
But I’m just feeding a troll, am I not? Or an orc, perhaps; I don’t think you ever want to meet a walking forest.
netdr:
One more point: Even if a mechanism only applies to one situation, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work.
I think many of the mechanisms considered for the early life of the universe apply to only one known example.
“356
Gilles says:
16 March 2010 at 2:19 AM
“There is one of those simple replies available to netdr when he pontificates:
Venus”
I don’t know any positive feedback to a variation of forcing on Venus.”
This doesn’t surprise anyone here, Gilles.
Runaway greenhouse effect.
Which hasn’t left Venus incandescent.
let me join other correspondents above in thanking RealClimate for providing a solid, informative site on the science of global warming. Like others, I played footsie with the “sceptics” but some books Dave Archer’s “The Long Thaw” and this site have changed my mind.
#364, Martin Vermeer:
The article makes a good point: To prevail in the global-warming war, we have to realize that the battle is taking place in the PR arena, not the science arena.
How about a TV program that fights out these battles in a game-show setting? Has to be entertaining, and it has to be scientifically correct.
Most of the catastrophic claims on WGII are based on NON peer-review paper (WWF,…) – Jean B.
On the contrary, there is abundant peer-reviewed work cited on the effects of temperature change on biodiversity, tropical crop yields, and the spread of pests; on loss of coastal agricultural land to flooding and salination; on possible changes in the spatio-temporal distribution of precipitation. most of the non-peer-reviewed work is itself derived from and brings together peer-reviewed studies. One significant error does not undermine the overall conclusions, and it is grossly dishonest to pretend that it does.
netdr,
Would you say that Venus is a stable system? A stable system doesn’t necessarily mean a system that supports life. I feel that even though we are dumping millions of ton of CO2 that took millions of years to sequester at an unprecedented rate, that we have a stable system. Problem is that positive “feedback” (i.e. increased CO2 and methane release) will kick in before the negative “feedback” (i.e. extreme cloud cover and snowfall) in which things might not be too conducive to life for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years. I’m not a climate scientist, so I may be off the mark here, but that is my take on it. The earth isn’t going to explode or burn up. It’ll reach a point of equilibrium again, but again might not be a place that can support life, and depending on the rate of change before equilibrium might not have any humans left inhabiting it. What is your take on a black hole? Is that a stable system with an overall positive feedback? Just curious as to your take on it. Hopefully I’m not too off the mark with climate forcing and feedback, I’m still learning.
“Central estimates of the annual costs of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e are around 1% of global GDP, if we start to take strong action now.” – Me
Wrong, this was before its last modification after the Muir-Wood paper affair which divided by 10 the impact of hurricanes in the US – Jean B.
How on earth could a change in the estimated impact of hurricanes in the US alter the estimated costs of achieving stabilisation in atmospheric concentrations of GHGs?
To produce much more than 1000 Gt of carbon, we need an ample use of non-conventional fossil fuels (tar sands, oil and gas shales , methane hydrates, and so on…). Gilles
Garbage. As I have already pointed out, proven reserves of coal alone are on the order of 900 Gt, quite enough, on top of what we’ve already put into the atmosphere, to produce dangerous climate change. Moreover, as temperatures rise, the ocean and land are expected to become net sources of CO2 instead of sinks.
#349–Norman–
Well, for one thing, you’ve got the wrong latitude for Toronto. (I lived there for the better part of a decade and knew immediately there was no way it was north of 49!)
The correct latitude is 43.40.
Table here:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001796.html
Re #270, Kevin McKinney,
Kevin, I am curious regarding the comment:
“…over geological timescales, CO2 is removed from the atmosphere via the weathering of silicaceous rock.”
I have heard that assertion a few times, however, is it actually backed by good research?
I accept that the weathering of silicaceous rock will absorb Carbon dioxide, however is it significant (historically) compared with the action of biological processes (such as photosynthesis and coral formation) and in conjunction with the natural sequestration of Carbon in sediments (clays and sandstones), bogs and swamps. Note: sequested carbon will cycle back into the atmosphere when those rocks containing the sequested carbon from whatever means (biological origin or silicaceous rock, dive deep into the earths mantle at continental margins via Volcanoes.
It may indeed be true, it is just that I have read the assertion regarding the weathering of silicaceous rock by commentators whom I suspect have (either conciously or not) a hatred of nature and will say anything in order to trivialize nature and reinforce their opinion that nature is of no value.
Thanks…
Nick Gotts wrote: “As I have already pointed out, proven reserves of coal alone are on the order of 900 Gt, quite enough, on top of what we’ve already put into the atmosphere, to produce dangerous climate change.”
What we’ve already put into the atmosphere is already producing dangerous climate change.
#296 Gilles
Still interested in your response to my post #313
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/why-we-bother/comment-page-7/#comment-166519
—
The Climate Lobby
Understand the Issue
http://www.climatelobby.com/fee-and-dividend/
Sign the Petition!
http://www.climatelobby.com
Norman@349 [and re Kevin@374]
Norman seems to be learning that there’s a lot more than latitude and cloud cover effects on temperature involved in climate …. the closer location to 49 in central Canada with good records is probably Geraldton
Norman, note in comparing Vancouver and Toronto, that those “large bodies of water” are the Pacific Ocean on one hand, which is where El Nino happens, and the Great Lakes on the other, which are fresh water subject to ice cover over large areas – folks in Vancouver almost never get to ice skate outdoors even for a few days, folks in Geraldton likely do so every winter for extended periods.
Martin asks about this
Worth a look.
You can tell this is effective–one clue: Morano has published Randy Olson’s email address up at the top of his blog and urged his ilk to use it.
You can guess how.
ccpo:
I don’t want to start an oft repeated flame war here, but you asked for one example of a real counter-argument from climate audit.
Mann’s statistical techniques for proxies was flawed. M&M showed this clearly, peer reviewed. I’ll trust the scientists who are experts in this field – Wegman et. al.
[Response: Really? Some beg to differ]
Of course there are counter-counter-counter arguments and some people will never accept this. Look at the graphs of all the raw data series used, and the SNR is so low, it is difficult to trust any signal extraction technique. Myself, I just say old climate data estimates are not trust-able, and it is mostly irrelevant to the main issue anyway.
One of the most difficult things for many here to accept is that if M&M had been more respected at the beginning, then quite possibly they wouldn’t be in the position they are in today. (I’m sure I’ll take a beating for this comment, ha-ha, flame away, you guys take yourselves too seriously).
[Response: How is this a argument against AGW? Even if it made a difference (which it does not), the attribution of recent change to anthropogenic factors does not rely on MBH98. – gavin]
#373:
proven reserves of coal alone are on the order of 900 Gt, quite enough, on top of what we’ve already put into the atmosphere, to produce dangerous climate change
Assuming all of it would be mined and burnt. I have two problems with this:
1. BPL says that warming will cause collapse of agriculture. Less food = less population = less need for energy = less coal burnt. Negative feedback at work.
2. As the resources are depleted, the extraction cost goes up. It may turn out that at some point coal would simply become uneconomical compared to alternatives (i.e. nuclear or even renewables).
The second point brings me to realization that a developing cheap nuclear power would allow us to solve two problems at once (i.e. AGW & peak oil).
Comments?
#343 netdr
I’m still interested in your response to my post #347
What experimental studies?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/why-we-bother/comment-page-7/#comment-166629
—
The Climate Lobby
Understand the Issue
http://www.climatelobby.com/fee-and-dividend/
Sign the Petition!
http://www.climatelobby.com
Gilles (257): when will be interesting to stop COMPLETELY to use fossil fuels and let them under the ground, instead of using it ? for the moment, the answer is : never, because we can’t power an industrial society without them. Even “replacement” energies, apart from traditional animals and wooden and stone water- and windmills, require carbon for steel, copper, or simply for stabilizing an electrical grid.
BPL: No matter how many times you say this stuff, it still won’t be true. You sound like someone in 500 AD asking, “Has there EVER been an advanced civilization without slavery?”
Gilles (271): I can’t understand the logics behind the belief that exhaustion of fossil fuels will certainly not cause the collapse of civilization, whereas a few degrees more would do it.
BPL: People need food to eat. If there isn’t enough food, they won’t all be able to eat. Without food, they’ll die.
I completely agree with the initial letter that started this thread. I have found RC to be the most valuable resource for climate information on the web. Not only that, I can follow links provided in the comments to much of the latest information.
As a biologist, I see much of the current discussion among the AGW and anti-AGW folks as a paradigm shift between the recognition of the immense power of the human species versus the old view of powerless humans at the mercy of the environment. However, the problem with paradigm shifts is that the old ways only disappear with the disappearance of the old believers. In many ways it is comparable to the advent of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection which provided the mechanism by which evolution will always happen to every species. Biologists had known that species changed, disappeared and appeared, but nobody had an explanatory mechanism. But even today you have the evolution denialists when evolution was in fact an observation, and not a theory.
A great many people want the world to be simple enough to be understood by a child. Anything else is just too much work, and belief is allowed to substitute for rational thought. Further, these are huge markets to be pandered to. However, AGW has the capability of proving the foolishness of the beliefs simpler times. I sure don’t want it to happen, but I think it is a lesson we are destined to learn. I simply tell deniers I run into to buy oceanfront property and put their money where their mouth is. I guess it comes from teaching about Darwin.
On another note. I have been reading about the huge floating mat (mats) of trash in the central Pacific and wondered what these might do to water vapor levels or ocean warming. Has anybody run across any studies dealing with this?
Gilles: 2 C more means for me going in Italy. Society without fossil fuels means going to Chad or Haiti.
BPL: 2 C more means for me the complete collapse of human agriculture. Society without fossil fuels means going to Brazil, California, Denmark or Iceland.
And before you tell me they use fossil fuels in those places, let me inform you that they use them in Chad and Haiti, too.
Jean B, channeling Gilles: development can only happen with fossil fuels
BPL: Prove it.
netdr (303): I know both positive and negative feedbacks occur but cannot believe the earth is positive feedback overall because of it’s extreme stability.
BPL: Hello? Hello? “Positive feedback” does not mean “runaway.” Positive feedback means an effect is amplified, negative feedback means it’s dampled.
netdr: All natural positive feedback systems increase or decrease until they reach a boundary condition like the campfire.
BPL: Nonsense! You’re still assuming “increase” means “increase without limit.” No, a positive feedback DOES NOT need the intervention of ANYTHING ELSE to reach a limit. Just a converging nature.
Runaway positive feedback on temperature ended by negative feedback:
Process A, a weird chemical reaction, raises Earth’s surface temperature from 288 to 289 K. Then 290. Then 291. At 305 Process B is triggered and the increase stops.
Positive feedback limited by its own nature:
Process C, a weird chemical reaction, raises Earth’s temperature from 288 to 289 K. Then 289.5 K. Then 289.75 K. Then 289.875 K. It never stops, but it never reaches 290 K, either.
This is EXTREMELY elementary control math. Are you sure you, a control systems engineer, aren’t familiar with it?
Tom S: Climate Audit and several other sites provide very real counter arguments to many AGW theories.
BPL: If by “real” you mean “grossly ignorant and wrong.”
TS: There is a lot of conflicting and unexplained data, as with most science fields in their infancy (i.e. <50 years).
BPL: AGW theory is 114 years old this year. Climatology in general is somewhat older, having perhaps begun when Aristotle divided the world in torrid, temperate and frigid zones around the year 300 BC.
John (313),
Well, we can hope he’s not Gilles de Rais…
Jean B (323): you need large amount of fossil fuels to BUILD the nuclear plant… nuclear electricity is good to replace coal or NG for electricity, but for transportation and agriculture you need oil.
BPL: No, you don’t, in either case. Transporation can be fueled by biofuels or can be electric. You don’t need fossil fuels at all. Don’t confuse “what is presently used” with “the only thing that can be used.”
Thanks for your comments on positive feedback.
It is impossible to respond to everyone.
This matter is important because without it a doubling of CO2 would only cause 1 Degree C warming. Quoting Dr Hansen. #363 wanted to know
The additional warming comes from positive feedback. The original warming is multiplied by 6 X. Without this warming CO2 isn’t a problem.
Any warming causes both positive and negative feedback if warming causes more warming on balance we have a positive feedback system, if that warming causes additional warming [CO2 kick starts the process but doesn’t enter into it] the process is unstable and tends to run away unless carefully designed. Usually a stable system will have some overall negative feedback to keep it stable. I think the clouds and rain do this for the earth.
Someone suggested an Op Amp,[#359] but if you wire this device with overall positive feedback you get a Schmidt trigger which is extremely unstable. A 1/100 volt change can cause the device to go to the boundary condition [Power supply] as fast as it can get there.
The signature of a positive feedback system is a square wave. The signature of a negative feedback system is a sine wave. The temperature of the earth shows the sinusoidal waveform. IE: 1998 overshoots high so negative feedback drives the temperature down so 1999 and 2000 are cool.
Systems can be positive feedback at one time and negative feedback when they reach a boundary. I explained the campfire example in a previous post. The earth in 2010 is negative feedback.
In the last 100 years the temperature has varied by 6/10 o C… That is 2/10of 1 % which is very very very stable [ .2/300 Kelvin =2/10 of 1 %] Possibly positive feedback predominated at the end of the last ice age but it sure doesn’t now.
A true positive feedback situation is what climatologists call a “tipping point”! They are unarguably bad.
Someone asked for experimental proof of overall negative feedback.
We cannot tweak the earth to determine it’s temperature response, but we can observe when it naturally warms and cools,
If a black body in space warms a certain amount that is the open loop [no feedback] case.
If it warms less than the black body that is the positive feedback case and it will take more warming to produce the same radiation increase.
If it warms more than the black body case
to emit the same radiation this is the negative feedback case.
The experiment consisted of monitoring the emitted IR signal from the earth over a 10 year slight heating period, And determining if it was more or less than the black body case.. The results confirmed that the system was negative feedback. The study was replicated by 3 independent teams !
The experimenter was Dr Lindzen [edit]
[Response: You are still very confused. No one is disputing the overall net negative feedback due to the IR term going like T^4. This is the reason why liquid water has existed throughout Earth history. But the explanation of what climate science talks about when discussing positive feedback was given a number of times above, and you have ignored it. Positive feedback (in climate) does not imply a runaway affect – it is merely a statement about how the net effect scales to the basic Planck effect. Conversations proceed a lot more easily if both parties are listening. – gavin]
Neal J. King (332),
Here it is as a Just Basic program, with output:
‘=====
‘ PosiFeed postulates a positive-feedback temperature-increase system for the
‘ Earth, on a model suggested by Neal J. King. Temperature increases with
‘ added CO2, CO2 increases with added temperature, both feedbacks are positive.
‘ A one-time pulse of 110 additional ppmv of CO2 is added to the preindustrial
‘ atmosphere.
‘=====
C = 280 ‘ Initial concentration, ppmv.
dT = 0 ‘ Change in temperature on last iteration, K.
lastdT = -9 ‘ Previous change in temperature, K.
T = 287 ‘ Surface temperature, K.
‘—–
print “d ln C C dT T ”
print “—— ——- —– ——-”
C = C + 110
lnC = log(C)
dlnC = log(C + 100) – lnC
while abs(dT – lastdT) > 0.001
lastdT = dT
dT = 4 * dlnC
T = T + dT
print using(“#.###”, dlnC);
print using(“######.###”, C);
print using(“####.###”, dT);
print using(“######.###”, T)
dlnC = 0.1 * dT
lnC = lnC + dlnC
C = exp(lnC)
wend
end
d ln C C dT T
—— ——- —– ——-
0.228 390.000 0.913 287.913
0.091 427.285 0.365 288.278
0.037 443.178 0.146 288.424
0.015 449.700 0.058 288.483
0.006 452.335 0.023 288.506
0.002 453.394 0.009 288.515
0.001 453.818 0.004 288.519
0.000 453.988 0.001 288.521
0.000 454.056 0.001 288.521
Reference 255:
This is from the “Viet Nam Net’:
“Water in the province’s Vu Gia and Thu Bon river system has also severely dried up, allowing damaging seawater to move further inland.
According to Quang Nam Irrigation Works Exploitation Company, the water level in Thu Bon River is 43 centimeters lower than last year during the same period, while salinity levels have risen to 0.7-2.4‰.
In Da Nang City, Deputy Director of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Huynh Van Thang said that 500 out of 4,500 hectares of rice in Hoa Vang, Cam Xuyen and Lien Chieu districts are experiencing a shortage of irrigation water.
The worst-hit area is Hoa Quy Ward in Ngu Hanh Son District, accounting for 300 hectares of water-starved rice plants.
Nguyen Ban, a ward farmer who had to pump water from a well to irrigate his rice, said the winter-spring crop is the main crop of the year and that a loss could mean starvation.”
This is the ‘surplus rice’ crop for Asia. Within the past 6-8 years, all exporting countries in South East Asia have stopped exporting rice with the exception of Viet Nam. Last year, during the food riots, Viet Nam said they would export more and ‘share with their neighbors’.
Not with starving farmers in the Delta!
Jean B (337): solar and wind can’t provide the amount they need
BPL: Pourquoi? What limits them?
All: I apologize for taking up so much message space. There just seems to be an unusually high level of denier stuff to respond to. I’ll try to put the rest all in one post.
Norman (338): it could be an exaggerated claim for a few wealthy investors to reap billions with carbon taxes and for the One World Government people to get their dream fufilled.
BPL: Not to mention the black helicopter people. And the Jews. Controlled, of course, by the Vatican, through the Trilateral Commission.
This is brilliant:
http://thebenshi.com/2010/03/11/20-warm-up-to-ed-begley-jr/#more-706
Reminds me of Jon Stewart taking on Tucker Carlson
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bljonstewartcrossfire.htm
374Kevin McKinney says:
16 March 2010 at 7:36 AM
#349–Norman–
“Well, for one thing, you’ve got the wrong latitude for Toronto. (I lived there for the better part of a decade and knew immediately there was no way it was north of 49!)
The correct latitude is 43.40.”
Whoops!! Thanks much for the correction. That would eaisly explain why Toronto is warmer than Vancouver in July. I think I messed up with Winnipeg which is closer to the 49 actually almost 50.
378flxible says:
16 March 2010 at 10:07 AM
Norman@349 [and re Kevin@374]
“Norman seems to be learning that there’s a lot more than latitude and cloud cover effects on temperature involved in climate …. the closer location to 49 in central Canada with good records is probably Geraldton”
Yes there is and that is why I love science. Learning new things. This information is not new but it is new to me. My larger plan is to grid about 30 cities climate in US and Canada some along lattitude and some along longitude to see what influence clouds and available sun have on the long term climate. Also will include elevation, albedo, and like you point out, proximity to oceans and large lakes. Might be a fun project for me. My thinking is my initial conclusion will be correct and clouds play a huge role in climate for both the cooling and warming phases and may be a huge player in Global Warming or cooling phases.
Sorry, I hit “send” on that last one… Here’s my response to the rest of the thread, as of #391 on March 16th at 3:38 PM:
Gilles (342): So it is inconsistent to think that a tax would be effective to reduce carbon emission : if it is effective, nobody will buy the non conventional resources anyway
BPL: Why in the world wouldn’t they? That last clause looks like pure fantasy on your part.
—
netdr (343): If it is a negative feedback system warming will be less than 1 o C for a doubling of CO2.
BPL: Non sequitur. How could the second clause possibly follow from the first?
—
Lawrence McLean (375): “…over geological timescales, CO2 is removed from the atmosphere via the weathering of silicaceous rock.”
I have heard that assertion a few times, however, is it actually backed by good research?
BPL: Yes, there is a wealth of research behind it. The “carbonate-silicate cycle” keeps Earth habitable over very long periods of time. However, we are pumping CO2 into the air far faster than natural mechanisms can accommodate it. For more on the cycle, try here:
Walker, J.C.G., Hays, P.B. and J.F. Kasting, 1981. “A Negative Feedback Mechanism for the Long-Term Stabilization of Earth’s Surface Temperature.” J. Geophys. Res. 86, 9776-9782.
Berner, R.A., Lasaga, A.C., and R.M. Garrels 1983. “The carbonate-silicate geochemical cycle and its effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 100 million years.” Am. J. Sci. 283, 641-683.
Kasting, J.F, Whitmire, D.P., and R.T. Reynolds 1993. “Habitable Zones around Main Sequence Stars.” Icarus 101, 108-112.
Oops! I added 110 ppmv, then another 100 ppmv! That third line after the headers are printed should have read
dlnC = log(C) – log(280)
not
dlnC = log(C + 100) – lnC
And the proper output is
d ln C C dT T
—— ——- —– ——-
0.331 390.000 1.325 288.325
0.133 319.684 0.530 288.856
0.053 337.090 0.212 289.068
0.021 344.315 0.085 289.152
0.008 347.248 0.034 289.186
0.003 348.428 0.014 289.200
0.001 348.901 0.005 289.205
0.001 349.091 0.002 289.208
0.000 349.167 0.001 289.208
0.000 349.197 0.000 289.209
Sorry, everybody. One more reason to CHECK YOUR OUTPUT FOR REASONABLE VALUES…