Climate Sensitivity and What Lewis and Curry 2014 Has to Say About It 12

[rconnor]

Ah yes, it’s that time again folks. A paper is released, in this case Lewis and Curry 2014, that says climate sensitivity is on the low end of the spectrum and the “skeptic” community starts banging pots and pans claiming the ACC theory is dead. Well, like most things in the field of climate science, it's not nearly that simple. Let's look at the entire story.

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient Climate Response (TCR)
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) – the amount the planet will warm in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (the base is usually taken from preindustrial levels of 280 ppm). ECS includes both fast and slow feedbacks, so ECS is not fully realized for decades or centuries after CO2 is held constant.

Transient Climate Response (TCR) – similar to ECS but only includes fast responding feedbacks. In other words, TCR is the temperature rise at the time atmospheric concentrations hit 2x the baseline, not where it will settle out to. As slow responding feedbacks tend to be positive, TCR is smaller than ECS.

These two are not the same and should not be confused. Many “skeptic” arguments prey on this confusion, be careful.

The Body of Knowledge on Climate Sensitivity
First, here’s a good list of the spectrum of peer reviewed literature addressing climate sensitivity. If you actually want to understand the topic (instead of cherry picking things that fit your viewpoint), it’s import to look at the body of work, that’s kinda how science works. Here’s a graphical representation, from AR5 WG1 Fig Box 12.2-1:
[image

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigBox12.2-1.jpg

]

To claim that a single paper can definitely set climate sensitivity, is false. While on the low side, Lewis and Curry 2014 does sit within the spectrum of other estimates.

Lewis and Curry 2014
Now to the paper itself. Lewis and Curry 2014 (LC14) is very similar to Otto et al 2013 (they both take the energy balance model approach), just with different heat uptake rates and reference periods.

LC14 has a heat uptake rate (0.36 Wm^-2) that is almost half of Otto et al 2013 (0.65 Wm^-2). The uptake rate used in LC14 comes from a single model, not an ensemble mean, and is, surprise, surprise, a very low value (which leads to lower ECS).

The ending reference period (1995-2011) was selected to “avoid major volcanic activity”. Although this seems odd considering Vernier et al. 2011 found that volcanic activity greatly affected the 2000’s. Furthermore, it is well known that the last decade has been a La Nina dominated period which would further add a cooling bias to their ending reference period, and thus artificially lower their ECS and TCR estimates.

Now new evidence (Durack et al 2014) suggests that “observed estimates of 0-700 dbar global warming since 1970 are likely biased low. This underestimation is attributed to poor sampling of the Southern Hemisphere”. Using the results of Durack et al 2014, the ECS would rise (15% according to a tweet from Gavin Schmidt).

The paper makes no mention of Cowtan & Way 2013 which demonstrates and corrects the cooling bias in HadCRUT caused by a lack of coverage in the heavily warming Arctic. Therefore, much of the recent warming which is occurring in the Arctic is unaccounted for in this paper. This would cause an artificially lower value of ECS and TCR.

The paper also ignores Shindell 2014 and Kummer & Dessler 2014 (most likely because they are too recent). Both of these papers highlight the inhomogeneities in aerosol forcing which may cause energy balance models to underestimate ECS and TCR.

Finally, the rather simplistic technique used in LC14 (and Otto et al 2013 as well) ignores all non-linearities in feedbacks and inhomogeneities in forcings. The exclusion of these elements leads to a lowering bias in TCR and ECS. Due to the fact the sample period and technique used introduce lowering biases into the results, LC14 may be useful in establishing the lower bound of sensitivity but in no way offers a conclusive value for the median or best estimate.

It should be noted that the results of Lewis and Curry 2104 implicitly accept and endorse the core of the Anthropogenic Climate Change theory; namely that increases in atmospheric CO2 will result in increases in global temperatures and that feedbacks will amplify the effect. For example, if you feel that the recent rise in global temperatures is due to land use changes and not CO2, then the TCR and ECS to a doubling of CO2 should be near zero. Or, if you feel that "it's the sun" and not CO2 then the TCR and ECS to a doubling of CO2 should be near zero. The recent change in climate is "just natural" and not CO2 you say? Well then TCR and ECS should, again, be near zero. So, if you've found yourself claiming any of the preceding and now find yourself trumpeting the results of LC14 as proof for your side, then you, unfortunately, are deeply confused. If you want to accept LC14's value for TCR of 1.33 K as THE value for TCR (which it isn't), then you also accept that majority of global warming is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

What About Other Papers that Claim Lower Sensitivity?
As I stated from the outset, Lewis and Curry 2014 is hardly the only paper to address climate sensitivity. Beyond that, it’s hardly the only paper to suggest that climate sensitivity is on the lower end of the IPCC spectrum. I’ve addressed a few already but there are more (Lindzen 2001, Spencer & Braswell 2008, etc.). However, almost all of these papers have been found to have some significant flaws that cast doubt on their conclusions. Various peer reviewed rebuttals to these papers are listed below. I’d welcome readers to review the rebuttals and the original authors response to them.
[image

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images.../11/1397174224604/lowSensitivityRebuttals.jpg

]

...But What if Climate Sensitivity WAS Lower Than Expected
Let’s ignore all this for a second and pretend that, with Lewis and Curry, we can definitively say that climate sensitivity is lower than expected. Then what? Does this completely debunk the ACC theory? Does this mean rising CO2 levels really aren’t a concern? Well, many “skeptics” would say “YES!” but they do so without ever actually examining the issue.

According to Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at Oxford:

A 25 per cent reduction in TCR would mean the changes we expect between now and 2050 might take until early 2060s instead…So, even if correct, it is hardly a game-changer…any revision in the lower bound on climate sensitivity does not affect the urgency of mitigation

.

The issue is that, with atmospheric CO2 levels rising as quickly as they are, a lower TCR does not mean anything significant. It just means that the effects will be delayed slightly. So even if “skeptics” were correct in saying that climate sensitivity is definitely at the lower end of the IPCC range (which they’re not), it would have no substantial impact on future global temperatures or the need to control CO2 emissions.

So, Lewis and Curry 2014 is:
1) Inconclusive to definitely say that climate sensitivity is on the low end of the IPCC spectrum
2) The results are suspect and appear to include numerous biases that would lead to lower TCR and ECS
3) Even if it were conclusive and accurate, it would still not suggest that reductions in CO2 emissions are unnecessary. In fact, it adds to the scientific body of knowledge that temperatures will continue to rise to unsafe levels if we continue with the status-quo, just maybe a decade later than other estimates.

(Note: I’ve started this new thread to discuss climate sensitivity specifically. It is an important topic that popped up in another thread and I felt it merited its own discussion. I would, as much as possible, like to keep the conversation on this subject…although this is likely wishful thinking)

 

[rconnor]

Granted, it was silly of me to put on the linear trend. After an hour of digging through ECS estimates, I was growing a little tired and wrongly slapped it on. My mistake. But you've all missed the point.

TGS4 ("What I find most interesting is how, over time, the estimates are reducing") and GregLocock ("sensitivity of the global surface temperature to CO2 seems to be falling") pull comments out of their butts, based on absolutely nothing other than a hunch, and use it as the basis to question the ACC theory. Apparently no one has an issue with these unsupported statements. When you actually do the research, it, in no way, supports their assertion. So while you are correct to attack the usefulness of a linear trend, you should also be asking them to retract their guess that sensitivity is dropping OR provide evidence to support it. But you don't, because it falls in line with your beliefs on the issue and such gets a free pass from any skepticism.

Furthermore, their false hunch that sensitivity estimates are decreasing is likely based on recent energy budget model studies such as LC14 and Otto et al 2013, which have known biases that lead to lower estimates. They have completely ignored this fact. So even if LC14 is on the lower end, it in no way provides a comprehensive reason to think that the actual TCR and ECS are on the low end of the IPCC spectrum.

 

[TGS4]

Eyeballing the data, since the IPCC First Assessment Report came out (1990), the trend is downward. If you would care to post the data from that plot (although in keeping with warmist tradition - "why would I share my data with you, when all you want to do is prove me wrong"...).

You want to critique the low-ball estimates. Fine - I critique the high-ball estimates as being based on exquisitely complex computational models that are a complete waste of electrons.

IRStuff - your throw-in numbers of $10-$100 billion dollars. Is that in today dollars? Where do those numbers come from? And sea level rise of 3-10m. Puleeze - warn me before you say such absolutely outrageous things - I now need to clean up my phone screen. Again - we saw 0.8K increase in the last ~100-120 years, coincident with a 30-40 fold increase in worldwide GDP. Even if your numbers are believable (and they are not, BTW), if in 85 years we see a similar increase in worldwide wealth, your numbers will be puny - the cost of doing business really. Sorry, your economics fails.

 

[CELinOttawa]

I have no issue with debate; I enjoy a good, productive, debate. I take issue with the same debate occurring ad nauseum. I come to eng-tips for interesting discussion with peers and betters... I hope to have my mind opened, to change my opinion, to expand my skill set and knowledge. I have frequently had my position on a matter changed, with pleasure. Let me call such a spirit of exploration and participation "honest posting". Once in a black while, I find myself in an argument. I always regret being in one, let alone my statements themselves.

I do not believe that any more than the occasional (possibly even accidental) participant brings honest posting to these climate debates. You are, however, quite right to chastise me for airing my distaste for your discussion. If I don't like that you aren't playing nicely in the sandbox, I should just go chat with the adults who are discussing technical work.

 

[GregLocock]

An R^2 of 0.055 seems to have been omitted from your plot.

The choice of start date is rather important, let's pretend the IPCC has been issuing scary numbers since 1988

Oh, whoops.

you can even try the last ten years or twenty years.

There may be slight errors in that data, obviously working back from a screen grab is a bit noisy, and my graph from blobs routine is not perfect.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[cranky108]

CEL, you should have known that not everyone plays nicely in the sand box. And yes you will find cat terds there. But throwing sand is much better than many other things that could be happening.

Maybe it is the same thing over and over, but soon you will figure who's posts are not worth reading, because they don't respond to anything that dosen't fit there agenda. And yes some people are so hard line that they may not even relise they have an agenda.

The more recent comment about that there maybe more advantages to warming probally won't see any comments from warmests, because there agends block them from even consitering that.

The sad truth is if we were not debating about the climate, we would be debating about another topic. And no solution would be found to that, and it woden't matter because the goverment overloards woulden't lissen to us anyway.

 

[btrueblood]

From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Equilibrium_and_transient_climate_sensitivity

For the ECR as defined above,

1990 IPCC: equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling lay between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, with a "best guess in the light of current knowledge" of 2.5 °C

1996: IPCC Second Assessment Report found that "No strong reasons have emerged to change" these estimates

2001: The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) said it was "likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C".

2007: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which said it was likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.

2014: As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C

So it appears that the IPCC estimate is a range, not a number, and has stayed relatively flat except for a bump of 0.5C in 2007.

 

[rconnor]

GregLocock, yes it certainly is skewed by starting point and also by the fact that the last 3 papers I included were Lewis 2013, Otto et al 2013 and Lewis and Curry 2014, all of which are energy budget models which, as we've said, includes numerous biases that lead to lower sensitivities. Regardless of the starting point or specific papers you choose, the correlation in any direction would be weak. As I said, "if nothing else, the results trend, more and more, within the IPCC range. This supports the ACC theory. Most importantly, even if the true TCR and ECS are closer to the lower bounds, this still means that mitigation is required to limit future temperature rise."

btrueblood, you are correct. Sensitivity remains a key question. However, LC14 does not provide anything close to a definitive answer. Furthermore, even if it did, it would still indicate that future temperatures will rise and mitigation is required to prevent that. This is a key point that some skip over. They feel that a lower sensitivity means that the whole theory is put into question. However, in reality, a sensitivity on the lower end of the IPCC range merely means that mitigation measures need to be slightly less aggressive. While this is a very good thing, it may not be true.

 

[TGS4]

Rconnor - you throw out the "ACC theory" like its something so obvious that it need not be defined. If this so-called theory (more like a junior hypothesis to me) includes for an ECS of 1.5-4K/doubling, well yoy might as well blame everything on ACC Theory, because it is so broadly-defined that anything and everything can fit in it.

So, define your damn terms. For this discussion, what, exactly, is this so-called ACC Theory? Don't point me to references, or links, or any of the such. I want to see it in your own words exactly what this apparition we are swinging it is.

 

[IRstuff]

"The more recent comment about that there maybe more advantages to warming probally won't see any comments from warmests, because there agends block them from even consitering that."

"Again - we saw 0.8K increase in the last ~100-120 years, coincident with a 30-40 fold increase in worldwide GDP."

Sure, arbitrary and random correlations work wonders. Why not also correlate that to the 6x explosion of world population that came with that? So by that correlation to temperature rise, the world population should grow another 7x. 50 billion people on Earth? Think GDP will really grow 30x to 40x with that much pressure on all resources?

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[cranky108]

If wind energy were to make a dent in the world energy consumption, would the drag on wind speeds cause climate change?

What if we use these wind towers to put cell phone trancivers on?


IR are you suggesting global warming causes increased population, or increased GDP? It's hard to understand which.

I was suggesting that global warming would make more food production land available.

 

[IRstuff]

I'm simply extrapolating on TGS4's claim that 0.8-K rise in temperature resulted in 30x to 40x increase in global GDP in the last 100 yrs or so, and pointing out that this was also correlated to a 6x increase in population in the same time frame. His argument appears to be that another 0.8-K temperature rise would result in another 30x to 40x increase in global GDP that would swamp out any costs associated with that temperature increase. So, by extension, we would also have another 7x increase in population, which would put us at 50 billion people.

While increasing the temperature may make currently non-producing land arable, some of the currently arable land will become not so. Considering that the Sahara is in one of the hottest temperature bands on Earth, and is completely inarable, one can pretty much assume that this will be a zero-sum result, i.e., total arable land will at best remain at about the same acreage. Additionally, there is an unstated assumption that access to usable water is unchanged, but that's a big if, given that places like California's Central Valley are currently being allocated zero water. I don't think that make the Rockies arable is going to better than keeping our current set of arable lands. Hilly terrain is not conducive to large agriculture, and will increase transportation and labor costs. Will Montana as the new breadbasket be better than ditching the mid-West?

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[TGS4]

IRstuff - thanks for asking a very thought-provoking question. I wonder if anyone more than 100 years ago asked the same question?

Hmmmm. Yup. Thomas Malthus. (Actually more than 200 years ago, but his acolytes have been beating (wrongly) on the same drum ever since then. The dear Reverend, in 1798, proposed a that the earth (and more specifically his homeland of Great Britain) could carry no more people. His current acolyte: Paul Erhlic, has been also besting the drum of some forthcoming doom due to population growth. Malthus and all of his followers have been absolutely wrong. And I see no reason why they wouldn't continue to be wrong into the future. But, then again, I have faith in humanity and especially the resourcefulness of engineering brethren, to find solutions to feed whatever our population is. Of course, the more wealthy people are, and the more they have a steady and reliable supply of energy, they inevitably slow their population growth.

W.r.t. Your comment about the Sahara... In fact, as CO2 concentration increases, plants become more drought tolerant, because their stomata don't need to open as wide to admit CO2, but losing water vapour in the process. So, with a nominally warmer planet (and remember, it's the poles that are getting warmer, not the tropics and other mid-latitudes), I predict a more green planet. In the last 30 years, the Sahara is shrinking (here I provide a link to an article from a thoroughly-denier organization please note the source...:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html)

Indeed, water needs for agriculture in a warmer planet coincident with higher CO2 are less than they are now.

But please, carry on with more examples of how things would be better with a warmer planet with higher CO2 concentrations. These are the benefits of which is write.

 

[rconnor]

TGS4, the anthropogenic climate change theory is the theory you’ve been fighting against for years on these forums, I’m pretty sure you know what it is. Nevertheless…

The Anthropogenic Climate Change theory (ACC theory) in a nutshell:
1) Humans emit large amounts of CO2
2) Leads to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
3) Leads to a positive forcing
4) Leads to increased energy accumulation
5) Leads to climatic changes and increased global temperature
6) More of 1 in the future will lead to more of 5 in the future
7) More of 5 in the future will adversely impact human societies

(Note that this discussion, on climate sensitivity, deals with point 6.)

I can’t see how any of this would be new to you or anyone remotely familiar with this topic. Is this what you were looking for? I feel that you are searching for something specific, in which case why not ask it directly?

 

[btrueblood]

" a sensitivity on the lower end of the IPCC range merely means that mitigation measures need to be slightly less aggressive."

Back that train up. Why mitigate a 2 C rise? Because some beachfront properties might get washed away? I think adaptation where needed is probably a better option, as cost of the structure is a pretty good predictor of the owner's ability to fund adaptations. Furthermore, before I sign off on even revenue-neutral carbon tax strategies, I want to see that the rest of the world is doing similar. Oh, by the way - have you read about the upcoming sales of BC gas and coal causing their carbon emission numbers to rise, and the possibility that they may need to abandon the revenue neutrality of their carbon tax in order to stay carbon neutral?

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - that is the weakest bunch of cr@p that I have seen from you yet. Numbers, man, numbers!! And for the love of all that is right in this world - how about some details? What EXACTLY are the NUMBERS that reflect your theoryhypothesis? What you have written is about as pseudo-science as I have seen.

Unless you put numbers in there, we are going to be arguing around in circles. You seem to have sorts of numbers and graphs and what-have-you to attempt to back up whatever you are claiming, and yet THIS is what I get for your theoryhypothesis? I'm beginning to think that you yourself don't even know what it is you are defending.

I will note, however, that aside from you appalling lack of numbers, there's nothing that you wrote (up to and including 6) that I disagree with or deny. I guess that doesn't make me a denier

(Still waiting on the source numbers for your (ECS vs time) graph that you claim makes a liar out of me, yet as GregLocock has shown, actually makes a liar out of you. Your integrity is really on the line here... Are you going to act like your warmist brethren and obfuscate and stall and eventually not produce the data or will you provide the actual data and be shown that you were wrong?)

 

[IRstuff]

" I wonder if anyone more than 100 years ago asked the same question?"

One hundred and fifty years ago, the US wasn't even occupying its current borders, and its population was less than 1/10 of the current population. There was no need to ask the same question because no one was pushing the limits on any resource, other than the bison and passenger pigeon, and even those weren't recognized until it was too late to do anything.

44% of the world's population lives near a sea coast:

http://coastalchallenges.com/2010/01/31/un-atlas-60-of-us-live-in-the-coastal-areas/

So, it's not just about rich people. Certainly, most of the people caught up Sandy's mayhem weren't in the rich category. By some accounts, the majority of people potentially impacted by rising seas are at the exact opposite extreme of wealth:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9162438

The world seems to be stuck in a "Manifest Destiny" mode, wherein we can plunder and pillage forever and not pay the piper. We have already found that such behavior can result in irreversible effects and consequences, like the extinction of the bison and passenger pigeon. To believe that everything can be "fixed" at a later time is naive and has been historically proven to be just simply wrong. We've got piles of permanently contaminated soil and land because of those attitudes.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[rconnor]

Ah, when you asked me to define ACC theory, it sounded like you wanted a description. However, you know full well the amount of research behind each one of those statements. Just because I gave a summary (which is what you asked for) doesn't make it "weakest bunch of cr@p". If you want numbers, then ask for numbers. And it helps you tell me which numbers you want to know. I’m guessing ECS and a “safe” temperature threshold:

ECS – 3 deg C
I agree with the AR4 range of 2 C to 4.5 C. The reason why I don’t accept the more recent dropping of the lower bound in AR5 is because it does so due to the recent energy budget model techniques. The IPCC took the conservative approach to lower the bound but included caveats with regards to these new techniques (my emphasis):

…this change reflects the evidence from new studies of observed temperature change, using the extended records in atmosphere and ocean. These studies suggest a best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range. Note that these studies are not purely observational, because they require an estimate of the response to radiative forcing from models. In addition, the uncertainty in ocean heat uptake remains substantial. Accounting for short term variability in simple models remains challenging, and it is important not to give undue weight to any short time period that might be strongly affected by internal variability

I feel that these techniques introduce biases that lead to lower values (see above) and the new literature that they ignore or pre-date (Cowtan and Way 2013, Durack et al 2014, Shindell 2014 and Kummer & Dessler 2014) furthers my doubts in these studies. While energy budget model techniques might be ok at establishing an ultimate lower bound, I don’t feel they should drop the likely lower bound.

”Safe” Temperature Threshold – +2 deg C
Based off my reviews of the literature on the subject, I feel that keeping future temperature rise at or below +2 deg C is important. I feel that +2 deg C will still have adverse effects on certain areas/industries (unfortunately, mostly in the poorer parts of the planet) but the effects get much worse as you approach +3 deg C. While building a sea-wall around New York might be practically possible, doing so around the islands in Indonesia might not be. The resulting displacement is much more of a humanitarian issue than an economic issue (mass/forced immigration never goes smoothly). Furthermore, rapid large scale shifts in temperature have always been “taxing” on the biosphere in Earth’s geological past. While humans will not go extent (by a long shot), some species will and the resulting change to the biosphere will have major effects on human societies. I find it funny that people that argue that a climate tax will destroy the world's economy (with no source to back that up) also feel that the world's economy can pay for adaptation with no issues (with no source to back that up). (and for the record, here's a few sources for my point of view - 1, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm]2[/url], 3, 4, 5, 6...etc...but this is taking us off topic)

In general, I agree with the IPCC numbers. I feel that reviewing the body of evidence is important and no one does a better and more thorough review of the body of evidence than the IPCC. While it is completely appropriate to question the IPCC (I don’t agree with everything in the reports, see above), anyone that dismisses the IPCC outright cannot be taken seriously in a conversation on climate change. Not only is it comprised of members with vastly more experience in the area than I (or you) but they also review many more papers than I (or you) have. To think that I (or you) know better than the IPCC, such that we reach drastically different conclusions, would require some damn strong evidence (certainly not some random blog). When it comes to understanding the best science surrounding climate change to date, nothing comes close to the IPCC (certainly not some random blog). For anyone that feels that this is an “appeal to authority”, it’s not. If you go ahead and do a review of the 1000’s of published papers, you’ll be doing the same thing that IPCC did and will likely reach the same conclusions. If instead you cherry pick which studies you want to read and which you don’t, you’ll end up with the same conclusion as some blog site. I don’t doubt that this will start a flame warm of (unsupported) anti-IPCC ideology but that matters little to me.

But speaking of lack of numbers to support your statements…

(and remember, it's the poles that are getting warmer, not the tropics and other mid-latitudes)

Source? Seriously TGS4, you already made this comment (13 Jan 14 14:12) and I already corrected it(16 Jan 14 1:20) (thread). While the poles are warming faster, the tropics are still warming as well.

NASA GISS data per zone per year
or graphically

 

[rb1957]

thx, I find that really interesting. what FF burning strategy gets us to stabilise at +2deg (presumably at the end of the century) ? and you're so confident that by employing this strategy we'll avoid the "disasterous" +3deg.



another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[TGS4]

IRstuff - and yet, those very questions were being asked - see my examples. Remember the concern about sperm whale oil and the potential elimination of the species if we didn't find an alternative to that oil. Thomas Malthus was talking about the ability of Great Britain to handle ~8 million people - current population is 64.1 million. Ehrlich has been going on about "The Population Bomb" since 1968 - we are coming up to its 50th anniversary. And it's been demonstrated over the last 46 years to have been wrong.

Perhaps if your concern is with climate change (regardless of the source) affecting "poor people", maybe we should enrich them? We could start by providing them with efficient, reliable, non-polluting (in the common sense of the term, not the carbon pollution bs) sources of energy. In the west, that meant electricity - usually by coal, but I'm fine with whatever gets the reliable and consistent power to them.

rconnor - well at least we finally have some numbers to go along with your assertions. Thank you (still waiting on the ECS graph data...). This supposed threshold of temperature rise - what's the reference temperature - or should I say what is the ideal temperature of this planet? And of course, your acceptance of the IPCC idea that they are the be-all and end-all of the review of the scientific literature (of course, there's a little investigative journalism by Donna Laframboise -

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/

- that might disagree with that assessment) is very telling. But yet you reject their most recent lowering of the ECS numbers. Interesting...

That brings up the issue, yet again (and it is on-topic) of averages. So, if the planet (on average) warmed up less than 2°C, yet ALL of the warming took place at the poles, melting the polar ice caps - you'd still be OK with that? What if the poles didn't warm at all, saving the world from the inundation of meltwater, but the tropics and mid-latitudes warmed, all so that the average were less than 2°C - you'd still be OK with that? I've reviewed the literature, and other than IRstuff's concern about sea level, all of the other supposed harms are either computer-model-generated (and you know what I think about that), or are simply hysterical grant-money-pleadings. Exactly what harms kick in after 2°C that wouldn't otherwise occur in ecosystems that experience diurnal fluctuations of 5-25°C and seasonal fluctuations of 5-70°C? And what could we NOT adapt to?

I'm not fundamentally-opposed to taxation. If there are harms, then we should figure out the best way to pay for it. However, for me it's the mitigation vs adaptation issue that I have trouble with. I would much rather adapt to a specific harm than mitigate the potential of one - the potential of which has only been posited by computational models, the track-record of which has been dismal.

rconnor - you are correct on the poles vs tropics, and I was wrong. I should have said that the poles were heating, as you said, faster, than the tropics. The GISS baseline (is that the same as your 2°C baseline??) is 1951-1980. On that basis, in 2013 the S20° to N20° tropics are at +0.49°C, while the poles are up 1.26C in the North and 0.64C in the South (both 64°-90°) - source

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt

Of course, the data shows a fair bit of year-over-year fluctuation of almost the full 2013 anomaly... I'm sure that if you plotted that and drew a straight line through the data, which you have been known to do, you would probably see catastrophe.

 

[GregLocock]

The fundamental issue about using earlier models in the straight line fit is that they have equal weighting with the later data. So the 1968 study is accorded equal weight to one made almost half a century later. That'd be OK if nothing had been learned in that time, but one would hope that later studies were better informed than earlier ones, otherwise we seem to be spending a great deal of money and making no progress.









Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?