Addendum about: “the rest is basic mathematics and unarguable imo.
Temperature is ethereal and therefore far less definitive over time than GHG-PPM output from using fossil fuels, cement, or clear felling of forests etc.
Pseudo-mathematics/economics of ETS, carbon taxes and Hansen’s promotion of “Carbon Tax & 100% Dividend” are more ethereal than Temps and therefore far less defintive than strict Regulation that is historically proven to create significant changes in behaviour. The “price” looks after itself as does innovation and business creativity to overcome the constraints of such Regulation. No vehicle manufacturer went broke after the new Safety Regulations imposed post-Nader – we still drive cars don’t we and they are still affordable, yes? Business always looks after itself no matter what the “rules” are or how much they change. That’s a historically proven scientific fact not a belief.
Private Investors in the railways of the 1800s and early 20th century made a fortune on Govt support and when that slowed down moving into interstate highways those very same Private Investors and Bankers made an even larger fortune from riding the new wave of car ownership and middle class vacations. Those who chose to ignore change and kept their investments in horses and cart and hay feed went broke. And they all deserved it in spades. So goes those who wish to continue to invest in fossil fuels today.
There is no “fossil fuel” industry – there is an electrical energy industry and a transportation industry and a building materials (not cement) industry. Get the semantics right and everything looks after itself by itself. Business isn’t stupid. The exceptions prove that rule in Bankruptcies and Taxpayer funded Govt Bailouts.
The scientific facts prove that setting global goals using Yardsticks like CO2 ppm is definitive, measurable and constant. Science can accurately inform politicians and the people what the numbers should be and a decision made on that – not “temperature” – be it set now at 400, 350 or 300 over time is besides the point. Obviously it must be lower than today, yes? And new advances in science can always offer future refinements. Not only for CO2 but for all the components of human-produced CO2e.
Mathematics then informs the politicians and the people how much CO2e must be cut on current use and by when to reach the Global Goals. The imposition of Regulations based on Maths does the rest. Not negotiable – the price and innovation then acts accordingly by natural law in commerce and human nature.
If this means that in a decade the elites of Boston and New York can no longer afford to fly to Florida during winter at $2000 per seat is their problem alone – No one else’s! They can walk if they have to. If this means that international airline traffic falls 80% in a a decade and the “industry” is decimated, then tough luck. Deal with it. The wise investors will switch to luxury ocean liners to transport the “haves” using wind and solar power instead of Oil.
One thing follows the other. Regulating CO2e out of existence to a Net Zero balance is the only solution not the hard economic problem it is painted out to be. imo.
Thomassays
PS Richard Alley and others have shown that historically Energy use has always been ~10% of GDP. Fossil Fuel or no Fossil Fuel energy costs will remain at ~10% of GDP. It’s a Law of Mathematics and a Law of Human Nature as well. When faced with a new reality people are not stupid. :-)
When the USA is faced with a global regulatory environment backed up by International Law and Trade realities and the necessity to cut Coal Use in the USA by 50% the Govt will force ~33% of all Coal Mines to shut down by not issuing a Licence to Operate. Those Mines that are left, given supply and demand realities, will then be hit with something akin to a $100 Million Annual Licence Fee – and the Govt will use cash that to police and enforce the Regulations and to funnel funds into research, development of Alt Energy options and new Infrastructure to deliver it to industry, business and householders. This is what Govts have always done in every changing “industrial business environment” going back to the Industrial Revolution in Europe.
The price of coal fired electricity will sky-rocket including from Investors taking every opportunity to profit-gouge the consumer. Once business and home consumers are facing $1/KWH electricity charges instead of 12cents then everyone (especially businesses) are ordering solar roof panels and mini-wind turbines, switching to buying energy efficient alternatives, and architects are designing new energy efficient buildings from 2 bed apartments to Trump Tower office buildings.
And the old Investors and Bankers in Coal mines, CSG/Tar sands, and power stations are investing in new age batteries and renewable energy and nuclear power plants new transportation options in an INSTANT.
No one ever proposed a “Lead Trading Scheme LTS” nor a “Lead Tax & 100% Dividend” to get rid of Leaded fuel once it was determined to be harmful. No it was simply Regulated by all Governments out of existence. Does it cost more to fill your car up with petrol/gasoline today as a result of that Regulation? Nope!
Beware the lies and the distortions and the fear-mongering – for they are everywhere regarding AGW/CC and they won’t go away anytime soon either. But one day people will look back and wonder what all the hullabaloo was all about. Wasn’t it already obvious? Energy will still cost ~10% of GDP in the long run.
OK, I have said more than enough, good luck all. :-)
Piotrsays
115. Steve Fish says: “Where is Piotr on this?”.
The answer was: “driving to the other side of Newfoundland and back, without access to the Internet…” ;-) But I am back, so let me try to address your questions:
“1.) the ocean is taking up CO2, not outgassing”
yes, but not thanks to, but despite of, corals and other CaCO3 forming critters. Ocean _still_ takes up CO2 because the effect of CaCO3 critters is OUTWEIGHED by
a) seawater having some room to accommodate surplus CO2 (ocean was in an equilibirum with lower CO2 atm., so when we increased atm. CO2, some of it will get absorbed) – see the Revelle factor; b) some of carbon will locked away either buried as organic carbon, or at least locked in a decay-resistant portion of DOC (dissolved inorganic carbon) c) some of the existing CaCO3 from the past would keep dissolve in the current more acidic environment (the effect on water pCO2 being the opposite of that of CaCO3 formation). Also some other minerals (eg. Ca silicates) will dissolve, taking up CO2 from water in the process, as well.
“2. If this were true, the calcium carbonate producers would run themselves out of business.” Not if CO2 is removed from seawater through the mentioned above mechanisms (burying org. C, dissolution of CaCO3 and silicates, and degassing of Co2 to the atmosphere).
That said, if there were major net sources of CO2 entering the ocean that cannot be compensated by these mechanisms – then the corals and other CaCO3 critters would be indeed in big trouble, as well as all other organisms depending on them, say those living in coral reefs (might explain some mass extinctions in the ocean). For instance the massive Permian extinction, typically associated with massive CO2/acidity increase – wiped out two major groups of CaCO3 forming corals (rugosans and tabulates).
“3.) If the formation of calcium carbonate sinking to the bottom, being covered over and cycled through the mantle is the way that excess atmospheric CO2 is absorbed, the process must not cause outgassing of CO2.”
I don’t agree with the premise – I don’t think burying CaCO3 is how “the excess atmospheric CO2 is absorbed” – rather the opposite – the burying of CaCO3 removes alkalinity from seawater and, in doing so, makes the absorption of excess atmospheric CO2 _more_ difficult. The removal of excess atm. CO2 is done by _dissolution_ of CaCo3 (and some silicates), but I am not sure how much of _dissolved_ ions would be removed into the mantle to be “cycled” there.
This may be true if you only look a the coral, but not true if you consider the bigger picture (effect on the uptake of atm Co2). For that one needs to consider the alternatives – what would happen if the same nutrients were used up to produce organic carbon by non-calcifying organisms instead of corals. The answer is:
the uptake by non-calcifying algae would result in _net uptake_ of atm. CO2, not merely “no flux at all”, as in the case of the coral.
In other words, since in most of the ocean the production of organic carbon is limited by by availability nutrients, any (new) nutrients taken up by corals mean fewer nutrients for the more CO2_uptake- effective organisms (more effective because they do not have to pay CaCO3-caused acidification penalty).
Hope it clarifies things a bit.
Piotr
patricksays
Russell, 54: This is nothing but an expansion of your red herring on “logistics and transportation” (#22). It functions the same way as the red herring hurled at climate scientists for using the available transportation of the day to go to meetings, to do their work.
One doesn’t take initial steps to exit the box except from inside the box. To say that the initial steps invalidate the out-of-the-box side of the initiative (and therefore the initiative itself) is to deny an exit, in principle and in fact. Further, your line of thought ignores the fact that first steps are the ones that normally require the most effort.
In design, hardware, and energy management, the Solar Impulse must be credited for initiating and giving credibility to processes of CO2 prevention (zero-fuel) that will continue to expand over time–with a long tail.
The notion and value of records is presumably about progress–or improving the current state of affairs. In the case of CO2, progress is about preventing harm. But in light of the addiction to fossil fuels of the Anthropocene thus far, records like those of the the Rutan plane are little more than the paraphernalia of further addictions–when compared to the zero-fuel achievements of the Solar Impulse and the standard it sets for restraining emissions, including CO2 and the mindset that goes with it. Those who want to carry on as usual will disparage Solar Impulse II all the way. It’s about a lot more than the records it is setting.
Thomassays
139 Hank Roberts says: “Verbosity trumps readability.”
There is also the other side of the coin minted by Einstein:
“Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler”
Both verbosity and readability are personal judgments. Nothing more. Personally, I dislike 3 word slogans with a vengeance. :-)
To put that another way: “All generalities are false. Including this one!” 7 words trumps 3 words any day of the week.
Speaking of Trumps, 500 is a far better card game than Euchre. That and my favourite book of all time is still Lord of the Rings. ;-)
Edward Greischsays
I just saw comment 154 and now there are only 139 comments. What happened?
Richard Caldwellsays
Kevin: in this go-round–but the ‘multiple trends’ proposition belongs there, not as part of an ‘existence test.’
Richard: Actually, Victor:
A. Claimed that the century+ trend is positive. BPL simply agreed that Victor is right. No win there.
B. Rejected the treatment of the record as a single century+ trend and broke it down into specific periods. The multiple trends argument. Since BPL agreed with Victor about “A” and didn’t address “B” at all, Victor wins.
If I were to play the game, I’d link to stuff like http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm
We’ve got a mechanism that links the trends, (CO2) and explanations as to why the individual trends Victor described are different, (aerosols, La Nina, etc). I’d then demand an alternative mechanism which explains “A”.
That BPL didn’t take the win is probably because he might have made the same reading comprehension error you might have made. (Missing that Victor said “A”) When folks are viscerally opposed, their listening skills degrade severely, and so they tend to lose the game even when they’re 100% right.
Folks also tend to equate winning with being right. A murderer who gets off on a technicality will often loudly claim that they were found innocent. Nope, they won the game, but they’re still guilty. Similarly, Victor, you’re wrong, and the above Skeptical Science link will tell you why, at least with regard to the mid-20th century. I expect no change in your position. Folks are generally immune to evidence which is contrary to either their beliefs or the positions they have taken, especially when the evidence is expressed by those one considers opponents. You’ve shown yourself to be a prime example of this very human characteristic.
————-
zebra: your “stud wall” was a terrible design (there are many reasons) and would tear itself apart.
Richard: It would only make sense if we had to harvest a bazillion acres of beetle-kill. If fire risk mandated harvesting. If the rich decided it was cool. If we decided to build for 1000 years instead of 100 and population declines so we build fewer houses per year. Probably a combination of stuff like that. In this scenario, we’ve got lots of excess wood. Gotta put the excess wood somewhere, and conditioned space is where it will last the longest. Warehouses or rich folks’ houses or wherever.
Given that huge caveat, If I were to attack the idea, I’d talk about getting the thing built, not what happens after it’s done. 2x6s 16″OC is light. 8x8s 8″OC is heavy. You’d probably have to build short sections and tie them together with the cap plate. You might avoid that issue by leaving out the bottom plate and toenailing. You might use tie-plates. I did the Mech Eng thing and have built serious wooden structures, including, without machinery, an 8’x36′ reflector towering over a two-and-a-half-story greenhouse in an area that’s seriously windy. This one doesn’t scare me.
Yes, there are many ways to incorporate logs into a structure, including having them non-load-bearing. The like-a-stud-wall concept is just one technique. However, since you’ve made the claim, perhaps you’d like to explain how it would tear itself apart? Wood is longitudinally stable. Traditional log construction has problems because it relies on transverse bearing and wood is not transversely dimensionally stable. The plate and stud system has been standard for a long time. Why does it work with 2x6s but wouldn’t with 8x8s? The biggest difference I can see is the lack of sheetrock. Of course, this system could also be built with sheetrock… Frankly, whatever issue you might come up with is surely easily solved. Whatcha got, zebra?
V 141: To return to the issue at hand, the trend you think you see is what is called an “artifact.” An artifact is a distortion in certain results due to a flawed or simplistic methodology. In this case, the trend line has nothing to do with any real trend, but simply the fact that things were cooler at one endpoint and warmer at the other. The absence of any warming at all during a period of almost 40 years out of 100 tells us that there could have been no trend.
BPL: This is a fallacy of equivocation. I told you how a trend was formally defined; you want to use your own definition. As long as you do that, no conversation is possible; we are literally not speaking the same language.
RC: BPL is currently ranting about falsibility [sic], yet he’s refusing to test his own work.
BPL: Which shows, again, that RC knows as much about statistics as Victor does. Most of my BJS article was statistical testing of my own hypothesis; which, BTW, it survived. And RC still seems to think I’m using “a calculator and ruler” for my results, implying he never read the article he dismisses as rejected. (Note: the vast majority of journals I submitted it to never sent it out for peer review, so that’s not “rejected” in the sense he wants.)
T 151: Temperature is ethereal and therefore far less definitive over time than GHG-PPM output from using fossil fuels, cement, or clear felling of forests etc.
BPL: T = m cp H
where T is temperature in kelvins, m is the mass of the substance under consideration (kg), cp its heat capacity under constant pressure (J K^-1 kg^-1), and H the heat content (J). In what way is this “ethereal?”
Killiansays
re: 119ALL indigenous peoples are saying the same things about climate change. I do not need ‘science’ to tell me what I have observed for myself in my lifetime in how much the climate has changed from when I was child and as short as only 20 years ago too. The climate science that has been done simply explains the why of it in great detail.
Such is the power of humanity when we choose to work together for the good of all and put aside our ‘ego’s need for attention’ while doing it.
I’ve used the same logic in explaining my conclusions over the years only to be derided.
I’ll look into wearing some indigenous clothing, see if that helps. Accuracy doesn’t.
:-) He-he…
Speaking of which, Arctic sure is looking like it’s in for it this summer. La Nina may help cool things late summer and stave off that final fit of melt. Hmmm… Winds, as has been typical in recent years, encouraging transport out the Fram in Spring, but have done the opposite in the summer. If we get consistent transport out the Fram for the summer with the ice in such a shambles, we may get our record(s) despite La Nina.
As for CO2, well, we had a four day period up in the 9’s already. We have about two weeks to get there again before we start the short slide down to the new higher minimum.
In this case, the trend line has nothing to do with any real trend, but simply the fact that things were cooler at one endpoint and warmer at the other.
Yes, Victor, that’s rather the point, isn’t it?
The interesting question is why. The various studies you cite are essentially testing explanations for the observed trend. You seem to be simultaneously chastising them for not having all the answers yet, and denying that there is actually a question.
> Given that you didn’t respond to the science side of the comment,
> I take it you agree with what I said in both the original and subsequent comment 100%?
There may be a pony in there somewhere but you need help cleaning out the stable.
Other help.
Victor the Troll @142.
You ask “How is it that 10 forcings are required to explain the 20th century pause, yet only three are needed to account for what happened in the 21st?”
The answer you then provide for yourself I think demonstrates very well why your input here is inappropriate and only suitable for dumping in the Bore Hole.
When you say @142 of Jones et al (2013) (& the SkS post describing it) that you “understand it very well,” this will be your belief of the situation. It is not the reality of the situation.
You dismiss Jones et al (2013) out-of-hand.
Your reasons are identical to those you employ when you dismiss out-of-hand two other attribution works in some other twisted account of yours elsewhere. These other two attributions are firstly another SkS post which simplistically comparing net forcings (anthro. & nat.) with global temperature and secondly Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) which uses statistical methods to examine the temperature record over the satellite period and account for natural forcings plus natural variations caused by ENSO.
It is these two attribution works that prompt you question that I quote above.
Victor the Troll, do pay attention here. The answer to you question is that Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) did not use three forcings, they used two, both of which are natural forcings and exactly the same ones as those used in that SkS post which you say uses ten and which it indeed does. Those other eight are the anthropogenic forcings which the SkS post graphs out individually.
The reason Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) do not enumerate those anthropogenic forcings is because they are identifying the temperature change resulting from those forcings, not the forcings themselves.
Thus, Victor the Troll, your assertion that there is a difference between the forcings treated by the two studies is completely wrong. And thus your subsequent dismissal of their findings entirely inadmissible. Your conclusions are but the product of your blinding stupidity.
In other words, since in most of the ocean the production of organic carbon is limited by by availability nutrients, any (new) nutrients taken up by corals mean fewer nutrients for the more CO2_uptake- effective organisms (more effective because they do not have to pay CaCO3-caused acidification penalty).
That does seem clear, and thanks for that.
But given that coral reefs, where they thrive, boost productivity, increasing the numbers (and biomass) of those same ‘more CO2_uptake-effective organisms’, I’m still struggling a bit with this. At #28 you addressed the relation of productivity and carbon sink via an argument based on nutrient flows and the conservation thereof.
All that seemed fairly persuasive, and yet, it seems contradictory that a vibrant coral reef chockfull of critters, most of whom are busily cycling the biological carbon pump and thereby sequestering carbon in sediment, can possibly be less of a carbon sink than a patch of dead reef being scavenged by algae mats. Can the latter really sequester more than the former?
And what’s the end state of extreme coral loss? As a dead reef crumbles away, there’s less and less substrate in the photic zone, productivity drops, and so, presumably, does biomass. You don’t get a lot of replacement, because the waters are nutrient-poor in the first place. So, if this all happens on a grand scale, it would seem to me that the net result is that we lose a pool of biological carbon. From your #28, one would predict more carbon sinking as the CaCO3 breaks down, without the former growth, but that seems like a transitory stage. So it seems as if the long-term change in net carbon flux would be mostly driven by the saw-off between a reduced CaCO3 ‘penalty’ (since there’s no more coral to grow and form CaCO3) and a reduced biological carbon pump.
Do we have any quantitative guidance on how that saw-off might look? Or am I even on the right track here?
And they are counting the cost of the Fort Mac fire, even as it continues to burn. (It reached 229,000 hectares on Tuesday, which is large but far from record-large, and is growing much more slowly due to cooler, moister weather.)
And they are talking, albeit gingerly and not quite directly, about climate change:
“I think insurance companies keep reserves for those unanticipated types of events like the fires, like the floods, like the ice storm,” said Raman Johal, a Vancouver-based lawyer who specializes in insurance claims. “When you have so many in quick succession, you can’t keep the reserves for those. The reserves start to dwindle.”
“When you have a practise of keeping reserves of unanticipated risks, and those unanticipated risks become more and more prevalent, it becomes problematic for insurance companies. And they would have to increase those rates.”
How “unanticipated” are these things, really? And over which timescale?
Thomas suggests at 150 that it may be too harsh to call the GCMs shite.
Yes, it’s harsh. But some of the scientists and their staunchest defenders have demonstrated a significant amount of arrogance and defensiveness when questioned or confronted about the consistent trend in the models to significantly underestimate the rates and impacts of global warming. If this was just a matter of being faced with a difficult task, the scatter of errors should include a significant number of predictions that overestimate rates, impacts, process of GW. We have been over this on numerous occasions over the past few months. Mann said in 2014 that we had to stay under 405. When we crossed 405 in 2016 Mann said, well, that’s not really the number that we need to watch. Mann has declined to explain the inconsistency in these two statements. I mentioned the factor of ECS calculation and the possible damping effect that can be applied by choosing an ECS value, and I got told, that is not a choice, ECS is physics. Defensiveness anyone? Over and over the gw rates and impacts are underestimated. The consequences to a lot of beings on the planet are quite harsh. But surely we don’t want to seem uncivil as we politely march forward in to the sixth great extinction, right? Not a slam at you, Thomas at 150. But I do think the situation is inherently harsh now and it’s not going to become less harsh. I think it would be good for climate scientists if they could drop the defensiveness and arrogance and simply say, uh-oh, we have been getting it wrong in significant ways and the public policy makers need to stop thinking in terms of scientific consensus on GW and start making policy based on the avoiding the bad possibilities.
Canada’s fire season has barely begun and the months to come will determine whether this burn evolves into a holocaust rivaling the Siberian fires of 1915.
While we have thus far seen several thousand square miles of Alberta, consumed by flames; estimates of the area burned in Russia in 1915 range from 140 thousand to upwards of a million square miles :
cf Nature 323, 116 – 117 (11 September 1986);
doi:10.1038/323116a0
Victorsays
#160 MARodger: “Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) did not use three forcings, they used two, both of which are natural forcings and exactly the same ones as those used in that SkS post which you say uses ten and which it indeed does. Those other eight are the anthropogenic forcings which the SkS post graphs out individually.”
Come again? F and R did indeed use three forcings, as this excerpt from their paper makes clear:
“We focus on the period since 1979, since
satellite microwave data are available and the warming trend
since that time is at least approximately linear.
Much of the variability during that time span can be
related to three known causes of short-term temperature
variations: El Nino/southern oscillation (ENSO, an internal quasi-oscillatory mode of the ocean–atmosphere system)
(Newell and Weare 1976, Angell 1981, Trenberth et al
2002), volcanic eruptions (IPCC 2007), and solar variations
including the solar cycle (IPCC 2007, Lean and Rind
2008, 2009).”
Only one (ENSO) corresponds to those selected by Jones et al.
The ten forcings used by Cook (based on the Hansen paper) are:
Well mixed greenhouse gases
Ozone
Stratospheric H2O
Solar Irradiance
Land Use
Snow Albedo
Stratospheric Aerosols
Black Carbon
Reflective Troposcopic Aerosols
Aerosol Indirect Effect
Greenhouse gases are only one out of the ten listed.
And how, exactly, do the three selected by F & R correspond to the 10 cited above?
MARodger: “The reason Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) do not enumerate those anthropogenic forcings is because they are identifying the temperature change resulting from those forcings, not the forcings themselves.”
Sorry but I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. They are very clearly identifying the temp. change resulting from the three forcings they’ve selected. If any others were involved I assume they’d have identified them.
My point is that you can’t just pick and choose whatever forcings suit your purpose in order to get the result you want. If a comprehensive set of relevant forcings can indeed be identified, then that same set should be applied across the board, to all time periods.
By contrast with the confident assertions of Cook, Jones, Foster and Rahmstorf, here’s what Hansen et al. have to say, in the preface to their very thoroughgoing study (on which Cook’s is based):
“We carry out climate simulations for 1880– 2003 with GISS modelE driven by ten measured or estimated climate forcings. . . Discrepancies between observations and simulations with all forcings are due to model deficiencies, inaccurate or incomplete forcings, and imperfect observations. Although there are notable discrepancies between model and observations, the fidelity is sufficient to encourage use of the model for simulations of future climate change. . . Principal model deficiencies include unrealistically weak tropical El Nino-like variability and a poor distribution of sea ice, with too much sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere and too little in the Southern Hemisphere. . .”
I have no problem with this very impressive study, as it reflects truly comprehensive research on an admittedly very complex situation, and very honestly acknowledges deficiencies, possible inaccuracies and “imperfect observations.” Unlike the others, Hansen and his associates present their results honestly, warts and all, and wisely refrain from drawing hard and fast conclusions.
Victorsays
#155 Richard Caldwell: “Similarly, Victor, you’re wrong, and the above Skeptical Science link will tell you why, at least with regard to the mid-20th century. I expect no change in your position.”
Richard, when you read the book I’ve sent you you’ll see that I’m way ahead of you on this point. The post you’ve cited is very thoroughly discussed therein and some serious failings identified. See Chapter Eight. Please refrain from making assumptions, OK?
I’ll be happy to change my position if someone can provide me with a meaningful response to the following very basic point, as expressed in this reply to my humble disciple, Mr. Rodger:
“You can’t just pick and choose whatever forcings suit your purpose in order to get the result you want. If a comprehensive set of relevant forcings can indeed be identified, then that same set should be applied across the board, to all time periods.”
There are very basic scientific principles at work here, which have unfortunately been overlooked time and again in these discussions. They apply just as well to climate science as any other science.
Piotrsays
161 Kevin McKinney say: “it seems contradictory that a vibrant coral reef chockfull of critters, most of whom are busily cycling the biological carbon pump and thereby sequestering carbon in sediment, can possibly be less of a carbon sink than a patch of dead reef being scavenged by algae mats. Can the latter really sequester more than the former?”
The key is the distinction between “cycling” and sequestring. As long as you _cycle_ you don’t sequester organic carbon. Coral reefs are great in cycling. However the amount of carbon sequestered depends mainly on the amount of new nutrients (typically: nitrates as opposed to ammonium ions from recycling) supplied to the ecosystem. Coral reefs, for the reasons mentioned before, are in areas will low nutrient supply, hence from the biogeochemical point of view they can’t be a big organic carbon sink.
Worse still, the little amount of organic carbon they sequester comes with the acidifying penalty of CaCO3 formation…
And I don’t see the seasaw you envision – most of the surface ocean is starved of nutrients – so if nutrients are not taken up by corals reefs – they will be taken up by phytoplankton. And when dead phytoplankton is not “cycled”, but sinks – it takes the organic carbon with it – and either is buried in sediments or even if it is decomposed in deep waters – the released CO2 is no longer in contact with surface water – so the carbon is sequestered for how long it takes for the deep water to come back to the surface (if below the main thermocline – 1000 yrs?)
So, yes, the uninteresting algae could be much better in drawing CO2 into the ocean than are the vibrant coral reef.
zebrasays
RC 155
Richard Caldwellsays
Victor,
Thanks for the book. I skimmed it so far. I’d say it is a good book that would be a reasonable basis for a discussion here about skeptical viewpoints as expressed by a non-expert. It has references to RC and makes a serious effort to be factual, fair, and civil. It was obviously not written by a troll or a denier.
I’ll comment on two points:
First, the 97% AGW consensus. You noted the study where 2/3 of abstracts expressed no opinion, 1/3 expressed “belief” to varying degrees, 0.7% expressed “disbelief” and 0.3% expressed uncertainty. You rejected the ignoring of the 2/3, which is a valid position to take. Their assumption that those 2/3 would split the same as the data points which could be categorized is also a valid position, so I disagree with your denigration of the study. They just made a management decision that was different from yours.
Then you made a big error. You absorbed the 2/3 with no expressed opinion into “undecided”. No, if included, the 2/3 should be in another category, “unknown”. You have no idea what the authors believe. For all you know, they could all be rabid alarmists.
The second point is the population bomb. You maintain that we’ll quadruple our population within a generation. That’s just sloppy. Other than Africa, births per woman are near replacement levels throughout the world. Wiki says 2010-2015 world TFR was 2.36, and since TFR is declining, the number for May 2016 is probably lower. The population bomb already went off.
Finally, your book has a 2015 copyright, so is it correct that you finished it in 2014? If so, had you written it today, with Jan-Mar 2016 in the data, would you have changed anything? Much of the foundation upon which your book rests seems to have crumbled this year. As Kevin McKinney (I think) said, he sees the hiatus fast receding in the rearview mirror.
Thanks again for sharing, and I’ll give it a more thorough read as I have time, as long as you address the points I bring up here. Optimally, I’d like you to re-write your book as we go through it. What do you think?
zebrasays
@RC 155,
This is a pretty trivial exercise which I was happy to let go until you continued with the “man up” nonsense. Let’s begin with the fact that I am not interested in chasing your moving goal-posts. You said you wanted an exposed wall, constructed as a stud wall, that had structural properties.
1. Why will it tear itself apart? Because conventional stud walls have structural integrity (strength) only because of the plywood applied and nailed in a well-engineered pattern. Nailing a top plate and sole plate (into end-grain) is a temporary measure– anyone who claims to have “constructed” things knows that; try to raise a wall that doesn’t have cross-bracing or sheets nailed at the corners and you have a big floppy thing that falls on your head.
But that is the least of your problems– with 8″ timbers, expansion and contraction (individually) will loosen the nails even more. After a few years, you will have something more like a xylophone than a wall.
2. The spacing thing. There’s a technical term for allowing your .05″ (probably too small anyway) expansion gap: “Mold Factory” You can figure that out I’m sure, now that I’ve mentioned it.
So, if you found a customer who wanted 8″ thick paneling to get some kind of rustic look, and contribute to carbon sequestration, and not be obligated to spend an unlimited amount of money, here’s how you would do it:
1. You would use plantation lumber, not scavenged. Wood expands and contracts differently across and parallel with growth rings. So to keep a uniform internal surface, you grow trees slightly larger than the cross section and square them up uniformly around the heartwood.
2. Dry the posts and square them up again. You have to dry them to furniture specs. (Yes, subsequent to physics and engineering and teaching stuff, I make furniture.)
3. Mill further to create a shiplap or tongue and groove (or floating spline) joint. Extend that to join with milled top and bottom plates. No nails!
Now, you build your house using conventional post-and-beam construction, with an external skin of SIP. Your “wood storage walls” exist between the posts– they float, with no structural function. This should be easy to visualize; it’s the first thing that popped into my head.
Which is the main point– I just told you the “right” way to do what you suggest, and it is completely idiotic. You fail to recognize that *just* coming up with clever ideas does not qualify as creativity– you have to be not so expert in the field that your imagination is constrained, but have enough fundamental understanding that your ideas are not simply random fluctuations in the quantum foam.
Just sayin’.
Thomassays
155 Richard Caldwell says: “When folks (believe they) are viscerally opposed, their listening skills degrade severely” and “Folks are generally immune to evidence which is contrary to either their (fundamental entrenched) beliefs or the positions they have taken, especially when the evidence is expressed by those one considers opponents.
The solution/s to agw/cc will be found in knowing and applying the knowledge found in modern day psychological science. imo.
Thomassays
157 Barton Paul Levenson says: In what way is this “ethereal?”
It isn’t – not what you wrote and meant. Of this means you have to be so utterly focused on the ‘scientific physics definition’ of the word temperature that you entirely miss the more obvious meaning of the word as it used in the context of written communication. That being the measurement of the temperature increase from agw above the avg mean temperature over time as specifically mentioned in my comment regarding the goals of remaining under 2C or 1.5C. Being obstinate is not a constructive approach to hearing what others have written nor genuine dialogue nor learning from each other.
Or to put that another way: “As long as you do that, no conversation is possible; we are literally not speaking the same language. This conversation is over.”
Thomassays
10 May 2016 El Niño drawing closer to an end
The tropical Pacific Ocean has weakened to borderline El Niño-neutral levels. Sea surface temperatures across the tropical Pacific Ocean cooled further in the past fortnight, driven by cooler than average waters below the surface. Atmospheric indicators are also trending towards normal. Trade winds have been consistently near normal for some weeks. Typical El Niño cloud patterns are dissipating and the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), while still negative, is steadily rising. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Digby Scorgiesays
Listen, fellows, Victor is clearly psychotic. (Anybody who fails to see a clear warming trend in a plot of average global temperatures just has to have enough loose screws rattling around in his skull to open a hardware shop.) Such people are fanatics, and one does not attempt to reason with a fanatic. It is an exercise in futility.
I recommend a different response instead, namely, the one we like to use here in New Zealand to anything manifestly insane. Here is an example:
“The Earth is flat!” “Yeah, right.”
When spoken aloud, it just oozes sarcasm. So my response to Victor would be:
“Yeah, right. Goodbye, Victor.”
patricksays
Solar Impulse is due to take off from Phoenix for Tulsa at 5am CT/10am UTC Thursday May 12. Don’t know how close to real time the live feeds will be on this leg. Anyone whose interested can check Solar Impulse–the homepage, FB, Twitter, YouTube channel, @bertrandpiccard, etc.
He seem oblivious to the fact that the domains do not match.
Comparison of the linear trends is therefore invalid, since the non-overlapped end points poisons the comparison.
Silly. But not surprising coming from a musicologist who self publishes his own musings.
Phil Lsays
#144 Richard: “So, if you had to guess, what forest rotation would you think is optimum? I’m leaning towards 50 years. It embodies the “up to several decades” our single soil reference suggested, is in the ballpark of the alternative “cutting” by fire, (choosing to not harvest is choosing to burn) allows for the possible evolution to Old Growth, and a couple hundred yard strip of reduced (not barren) vegetation perpendicular to prevailing winds every 10,000 yards gives firefighters a serious advantage, saving lives and property while maintaining forest and soil health, and providing wood products. If the cutting rotation is done from the windward side, fires would generally be traveling into younger and younger stands, thus, by the time they hit the break, they’d be running on fumes and about out anyway. Plus, stands older than that which initially caught fire would often be protected by the wind. Pick a firebreak, defend it, and if overwhelmed, simply fall back 10,000 yards.
The big issue with this technique might be animal behavior. Are there species that wouldn’t like such a regime?”
I think it’s a good idea for foresters to use natural forest patterns as a guide when determining harvest rotations and cutblock layouts. In the disturbance-dependent boreal forest wildfires are the main driver, fire return intervals vary widely depending on the ecosystem type, and fire sizes vary widely. Some wildlife species such as pine marten and woodland caribou require habitat a lot older than 50 years, though some species prefer young stands. It’s important to plan at various spatial scales, from the individual tree, stand, and landscape-level. At the landscape level, a mosaic of stand types and age classes should be maintained.
A pretty good synthesis of the literature on carbon accumulation in post-wildfire versus post-clearcut can be found in this article in Journal of Forest Research: Carbon dynamics of North American boreal forest after stand replacing wildfire and clearcut logging (Seedre et al. 2011)
“This is on a par with the Wright brothers.” –Goodyear Airport director, Phoenix.
Chuck Hughessays
I think it would be good for climate scientists if they could drop the defensiveness and arrogance and simply say, uh-oh, we have been getting it wrong in significant ways and the public policy makers need to stop thinking in terms of scientific consensus on GW and start making policy based on the avoiding the bad possibilities.”
Daily CO2
May 10, 2016: 408.08 ppm
May 10, 2015: 403.50 ppm
read’m and weep. Warm regards. Mike
Comment by mike — 11 May 2016 @ 1:30 PM
I’m wondering if the planet hasn’t started outgassing in quantities large enough to drive CO2 increases beyond day to day human activity. 4ppm increases on a consistent basis like we’ve been seeing is alarming to me. Based on what I’ve read the increase may drop back down but I would think it would be temporary at best. It seems like just yesterday we hit the 400ppm mark for the first time and now we’ve already spiked to 409????
We ARE the Climate Model imo and it’s not looking too good. But what do I know. I just come here to read Victor’s posts and revel in his genius.
Killiansays
Given the research saying repetition is the heart and soul of The Big Lie, I declare Victor the One Ring that Binds Them, Master of the Dark Propagandist Arts… and all y’all his playthings.
As Mollison might say, the solution remains embarrassingly simple.
Just sayin’,
Lawrence Colemansays
146: Thomas. Thanks for that. You are saying Thatcher and Reagan has the first pure and unadulterated message even before the denialist camp woke up. Since then the subsequent messages has been contaminated with doubt and perceived uncertainty. Yes, I think you’re right. That’s why it’s soo bloody hard to get a critical mass of CC agreers rolling. Here in queensland aust, the media are reporting more stories of CC effects such as vanishing islands in the solomons, great barrier reef decimation especially the northern half: the Alberta wildfires and they are keeping the climate scientist’s perspective, not any other contrary view. I find that encouraging. Unfortunately we are in a perfect storm of personally selective entertainment for the hoy poloy which keeps them off the news bulletins and channels, difficult financial times which makes everyone focus on their own familial microcosms and not on plights in the world at large: Every country seemingly in debt to everyone else(how the world got itself into that situation is beyond me), thus prioritising on immediate national needs: The shortening of people’s attention spans thus making the blindingly fast progress of CC seem glacial(pardon the pun). So there you have it…the recipe for doing and achieving absolutely nothing in the required timeframe.
Might check the arctic sea ice extent and area graphs, they are beginning to freefall at least two weeks earlier than before and even steeper than 2012 and ’07. My concern is that when we get an ice free period at 90deg N that will rapidly expand to ice free conditions for substantial parts of the year since the relatively warm arctic ocean currents will easily keep melting the snow as it falls. Also regular holding patterns of jet stream winds preventing weather patterns for moving on, thus exposing the ocean to stagnating lows and the turbulence that causes.
Victor the Troll @170.
I appreciate you are a very foolish person, but at least try to respond here without making a complete hash of everything you say!!!
So blunder by blunder through your comment @170. You will see, at every turn your response is marked by fundamental error.
If ENSO is an external forcing (as you insist it is where you write – “F and R did indeed use three forcings, as this excerpt from their paper makes clear”) why then do F&R (as you yourself quote) call ENSO “an internal quasi-oscillatory mode of the ocean–atmosphere system”? Why does the SkS post in mentioning ENSO call it “internal variability “? So how can ENSO be considered a climate forcing?
Note it is the SkS post not Jones et al (2013) that mentions ENSO (this assertion applying to the latter’s abstract) but you will note that the SkS post does describe the workings of CMIP models, saying that they address “all external influences on global surface temperatures” and this is followed by a list of the primary “external temperature influences” which the SkS post also helpfully points out are known as “FORCINGS”(my bold). @142 your accuse Jones et al (2013) of ‘cherry picking’ because, you assert, there are “only two “forcing factors” in this case, it would seem.” @170 you ignore all but ENSO (which isn’t a forcing). Perhaps, Victor the Troll, you can have a third stab at it. Try counting on your fingers this time. How may forcings are expressly used by Jones et al (2013)? (And note the list in the SkS post is not the complete one.)
The second SkS post (by Cook) presents a graph showing 10 separate forcings. You are still hopelessly confused when you compare this 10 with the F&R forcings. We, I hope, have established that ENSO is not a forcing. You ask “And how, exactly, do the three (actually two) selected by F & R correspond to the 10 cited above?”
So, this is a tough one for you, Victor the Troll. F&R use (A)“volcanic eruptions” and (B)“solar variations including the solar cycle” in their MLR. So Victor the Troll, get you thinking head on. The second SkS post lists as its ten – (1) Well mixed greenhouse gases, (2) Ozone, (3) Stratospheric H2O, (4) Solar Irradiance, (5) Land Use, (6) Snow Albedo, (7) Stratospheric Aerosols, (8) Black Carbon, (9) Reflective Troposcopic Aerosols, (10) Aerosol Indirect Effect. Victor the Troll, can you fill in the (?)s? (A) = (?), (B) = (?). (A hint for the fool who thinks he is some sort of expert but who is evidently not acquainted with the impact on volcanic eruptions on climate, volcanoes eject aerosols very very high into the atmosphere.)
And a follow-on question. Of the remaining eight, which of them would not be considered as anthropogenic forcings and thus which would not be a component part of the “Human (Total)” graphed out in Fig 1. of the first SkS post? (I set the question this way round as you don’t need to do any counting, something you are pretty hopeless at, Victor the Troll.)
This next takes the biscuit, Victor. You have it wholly the wrong way round. You say “They are very clearly identifying the temp. change resulting from the three forcings they’ve selected. If any others were involved I assume they’d have identified them.” Where in F&R does it say that? (Helpful note – F&R are ” very clearly identifying the temp. change resulting from” negating “the three forcings (abet ENSO is not a forcing) they’ve selected.”)
So given all the correction to you misguided understanding which my questioning should have allowed, Victor the Troll, are you still suggesting that the CMIP5 simulations ‘pick and choose’ the forcings that ‘suit their purpose’? Are you really that stupid to suggest such a thing?
And given you are seemingly happy with the climate modelling of Hansen et al (2011), what is the fundamental difference between the finding of that paper and all the ones you rejected @142 & @170? Indeed, does not Hansen et al (2011) only make sense if the fundamental driver of global temperature since 1880 has been anthropogenic?
I simply suggest that anyone interested in knowing what those Papers are saying should read them very slowly and carefully, while applying only their analytic thinking skills as best they are able. Details matter. :-)
Also, anthropogenic forcings is the “Forcing due to human, rather than natural, factors.” (quoted from RC archives)
zebrasays
@mike 168,
I’ve suggested in the past that the community is perhaps timid in communicating issues to the public, but if your goal is to move action, I think you are focusing on the wrong area.
My complaint has been about attribution rather than prediction, and that’s because people relate to tangible phenomena, not abstractions and generalizations, and certainly not predictions far in the future.
I’d wager that the typical citizen really, really, doesn’t care if the mean temp goes up 1.5 or 2.0 or 2.5. Most of them still think that means every point on the planet will have an inconsequential or even pleasant little bump in temperature. Nice in winter, and turn up the AC in summer.
But storms and wildfires, even when they occur somewhere else, have an impact. If you can get the “meteorologists” (or, weather-gesturers as I fondly call them) on tv to reinforce the link to climate change, it might make a real difference.
So, sorry, but climate scientists doing TED talks with sandwich-boards that say “repent, the end is near, it’s 2.73C in 50 years” isn’t going to cut it.
But, if they would let go of the formalism that requires a 100-year time series before they can affirm what logically follows from well-established physics, the audience could actually understand and accept and internalize the problem.
Have to agree with DS at 179. Victor is someone who absolutely refuses to acknowledge any points on the other side, no matter how elementary. He’s not here to learn, he’s not here to discuss (however much he claims to be), he’s here to teach us AGW morons how wrong we are. He belongs in the borehole. RC is increasingly enamored of Victor [no surprise there], but the rest of us should just ignore him.
Victorsays
#174 Thanks, Richard, for your mostly sympathetic response to my book. Regarding your comments on the 97% consensus, my problem is not so much with the bulk of the Cook et al. report per se, since they do seem to be upfront regarding their methodology. My problem is with the way they interpret their results — and the manner in which those results have been interpreted so widely in the media, and by a host of climate change activists, including our president. It is simply not accurate to claim that 97% of scientists agree when 2/3 of the papers reviewed were discounted.
“Then you made a big error. You absorbed the 2/3 with no expressed opinion into “undecided”. No, if included, the 2/3 should be in another category, “unknown”.”
Here I agree. That’s a valid point.
“The second point is the population bomb. You maintain that we’ll quadruple our population within a generation. That’s just sloppy. Other than Africa, births per woman are near replacement levels throughout the world. Wiki says 2010-2015 world TFR was 2.36, and since TFR is declining, the number for May 2016 is probably lower. The population bomb already went off.”
The quadrupling estimate was based on a hypothetical situation in which we could adequately feed and maintain the health of everyone on earth. It wasn’t intended as a realistic estimate of future population growth under current conditions. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. Population growth does seem to be leveling off worldwide, which is good news.
“Much of the foundation upon which your book rests seems to have crumbled this year. As Kevin McKinney (I think) said, he sees the hiatus fast receding in the rearview mirror.”
Really? While Karl et al. has widely been trumpeted as a “pause buster,” it really isn’t very different from the many similar attempts to account for the hiatus over the years. It’s just the most recent. In any case, it seems to me that Fyfe et al., with the participation, amazingly enough, of Michael Mann himself, has reinstated the hiatus in a very dramatic and surprising manner. There is also now a wealth of studies indicating that the extreme weather events we’ve been experiencing lately are nothing new. So as I see it, the evidence supporting the skeptical position is stronger than ever.
I look forward to a more complete review from you, and if I decide to produce a revised edition of the book, I will definitely take your comments into consideration. Thanks.
Well, IANAP, but a psychiatrist probably wouldn’t make that diagnosis solely on the evidence of Victor’s comments on RC. OTOH, if “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results”, then Victor is at least figuratively insane.
Steve Fishsays
Comment by Richard Caldwell — 11 May 2016 @ 1:48 AM, ~#157
Perusing your post yields the following quotes:
“No win there”
“Victor wins”
“If I were to play the game”
“That BPL didn’t take the win is”
“they tend to lose the game even when”
“Folks also tend to equate winning with”
“Nope, they won the game”
This language demonstrates that you are playing a junior debate society game here. Scientists aren’t interested in winning a debate, they gain respect by presenting and interpreting replicable research results and this plays out in the peer reviewed scientific literature. If you want a metric for this, look at the number of citations different studies accumulate. Discussions here require that when one is asked to support an assertion of fact, they are obligated to supply scholarly support. Your refusal to do this, along with your sports bar “man up” silliness, suggests that you are commenting in the wrong forum.
Regarding your comment regarding a wall made of vertical logs: “perhaps you’d like to explain how it would tear itself apart? Wood is longitudinally stable,” was pretty much demolished by Zebra (11 May 2016 @ 5:56 PM, ~#175), but I had a pretty good laugh. The whole idea of building with logs is to put them side to side, so that all the expansion and contraction of the wood is additive across the wall. No reasonable construction can constrain this movement. Sheesh.
I think on the failure of climate modeling I will just quote Gavin from here on out. This is very succinct statement that captures what bothers me about our species’ plans to address GW:
“Literally every paper I’ve written about models has discussed the need for improvements. In my TED talk I specifically said (pace Box) that all models are wrong. You are also myopic if you think that observations are perfect or that the experiments we perform in order to compare to reality are ideal. Indeed, all of those things need improving as well. But none of that undermines the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are putting a lot of it out and the planet is warming (and will warm more) as a result.”
Daily CO2
May 11, 2016: 407.7 ppm
May 11, 2015: 403.58 ppm
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
Hitting that 4 ppm increase rate now. Hope to see that drop back to around 3.1 ppm on annual increase rate. 3.1 is still disastrous, but less scary than a sudden jump to the 4 plus range. Maybe we will see a significant drop in rate of increase as ENSO falls off.
The problem is ghg accumulation. Mann said in 2014 that we need to stay under 405 ppm and I think he was correct about that. If we wanted now to get back to 405 and stay there, how would we do that? Wrap your head around that challenge.
Another warm beautiful day in the Pac NW. Hope my grapes and kiwis arrive today, trellis is built, I am anxious to plant.
warm regards
Mike
Edward Greischsays
Skipping a whole lot of stuff in a comment I almost made, trying to tell people directly about GW isn’t going to work. Arguing isn’t going to work. There are a whole lot of psychological problems in the way. There must be another way to do it.
Don’t react. Do an analytic deadpan. Ask questions.
Say it is OK to be afraid of the climate monster. We are too.
You are an OK person to admit that GW is something that you don’t understand.
We can do something about it and have at least some success, if not perfect success.
We do not want to change your lifestyle. We will do everything we can to keep your lifestyle as it is.
And so on. Be re-assuring.
What can be blocking the message?
PTSD
antagonism
rigidity
beliefs
lack of education
Something that somebody just can’t say
I don’t know. I’m neither a psychologist nor an advertiser. Somebody else has to take it from here.
Victor thinks Michael Mann said what?
You can look this stuff up.
He could have too.
One of many results from a simple search (remember to clear your cache, sign out of Google/Gmail/YouTube etcetera, and restart your browser (and make sure you aren’t automatically signed back into the search bubble).
Energy dashboard on Solar Impulse Virtual Cockpit shows power of sun on panels at 84% and falling; altitude just past maximal; battery charge at 94%; predicted charge of 100% in about at hour. This is what’s interesting about watching the livestream on the Solar Impulse homepage. This is what it’s all about.
Addendum about: “the rest is basic mathematics and unarguable imo.
Temperature is ethereal and therefore far less definitive over time than GHG-PPM output from using fossil fuels, cement, or clear felling of forests etc.
Pseudo-mathematics/economics of ETS, carbon taxes and Hansen’s promotion of “Carbon Tax & 100% Dividend” are more ethereal than Temps and therefore far less defintive than strict Regulation that is historically proven to create significant changes in behaviour. The “price” looks after itself as does innovation and business creativity to overcome the constraints of such Regulation. No vehicle manufacturer went broke after the new Safety Regulations imposed post-Nader – we still drive cars don’t we and they are still affordable, yes? Business always looks after itself no matter what the “rules” are or how much they change. That’s a historically proven scientific fact not a belief.
Private Investors in the railways of the 1800s and early 20th century made a fortune on Govt support and when that slowed down moving into interstate highways those very same Private Investors and Bankers made an even larger fortune from riding the new wave of car ownership and middle class vacations. Those who chose to ignore change and kept their investments in horses and cart and hay feed went broke. And they all deserved it in spades. So goes those who wish to continue to invest in fossil fuels today.
There is no “fossil fuel” industry – there is an electrical energy industry and a transportation industry and a building materials (not cement) industry. Get the semantics right and everything looks after itself by itself. Business isn’t stupid. The exceptions prove that rule in Bankruptcies and Taxpayer funded Govt Bailouts.
The scientific facts prove that setting global goals using Yardsticks like CO2 ppm is definitive, measurable and constant. Science can accurately inform politicians and the people what the numbers should be and a decision made on that – not “temperature” – be it set now at 400, 350 or 300 over time is besides the point. Obviously it must be lower than today, yes? And new advances in science can always offer future refinements. Not only for CO2 but for all the components of human-produced CO2e.
Mathematics then informs the politicians and the people how much CO2e must be cut on current use and by when to reach the Global Goals. The imposition of Regulations based on Maths does the rest. Not negotiable – the price and innovation then acts accordingly by natural law in commerce and human nature.
If this means that in a decade the elites of Boston and New York can no longer afford to fly to Florida during winter at $2000 per seat is their problem alone – No one else’s! They can walk if they have to. If this means that international airline traffic falls 80% in a a decade and the “industry” is decimated, then tough luck. Deal with it. The wise investors will switch to luxury ocean liners to transport the “haves” using wind and solar power instead of Oil.
One thing follows the other. Regulating CO2e out of existence to a Net Zero balance is the only solution not the hard economic problem it is painted out to be. imo.
PS Richard Alley and others have shown that historically Energy use has always been ~10% of GDP. Fossil Fuel or no Fossil Fuel energy costs will remain at ~10% of GDP. It’s a Law of Mathematics and a Law of Human Nature as well. When faced with a new reality people are not stupid. :-)
When the USA is faced with a global regulatory environment backed up by International Law and Trade realities and the necessity to cut Coal Use in the USA by 50% the Govt will force ~33% of all Coal Mines to shut down by not issuing a Licence to Operate. Those Mines that are left, given supply and demand realities, will then be hit with something akin to a $100 Million Annual Licence Fee – and the Govt will use cash that to police and enforce the Regulations and to funnel funds into research, development of Alt Energy options and new Infrastructure to deliver it to industry, business and householders. This is what Govts have always done in every changing “industrial business environment” going back to the Industrial Revolution in Europe.
The price of coal fired electricity will sky-rocket including from Investors taking every opportunity to profit-gouge the consumer. Once business and home consumers are facing $1/KWH electricity charges instead of 12cents then everyone (especially businesses) are ordering solar roof panels and mini-wind turbines, switching to buying energy efficient alternatives, and architects are designing new energy efficient buildings from 2 bed apartments to Trump Tower office buildings.
And the old Investors and Bankers in Coal mines, CSG/Tar sands, and power stations are investing in new age batteries and renewable energy and nuclear power plants new transportation options in an INSTANT.
No one ever proposed a “Lead Trading Scheme LTS” nor a “Lead Tax & 100% Dividend” to get rid of Leaded fuel once it was determined to be harmful. No it was simply Regulated by all Governments out of existence. Does it cost more to fill your car up with petrol/gasoline today as a result of that Regulation? Nope!
Beware the lies and the distortions and the fear-mongering – for they are everywhere regarding AGW/CC and they won’t go away anytime soon either. But one day people will look back and wonder what all the hullabaloo was all about. Wasn’t it already obvious? Energy will still cost ~10% of GDP in the long run.
OK, I have said more than enough, good luck all. :-)
115. Steve Fish says: “Where is Piotr on this?”.
The answer was: “driving to the other side of Newfoundland and back, without access to the Internet…” ;-) But I am back, so let me try to address your questions:
“1.) the ocean is taking up CO2, not outgassing”
yes, but not thanks to, but despite of, corals and other CaCO3 forming critters. Ocean _still_ takes up CO2 because the effect of CaCO3 critters is OUTWEIGHED by
a) seawater having some room to accommodate surplus CO2 (ocean was in an equilibirum with lower CO2 atm., so when we increased atm. CO2, some of it will get absorbed) – see the Revelle factor; b) some of carbon will locked away either buried as organic carbon, or at least locked in a decay-resistant portion of DOC (dissolved inorganic carbon) c) some of the existing CaCO3 from the past would keep dissolve in the current more acidic environment (the effect on water pCO2 being the opposite of that of CaCO3 formation). Also some other minerals (eg. Ca silicates) will dissolve, taking up CO2 from water in the process, as well.
“2. If this were true, the calcium carbonate producers would run themselves out of business.” Not if CO2 is removed from seawater through the mentioned above mechanisms (burying org. C, dissolution of CaCO3 and silicates, and degassing of Co2 to the atmosphere).
That said, if there were major net sources of CO2 entering the ocean that cannot be compensated by these mechanisms – then the corals and other CaCO3 critters would be indeed in big trouble, as well as all other organisms depending on them, say those living in coral reefs (might explain some mass extinctions in the ocean). For instance the massive Permian extinction, typically associated with massive CO2/acidity increase – wiped out two major groups of CaCO3 forming corals (rugosans and tabulates).
“3.) If the formation of calcium carbonate sinking to the bottom, being covered over and cycled through the mantle is the way that excess atmospheric CO2 is absorbed, the process must not cause outgassing of CO2.”
I don’t agree with the premise – I don’t think burying CaCO3 is how “the excess atmospheric CO2 is absorbed” – rather the opposite – the burying of CaCO3 removes alkalinity from seawater and, in doing so, makes the absorption of excess atmospheric CO2 _more_ difficult. The removal of excess atm. CO2 is done by _dissolution_ of CaCo3 (and some silicates), but I am not sure how much of _dissolved_ ions would be removed into the mantle to be “cycled” there.
Question from your previous post:
“this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034600/ seems to say that the pH shift is compensated by for by photosynthesis required for coral metabolism”
This may be true if you only look a the coral, but not true if you consider the bigger picture (effect on the uptake of atm Co2). For that one needs to consider the alternatives – what would happen if the same nutrients were used up to produce organic carbon by non-calcifying organisms instead of corals. The answer is:
the uptake by non-calcifying algae would result in _net uptake_ of atm. CO2, not merely “no flux at all”, as in the case of the coral.
In other words, since in most of the ocean the production of organic carbon is limited by by availability nutrients, any (new) nutrients taken up by corals mean fewer nutrients for the more CO2_uptake- effective organisms (more effective because they do not have to pay CaCO3-caused acidification penalty).
Hope it clarifies things a bit.
Piotr
Russell, 54: This is nothing but an expansion of your red herring on “logistics and transportation” (#22). It functions the same way as the red herring hurled at climate scientists for using the available transportation of the day to go to meetings, to do their work.
One doesn’t take initial steps to exit the box except from inside the box. To say that the initial steps invalidate the out-of-the-box side of the initiative (and therefore the initiative itself) is to deny an exit, in principle and in fact. Further, your line of thought ignores the fact that first steps are the ones that normally require the most effort.
In design, hardware, and energy management, the Solar Impulse must be credited for initiating and giving credibility to processes of CO2 prevention (zero-fuel) that will continue to expand over time–with a long tail.
The notion and value of records is presumably about progress–or improving the current state of affairs. In the case of CO2, progress is about preventing harm. But in light of the addiction to fossil fuels of the Anthropocene thus far, records like those of the the Rutan plane are little more than the paraphernalia of further addictions–when compared to the zero-fuel achievements of the Solar Impulse and the standard it sets for restraining emissions, including CO2 and the mindset that goes with it. Those who want to carry on as usual will disparage Solar Impulse II all the way. It’s about a lot more than the records it is setting.
139 Hank Roberts says: “Verbosity trumps readability.”
There is also the other side of the coin minted by Einstein:
“Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler”
Both verbosity and readability are personal judgments. Nothing more. Personally, I dislike 3 word slogans with a vengeance. :-)
To put that another way: “All generalities are false. Including this one!” 7 words trumps 3 words any day of the week.
Speaking of Trumps, 500 is a far better card game than Euchre. That and my favourite book of all time is still Lord of the Rings. ;-)
I just saw comment 154 and now there are only 139 comments. What happened?
Kevin: in this go-round–but the ‘multiple trends’ proposition belongs there, not as part of an ‘existence test.’
Richard: Actually, Victor:
A. Claimed that the century+ trend is positive. BPL simply agreed that Victor is right. No win there.
B. Rejected the treatment of the record as a single century+ trend and broke it down into specific periods. The multiple trends argument. Since BPL agreed with Victor about “A” and didn’t address “B” at all, Victor wins.
If I were to play the game, I’d link to stuff like http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm
We’ve got a mechanism that links the trends, (CO2) and explanations as to why the individual trends Victor described are different, (aerosols, La Nina, etc). I’d then demand an alternative mechanism which explains “A”.
That BPL didn’t take the win is probably because he might have made the same reading comprehension error you might have made. (Missing that Victor said “A”) When folks are viscerally opposed, their listening skills degrade severely, and so they tend to lose the game even when they’re 100% right.
Folks also tend to equate winning with being right. A murderer who gets off on a technicality will often loudly claim that they were found innocent. Nope, they won the game, but they’re still guilty. Similarly, Victor, you’re wrong, and the above Skeptical Science link will tell you why, at least with regard to the mid-20th century. I expect no change in your position. Folks are generally immune to evidence which is contrary to either their beliefs or the positions they have taken, especially when the evidence is expressed by those one considers opponents. You’ve shown yourself to be a prime example of this very human characteristic.
————-
zebra: your “stud wall” was a terrible design (there are many reasons) and would tear itself apart.
Richard: It would only make sense if we had to harvest a bazillion acres of beetle-kill. If fire risk mandated harvesting. If the rich decided it was cool. If we decided to build for 1000 years instead of 100 and population declines so we build fewer houses per year. Probably a combination of stuff like that. In this scenario, we’ve got lots of excess wood. Gotta put the excess wood somewhere, and conditioned space is where it will last the longest. Warehouses or rich folks’ houses or wherever.
Given that huge caveat, If I were to attack the idea, I’d talk about getting the thing built, not what happens after it’s done. 2x6s 16″OC is light. 8x8s 8″OC is heavy. You’d probably have to build short sections and tie them together with the cap plate. You might avoid that issue by leaving out the bottom plate and toenailing. You might use tie-plates. I did the Mech Eng thing and have built serious wooden structures, including, without machinery, an 8’x36′ reflector towering over a two-and-a-half-story greenhouse in an area that’s seriously windy. This one doesn’t scare me.
Yes, there are many ways to incorporate logs into a structure, including having them non-load-bearing. The like-a-stud-wall concept is just one technique. However, since you’ve made the claim, perhaps you’d like to explain how it would tear itself apart? Wood is longitudinally stable. Traditional log construction has problems because it relies on transverse bearing and wood is not transversely dimensionally stable. The plate and stud system has been standard for a long time. Why does it work with 2x6s but wouldn’t with 8x8s? The biggest difference I can see is the lack of sheetrock. Of course, this system could also be built with sheetrock… Frankly, whatever issue you might come up with is surely easily solved. Whatcha got, zebra?
V 141: To return to the issue at hand, the trend you think you see is what is called an “artifact.” An artifact is a distortion in certain results due to a flawed or simplistic methodology. In this case, the trend line has nothing to do with any real trend, but simply the fact that things were cooler at one endpoint and warmer at the other. The absence of any warming at all during a period of almost 40 years out of 100 tells us that there could have been no trend.
BPL: This is a fallacy of equivocation. I told you how a trend was formally defined; you want to use your own definition. As long as you do that, no conversation is possible; we are literally not speaking the same language.
This conversation is over.
RC: BPL is currently ranting about falsibility [sic], yet he’s refusing to test his own work.
BPL: Which shows, again, that RC knows as much about statistics as Victor does. Most of my BJS article was statistical testing of my own hypothesis; which, BTW, it survived. And RC still seems to think I’m using “a calculator and ruler” for my results, implying he never read the article he dismisses as rejected. (Note: the vast majority of journals I submitted it to never sent it out for peer review, so that’s not “rejected” in the sense he wants.)
T 151: Temperature is ethereal and therefore far less definitive over time than GHG-PPM output from using fossil fuels, cement, or clear felling of forests etc.
BPL: T = m cp H
where T is temperature in kelvins, m is the mass of the substance under consideration (kg), cp its heat capacity under constant pressure (J K^-1 kg^-1), and H the heat content (J). In what way is this “ethereal?”
re: 119ALL indigenous peoples are saying the same things about climate change. I do not need ‘science’ to tell me what I have observed for myself in my lifetime in how much the climate has changed from when I was child and as short as only 20 years ago too. The climate science that has been done simply explains the why of it in great detail.
Such is the power of humanity when we choose to work together for the good of all and put aside our ‘ego’s need for attention’ while doing it.
I’ve used the same logic in explaining my conclusions over the years only to be derided.
I’ll look into wearing some indigenous clothing, see if that helps. Accuracy doesn’t.
:-) He-he…
Speaking of which, Arctic sure is looking like it’s in for it this summer. La Nina may help cool things late summer and stave off that final fit of melt. Hmmm… Winds, as has been typical in recent years, encouraging transport out the Fram in Spring, but have done the opposite in the summer. If we get consistent transport out the Fram for the summer with the ice in such a shambles, we may get our record(s) despite La Nina.
As for CO2, well, we had a four day period up in the 9’s already. We have about two weeks to get there again before we start the short slide down to the new higher minimum.
#141, Victor–
Yes, Victor, that’s rather the point, isn’t it?
The interesting question is why. The various studies you cite are essentially testing explanations for the observed trend. You seem to be simultaneously chastising them for not having all the answers yet, and denying that there is actually a question.
> Given that you didn’t respond to the science side of the comment,
> I take it you agree with what I said in both the original and subsequent comment 100%?
There may be a pony in there somewhere but you need help cleaning out the stable.
Other help.
Victor the Troll @142.
You ask “How is it that 10 forcings are required to explain the 20th century pause, yet only three are needed to account for what happened in the 21st?”
The answer you then provide for yourself I think demonstrates very well why your input here is inappropriate and only suitable for dumping in the Bore Hole.
When you say @142 of Jones et al (2013) (& the SkS post describing it) that you “understand it very well,” this will be your belief of the situation. It is not the reality of the situation.
You dismiss Jones et al (2013) out-of-hand.
Your reasons are identical to those you employ when you dismiss out-of-hand two other attribution works in some other twisted account of yours elsewhere. These other two attributions are firstly another SkS post which simplistically comparing net forcings (anthro. & nat.) with global temperature and secondly Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) which uses statistical methods to examine the temperature record over the satellite period and account for natural forcings plus natural variations caused by ENSO.
It is these two attribution works that prompt you question that I quote above.
Victor the Troll, do pay attention here. The answer to you question is that Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) did not use three forcings, they used two, both of which are natural forcings and exactly the same ones as those used in that SkS post which you say uses ten and which it indeed does. Those other eight are the anthropogenic forcings which the SkS post graphs out individually.
The reason Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) do not enumerate those anthropogenic forcings is because they are identifying the temperature change resulting from those forcings, not the forcings themselves.
Thus, Victor the Troll, your assertion that there is a difference between the forcings treated by the two studies is completely wrong. And thus your subsequent dismissal of their findings entirely inadmissible. Your conclusions are but the product of your blinding stupidity.
#153, Piotr–
That does seem clear, and thanks for that.
But given that coral reefs, where they thrive, boost productivity, increasing the numbers (and biomass) of those same ‘more CO2_uptake-effective organisms’, I’m still struggling a bit with this. At #28 you addressed the relation of productivity and carbon sink via an argument based on nutrient flows and the conservation thereof.
All that seemed fairly persuasive, and yet, it seems contradictory that a vibrant coral reef chockfull of critters, most of whom are busily cycling the biological carbon pump and thereby sequestering carbon in sediment, can possibly be less of a carbon sink than a patch of dead reef being scavenged by algae mats. Can the latter really sequester more than the former?
And what’s the end state of extreme coral loss? As a dead reef crumbles away, there’s less and less substrate in the photic zone, productivity drops, and so, presumably, does biomass. You don’t get a lot of replacement, because the waters are nutrient-poor in the first place. So, if this all happens on a grand scale, it would seem to me that the net result is that we lose a pool of biological carbon. From your #28, one would predict more carbon sinking as the CaCO3 breaks down, without the former growth, but that seems like a transitory stage. So it seems as if the long-term change in net carbon flux would be mostly driven by the saw-off between a reduced CaCO3 ‘penalty’ (since there’s no more coral to grow and form CaCO3) and a reduced biological carbon pump.
Do we have any quantitative guidance on how that saw-off might look? Or am I even on the right track here?
And they are counting the cost of the Fort Mac fire, even as it continues to burn. (It reached 229,000 hectares on Tuesday, which is large but far from record-large, and is growing much more slowly due to cooler, moister weather.)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/the-fort-mcmurray-disaster-read-the-latest-tuesday/article29930041/
Seems like it’s the new ‘cost champion’ of Canadian disasters:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-insurance-rates-1.3573895
And they are talking, albeit gingerly and not quite directly, about climate change:
How “unanticipated” are these things, really? And over which timescale?
To be fair to CBC, they’ve also got this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/fire-forecast-2016-1.3570452
And this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-fires-1.3576682
Thomas suggests at 150 that it may be too harsh to call the GCMs shite.
Yes, it’s harsh. But some of the scientists and their staunchest defenders have demonstrated a significant amount of arrogance and defensiveness when questioned or confronted about the consistent trend in the models to significantly underestimate the rates and impacts of global warming. If this was just a matter of being faced with a difficult task, the scatter of errors should include a significant number of predictions that overestimate rates, impacts, process of GW. We have been over this on numerous occasions over the past few months. Mann said in 2014 that we had to stay under 405. When we crossed 405 in 2016 Mann said, well, that’s not really the number that we need to watch. Mann has declined to explain the inconsistency in these two statements. I mentioned the factor of ECS calculation and the possible damping effect that can be applied by choosing an ECS value, and I got told, that is not a choice, ECS is physics. Defensiveness anyone? Over and over the gw rates and impacts are underestimated. The consequences to a lot of beings on the planet are quite harsh. But surely we don’t want to seem uncivil as we politely march forward in to the sixth great extinction, right? Not a slam at you, Thomas at 150. But I do think the situation is inherently harsh now and it’s not going to become less harsh. I think it would be good for climate scientists if they could drop the defensiveness and arrogance and simply say, uh-oh, we have been getting it wrong in significant ways and the public policy makers need to stop thinking in terms of scientific consensus on GW and start making policy based on the avoiding the bad possibilities.
Daily CO2
May 10, 2016: 408.08 ppm
May 10, 2015: 403.50 ppm
read’m and weep.
Warm regards
Mike
Canada’s fire season has barely begun and the months to come will determine whether this burn evolves into a holocaust rivaling the Siberian fires of 1915.
While we have thus far seen several thousand square miles of Alberta, consumed by flames; estimates of the area burned in Russia in 1915 range from 140 thousand to upwards of a million square miles :
cf Nature 323, 116 – 117 (11 September 1986);
doi:10.1038/323116a0
#160 MARodger: “Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) did not use three forcings, they used two, both of which are natural forcings and exactly the same ones as those used in that SkS post which you say uses ten and which it indeed does. Those other eight are the anthropogenic forcings which the SkS post graphs out individually.”
Come again? F and R did indeed use three forcings, as this excerpt from their paper makes clear:
“We focus on the period since 1979, since
satellite microwave data are available and the warming trend
since that time is at least approximately linear.
Much of the variability during that time span can be
related to three known causes of short-term temperature
variations: El Nino/southern oscillation (ENSO, an internal quasi-oscillatory mode of the ocean–atmosphere system)
(Newell and Weare 1976, Angell 1981, Trenberth et al
2002), volcanic eruptions (IPCC 2007), and solar variations
including the solar cycle (IPCC 2007, Lean and Rind
2008, 2009).”
Only one (ENSO) corresponds to those selected by Jones et al.
The ten forcings used by Cook (based on the Hansen paper) are:
Well mixed greenhouse gases
Ozone
Stratospheric H2O
Solar Irradiance
Land Use
Snow Albedo
Stratospheric Aerosols
Black Carbon
Reflective Troposcopic Aerosols
Aerosol Indirect Effect
Greenhouse gases are only one out of the ten listed.
And how, exactly, do the three selected by F & R correspond to the 10 cited above?
MARodger: “The reason Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) do not enumerate those anthropogenic forcings is because they are identifying the temperature change resulting from those forcings, not the forcings themselves.”
Sorry but I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. They are very clearly identifying the temp. change resulting from the three forcings they’ve selected. If any others were involved I assume they’d have identified them.
My point is that you can’t just pick and choose whatever forcings suit your purpose in order to get the result you want. If a comprehensive set of relevant forcings can indeed be identified, then that same set should be applied across the board, to all time periods.
By contrast with the confident assertions of Cook, Jones, Foster and Rahmstorf, here’s what Hansen et al. have to say, in the preface to their very thoroughgoing study (on which Cook’s is based):
“We carry out climate simulations for 1880– 2003 with GISS modelE driven by ten measured or estimated climate forcings. . . Discrepancies between observations and simulations with all forcings are due to model deficiencies, inaccurate or incomplete forcings, and imperfect observations. Although there are notable discrepancies between model and observations, the fidelity is sufficient to encourage use of the model for simulations of future climate change. . . Principal model deficiencies include unrealistically weak tropical El Nino-like variability and a poor distribution of sea ice, with too much sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere and too little in the Southern Hemisphere. . .”
I have no problem with this very impressive study, as it reflects truly comprehensive research on an admittedly very complex situation, and very honestly acknowledges deficiencies, possible inaccuracies and “imperfect observations.” Unlike the others, Hansen and his associates present their results honestly, warts and all, and wisely refrain from drawing hard and fast conclusions.
#155 Richard Caldwell: “Similarly, Victor, you’re wrong, and the above Skeptical Science link will tell you why, at least with regard to the mid-20th century. I expect no change in your position.”
Richard, when you read the book I’ve sent you you’ll see that I’m way ahead of you on this point. The post you’ve cited is very thoroughly discussed therein and some serious failings identified. See Chapter Eight. Please refrain from making assumptions, OK?
I’ll be happy to change my position if someone can provide me with a meaningful response to the following very basic point, as expressed in this reply to my humble disciple, Mr. Rodger:
“You can’t just pick and choose whatever forcings suit your purpose in order to get the result you want. If a comprehensive set of relevant forcings can indeed be identified, then that same set should be applied across the board, to all time periods.”
There are very basic scientific principles at work here, which have unfortunately been overlooked time and again in these discussions. They apply just as well to climate science as any other science.
161 Kevin McKinney say: “it seems contradictory that a vibrant coral reef chockfull of critters, most of whom are busily cycling the biological carbon pump and thereby sequestering carbon in sediment, can possibly be less of a carbon sink than a patch of dead reef being scavenged by algae mats. Can the latter really sequester more than the former?”
The key is the distinction between “cycling” and sequestring. As long as you _cycle_ you don’t sequester organic carbon. Coral reefs are great in cycling. However the amount of carbon sequestered depends mainly on the amount of new nutrients (typically: nitrates as opposed to ammonium ions from recycling) supplied to the ecosystem. Coral reefs, for the reasons mentioned before, are in areas will low nutrient supply, hence from the biogeochemical point of view they can’t be a big organic carbon sink.
Worse still, the little amount of organic carbon they sequester comes with the acidifying penalty of CaCO3 formation…
And I don’t see the seasaw you envision – most of the surface ocean is starved of nutrients – so if nutrients are not taken up by corals reefs – they will be taken up by phytoplankton. And when dead phytoplankton is not “cycled”, but sinks – it takes the organic carbon with it – and either is buried in sediments or even if it is decomposed in deep waters – the released CO2 is no longer in contact with surface water – so the carbon is sequestered for how long it takes for the deep water to come back to the surface (if below the main thermocline – 1000 yrs?)
So, yes, the uninteresting algae could be much better in drawing CO2 into the ocean than are the vibrant coral reef.
RC 155
Victor,
Thanks for the book. I skimmed it so far. I’d say it is a good book that would be a reasonable basis for a discussion here about skeptical viewpoints as expressed by a non-expert. It has references to RC and makes a serious effort to be factual, fair, and civil. It was obviously not written by a troll or a denier.
I’ll comment on two points:
First, the 97% AGW consensus. You noted the study where 2/3 of abstracts expressed no opinion, 1/3 expressed “belief” to varying degrees, 0.7% expressed “disbelief” and 0.3% expressed uncertainty. You rejected the ignoring of the 2/3, which is a valid position to take. Their assumption that those 2/3 would split the same as the data points which could be categorized is also a valid position, so I disagree with your denigration of the study. They just made a management decision that was different from yours.
Then you made a big error. You absorbed the 2/3 with no expressed opinion into “undecided”. No, if included, the 2/3 should be in another category, “unknown”. You have no idea what the authors believe. For all you know, they could all be rabid alarmists.
The second point is the population bomb. You maintain that we’ll quadruple our population within a generation. That’s just sloppy. Other than Africa, births per woman are near replacement levels throughout the world. Wiki says 2010-2015 world TFR was 2.36, and since TFR is declining, the number for May 2016 is probably lower. The population bomb already went off.
Finally, your book has a 2015 copyright, so is it correct that you finished it in 2014? If so, had you written it today, with Jan-Mar 2016 in the data, would you have changed anything? Much of the foundation upon which your book rests seems to have crumbled this year. As Kevin McKinney (I think) said, he sees the hiatus fast receding in the rearview mirror.
Thanks again for sharing, and I’ll give it a more thorough read as I have time, as long as you address the points I bring up here. Optimally, I’d like you to re-write your book as we go through it. What do you think?
@RC 155,
This is a pretty trivial exercise which I was happy to let go until you continued with the “man up” nonsense. Let’s begin with the fact that I am not interested in chasing your moving goal-posts. You said you wanted an exposed wall, constructed as a stud wall, that had structural properties.
1. Why will it tear itself apart? Because conventional stud walls have structural integrity (strength) only because of the plywood applied and nailed in a well-engineered pattern. Nailing a top plate and sole plate (into end-grain) is a temporary measure– anyone who claims to have “constructed” things knows that; try to raise a wall that doesn’t have cross-bracing or sheets nailed at the corners and you have a big floppy thing that falls on your head.
But that is the least of your problems– with 8″ timbers, expansion and contraction (individually) will loosen the nails even more. After a few years, you will have something more like a xylophone than a wall.
2. The spacing thing. There’s a technical term for allowing your .05″ (probably too small anyway) expansion gap: “Mold Factory” You can figure that out I’m sure, now that I’ve mentioned it.
So, if you found a customer who wanted 8″ thick paneling to get some kind of rustic look, and contribute to carbon sequestration, and not be obligated to spend an unlimited amount of money, here’s how you would do it:
1. You would use plantation lumber, not scavenged. Wood expands and contracts differently across and parallel with growth rings. So to keep a uniform internal surface, you grow trees slightly larger than the cross section and square them up uniformly around the heartwood.
2. Dry the posts and square them up again. You have to dry them to furniture specs. (Yes, subsequent to physics and engineering and teaching stuff, I make furniture.)
3. Mill further to create a shiplap or tongue and groove (or floating spline) joint. Extend that to join with milled top and bottom plates. No nails!
Now, you build your house using conventional post-and-beam construction, with an external skin of SIP. Your “wood storage walls” exist between the posts– they float, with no structural function. This should be easy to visualize; it’s the first thing that popped into my head.
Which is the main point– I just told you the “right” way to do what you suggest, and it is completely idiotic. You fail to recognize that *just* coming up with clever ideas does not qualify as creativity– you have to be not so expert in the field that your imagination is constrained, but have enough fundamental understanding that your ideas are not simply random fluctuations in the quantum foam.
Just sayin’.
155 Richard Caldwell says: “When folks (believe they) are viscerally opposed, their listening skills degrade severely” and
“Folks are generally immune to evidence which is contrary to either their (fundamental entrenched) beliefs or the positions they have taken, especially when the evidence is expressed by those one considers opponents.
Yes. “How Brains Think” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuUnMCq-ARQ
The solution/s to agw/cc will be found in knowing and applying the knowledge found in modern day psychological science. imo.
157 Barton Paul Levenson says: In what way is this “ethereal?”
It isn’t – not what you wrote and meant. Of this means you have to be so utterly focused on the ‘scientific physics definition’ of the word temperature that you entirely miss the more obvious meaning of the word as it used in the context of written communication. That being the measurement of the temperature increase from agw above the avg mean temperature over time as specifically mentioned in my comment regarding the goals of remaining under 2C or 1.5C. Being obstinate is not a constructive approach to hearing what others have written nor genuine dialogue nor learning from each other.
Or to put that another way: “As long as you do that, no conversation is possible; we are literally not speaking the same language. This conversation is over.”
10 May 2016 El Niño drawing closer to an end
The tropical Pacific Ocean has weakened to borderline El Niño-neutral levels. Sea surface temperatures across the tropical Pacific Ocean cooled further in the past fortnight, driven by cooler than average waters below the surface. Atmospheric indicators are also trending towards normal. Trade winds have been consistently near normal for some weeks. Typical El Niño cloud patterns are dissipating and the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), while still negative, is steadily rising.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Listen, fellows, Victor is clearly psychotic. (Anybody who fails to see a clear warming trend in a plot of average global temperatures just has to have enough loose screws rattling around in his skull to open a hardware shop.) Such people are fanatics, and one does not attempt to reason with a fanatic. It is an exercise in futility.
I recommend a different response instead, namely, the one we like to use here in New Zealand to anything manifestly insane. Here is an example:
“The Earth is flat!” “Yeah, right.”
When spoken aloud, it just oozes sarcasm. So my response to Victor would be:
“Yeah, right. Goodbye, Victor.”
Solar Impulse is due to take off from Phoenix for Tulsa at 5am CT/10am UTC Thursday May 12. Don’t know how close to real time the live feeds will be on this leg. Anyone whose interested can check Solar Impulse–the homepage, FB, Twitter, YouTube channel, @bertrandpiccard, etc.
Victor presents this graphic…
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Ed_1.png
He seem oblivious to the fact that the domains do not match.
Comparison of the linear trends is therefore invalid, since the non-overlapped end points poisons the comparison.
Silly. But not surprising coming from a musicologist who self publishes his own musings.
#144 Richard: “So, if you had to guess, what forest rotation would you think is optimum? I’m leaning towards 50 years. It embodies the “up to several decades” our single soil reference suggested, is in the ballpark of the alternative “cutting” by fire, (choosing to not harvest is choosing to burn) allows for the possible evolution to Old Growth, and a couple hundred yard strip of reduced (not barren) vegetation perpendicular to prevailing winds every 10,000 yards gives firefighters a serious advantage, saving lives and property while maintaining forest and soil health, and providing wood products. If the cutting rotation is done from the windward side, fires would generally be traveling into younger and younger stands, thus, by the time they hit the break, they’d be running on fumes and about out anyway. Plus, stands older than that which initially caught fire would often be protected by the wind. Pick a firebreak, defend it, and if overwhelmed, simply fall back 10,000 yards.
The big issue with this technique might be animal behavior. Are there species that wouldn’t like such a regime?”
I think it’s a good idea for foresters to use natural forest patterns as a guide when determining harvest rotations and cutblock layouts. In the disturbance-dependent boreal forest wildfires are the main driver, fire return intervals vary widely depending on the ecosystem type, and fire sizes vary widely. Some wildlife species such as pine marten and woodland caribou require habitat a lot older than 50 years, though some species prefer young stands. It’s important to plan at various spatial scales, from the individual tree, stand, and landscape-level. At the landscape level, a mosaic of stand types and age classes should be maintained.
A pretty good synthesis of the literature on carbon accumulation in post-wildfire versus post-clearcut can be found in this article in Journal of Forest Research: Carbon dynamics of North American boreal forest after stand replacing wildfire and clearcut logging (Seedre et al. 2011)
Further to the discussions about sequestering carbon in wood buildings, back in April I mentioned Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT). The Wood Innovation and Design Centre at the University of Northern British Columbia, designed by architect Michael Green, is a good example of a 6-story building built primarily of engineered mass timber products including CLT.
The flight of the Solar Impulse from Phoenix to Tulsa is streaming in real-time. The pilot is boarding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBcMTbPUOHg
http://www.solarimpulse.com/leg-11-from-Phoenix-to-Tulsa
“This is on a par with the Wright brothers.” –Goodyear Airport director, Phoenix.
I think it would be good for climate scientists if they could drop the defensiveness and arrogance and simply say, uh-oh, we have been getting it wrong in significant ways and the public policy makers need to stop thinking in terms of scientific consensus on GW and start making policy based on the avoiding the bad possibilities.”
Daily CO2
May 10, 2016: 408.08 ppm
May 10, 2015: 403.50 ppm
read’m and weep. Warm regards. Mike
Comment by mike — 11 May 2016 @ 1:30 PM
I’m wondering if the planet hasn’t started outgassing in quantities large enough to drive CO2 increases beyond day to day human activity. 4ppm increases on a consistent basis like we’ve been seeing is alarming to me. Based on what I’ve read the increase may drop back down but I would think it would be temporary at best. It seems like just yesterday we hit the 400ppm mark for the first time and now we’ve already spiked to 409????
We ARE the Climate Model imo and it’s not looking too good. But what do I know. I just come here to read Victor’s posts and revel in his genius.
Given the research saying repetition is the heart and soul of The Big Lie, I declare Victor the One Ring that Binds Them, Master of the Dark Propagandist Arts… and all y’all his playthings.
As Mollison might say, the solution remains embarrassingly simple.
Just sayin’,
146: Thomas. Thanks for that. You are saying Thatcher and Reagan has the first pure and unadulterated message even before the denialist camp woke up. Since then the subsequent messages has been contaminated with doubt and perceived uncertainty. Yes, I think you’re right. That’s why it’s soo bloody hard to get a critical mass of CC agreers rolling. Here in queensland aust, the media are reporting more stories of CC effects such as vanishing islands in the solomons, great barrier reef decimation especially the northern half: the Alberta wildfires and they are keeping the climate scientist’s perspective, not any other contrary view. I find that encouraging. Unfortunately we are in a perfect storm of personally selective entertainment for the hoy poloy which keeps them off the news bulletins and channels, difficult financial times which makes everyone focus on their own familial microcosms and not on plights in the world at large: Every country seemingly in debt to everyone else(how the world got itself into that situation is beyond me), thus prioritising on immediate national needs: The shortening of people’s attention spans thus making the blindingly fast progress of CC seem glacial(pardon the pun). So there you have it…the recipe for doing and achieving absolutely nothing in the required timeframe.
Might check the arctic sea ice extent and area graphs, they are beginning to freefall at least two weeks earlier than before and even steeper than 2012 and ’07. My concern is that when we get an ice free period at 90deg N that will rapidly expand to ice free conditions for substantial parts of the year since the relatively warm arctic ocean currents will easily keep melting the snow as it falls. Also regular holding patterns of jet stream winds preventing weather patterns for moving on, thus exposing the ocean to stagnating lows and the turbulence that causes.
Victor the Troll @170.
I appreciate you are a very foolish person, but at least try to respond here without making a complete hash of everything you say!!!
So blunder by blunder through your comment @170. You will see, at every turn your response is marked by fundamental error.
If ENSO is an external forcing (as you insist it is where you write – “F and R did indeed use three forcings, as this excerpt from their paper makes clear”) why then do F&R (as you yourself quote) call ENSO “an internal quasi-oscillatory mode of the ocean–atmosphere system”? Why does the SkS post in mentioning ENSO call it “internal variability “? So how can ENSO be considered a climate forcing?
Note it is the SkS post not Jones et al (2013) that mentions ENSO (this assertion applying to the latter’s abstract) but you will note that the SkS post does describe the workings of CMIP models, saying that they address “all external influences on global surface temperatures” and this is followed by a list of the primary “external temperature influences” which the SkS post also helpfully points out are known as “FORCINGS”(my bold). @142 your accuse Jones et al (2013) of ‘cherry picking’ because, you assert, there are “only two “forcing factors” in this case, it would seem.” @170 you ignore all but ENSO (which isn’t a forcing). Perhaps, Victor the Troll, you can have a third stab at it. Try counting on your fingers this time. How may forcings are expressly used by Jones et al (2013)? (And note the list in the SkS post is not the complete one.)
The second SkS post (by Cook) presents a graph showing 10 separate forcings. You are still hopelessly confused when you compare this 10 with the F&R forcings. We, I hope, have established that ENSO is not a forcing. You ask “And how, exactly, do the three (actually two) selected by F & R correspond to the 10 cited above?”
So, this is a tough one for you, Victor the Troll. F&R use (A)“volcanic eruptions” and (B)“solar variations including the solar cycle” in their MLR. So Victor the Troll, get you thinking head on. The second SkS post lists as its ten – (1) Well mixed greenhouse gases, (2) Ozone, (3) Stratospheric H2O, (4) Solar Irradiance, (5) Land Use, (6) Snow Albedo, (7) Stratospheric Aerosols, (8) Black Carbon, (9) Reflective Troposcopic Aerosols, (10) Aerosol Indirect Effect. Victor the Troll, can you fill in the (?)s? (A) = (?), (B) = (?). (A hint for the fool who thinks he is some sort of expert but who is evidently not acquainted with the impact on volcanic eruptions on climate, volcanoes eject aerosols very very high into the atmosphere.)
And a follow-on question. Of the remaining eight, which of them would not be considered as anthropogenic forcings and thus which would not be a component part of the “Human (Total)” graphed out in Fig 1. of the first SkS post? (I set the question this way round as you don’t need to do any counting, something you are pretty hopeless at, Victor the Troll.)
This next takes the biscuit, Victor. You have it wholly the wrong way round. You say “They are very clearly identifying the temp. change resulting from the three forcings they’ve selected. If any others were involved I assume they’d have identified them.” Where in F&R does it say that? (Helpful note – F&R are ” very clearly identifying the temp. change resulting from” negating “the three forcings (abet ENSO is not a forcing) they’ve selected.”)
So given all the correction to you misguided understanding which my questioning should have allowed, Victor the Troll, are you still suggesting that the CMIP5 simulations ‘pick and choose’ the forcings that ‘suit their purpose’? Are you really that stupid to suggest such a thing?
And given you are seemingly happy with the climate modelling of Hansen et al (2011), what is the fundamental difference between the finding of that paper and all the ones you rejected @142 & @170? Indeed, does not Hansen et al (2011) only make sense if the fundamental driver of global temperature since 1880 has been anthropogenic?
164 MA Rodger and 170/171 Victor: To me, that was pretty funny. I’m sure you and others can find the Hansen paper. the other two links already provided by Rodger are again http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta;jsessionid=70B2055AA7F3D382D71C998D80F72CE0.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org
and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260333870_Attribution_of_observed_historical_near-surface_temperature_variations_to_anthropogenic_and_natural_causes_using_CMIP5_simulations
Besides the SkS refs there’s also this article by R E Benestad 2012
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/011002
I simply suggest that anyone interested in knowing what those Papers are saying should read them very slowly and carefully, while applying only their analytic thinking skills as best they are able. Details matter. :-)
Also, anthropogenic forcings is the “Forcing due to human, rather than natural, factors.” (quoted from RC archives)
@mike 168,
I’ve suggested in the past that the community is perhaps timid in communicating issues to the public, but if your goal is to move action, I think you are focusing on the wrong area.
My complaint has been about attribution rather than prediction, and that’s because people relate to tangible phenomena, not abstractions and generalizations, and certainly not predictions far in the future.
I’d wager that the typical citizen really, really, doesn’t care if the mean temp goes up 1.5 or 2.0 or 2.5. Most of them still think that means every point on the planet will have an inconsequential or even pleasant little bump in temperature. Nice in winter, and turn up the AC in summer.
But storms and wildfires, even when they occur somewhere else, have an impact. If you can get the “meteorologists” (or, weather-gesturers as I fondly call them) on tv to reinforce the link to climate change, it might make a real difference.
So, sorry, but climate scientists doing TED talks with sandwich-boards that say “repent, the end is near, it’s 2.73C in 50 years” isn’t going to cut it.
But, if they would let go of the formalism that requires a 100-year time series before they can affirm what logically follows from well-established physics, the audience could actually understand and accept and internalize the problem.
Have to agree with DS at 179. Victor is someone who absolutely refuses to acknowledge any points on the other side, no matter how elementary. He’s not here to learn, he’s not here to discuss (however much he claims to be), he’s here to teach us AGW morons how wrong we are. He belongs in the borehole. RC is increasingly enamored of Victor [no surprise there], but the rest of us should just ignore him.
#174 Thanks, Richard, for your mostly sympathetic response to my book. Regarding your comments on the 97% consensus, my problem is not so much with the bulk of the Cook et al. report per se, since they do seem to be upfront regarding their methodology. My problem is with the way they interpret their results — and the manner in which those results have been interpreted so widely in the media, and by a host of climate change activists, including our president. It is simply not accurate to claim that 97% of scientists agree when 2/3 of the papers reviewed were discounted.
“Then you made a big error. You absorbed the 2/3 with no expressed opinion into “undecided”. No, if included, the 2/3 should be in another category, “unknown”.”
Here I agree. That’s a valid point.
“The second point is the population bomb. You maintain that we’ll quadruple our population within a generation. That’s just sloppy. Other than Africa, births per woman are near replacement levels throughout the world. Wiki says 2010-2015 world TFR was 2.36, and since TFR is declining, the number for May 2016 is probably lower. The population bomb already went off.”
The quadrupling estimate was based on a hypothetical situation in which we could adequately feed and maintain the health of everyone on earth. It wasn’t intended as a realistic estimate of future population growth under current conditions. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. Population growth does seem to be leveling off worldwide, which is good news.
“Much of the foundation upon which your book rests seems to have crumbled this year. As Kevin McKinney (I think) said, he sees the hiatus fast receding in the rearview mirror.”
Really? While Karl et al. has widely been trumpeted as a “pause buster,” it really isn’t very different from the many similar attempts to account for the hiatus over the years. It’s just the most recent. In any case, it seems to me that Fyfe et al., with the participation, amazingly enough, of Michael Mann himself, has reinstated the hiatus in a very dramatic and surprising manner. There is also now a wealth of studies indicating that the extreme weather events we’ve been experiencing lately are nothing new. So as I see it, the evidence supporting the skeptical position is stronger than ever.
I look forward to a more complete review from you, and if I decide to produce a revised edition of the book, I will definitely take your comments into consideration. Thanks.
Digby Scorgie:
Well, IANAP, but a psychiatrist probably wouldn’t make that diagnosis solely on the evidence of Victor’s comments on RC. OTOH, if “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results”, then Victor is at least figuratively insane.
Comment by Richard Caldwell — 11 May 2016 @ 1:48 AM, ~#157
Perusing your post yields the following quotes:
“No win there”
“Victor wins”
“If I were to play the game”
“That BPL didn’t take the win is”
“they tend to lose the game even when”
“Folks also tend to equate winning with”
“Nope, they won the game”
This language demonstrates that you are playing a junior debate society game here. Scientists aren’t interested in winning a debate, they gain respect by presenting and interpreting replicable research results and this plays out in the peer reviewed scientific literature. If you want a metric for this, look at the number of citations different studies accumulate. Discussions here require that when one is asked to support an assertion of fact, they are obligated to supply scholarly support. Your refusal to do this, along with your sports bar “man up” silliness, suggests that you are commenting in the wrong forum.
Regarding your comment regarding a wall made of vertical logs: “perhaps you’d like to explain how it would tear itself apart? Wood is longitudinally stable,” was pretty much demolished by Zebra (11 May 2016 @ 5:56 PM, ~#175), but I had a pretty good laugh. The whole idea of building with logs is to put them side to side, so that all the expansion and contraction of the wood is additive across the wall. No reasonable construction can constrain this movement. Sheesh.
Steve
I think on the failure of climate modeling I will just quote Gavin from here on out. This is very succinct statement that captures what bothers me about our species’ plans to address GW:
“Literally every paper I’ve written about models has discussed the need for improvements. In my TED talk I specifically said (pace Box) that all models are wrong. You are also myopic if you think that observations are perfect or that the experiments we perform in order to compare to reality are ideal. Indeed, all of those things need improving as well. But none of that undermines the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are putting a lot of it out and the planet is warming (and will warm more) as a result.”
Daily CO2
May 11, 2016: 407.7 ppm
May 11, 2015: 403.58 ppm
April CO2
April 2016: 407.57 ppm
April 2015: 403.45 ppm
Hitting that 4 ppm increase rate now. Hope to see that drop back to around 3.1 ppm on annual increase rate. 3.1 is still disastrous, but less scary than a sudden jump to the 4 plus range. Maybe we will see a significant drop in rate of increase as ENSO falls off.
The problem is ghg accumulation. Mann said in 2014 that we need to stay under 405 ppm and I think he was correct about that. If we wanted now to get back to 405 and stay there, how would we do that? Wrap your head around that challenge.
Another warm beautiful day in the Pac NW. Hope my grapes and kiwis arrive today, trellis is built, I am anxious to plant.
warm regards
Mike
Skipping a whole lot of stuff in a comment I almost made, trying to tell people directly about GW isn’t going to work. Arguing isn’t going to work. There are a whole lot of psychological problems in the way. There must be another way to do it.
Don’t react. Do an analytic deadpan. Ask questions.
Say it is OK to be afraid of the climate monster. We are too.
You are an OK person to admit that GW is something that you don’t understand.
We can do something about it and have at least some success, if not perfect success.
We do not want to change your lifestyle. We will do everything we can to keep your lifestyle as it is.
And so on. Be re-assuring.
What can be blocking the message?
PTSD
antagonism
rigidity
beliefs
lack of education
Something that somebody just can’t say
I don’t know. I’m neither a psychologist nor an advertiser. Somebody else has to take it from here.
Victor thinks Michael Mann said what?
You can look this stuff up.
He could have too.
One of many results from a simple search (remember to clear your cache, sign out of Google/Gmail/YouTube etcetera, and restart your browser (and make sure you aren’t automatically signed back into the search bubble).
http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/05/michael-mann-noaa-no-hiatus-global-warming/
Goodbye, Victor.
Energy dashboard on Solar Impulse Virtual Cockpit shows power of sun on panels at 84% and falling; altitude just past maximal; battery charge at 94%; predicted charge of 100% in about at hour. This is what’s interesting about watching the livestream on the Solar Impulse homepage. This is what it’s all about.
Robert Scribbler says ocean is looking a little toxic off coast of Chile. Too bad for the Chileans, right?
https://robertscribbler.com/
Seems like it’s just too darn much CO2 in the atmosphere. Is there something we should do about that?
Victor. By presenting the following graphic…
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Ed_1.png
Which shows an invalid comparison between two plots of unequal domain, what was your intent?
Was your intent to perpetuate a lie, or were you honestly duped and too ignorant of basic logic to know it?