Is there an upside to global warming? [Archive]

athon

16th October 2009, 05:20 AM

For who?

There are organisms that will flourish in warmer climates. Loss of ice will open up new land for some plants to settle. Drought will favour other organisms, especially opportunists.

As for humans, it's not so much a matter of death and destruction as much as adaptation. Cultures will change and the way of life for many will have to change quickly. We have the resources and technology for it to be possible, however it's going to create a lot of hardship for many people. Communities without direct access to those resources will suffer most, with the extremes being famine, increase susceptibility to certain illnesses, poverty and homelessness.

Athon

fagin

16th October 2009, 05:25 AM

Ok a celebrity named Neal Boortz once said on his program that Greenland was so named because at one time it had a green forest. It got cooler and the ice sheets grew and destroyed the perhaps mythical greenery he's speaking of.

What if a significant amount of ice did melt away and exposed some land. Wouldn't the inhabitants be able to enjoy the increased space?

I always understood Greenland was named as such by a viking explorer? to make it attractive to settlers.
Too lazy to google it but probably somebody the red.

RossFW

16th October 2009, 05:29 AM

macdoc

16th October 2009, 10:21 AM

There is another thread on this with additional information that has more detail on various aspects.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156338

Refreshing to see some common sense of people recognizing the reality of the problem.

Couple of things to clarify.

Northern hemisphere is fertile in the north in very few areas that are now tundra and taiga. The top soil was all scraped by the glaciers to the Great Plains and Ukraine and Chinese fertile belts.

It would take thousands of years to build topsoil.

ANYTHING under a glacier now will be bare rock - no soil at all.

Greenland MIGHT melt with a few hundred years in a worst case but would have nothing arable except coastal deltas.

Antarctica would be bare rock and the eastern portion is so enormous that is would be 10s of thousands of years to make a significant dent. It's the size of the US and up to 3 miles deep in ice or more in some areas.
The latent heat to melt that is just mind boggling.
Fortunately it's around to moderate our climate swings.

We are in a big dangerous experiment with no practical off button.

Interesting times ahead.:garfield:

lomiller

16th October 2009, 11:44 AM

Ducky

16th October 2009, 12:17 PM

plumjam

16th October 2009, 12:30 PM

Given global land distribution, if it ever happens as advertised, it will be of long-term benefit to mankind.

macdoc

16th October 2009, 01:03 PM

The guy was Erik the Red - the original have I got a deal for you guy.

•••

Minnesota and the northern part of North America has been under this dipole pattern there with cold interior temps and warmer to the very far north.

If you watch the rotation here of the globe you'll a relatively chilly midnorth America surrounded by a lot of red.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TRLrKIMCiU

casebro

16th October 2009, 02:09 PM

Sure there is an up side. New Orleans will be totally washed away.

macdoc

16th October 2009, 02:35 PM

Is there a backstory to that comment..:popcorn1

Eyeron

16th October 2009, 04:41 PM

There is no such thing as global warming. It's all a hoax perpetrated by cultists.

CapelDodger

16th October 2009, 04:45 PM

The guy was Erik the Red - the original have I got a deal for you guy.

It was indeed Erik the Red, but the rest is just myth. Greenland was sometimes referred to as Gruneland but Grune doesn't mean "Green". (Can't recall what it does, or did, mean.) The colony was already there when Erik had to flee Iceland because there was a price on his head and a blood-feud. He tried going back about ten years later but barely got away with his life; the family he'd pissed off was well in with the King of Norway. His son, Leif, is said to have started the colony in Vinland (Vin doesn't mean "Vine", by the way).

There was, and still is, open land on the south and south-east coasts of Greenland.

CapelDodger

16th October 2009, 04:57 PM

The last time Greenland had anything resembling forests was 125 000 years ago so I’m pretty sure that isn’t how it got the name. While there is good farmland where thick glaciers sat 20 000 years ago, it took thousands of years for topsoil and drainage patterns that could support agriculture to develop.

While good land will be lost in coastal flood-plains (some of the best land there is) land will become available in the shape of peat-bog in Canada and Siberia. Hard to see the up-side in that.

athon asks the crucial question : upside for whom? AGW will affect people in a variety of ways, depending on location and economic standing. People in Minnesota might think winter heating costs are a big issue, while rather more people in Southern India won't. Nor, I imagine, will people in Texas who spend more on air-conditioning.

Everybody will get their own mixed package of upsides and downsides.

CapelDodger

16th October 2009, 05:19 PM

It's true enough, I think, to not be able to say that the end-state global conditions may be as good or better for most Humans than the current climate. Our current climate is very different than at other times in Human History, and nobody suggests it is "Better" or "Worse".

Since the development of agriculture and settled life I imagine regional climate change has always been regarded as for the worse at the time ...

HOWEVER our current economies and population distributions are based on the globe as we now recognize it, and we have partitioned it with political boundaries.

Extreme change in where is able to support what population at what level of prosperity will undoubtedly lead to large scale displacement, migration and exploitation. this almost inevitably leads to conflict.

So even if the change was, on a Net scale, good. the transition will, at least for our and the next couple of generations, be de-stabilizing and hazardous.

... and I doubt it will be any different this time.

When the situation stabilises people will try to keep it stable (which may actually include keeping CO2 at a high, but constant, level). For them it will be the best of all possible worlds :).

Herzblut

18th October 2009, 07:42 AM

Is there an upside to global warming?
I think this needs to be analysed in some detail, depending on various aspects of warming. So, let's just choose for example

benefits of mild winters:

- reduced road salt consumption
- reduced heating energy consumption
- extended vegetation periods, higher agricultural output
- less street traffic insuries and casualties
- less freeze related human victims
- less forest damages
- reduced winter related sickness rates, e.g. by flue, cold etc.
- reduced snow/ice related economic damages.

Thinking about it, more benefits can surely be found.

Herzblut

macdoc

18th October 2009, 07:52 AM

Herzblut

18th October 2009, 08:05 AM

countered with

- Higher flash flood and landslide road damage
- increased air conditioning use
- increased desertification and salt incursion - loss of wheat belt in fertile areas.
- increased storm damage
- more heat wave related deaths ( see France )
- more malaria and tropical diseases as tropics expand ( already are and have )
- more boreal forest damage to overwintering beetles ( already in progress in Canada )
- higher forest fire frequency and risk - already happening - see Australia and S California
- we'll give you snow damages..:rolleyes:
-but see you increased snow pack and faster melting for major flooding ( see Midwest )

but nice try :garfield:
If you eliminate everything unrelated to mild winters (like "heat wave related deaths" :D), there's not much left over. Basically nothing, except your "overwintering beetles". Prove your astonishing assertion that mild winters are more damaging to forests than frosty winters are, and you have something like a point.

macdoc

18th October 2009, 08:39 AM

Easiest one of all - and "mild winters" is sophistry in an unstable climate regime - false springs and mid winter melts from unstable climates are damaging to many species

ENVIRONMENT: Climate-Driven Pest Devours Canada's Forests
By Am Johal*

Mountain pine beetles killed these lodgepole pine trees in Prince George, BC.

Credit:RadRafe

VANCOUVER, Jul 31 (IPS/IFEJ) - Environmentalists and researchers say that climate change is a significant factor in the pine beetle epidemic that has ravaged forests in the western Canadian provinces of British Columbia (BC) and Alberta.

In some areas of the BC interior, almost 80 percent of the lodgepole pines will have been devastated by the beetles within 10 years, resulting in widespread economic consequences, according to resource experts.

"The pine beetle infestation is the first major climate change crisis in Canada," Doug McArthur, a professor of public policy at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, told IPS.

"The pine beetle has survived the warmer winters due to global warming. The result is the rapid cut of forests to salvage the wood, which could, within seven or eight years, result in some communities being without a forestry industry which has sustained many regions for decades. The potential economic impact of this climate change issue is massive," he said.

A temperature of -40 degrees Celsius for a few days is needed in the winters to kill off the beetle adequately.

Ben Parfitt, a resource policy analyst with the BC chapter of the non-profit Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, told IPS, "To contextualise the magnitude of the devastation, it is probably the biggest landscape-level change since the ice age."

You can add maple trees to the damaging list

Sticky times for the maple tree
Its leaves are a riot of colour; its sap produces one of America's favourite delicacies. But the effects of climate change may soon drive the maple tree out of Vermont

By Rupert Cornwell

and no more wheat in the US mainland or Indian subcontinent.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture150.jpg

But if your "thing" is Apline meadows there will indeed be more of those....sans glaciers in the alps.

Past, present and potential future glacier cover in the entire European Alps has been assessed from an integrated approach, combining in-situ measurements, remote sensing techniques and numerical modeling for equilibrium line altitudes. Alpine glaciers lost 35% of their total area from 1850 until the 1970s, and almost 50% by 2000. Total glacier volume around 1850 is estimated at some 200 km3 and is now close to one-third of this value. From the model experiment, we show that a 3°C warming of summer air temperature would reduce the currently existing Alpine glacier cover by some 80%, or up to 10% of the glacier extent of 1850. In the event of a 5°C temperature increase, the Alps would become almost completely ice-free. Annual precipitation changes of ±20% would modify such estimated percentages of remaining ice by a factor of less than two.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026319.shtml

Very "mild winters" indeed.

Climate excursions associated with AGW will NOT be pretty. But keep those rose coloured glasses handy...

I have some warm tundra for sale....built in methane supply :garfield:

MervinFerd

18th October 2009, 09:32 AM

What if a significant amount of ice did melt away and exposed some land. Wouldn't the inhabitants be able to enjoy the increased space?

This is asking the wrong question.

Temperatures are going up, no matter what we do. That's already built in. A degree C increase and stop---which is the forecast with vigorous reductions in CO2 emissions---and cultures and economies will adapt. We will lose treasured landscapes and species, and we will have economic disruptions, but there will be winners and losers.

But, if we do nothing, temperatures will rise several degrees C and there will only be losers.

macdoc

18th October 2009, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2green/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5210506#post5210506)
What if a significant amount of ice did melt away and exposed some land. Wouldn't the inhabitants be able to enjoy the increased space?

That would be

a) if it wasn't already underwater
b) what inhabitants
c) they'd need to enjoy bare rock

some seals might thrive :garfield:

macdoc

18th October 2009, 09:47 AM

A degree C increase and stop---which is the forecast with vigorous reductions in CO2 emissions-

Nice concept but won't happen. Warming will continue until equilibrium is reached a few decades out and then will continue beyond that but at a much reduced pace.

IF we held it to 380 where we are now maybe we only get 2 degrees C

If wishes were horses...our kingdom might be saved .:garfield:

ServiceSoon

18th October 2009, 09:50 AM

Ok a celebrity named Neal Boortz once said on his program that Greenland was so named because at one time it had a green forest. It got cooler and the ice sheets grew and destroyed the perhaps mythical greenery he's speaking of.

What if a significant amount of ice did melt away and exposed some land. Wouldn't the inhabitants be able to enjoy the increased space?

We'll finally find Atlantis. I heard it was a great place to hangout.

Herzblut

18th October 2009, 10:00 AM

Easiest one of all - and "mild winters" is sophistry in an unstable climate regime - false springs and mid winter melts from unstable climates are damaging to many species

You can add maple trees to the damaging list

And the overall effect of global warming on boreal forests is positive, or negative?

Edit: Oh, and you refused to commend on the massive reduction in heating energy consumption by milder winters. The mild winter 2006/07 led to a 20% reduction in Germany. Positive or negative?

Less traffic accident deaths, positive or negative?

Less economic damage caused by winter impacts? You read about the chaos produced by a little bit of snow in London last winter?

macdoc

18th October 2009, 10:30 AM

Grade 1 reading comprehension.:mgbanghead..what do you thing millions of dead trees represent....

Germany??/ offset by new demand for A/C in areas where there was little or none.

Traffic deaths have been falling steadily for decades...stupid association.

You are incorrect about "less snow" - it's more in different places.

Major Midwest Flooding Highlighted in U.S. Spring Outlook
March 19, 2009 -- Flooding in the upper Midwest, which could rival the high water levels experienced in 2006 and possibly 1997, and continued drought in the South and West are among the highlights in NOAA’s National Weather Service Spring Outlook issued today.

A deep snowpack and recent heavy rain have elevated the spring flood threat in parts of the Midwest:

Water released by melting snowpack that is deeper than normal – while running off the already saturated and frozen ground – poses an imminent serious flood threat in the Red River Valley.
That now makes it three 100 year floods in the last 12 years....

An unstable climate will yield a few winners and many many losers.

You missed the greening up of the Sahel which IS a plus....more than offset by the desertification of Southern Europe.

You really should learn something about your planet.....the lacunae are deep and obvious.:garfield:

BTW

Find more articles on winter driving deaths versus summer 2009 (http://www.physorg.com/search/?search=winter%20driving%20deaths%20versus%20summe r%202009)

Fall driving more hazardous than summer or winter

July 14th, 2009 (PhysOrg.com) -- While many believe summer is the most dangerous season on U.S. roads because motorists tend to drive faster, drink more alcohol and drive more often for leisure, a new report by the University of Michigan suggests otherwise.

Fatality crash rates are highest in the fall, with October at the top of the list (10.2 deaths per billion kilometers), according to a study in the current issue of the journal Traffic Injury Prevention.

Jorghnassen

19th October 2009, 07:27 AM

I think this needs to be analysed in some detail, depending on various aspects of warming. So, let's just choose for example

benefits of mild winters:

- reduced road salt consumption
- reduced heating energy consumption
- extended vegetation periods, higher agricultural output
- less street traffic insuries and casualties
- less freeze related human victims
- less forest damages
- reduced winter related sickness rates, e.g. by flue, cold etc.
- reduced snow/ice related economic damages.

Thinking about it, more benefits can surely be found.

Herzblut

Except that you can't assume climate change will result in consistently milder winter or that it will have consistently less precipitation. If anything, the only predictable thing is more variation and less stability and that's not a good thing. The Ice Storm of 1998 was the result of milder than normal temperatures hovering around the freezing point, and it's still AFAIK the costliest weather related disaster in Canada. Warmer temperatures in winter in a number of areas implies more moisture in the atmosphere and more precipitation. More snow means more road maintenance, less snow means less snow cover which can be really bad for vegetation because it makes it more vulnerable to frost damage. With temperatures varying more wildly, you can have very warm periods followed by sudden deep freezes. That's also bad for the roads.

Herzblut

21st October 2009, 10:01 AM

Except that you can't assume climate change will result in consistently milder winter or that it will have consistently less precipitation. If anything, the only predictable thing is more variation and less stability and that's not a good thing.

The opposite is correct. Since GW favors
- winter over summer
- nighttime over daytime
- polar regions over tropical ones
it tends to flattern variations and, hence, decrease temperature gradients leading to a more stable climate.

Warmer temperatures in winter in a number of areas implies more moisture in the atmosphere and more precipitation.

In what areas, compared to which ones? What is the overall balance?

lomiller

21st October 2009, 10:19 AM

Something else to keep in mind is that many of the higher latitude areas in question are only accessible by ice road. Not only does warming not turn the land viable for agriculture overnight, the current economic activity in these areas would be gravely hurt because they become inaccessible. There are few, if any, winners from global warming

macdoc

21st October 2009, 10:30 AM

leading to a more stable climate.

wrong - with the same level of support as you provide.....

Your grasp of earth's geo-systems has proved rather less than adequate in the past so your opinion on such matters is effectively worthless. :garfield:

Now if you care to cite a mainstream climate paper from say Nature to support your thesis...:popcorn1

Jorghnassen

21st October 2009, 10:38 AM

The opposite is correct. Since GW favors
- winter over summer
- nighttime over daytime
- polar regions over tropical ones
it tends to flattern variations and, hence, decrease temperature gradients leading to a more stable climate.

You're qualitatively thinking at the long run of the mean temperature globally. I'm saying that climate change is not just an increase in the mean temperature, but also in the variance of it (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/088.htm) . More variability means more extreme weather, and when that variability happens around freezing point, that's when all Hell breaks loose (e.g. Ice Storm of 98 did much more damage than any actual or conceivable cold snap could).

In what areas, compared to which ones? What is the overall balance?

You're thinking narrowly about average when it's not the only measure of effect. "Overall balance" doesn't mean much. Getting 200 mm of rain spread over a month won't have the same cost as getting 200mm of rain in a month, but all falling within a single day (because of much higher chance of damaging flash floods). A year of drought followed by a year of double the normal amount of rain doesn't result in an overall average agricultulral output for two years. Less rain in region A and more in region B may negatively affect the economy of both regions.

I'm not saying that there are no possible upsides to climate change, but most "off the top of my head" upsides one can think of don't fare so well upon closer examination.

Herzblut

21st October 2009, 10:54 AM

You're qualitatively thinking at the long run of the mean temperature globally. I'm saying that climate change is not just an increase in the mean temperature, but also in the variance of it (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/088.htm) .

I understand what you say, just that I think you're wrong. What do you think about my argument? Have you understood it?

I'm not saying that there are no possible upsides to climate change, but most "off the top of my head" upsides one can think of don't fare so well upon closer examination.
I suggest you simply try harder, or try at all.

Eyeron

21st October 2009, 11:06 AM

There is no such thing as global warming. Why? Because I say so. And I have one skeptical paper that proves one million climatology scientist completely and utterly wrong. And that is the hard cold truth.

Highly Selassie

21st October 2009, 11:17 AM

Global warming is a good thing! All those poor starving people in Bangladesh and Florida can just up and move to Greenland, where there's a massive fertile plain underneath that ice cap! They'll grow bananas in the south and winter wheat in the north! The weather will be perfect because I don't know what Hadley cell circulation is!

Herzblut

21st October 2009, 11:21 AM

Your grasp of earth's geo-systems has proved rather less than adequate in the past so your opinion on such matters is effectively worthless. :garfield:

There's no reason to assume you're capable of making that judgment.

Now if you care to cite a mainstream climate paper from say Nature to support your thesis...:popcorn1For my "thesis" that decreasing temperature gradients lead to less extreme weather events? You might have missed it, but that's text book knowledge.

Highly Selassie

21st October 2009, 11:28 AM

For my "thesis" that decreasing temperature gradients lead to less extreme weather events? You might have missed it, but that's text book knowledge.

OK then, what textbook contains such an idea? I confess I took several undergrad courses in meteorology and climatology and never encountered this idea. Maybe I skipped that class...

macdoc

21st October 2009, 11:35 AM

:popcorn1 yep....what IS textbook knowledge for those that actually read them is more energy in the system will create greater extremes of weather patterns...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616133944.htm

The insurance companies know even if you don't

still awaiting citation - textbook??? sure that will do...:popcorn1

MattusMaximus

21st October 2009, 01:08 PM

Is the OP referring to naturally occurring global warming or that caused by humans (AGW)? There's an important distinction, because without naturally occurring GW the Earth would be too damn cold in order to have liquid water on the surface. So, a certain amount of GW is good, in my book; the problem is that we have - through our CO2 and other emissions - contributed to the entire GW process and caused temperatures to rise too high. So it's basically the Goldilocks principle: you want just the right amount of GW.

Now, as for the predicted effects in 10, 20, 50, 100 years of AGW? I don't know, and this is - to me - where much of the legitimate controversy lies right now, not whether or not AGW is occurring.

Trakar

21st October 2009, 02:30 PM

I live in Minnesota. Pretty soon I'll be asking for this Global Warming everyone talks about when my soft-top jeep won't start because it's 20 below 0. Fahrenheit. Without wind chill.

Ps: There is no time in recorded history when Greenland was green. It's been under ice for roughly 100,000-150,000 years. Neal Boortz is repeating fairy tales.

Actually, throughout most of the last several thousand years, there have been and are green, forested and grassy areas in the southern coastal valleys of Greenland. During milder stretches these areas a quite ameniable to the type of settlements and living familiar to most early nordic peoples. during the rougher stretches, not so much so.

Trakar

21st October 2009, 02:34 PM

Now, as for the predicted effects in 10, 20, 50, 100 years of AGW? I don't know, and this is - to me - where much of the legitimate controversy lies right now, not whether or not AGW is occurring.

What do you consider the legitimate controversy to be? (IOW what are the contrasts and where does your perspective and consideration reside, and how do you support your position?)

MattusMaximus

21st October 2009, 08:30 PM

What do you consider the legitimate controversy to be? (IOW what are the contrasts and where does your perspective and consideration reside, and how do you support your position?)

I do NOT consider the question of whether or not AGW is occurring to be legitimate, because the consensus within the climate science community is very clear: AGW is occurring.

The legitimate question is what will be the effects/outcomes of 10, 20, 50, 100 years of unchecked AGW? I think there is much uncertainty still in addressing this question.

macdoc

21st October 2009, 09:00 PM

:thumbsup:

Would there were far more dialogue on that front....:mgbanghead

Have you read this Mattus
MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

Herzblut

22nd October 2009, 02:45 PM

OK then, what textbook contains such an idea? I confess I took several undergrad courses in meteorology and climatology and never encountered this idea. Maybe I skipped that class...
Maybe you skipped fluid dynamics. There are equations of state and equations of motion describing dynamical systems driven by state function gradients, like pressure, temperature and so. Some knowledge of mathematical physics would be helpful for comprehension, though.

Doghouse Reilly

22nd October 2009, 04:47 PM

It was indeed Erik the Red, but the rest is just myth. Greenland was sometimes referred to as Gruneland but Grune doesn't mean "Green". (Can't recall what it does, or did, mean.)

His son, Leif, is said to have started the colony in Vinland (Vin doesn't mean "Vine", by the way).

Not to derail too much, but do you have references for these statements? As far as I can determine, he did name it Greenland in order to make it more appealing to settlers. And "Grune" almost certainly means "Green." (German gruen, swedish groene, norwegian gronn, icelandic graenn)

As for Vinland, from wikipedia:

"The name Vinland has been interpreted in two ways: traditionally as Vínland ("wine-land") and more recently as Vinland (meadow- or pasture-land)."

Edited to add: I found this, so there may be the possibility that it didn't necessarily mean "Green land." But it doesn't sound like a certainty:

"Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer and was probably even greener in Erik's time during the Medieval Warm Period."

BenBurch

22nd October 2009, 05:16 PM

Actually, throughout most of the last several thousand years, there have been and are green, forested and grassy areas in the southern coastal valleys of Greenland. During milder stretches these areas a quite ameniable to the type of settlements and living familiar to most early nordic peoples. during the rougher stretches, not so much so.

We were discussing recorded History.

CapelDodger

22nd October 2009, 05:53 PM

Not to derail too much, but do you have references for these statements? As far as I can determine, he did name it Greenland in order to make it more appealing to settlers. And "Grune" almost certainly means "Green." (German gruen, swedish groene, norwegian gronn, icelandic graenn)

As for Vinland, from wikipedia:

"The name Vinland has been interpreted in two ways: traditionally as Vínland ("wine-land") and more recently as Vinland (meadow- or pasture-land)."

Just going on memory I'm afraid. I knew I was going out on thin ice by being quite so definite :).

"Almost certainly" perhaps, but there is some contention about the meaning of both Greenland and Vinland from what I've read. One thing which makes me doubtful about "green" is the associated idea that Erik had to promote the place to his followers. Erik the Red was a warlord and his family and followers would have gone with him as a matter of course, not least because they'd be in some danger from his enemies if they'd remained in Iceland. I also think it's unlikely that people hadn't already heard about the place. Those guys did get around, not always intentionally (what with storms and such) and some will have come across it. It would have made an obvious base for walrus hunting (walrus ivory was a valuable commodity at the time, the Islamic empire having cut Europe off from traditional African ivory).

There's no sign of vines where Vinland's likely to be, but there are meadows. Probably most important was the timber it could supply.

Trakar

22nd October 2009, 10:09 PM

I do NOT consider the question of whether or not AGW is occurring to be legitimate, because the consensus within the climate science community is very clear: AGW is occurring.

The legitimate question is what will be the effects/outcomes of 10, 20, 50, 100 years of unchecked AGW? I think there is much uncertainty still in addressing this question.

Uncertainty, certainly, but where, given the current scientific understandings and their record of predictions and projections, do you feel the scientific concensus estimates shake out? Are they too conservative, recklessly catastrophic or roughly appropriate, and can you reference which specific scientific concensus you are going with here?

I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you stand and what that perspective is based on. I'll be happy to share my own considerations on these same issues so that we both know where we are starting from in any further discussion.

Trakar

22nd October 2009, 10:11 PM

We were discussing recorded History.

My statements include, and are applicable to, recorded history.

BenBurch

23rd October 2009, 02:32 AM

My statements include, and are applicable to, recorded history.

Except they don't.

Trakar

23rd October 2009, 04:31 PM

Except they don't.

"...southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer..."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland)

Today 1% of the island, in the southern ice free regions, is suitable for agriculture (Encyclopedia Britannica). Since the Viking population counted at its maximum perhaps not more than 3,000 people (Enc.Brit.)the area it used could not have been more than that 1% (i.e. an area two thirds the size of Belgium).

This has remained largely consistent throughout the last several thousand years. Of course there are some years, and even stretches of years where the winter snows never fully melted even in these green areas of greenland, though those stretches are becoming more a footnote of history than current problem.

The vikings story might best be addressed here: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

http://www.greenland.com/media(1089,1033)/Destination_South_Greenland.pdf (http://www.greenland.com/media(1089,1033)/Destination_South_Greenland.pdf)

The Garden of Greenland (http://www.go2greenland.com/pages/webside.asp?articleguid=32515)

Dogdoctor

23rd October 2009, 04:40 PM

The good news might be that San Francisco won't be so cold and you will be able to sail into the artic ocean making for potentially shorter trips. ;)

macdoc

23rd October 2009, 05:05 PM

Will??!!

The first commercial ships transited this year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLL657934

lomiller

23rd October 2009, 07:01 PM

Schwarzwald

23rd October 2009, 08:04 PM

When global warming happens I can gloat to those who didn't believe in it.

Other than that.. New coastal cities? :D

macdoc

23rd October 2009, 08:13 PM

When??

The new coastal cities are already being built especially by Russia to tap the new resources and sea route.

CapelDodger

23rd October 2009, 08:25 PM

When global warming happens I can gloat to those who didn't believe in it.

Other than that.. New coastal cities? :D

I have a line on cheap Siberian land, I can get you in on the bottom rung.

For denialists I have a line on Florida shorefront which is seriously undervalued right now : when reality finally exposes the hoax it will rocket in value.

Trust me. For a small commission.

CapelDodger

23rd October 2009, 08:34 PM

When??

The new coastal cities are already being built especially by Russia to tap the new resources and sea route.

For the Russians it all looks like upside. There's no great incentive for them to do anything but warm the globe. The drought hazard is in Ukraine, which ain't their problem.

An open Arctic will finally bring Russia centre-stage, while tending to marginalise North America. What's for them not to like?

CapelDodger

23rd October 2009, 08:49 PM

CapelDodger

23rd October 2009, 09:05 PM

Edited to add: I found this, so there may be the possibility that it didn't necessarily mean "Green land." But it doesn't sound like a certainty:

"Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer and was probably even greener in Erik's time during the Medieval Warm Period."

I think we can agree that there can be no certainty what name the Icelanders knew it by, or what it meant to them. I think we can also agree that Erik founded the colony by giving it that name is a later invention of the English-speaking world. It first emerged in the 19thCE, when the "booster" of new-founded towns became a US American feature. Just saying ;).

Andrew Wiggin

23rd October 2009, 09:17 PM

The ONLY upside I can see to global warming is that once it becomes impossible to deny, some, maybe about half, of the deniers will STFU. The rest will find some other reason to keep their heads in the sand.

A.

MattusMaximus

23rd October 2009, 10:28 PM

Uncertainty, certainly, but where, given the current scientific understandings and their record of predictions and projections, do you feel the scientific concensus estimates shake out? Are they too conservative, recklessly catastrophic or roughly appropriate, and can you reference which specific scientific concensus you are going with here?

I haven't researched the question of uncertainty in predictions & climate models enough to settle on any particular view yet concerning the question of the effects of AGW in 10, 20, 50, 100 years. So, until such a time as I see compelling info on that question, I shall remain mum.

As for your second question, I am referring to the consensus as outlined by the IPCC and the National Academies of Science in the U.S. (and the broader international climate science community, in general).

I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you stand and what that perspective is based on. I'll be happy to share my own considerations on these same issues so that we both know where we are starting from in any further discussion.

Just for clarity, so that the discussion doesn't devolve, yet again, into stupid politicking, I want to make one thing clear. Contrary to what many people might think, I have never seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" nor am I interested in seeing it. I get all my info on these issues from the scientific sources, most especially from the NAS.

I make such a big deal to point this out because it seems that everyone I encounter either here or in person who wants to argue with me about how "AGW isn't real" wants to just blather on and on about how stupid & deceptive Al Gore is. I honestly don't give a damn about Al Gore - he's not a climate scientist, so I'm not interested in what he has to say on this issue.

Sorry if that's a derail, but I wanted to get that out there so we don't go there - again. If the thread turns that direction, I'm gone.

macdoc

24th October 2009, 03:51 AM

Good post especially on info sourcing.

Climate scientist do not predict as they cannot know what amount of C02 we will put into the atmosphere.
They provide a range of possible outcomes....from BAU to strong action on reducing CO2 emissions.

I must admit I was shocked at the updated MIT assessment....:boggled:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/23/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections/

In terms of up to date - worth the read tho it is policy oriented.

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport

Trakar

24th October 2009, 02:17 PM

A specific scientific consensus? There's never a choice of concensuses..

There are a range of perspectives within both the field specfic climatology concensus, and within the broader more generally relevent scientific fields with regards to the climate changes currently being experienced.

You start with "current scientific understandings" (a consensus no less) and ramble off into who knows what you might want to class as predictions via other undefined terms before ending with a demand for a specific scientific consensus.

Actually I'm just trying to nail down specifically what the poster I was speaking with is talking about, what perspective he is coming from, what he understands about the current scientific understandings with regards to climate change and whether or not he understands and accepts the consequences of those understandings.

Why not share with all of us? How would you answer your own questions? If nothing else it might give us a clue as to what they mean.

I've actually expressed my opinions and considerations many times on these issues and will be glad to do so again, for those who don't seem to remember, but first, I'd really like to hear and better understand the considerations and perspectives of the poster whom I was talking with. If he doesn't understand what I am asking, I will be happy to try and explain it to him as best I can.

macdoc

24th October 2009, 02:52 PM

Stop being coy - if you are referring to Matt then I'd say the mainstream climate stance

it's getting warmer and we're mostly responsible

would be the anchor.

Given there is great uncertainty as to the level of C02 we emit - the range of scenarios is exceptionally wide over that time period.

I'd not be patronizing him - from his answer he understands very well and has no intention of suffering fools gladly.

matt wrote
I get all my info on these issues from the scientific sources, most especially from the NAS.

So I'm quite sure of his chops.....not so sure of yours. :garfield:

Trakar

24th October 2009, 03:04 PM

I haven't researched the question of uncertainty in predictions & climate models enough to settle on any particular view yet concerning the question of the effects of AGW in 10, 20, 50, 100 years. So, until such a time as I see compelling info on that question, I shall remain mum.

As for your second question, I am referring to the consensus as outlined by the IPCC and the National Academies of Science in the U.S. (and the broader international climate science community, in general).

Interesting, of course, the IPCC findings do include projections, and the NAS statement, as well as most of the other scientific organization statements and findings regarding climate change do include some predictions as to the effects that can be expected to accompany climate changes over the coming decades and century. Are you unfamiliar with these projections/predictions or in disagreement with them?

Just for clarity, so that the discussion doesn't devolve, yet again, into stupid politicking, I want to make one thing clear. Contrary to what many people might think, I have never seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" nor am I interested in seeing it. I get all my info on these issues from the scientific sources, most especially from the NAS.

Well, I wouldn't ask you to comment on or discuss an advocacy presentation you obviously haven't seen, though before you become resolute in the decision not to see it, you should understand that almost in its entirety, it draws upon well evidenced and supported science from the same sources you claim to be relying upon for your own information.

I make such a big deal to point this out because it seems that everyone I encounter either here or in person who wants to argue with me about how "AGW isn't real" wants to just blather on and on about how stupid & deceptive Al Gore is. I honestly don't give a damn about Al Gore - he's not a climate scientist, so I'm not interested in what he has to say on this issue.

Sorry if that's a derail, but I wanted to get that out there so we don't go there - again. If the thread turns that direction, I'm gone.

You brought it up, if you don't want to go into it, it would have probably been better not to go there in the first place, but I've no problem leaving it lay where you sat it, if that's your choice.

Trakar

24th October 2009, 03:09 PM

I must admit I was shocked at the updated MIT assessment....:boggled:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/23/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections/

Its actually more in line with the numbers put out as most likely by a number of researchers actively involved in climate research, though it is definitely more extreme than the conservative estimates released by many organizations over the last decade.

Trakar

24th October 2009, 03:11 PM

So I'm quite sure of his chops.....not so sure of yours. :garfield:

Your memory is short

MattusMaximus

24th October 2009, 07:10 PM

Interesting, of course, the IPCC findings do include projections, and the NAS statement, as well as most of the other scientific organization statements and findings regarding climate change do include some predictions as to the effects that can be expected to accompany climate changes over the coming decades and century. Are you unfamiliar with these projections/predictions or in disagreement with them?

I am aware that those sources did get into questions of prediction, but I am also aware those same sources stated, very clearly, that the area of greatest uncertainty in the science deals specifically with making such long term predictions.

Hence, my stance.

Well, I wouldn't ask you to comment on or discuss an advocacy presentation you obviously haven't seen, though before you become resolute in the decision not to see it, you should understand that almost in its entirety, it draws upon well evidenced and supported science from the same sources you claim to be relying upon for your own information.

So what? So I should watch it to admire Al Gore's hairdo? :rolleyes:

You brought it up, if you don't want to go into it, it would have probably been better not to go there in the first place, but I've no problem leaving it lay where you sat it, if that's your choice.

Nope, I was just heading off any anti-AGW pseudoscientists (there are more than a few on these boards) off at the pass. That's all.

Poptech

24th October 2009, 07:35 PM

Well, I wouldn't ask you to comment on or discuss an advocacy presentation you obviously haven't seen, though before you become resolute in the decision not to see it, you should understand that almost in its entirety, it draws upon well evidenced and supported science from the same sources you claim to be relying upon for your own information.
An Inconvenient Truth is a science fiction fantasy movie that has been debunked in a UK Court and Peer-Review.

Proof: 'An Inconvenient Truth' is Science Fiction (http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2214) (Video) (1min)

Debunked in a UK Court:
Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=486969&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source) (Daily Mail, UK)

Debunked By Peer Review:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle (http://www.springerlink.com/content/183521n688t7817g/) (David R. Legates, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction (http://www.springerlink.com/content/y4116185812q1653/) (Roy W. Spencer, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html) (Science & Public Policy Institute)

A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.cei.org/pdf/5820.pdf) (PDF) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)

Trakar

24th October 2009, 08:15 PM

I am aware that those sources did get into questions of prediction, but I am also aware those same sources stated, very clearly, that the area of greatest uncertainty in the science deals specifically with making such long term predictions.

Hence, my stance.

Which is what I'm trying to determine.

These scientific organizations are pretty straight-forward in their assessments of outcomes that are probable, likely and most likely. Yes, there is some uncertainty, which is the reason that the assessments are expressed in these terms, and as conservative minimals.

I'm trying to figure out where your understandings shake out and how these shape your personal projections. It doesn't matter that much to me, at this point whether your personal projections are ultra-conservative, catastrophic, or somewhere in the middle, I just want to understand where they are at and what scientific evidences you are most heavily relying on to derive that position.

So what? So I should watch it to admire Al Gore's hairdo? :rolleyes:

If that's your thing, go for it, though I really don't think anyone but Hannity might have had that goal.

Nope, I was just heading off any anti-AGW pseudoscientists (there are more than a few on these boards) off at the pass. That's all.

True Bleevers aren't going to be disuaded by such, regardless of which side of the issue they are emotionally drawn to.

macdoc

24th October 2009, 09:26 PM

Short memory, no just impatience with the silly inquisition you are undertaking when Matt's comment on not wanting politics polluting the science mirrors your own last January.

TShaitanaku
The rest of the political "debate" is of little or no interest to me.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4314187#post4314187

:confused::con2::boggled:

MattusMaximus

24th October 2009, 11:43 PM

Oh dear evil Jeebus...

I'm trying to figure out where your understandings shake out and how these shape your personal projections. It doesn't matter that much to me, at this point whether your personal projections are ultra-conservative, catastrophic, or somewhere in the middle, I just want to understand where they are at and what scientific evidences you are most heavily relying on to derive that position.

I have no position on what's going to happen in the future. I think there is too much uncertainty now to accurately predict what will happen 10, 20, 50, 100 years in the future if AGW is unchecked. I'm awaiting further data & research on this question before saying more.

That is my stance. Now go away - you bother me, kid.

MattusMaximus

24th October 2009, 11:45 PM

An Inconvenient Truth is a science fiction fantasy movie that has been debunked in a UK Court and Peer-Review.

... blah blah blah...

... PopTech displays his secret yet forbidden love/lust for Al Gore - once again...

Right on cue, folks. What'd I tell you? :rolleyes:

Consider this thread in the trash heap...

Andrew Wiggin

24th October 2009, 11:58 PM

Depending on what side of the mad scientist/secret world domination conspiracy debate you find yourself, the following might be good, or very bad news.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/melting_ice_caps_expose_hundreds

A

Poptech

24th October 2009, 11:59 PM

Right on cue, folks. What'd I tell you? :rolleyes:

Consider this thread in the trash heap...
Why? A false statement was made about Al Gore's movie. I did not bring it up as I never stated this fallacy...

"...you should understand that almost in its entirety, it draws upon well evidenced and supported science from the same sources you claim to be relying upon for your own information."

Trakar

25th October 2009, 12:10 AM

Short memory, no just impatience with the silly inquisition you are undertaking when Matt's comment on not wanting politics polluting the science mirrors your own last January.

TShaitanaku

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4314187#post4314187

:confused::con2::boggled:

Exactly how do you feel that this reference in any way contradicts or is at odds with anything I'm asking about or have stated?

I'm just trying to figure out what Matt understands about the topic and what his position is. Some of his statements seemed a bit contradictory or perhaps I have just misunderstood what he was saying, either way, I am trying to resolve these issues through getting him to clarify the issues for me. This isn't an "Inquisition," merely an inquiry, if doesn't feel like responding, that's his option. I have no ulterior or hidden motives, just a desire to better understand that which I don't currently understand.

Trakar

25th October 2009, 12:56 AM

Oh dear evil Jeebus...

I have no position on what's going to happen in the future. I think there is too much uncertainty now to accurately predict what will happen 10, 20, 50, 100 years in the future if AGW is unchecked. I'm awaiting further data & research on this question before saying more.

That is my stance. Now go away - you bother me, kid.

And you don't find this position at odds with the sources you claim are the primary resources for your understandings of this issue?

"...World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century...Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in)...There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall...There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides...Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium..." "There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5°C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe." "Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded." http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/ar4.html

"If emission rates for greenhouse gases (which trap heat inside Earth’s atmosphere) continue on their current track, models indicate that the globe will be 4.3 to 11.5°F warmer by 2100 than it was in 1990...Climate change in the current era is expected to be exceedingly rapid--likely at least 10 times faster than the global warming that occurred after the last ice age....models indicate that sea levels could rise 2 feet or more by 2100 compared to 1990 levels...range--it is estimated that about 20 to 30 percent of studied species could risk extinction in the next one hundred years..."
http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/ecological-impacts.shtml

Of course, it may just be a language difference, or perhaps we're both a bit too controlled in our wording. You haven't really said much of anything that directly contradicts any of these predictions or positions, perhaps I'm just seeing ghosts. So to relieve my silly little voices, how do you feel about these predictions and statements from the IPCC and NAS? Do you feel that they reflect your understandings and considerations? Do you feel them to be conservative estimates that are rapicly becoming outdated, recklessly catastrophic overkill, or something else?

macdoc

25th October 2009, 04:25 AM

Matt has you on ignore on this.
He has no idea why you are pursuing this silliness nor do I.
You are being completely dunderheaded on it.....clear enough?? :mgbanghead

Move on to something on topic.

•••

a bit dated but perhaps accurate in benefits to Russia and other circumpolar nations

The Economist is running yet another inane article, this one suggesting that global warming is good for Russia. It starts off with the bad- "This is bad for local wildlife. All over the world, species are edging towards the poles as their habitats change. But Arctic and Antarctic creatures have nowhere colder to go. Pity the polar bears. " and "Rising polar temperatures also mean bad news for many human beings—notably the 150,000 Inuit of Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Russia. Frozen ground is turning mushy, making it hard for hunters to travel. Mosquito infestations have driven their main quarry, caribou, into the hills."

However it goes on to say " The shipping industry will be able to use new short-cuts along the north coast of North America and the north coast of Russia. A newly navigable Arctic could cut thousands of miles off the journey between the Atlantic and the Pacific.The biggest beneficiary is likely to be Russia itself, which encircles almost half the Arctic Ocean. Currently uninhabitable areas will become more hospitable; currently inaccessible energy resources will become more exploitable. " The Economist suggests that "However the sea is divided up, warming is likely to make Russia richer rather than poorer. "
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/global_warming_11.php

MattusMaximus

25th October 2009, 10:34 AM

And you don't find this position at odds with the sources you claim are the primary resources for your understandings of this issue?

No.

Of course, it may just be a language difference, or perhaps we're both a bit too controlled in our wording. You haven't really said much of anything that directly contradicts any of these predictions or positions, perhaps I'm just seeing ghosts. So to relieve my silly little voices, how do you feel about these predictions and statements from the IPCC and NAS? Do you feel that they reflect your understandings and considerations? Do you feel them to be conservative estimates that are rapicly becoming outdated, recklessly catastrophic overkill, or something else?

I've already answered your question, repeatedly. My answer won't change, no matter how many times you ask. Now go away and keep listening to those little voices in your head, and leave me alone.

Trakar

25th October 2009, 12:47 PM

No.

I've already answered your question, repeatedly. My answer won't change, no matter how many times you ask. Now go away and keep listening to those little voices in your head, and leave me alone.

There is no call for being personally insulting, this is twice, I'll not ignore it again.

Your expressed opinions and considerations are at odds with the statements of the sources you claim represent the scientific basis of your understanding, please explain the contradiction, or source the basis of your actual positions.

You have answered nothing, except to (seemingly) repeatedly contradict the references you yourself cite. Your statements are not reflecting or in accord with the accepted mainstream scientific perspective on the issue climate change. This is fine, but it is disingenuous to assert that you are, and then make assertions and claims that are not.

I am simply trying to understand this apparent contradiction.

MattusMaximus

25th October 2009, 03:31 PM

Meh :rolleyes:

Trakar

25th October 2009, 06:30 PM

Meh :rolleyes:

If that's the best response you have, it will have to suffice, at the least, it is not contradictory nor out of character.

CapelDodger

25th October 2009, 07:12 PM

There are a range of perspectives within both the field specfic climatology concensus, and within the broader more generally relevent scientific fields with regards to the climate changes currently being experienced.

That's as horrible as the first thing I picked up on. But let's move on from there afresh.

Your use of perspective varies with how high up the hill you live. But as I say, let that past.

What actually matters in human terms is what's likely to happen. That's mostly about what people will do in response to AGW, not what they do to mitigate it. The science and physical evidence is pretty clear, in terms of rainfall and perennial ice, but just how people react is not something science can address.

Sea-levels will rise, that's a given, and many people live in deltas. Small islands are more photogenic but not so significant. Deltas tend to support people in the tens of millions and they're not so isolated.

Himalayan and Tibetan perennial ice isn't long for this world, and that's going to make a big difference where most of the world's population currently lives. There's a similar problem in the Andes and Rockies chain, but less significant. Fewer people affected.

The shifting rain-belts have already brought droughts, and there's only so long the "this has happened before" argument can survive. It's pretty strained already. It's having a big impact in the commercial grain-belts (in Argentina, Australia, the US). That will affect a lot of people.

DogB

25th October 2009, 07:37 PM

It's having a big impact in the commercial grain-belts (in Argentina, Australia, the US).

You say this yet I’m taking a bath on wheat futures! :(

Damn pathetic El Nino!

macdoc

25th October 2009, 07:43 PM

Try gold and Apple

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=AApl
;)

Farmers are screwed every which way..bumper crop - lower price...scarce crop - higher price...:(

CapelDodger

25th October 2009, 08:29 PM

You say this yet I’m taking a bath on wheat futures! :(

Damn pathetic El Nino!

Analogous to the difference between weather and climate. Short-term market-movements are a bitch. And they didn't make Warren Buffet rich.

A long position on food strikes me as sensible. There is no more primary market, nor such an urgent one. In the sense of "can't be put off", as a new car or bigger TV can. Siberian wheatlands my arse, if you want to cash in before you're long dead a 20-30 year long position is my "buy" of the epoch.

If you're into short-term for the ride, there's nothing wrong with that :). Just don't bitch when it goes awry.

CapelDodger

25th October 2009, 08:42 PM

Farmers are screwed every which way..bumper crop - lower price...scarce crop - higher price...:(

The high price of scarcity more than outwheighs the low-price of abundance. People have to eat. Cities are full of people who will soon go berserk if they're not fed. In times of food scarcity the terms-of-trade between city and country shift in favour of the country.

CapelDodger

25th October 2009, 09:01 PM

Try gold and Apple

Apples are good. There's no limit to the demand for cider. As or gold, I see no discernable trend.

DogB

25th October 2009, 09:09 PM

Try gold and Apple

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=AApl

;)

Apple yes, everything they touch turns to gold at the moment. Gold itself I would be wary of - I think it's overdue a big correction.

Farmers are screwed every which way..bumper crop - lower price...scarce crop - higher price...:(

Mostly true but there's still money to be made. You just need to be in the right place at the right time. I think sugar is going to come back big time.

Analogous to the difference between weather and climate.

Actually specifically associated with the weather in this case. I made judgement call based on a fast moving SOI. I got it wrong. Stuff happens.

Short-term market-movements are a bitch. And they didn't make Warren Buffet rich.

A long position on food strikes me as sensible. There is no more primary market, nor such an urgent one. In the sense of "can't be put off", as a new car or bigger TV can. Siberian wheatlands my arse, if you want to cash in before you're long dead a 20-30 year long position is my "buy" of the epoch.

Yeah food is safe in the long term but the margins are so small you might as well use an IBD. That said there are occasional possibilities – sugar for ethanol shows some promise and diesel from algae is a big risk with potentially astronomical rewards.

If you're into short-term for the ride, there's nothing wrong with that :). Just don't bitch when it goes awry.

It’s my party and I”ll bitch if I want to.

Futures are fun and in the last few months the smart money has been making money. But ultimately they’re no different than rolling on black.

lomiller

25th October 2009, 09:19 PM

I think there is too much uncertainty now to accurately predict what will happen 10, 20, 50, 100 years in the future if AGW is unchecked.

An understanding of what they mean by long term predictions would be of value, because you mention periods that are not considered long term, and in fact are considered to short term to predict accurately.

In the short term natural variability is the largest source of error in climate predictions, but this declines over time. In the long term model error, unknowns about ocean CO2 uptake and unknowns about human CO2 emissions begin to dominate and these increase over time. This means there is a sweet spot 30-50 years out where these predictions for what will occur with given atmospheric CO2 levels are expected to be quite good while longer and shorter periods have greater uncertainty.

CapelDodger

25th October 2009, 09:55 PM

Mostly true but there's still money to be made. You just need to be in the right place at the right time. I think sugar is going to come back big time.

Double-up on your grain-losses and you're smiling.

If not, double-up again on apples. If that screws up we're all screwed anyway.

Actually specifically associated with the weather in this case. I made judgement call based on a fast moving SOI. I got it wrong. Stuff happens.

I got that impression from your post. A reasonable bet IMO.

Yeah food is safe in the long term but the margins are so small you might as well use an IBD.

The margins aren't set in stone as they are now. This is the late-WalMart era. In times of scarcity the producer has a greater say.

It’s my party and I”ll bitch if I want to.

I'll defend to the death your right to do so.

Futures are fun and in the last few months the smart money has been making money. But ultimately they’re no different than rolling on black.

I think if you do have some smarts, and keep track of the world and the way thing are going instead of just going with the maket flow, you can come out ahead. You just have to spread your risk across enough terrain to make your smarts show, eschew leverage, and stick at it.

Puppycow

25th October 2009, 11:01 PM

Open shipping lanes to the north of Canada could increase trade between Japan and Norway. :)

DogB

25th October 2009, 11:49 PM

In the short term natural variability is the largest source of error in climate predictions, but this declines over time.

So over time the signal appears from the noise. That makes sense.

That said, what about medium term variability like the PDO ( assuming it's a real effect)?

Highly Selassie

25th October 2009, 11:58 PM

Maybe you skipped fluid dynamics. There are equations of state and equations of motion describing dynamical systems driven by state function gradients, like pressure, temperature and so. Some knowledge of mathematical physics would be helpful for comprehension, though.

Please, explain to me, what principles of fluid dynamics necessarily lead to the following:

The opposite is correct. Since GW favors
- winter over summer
- nighttime over daytime
- polar regions over tropical ones
it tends to flattern variations and, hence, decrease temperature gradients leading to a more stable climate.
decreasing temperature gradients lead to less extreme weather events

These statements are at odds with the understanding of past and present global warming. I am also curious as to what you mean by "favor" in the context of global warming. To me, it sounds like a personification of a scientific concept, fit more for a philosophy essay than a scientific discussion.

DogB

26th October 2009, 12:02 AM

The margins aren't set in stone as they are now. This is the late-WalMart era. In times of scarcity the producer has a greater say.

You're right. The current situation is only meta-stable. A double figure percentage drop would change everything. Worth keeping in mind.

I think if you do have some smarts, and keep track of the world and the way thing are going instead of just going with the maket flow, you can come out ahead. You just have to spread your risk across enough terrain to make your smarts show, eschew leverage, and stick at it.

Oh sure. You can skew the odds in your favour and make a living out of futures. A lot of people do. Me, it's just a hobby. I can't put enough funds into it to get a wide enough spread to be sure of a clear margin. So I occassional gamble and I win a little more than more than I loose so that's OK.

macdoc

26th October 2009, 02:08 AM

Farmers viewpoint - not a lot - feelthy capitlist specualtors ;) maybe.

Gold - consider the US dollar..goin' down down down

•••

Back to our regularly scheduled program.

Poptech

26th October 2009, 05:02 AM

Farmers are screwed every which way..bumper crop - lower price...scarce crop - higher price...
Basic economics supply and demand.

Farmers viewpoint - not a lot - feelthy capitlist specualtors ;) maybe.
More like government intervention in the economy.

Gold - consider the US dollar..goin' down down down
Yes Gold because the U.S. government mandated fiat currency is being destroyed by Ben Bernanke's inflationary policies of holding interest rates below market levels and Obama's economic insanity of spend and "stimulus". Get ready for energy and food prices to shoot through the roof. Government fails again.

Trakar

26th October 2009, 09:09 AM

That's as horrible as the first thing I picked up on. But let's move on from there afresh.

Your use of perspective varies with how high up the hill you live. But as I say, let that past.

What actually matters in human terms is what's likely to happen. That's mostly about what people will do in response to AGW, not what they do to mitigate it. The science and physical evidence is pretty clear, in terms of rainfall and perennial ice, but just how people react is not something science can address.

I'm not speaking to or about any differences due to changes in the human forcing factors, primarily because I've yet to see that there is or will be significant changes in human actions, at least within the next few decades. I'm not looking for opinions considering all the potential variations of human action over the next few decades or even centuries. What I was more interested in was the seeming contradiction between the perspective that predictions of effects are so uncertain as to be considered poor science and yet the various science organizations most directly oriented to studying climate change all devote a considerable effort toward providing (and explaining) predictions. But as you say that seems to be an issue that is being left without resolution, so I shall let it lay.

Sea-levels will rise, that's a given, and many people live in deltas. Small islands are more photogenic but not so significant. Deltas tend to support people in the tens of millions and they're not so isolated.

Himalayan and Tibetan perennial ice isn't long for this world, and that's going to make a big difference where most of the world's population currently lives. There's a similar problem in the Andes and Rockies chain, but less significant. Fewer people affected.

The shifting rain-belts have already brought droughts, and there's only so long the "this has happened before" argument can survive. It's pretty strained already. It's having a big impact in the commercial grain-belts (in Argentina, Australia, the US). That will affect a lot of people.

Personally, my primary concerns are a bit closer to home. Expanding desertification in the US southwest, storm force increases both coastal and inland, floods in the heartlands, long-term drought in the west. The migration of disease, decrease in viable croplands...the list is actually quite long, and this only goes to the natural impacts that will be being increasingly felt and amplified over the coming decades. Include in the economic and social impacts, and our children's children are inheriting a completely different (and molten) ball of wax.

Trakar

26th October 2009, 09:17 AM

Open shipping lanes to the north of Canada could increase trade between Japan and Norway. :)

More importantly, any increases in overall shipping, in the near term, is something that could add to our problems as cargo ships are a form of transport that already are a major contributor to anthropogenic carbon emissions.

macdoc

26th October 2009, 09:40 AM

Minor but serious due to S02 and carbon black.
They likely have a net cooling effect right now.

macdoc

26th October 2009, 09:46 AM

What I was more interested in was the seeming contradiction between the perspective that predictions of effects are so uncertain as to be considered poor science and yet the various science organizations most directly oriented to studying climate change all devote a considerable effort toward providing (and explaining) predictions.The problem is not with them but with your expectations.

They don't predict - they cannot predict - as we are the major variable
The science bodies set ranges of outcomes and from that range....some will go further and say if the world climate hits x degrees due to AGW these are probable impacts in various areas.

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/05/25/mit-scholars-say-climate-change-is-going-to-be-twice-as-extreme/

Scenarios are not predictions - they are possible outcomes based on the known science.

Trakar

26th October 2009, 09:59 AM

Minor but serious due to S02 and carbon black.
They likely have a net cooling effect right now.

I don't think "minor" is an appropriate qualification for these emissions which total more than air transport and account for close to 4% of total human CO2 emissions. Shipping rates have already increased by more than 75% over the last 15 years, any significant increase in this rate (which is what I was cautioning against) is undesirable if pursued using current technologies and methods.

Trakar

26th October 2009, 10:25 AM

The problem is not with them but with your expectations.

They don't predict - they cannot predict - as we are the major variable
The science bodies set ranges of outcomes and from that range....some will go further and say if the world climate hits x degrees due to AGW these are probable impacts in various areas.

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/05/25/mit-scholars-say-climate-change-is-going-to-be-twice-as-extreme/

Scenarios are not predictions - they are possible outcomes based on the known science.

You seem to be wrapping yourself in a semantic web of your own weaving.

Both of the scientific sources referenced, the IPCC reports and the NAS statements use the specific term "prediction" in the same manner I have. If you wish to create a distinction between the terms that holds some significant meaning, then I will be happy to entertain your argument, but I use the term as the cited references employ it.

Prediction:
To foresee using observation, experience, or scientific reason.
science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih2/oral-health/other/glossary.htm

A statement (usually quantitative) about what will happen under specific conditions, as a logical consequence of scientific theories.
www.umetrics.com/default.asp/pagename/methods_over_dict/c/3

Senario:
an imagined or projected sequence of events, esp. any of several detailed plans or possibilities.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scenario

An outline or model of an expected or supposed sequence of events:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scenario

Climate prediction
A climate prediction or climate forecast is the result of an attempt to produce
an estimate of the actual evolution of the climate in the future, for
example, at seasonal, interannual or long-term time scales. Since the future
evolution of the climate system may be highly sensitive to initial conditions,
such predictions are usually probabilistic in nature. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_appendix.pdf

If, however, this is the sole basis of the reticence to my line of inquiry, I would happily forego a response on issues of prediction and gladly substitute projection or senario if that makes it easier to answer and more appropriately phrased from your, and Matt's perspective. If it were a simple issue of terms that could have long ago been brought up and resolved.

BenBurch

26th October 2009, 10:30 AM

So, you would rather a calamity occurs than to take heed of a scientific prediction.

lomiller

26th October 2009, 10:37 AM

So over time the signal appears from the noise. That makes sense.

That said, what about medium term variability like the PDO ( assuming it's a real effect)?

Keep in mind that in the case of climate the noise is a product of the chaotic nature of the system so it exists in all realizations, including the real world observations.

PDO is included in the models in two different ways, where it’s known empirically the observed PDO is entered as a parameter. Where it isn’t it’s modeled. The modeled PDO shows the same general characteristics as the observed PDO but can differ significantly for any given year or decade. Since it’s longer term characteristics are the same, however so the effects drop out of the result past about 20-30 years or so, but for shorter times then that it’s a major contributor to internal variation.

macdoc

26th October 2009, 11:00 AM

TS - lose the verbosity - it's wearisome

The "predictions" you refer to are based on models.
Your expectation of a model against real world is either flawed - or you don't perhaps realize that the IPCC range of outcomes have been matched in observation with the exception of Arctic ice which they acknowledged was poorly served in their report.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

a model "prediction" is very different than a real world prediction.

macdoc

26th October 2009, 11:06 AM

lomiller - you are talking global models not regional I assume.?

I would think the PDO has some significant regional impact even within the last 30 years but I know regional models are still "work in progress".

Poptech

26th October 2009, 12:08 PM

Your expectation of a model against real world is either flawed - or you don't perhaps realize that the IPCC range of outcomes have been matched in observation
Only if you are computer illiterate do you think those projections even remotely match the biased GISS and CRU data.

macdoc

26th October 2009, 12:38 PM

Even in 2003 regional hindcasting produced robust results.

Evaluations of the hindcast suggest that the RCM-generated regional-scale fields are reasonably accurate, and preserve the large-scale information of the driving coarse-resolution data well. This refined spatial variability is crucial for regional climate and climate impact assessment studies, especially in mountainous regions such as the western United States, where the spatial and temporal variations of the hydrologic cycle depend strongly on terrain height.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1525-7541(2003)004<0878%3AAMRCHF>2.0.CO%3B2

moving forward

Improved Skill of Northern Hemisphere Winter Surface Temperature Predictions Based on Land-Atmosphere Fall Anomalies

Article from:
Journal of Climate
Article date:
August 15, 2007
Author:
Cohen, Judah; Fletcher,

A statistical forecast model, referred to as the snow-cast (sCast) model, has been developed using observed October mean snow cover and sea level pressure anomalies to predict upcoming winter land surface temperatures for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere. In operational forecasts since 1999, snow cover has been used for seven winters, and sea level pressure anomalies for three winters. Presented are skill scores for these seven real-time forecasts and also for 33 winter hindcasts (1972/73-2004/05). The model demonstrates positive skill over much of the eastern United States and northern Eurasia-regions that have eluded skillful predictions among the existing major seasonal ...
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1325480521.html

and up to date

http://wcrp.wmo.int/ClimatePrediction_index.html

Perhaps getting out of the 90s might be a useful endeavour :garfield:

Poptech

26th October 2009, 12:50 PM

Even in 2003 regional hindcasting produced robust results.

Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill? (http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038082.pdf) (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 13, July 2009)
- Catherine Reifen, Ralf Toumi

"In our analysis there is no evidence of future prediction skill delivered by past performance-based model selection."

Trakar

26th October 2009, 01:37 PM

So, you would rather a calamity occurs than to take heed of a scientific prediction.

If you are addressing this to me, I'm afraid you have me by the wrong side of the discussion. If anything, I believe the IPCC and NAS projections to be highly conservative, especially in light of what is currently coming to be understood about these issues.

Trakar

26th October 2009, 01:57 PM

TS - lose the verbosity - it's wearisome.

Not sure what you mean, I'm speaking in my natural, real-world voice, but while we're at it, how about sticking to the issues at hand and dropping the personal attacks and insults.

The "predictions" you refer to are based on models.
Your expectation of a model against real world is either flawed - or you don't perhaps realize that the IPCC range of outcomes have been matched in observation with the exception of Arctic ice which they acknowledged was poorly served in their report.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

a model "prediction" is very different than a real world prediction.

Nice reference, though largely irrelevent to any issue at hand or under current discussion.

I'm not arguing that IPCC predictions are Iron-clad detailed prognostications of what will happen with zero chance of error or alteration. What I do believe that both the IPCC and NAS findings do indicate, however, is that if things continue along their current course, we can pretty much expect to see certain generalized effects in the coming decades/centuries. I am trying to reconcile this with the apparent statements by some that they base their understandings of climate change on the IPCC and NAS findings, but do not think that neither science nor we can make any reasonable projections about what will happen in the future based upon current climate knowledge and understandings.

I've tried to drop this as the party in question is not interested in clarifying their position, I will be happy to continue the exchange if you wish, but I don't think this horseflesh is going to get much more tender.

Highly Selassie

26th October 2009, 02:11 PM

Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill? (http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038082.pdf) (PDF)
[I](Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 13, July 2009)
- Catherine Reifen, Ralf Toumi

"In our analysis there is no evidence of future prediction skill delivered by past performance-based model selection."

And if you'd bother to actually read the paper, instead of skimming it for cherries to pick, you'd notice this bit:
We are not implying that comparisons against observations are not important in model validation. Good agreement with past climate builds confidence in the reliability of a model’s future projections. Our analysis only examines selection based on models’ ability to replicate a mean anomaly over a historic time period. There are other criteria that could be used and would be worth investigating.

MattusMaximus

26th October 2009, 02:16 PM

Only if you are computer illiterate do you think those projections even remotely match the biased GISS and CRU data.

*facepalm*

Not this again :rolleyes:

DogB

26th October 2009, 05:45 PM

Keep in mind that in the case of climate the noise is a product of the chaotic nature of the system so it exists in all realizations, including the real world observations.

Sure

PDO is included in the models in two different ways, where it’s known empirically the observed PDO is entered as a parameter. Where it isn’t it’s modeled.

This is the crux of my question. To model the PDO with any degree of accuracy you need to understand what part of the phase it is in. The three definite PDO phase switches we’ve ‘seen’ were in 1905, 1946 and 1977. That puts the periods at 31 and 41 years. If we assume that the proposed 2008 shift is real then we have a third period of 31 years. That gives us an average of about 34 years and an SD of about 6 years.

Longer term reconstructions seem to point to longer periods but as far as I can tell the data is so polluted with other effects that it’s not particularly valuable.

I can’t even image how one would go about modelling climate when such a significant variable can’t be predicted with any degree of confidence. I guess you could draw probability curves - but I image they’d be so fat they would be near useless anyway?

The modeled PDO shows the same general characteristics as the observed PDO but can differ significantly for any given year or decade.

As I would expect.

Since it’s longer term characteristics are the same, however so the effects drop out of the result past about 20-30 years or so, but for shorter times then that it’s a major contributor to internal variation.

I’m struggling to understand your point here.

Our understanding of the PDO is so limited that the further out you push your model the less likely it seems that you’ll even know what phase you’re in never mind what part of the cycle you’re in – so in this case longer terms most certainly won’t assist your modelling.

If however, you’re claiming that if the current AGW hypothesis is correct then the magnitude of the change should increase to the point where natural cycles no longer have enough influence to hide the effect, then I agree completely. I do wonder in this case how you’ve decided on the timetable for your ‘window of accuracy’.

DogB

26th October 2009, 05:47 PM

I would think the PDO has some significant regional impact even within the last 30 years but I know regional models are still "work in progress".

I supect the effect might also be global in that in different phases heat moves into and out of the deeper ocean. The total system energy doesn't change but the surface temps do.

Thunder

26th October 2009, 05:48 PM

global warming will certainly mean more women in bikinis.

that..is a very good thing.

macdoc

26th October 2009, 07:15 PM

DogB
I supect the effect might also be global in that in different phases heat moves into and out of the deeper ocean :boggled:

'splain

••

Bikini covered with sun block for the rest :(

CapelDodger

26th October 2009, 07:28 PM

I'm not speaking to or about any differences due to changes in the human forcing factors, primarily because I've yet to see that there is or will be significant changes in human actions, at least within the next few decades.

I too haven't seen the future yet. What I can comfortably predict is that in the next few decades many actions will be performed which would not have been without AGW.

I'm not looking for opinions considering all the potential variations of human action over the next few decades or even centuries. What I was more interested in was the seeming contradiction between the perspective that predictions of effects are so uncertain as to be considered poor science and yet the various science organizations most directly oriented to studying climate change all devote a considerable effort toward providing (and explaining) predictions. But as you say that seems to be an issue that is being left without resolution, so I shall let it lay.

Prediction aren't considered bad science as long as the uncertainty is properly presented. To be useful in these circumstances science has to make predictions.

Personally, my primary concerns are a bit closer to home.

As are most people's.

Expanding desertification in the US southwest, storm force increases both coastal and inland, floods in the heartlands, long-term drought in the west. The migration of disease, decrease in viable croplands...the list is actually quite long, and this only goes to the natural impacts that will be being increasingly felt and amplified over the coming decades. Include in the economic and social impacts, and our children's children are inheriting a completely different (and molten) ball of wax.

A fair amount of disruption seems inevitable. I'm glad I live on the fringe of an island off the fringe of Eurasia.

macdoc

26th October 2009, 07:37 PM

Expanding desertification in the US southwest, storm force increases both coastal and inland, floods in the heartlands, long-term drought in the west. The migration of disease, decrease in viable croplands...the list is actually quite long, and this only goes to the natural impacts that will be being increasingly felt and amplified over the coming decades. Include in the economic and social impacts, and our children's children are inheriting a completely different (and molten) ball of wax.

and attempting to assess the pace of that change requires a range of scenarios to be presented.

Natural cycles may speed up or delay impacts.....the headache with wider excursions is it only takes one major excursion ( 1998 and reefs ) to do incredible damage even if bracketed by relatively stable climate years.

DogB

26th October 2009, 10:54 PM

DogB
:boggled:

'splain

Sure. Note I said deeper not deep. I’m guessing the effect is basically the same as ENSO.

Equatorial surface waters warm till there’s a significant heat reservoir. Then Kelvin waves carry this water somewhere and cap a normally cool upwelling. This warm surface water significantly effects local temps and to some extent the global average until they’re finally mixed in. Then the heat reservoir begins to recharge.

The ENSO does this with a cycle length of a few years. PDO and IPO perhaps do the same with a period of a few decades.

Bikini covered with sun block for the rest :(

You have a problem with rubbing sun block on a bikini body? Guess it takes all kinds.;)

macdoc

26th October 2009, 11:37 PM

ah yeah okay - deep = 4 degrees or so - no hot water there

Wonder if there is an identifiable lag between a hot pool in the Indian ocean and a peak later.
:con2:

I'm very interested to see how things change as that Arctic passage opens and warm Pacific starts to move more freely.
There are already N Pacific species showing up in the North Atlantic.

Interesting times.

••

Point on bikini....turn over dear let me do your front...:biggrin:

Highly Selassie

26th October 2009, 11:53 PM

I'm very interested to see how things change as that Arctic passage opens and warm Pacific starts to move more freely.
There are already N Pacific species showing up in the North Atlantic.

If what you say is true, that could devastate Pacific salmon fishing, which has already taken huge beatings in the last 20 years. Oh well, all those fisherman can just get into the shipping industry :rolleyes:

DogB

27th October 2009, 12:05 AM

ah yeah okay - deep = 4 degrees or so - no hot water there

Yeah sorry, I realised too late this could be misleading.

Wonder if there is an identifiable lag between a hot pool in the Indian ocean and a peak later.
:con2:

Good question. The long cycles are definitely less well defined than ENSO so the reservoirs might be geographically less distinct. I’ll do some reading and see what I can find.

I'm very interested to see how things change as that Arctic passage opens and warm Pacific starts to move more freely.
There are already N Pacific species showing up in the North Atlantic.

I’m still waiting for some definitive data about this. Do you have a paper you can reference? Paywalls are OK, I can usually get stuff from my university library.

Interesting times.

••

Point on bikini....turn over dear let me do your front...:biggrin:

Exactly. See warm isn’t always bad!

macdoc

27th October 2009, 12:21 AM

I could use warm....late Oct sucks in Canada...:(

Muskie hunting on Friday tho and it's 16....

This article came up

Pacific species set to invade warmer Arctic, Atlantic waters

A new United States study says Canada should brace for an invasion of Pacific Ocean species along its Arctic and Atlantic coasts as warmer waters and ice-free conditions continue to transform the polar region and reopen a migration route for sea creatures that has been closed for more than three million years.

continues

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=cb795111-5788-4190-9a96-34587faeb6c6

Likely based on this

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8728

Not quite OT but this might be interesting to read
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5936/77

Decent on topic article here
This was the one that alerted me to the potential.....

Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 18 October 2007 | doi:10.1038/climate.2007.61
Atlantic invaders
Zoë Corbyn

The melting of Arctic sea ice is blurring the biological boundaries between Pacific and Atlantic.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0711/full/climate.2007.61.html

hell it's like letting a blowtorch across the top.....

Look at Greenland West coast - that's way high anomaly

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture25-1.jpg

Y'know that flow is going to affect Europe as it must interact with the North Atlantic drift somewhere - might extend warmth to the Baltic.

I always got a kick out this graphic showing the heat transport to Europe by the Gulf Stream
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/gulfair.jpg

That Labrador cold current that come south is vital for fishing and Greenland funnels the warm Pacific flow into the same region....maybe the cod is not coming back for reasons other than criminal mismanagement.

I saw an article that the Barents sea ice pack has moved 200 miles north and there is a ton of wrangling about new fishing turf.

Coming up next....

Fishing Vacations at the North Pole. ;)

lomiller

27th October 2009, 12:46 PM

Sure

This is the crux of my question. To model the PDO with any degree of accuracy you need to understand what part of the phase it is in. The three definite PDO phase switches we’ve ‘seen’ were in 1905, 1946 and 1977. That puts the periods at 31 and 41 years. If we assume that the proposed 2008 shift is real then we have a third period of 31 years. That gives us an average of about 34 years and an SD of about 6 years.

Some things to keep in mind
- el nino/la nina are not cumulative, they warm or cool individual years PDO is a string of el/la and can warm an individual decade, but again isn’t cumulative.
- climate models are not attempt to predict individual years. This means they want to get PDO characteristics approximately and make sure a full cycle is included. (a full PDO cycle is ~30 year)

- it takes a very large el nino/la nina to warm or cool a year more then 0.2 deg C and the amount PDO can warm/cool a decade is smaller .
- at current warming rates we get more then 0.5 deg C warming in 3 decades. More then enough to swamp the effect of PDO

CapelDodger

27th October 2009, 05:23 PM

This is the crux of my question. To model the PDO with any degree of accuracy you need to understand what part of the phase it is in. The three definite PDO phase switches we’ve ‘seen’ were in 1905, 1946 and 1977. That puts the periods at 31 and 41 years. If we assume that the proposed 2008 shift is real then we have a third period of 31 years. That gives us an average of about 34 years and an SD of about 6 years.

This is something I have a problem with. Given so little data how sure can we be that these periods are in any way typical? The PDO has been pretty unsettled this century; perhaps that's more typical.

The PDO actually involves a redistribution of heat so its global impact is little if any. The signal doesn't exactly leap out of the surface temperature record as El Nino/La Nina does. The "Cool" and "Warm" terms apply to the influence on the NW US, but there are opposite effects in the NW and West Pacific.

Long story short, I think the PDO has been blown up out of all proportion by the usual suspects in their relentess quest for alternative explanations of the global warming which isn't happening.

DogB

27th October 2009, 05:35 PM

I could use warm....late Oct sucks in Canada...:(

Muskie hunting on Friday tho and it's 16....

What's a Muskie?

This article came up (snip)

Lots of articles warning of possibilities – not much actual data.

Not quite OT but this might be interesting to read
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5936/77

Interesting. Thanks.

Decent on topic article here
This was the one that alerted me to the potential.....

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0711/full/climate.2007.61.html

Yes, this is the only confirmed case I’ve seen. It was detected in 1999 and there’s been a lot of melting since with no obvious effect. But that might be simply due to a lack of research. Species invasion isn’t always a simple thing. The indigenous species have had a long time to fit and fill niches. For every eastern grey squirrel there’s a bunch of cases where the newcomer gets the snot kicked out of them by the locals.

DogB

27th October 2009, 05:36 PM

(snip)...- at current warming rates we get more then 0.5 deg C warming in 3 decades. More then enough to swamp the effect of PDO

OK, that's logical.

CapelDodger

27th October 2009, 05:39 PM

Y'know that flow is going to affect Europe as it must interact with the North Atlantic drift somewhere - might extend warmth to the Baltic.

Not much comes down into the North Sea let alone the Baltic, but they're warming of their own accord.

Arctic sea-ice is recovering unusually slowly, so maybe some of the heat is getting up there.

macdoc

27th October 2009, 05:56 PM

Muskie,,,closest Canadian equivalent of croc
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/9/Images/fishing/fish/muskhand.jpg

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ontariomuskiefishing.ca/sscimages/fish/muskie/bigmusky_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ontariomuskiefishing.ca/sscinclude/acloserlook.cfm/id/13263&h=495&w=600&sz=64&tbnid=XBgGo_KFJiaPGM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlarge%2Bmuskie%2Bphoto&usg=__VTXzn86mdqdr-0dBSMHWJnSTT1E=&ei=uZLnSqR_h--UB4--1PkH&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&ved=0CBAQ9QEwAA

••

THere is more evidence on the other side with Pacific species in the Arctic eco system or moving toward it.

http://bsierp.nprb.org/fieldwork/2008/pollock.html

http://blog.protectplanetocean.org/2009/08/good-news-for-arctic-fish.html

DogB

27th October 2009, 06:09 PM

This is something I have a problem with. Given so little data how sure can we be that these periods are in any way typical? The PDO has been pretty unsettled this century; perhaps that's more typical.

Also I've seen reconstructions of earlier cycles which show periods of up to 70 years.

I did try to make it clear when I brought it up that I'm wary of medium term cycles. The ENSO and IOD seem fairly clear, the PDO and the IPO less so.

The PDO actually involves a redistribution of heat

As do all these cycles.

so its global impact is little if any.

The impact is on surface temperatures which influences the atmosphere. It’s significant in that regard.

The signal doesn't exactly leap out of the surface temperature record as El Nino/La Nina does.

I agree – and it’s noisy as hell to boot. To me the long term reconstructions just look like mush.

The "Cool" and "Warm" terms apply to the influence on the NW US, but there are opposite effects in the NW and West Pacific.

I don’t know about that. When warm ENSO waster shields the Humboldt current it pretty much heats up everywhere. The warm water spreads, it doesn’t just shift.

Long story short, I think the PDO has been blown up out of all proportion by the usual suspects in their relentess quest for alternative explanations of the global warming which isn't happening.

I think it may have contributed to the warming over the last thirty years. I wouldn’t however even presume to guess whether that contribution has been significant.

DogB

27th October 2009, 06:19 PM

Muskie,,,closest Canadian equivalent of croc

I see - looks like fun.

When the monsoon gets started up north I’m going to try to make some time to get me a few of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barramundi).

macdoc

27th October 2009, 06:26 PM

I think it may have contributed to the warming over the last thirty years. I wouldn’t however even presume to guess whether that contribution has been significant. since it is patently NOT a forcing that is patently incorrect .:garfield:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2green/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5249849#post5249849)
Long story short, I think the PDO has been blown up out of all proportion by the usual suspects in their relentess quest for alternative explanations of the global warming which isn't happening.

concur - they discovered the whole cyclic aspect about 18 months ago - prior to that the lacunae was the dark side of the moon category.

The physics don't change no matter how you shift the heat around inside Myriad's box.....

That ain't no PDO

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Total-Heat-Content.gif

It's more energy retained.

CapelDodger

27th October 2009, 06:47 PM

I agree – and it’s noisy as hell to boot. To me the long term reconstructions just look like mush.

In which case it might as well be just a mushily represented in climate models.

I don’t know about that. When warm ENSO waster shields the Humboldt current it pretty much heats up everywhere. The warm water spreads, it doesn’t just shift.

ENSO presents a strong signal in surface temperature records. The fact that the PDO presents a weak signal (if any) suggests that it doesn't have these wider implications. The ENSO signal was a question in search of an answer. The PDO seems to be research papers in need of a subject.

I think it may have contributed to the warming over the last thirty years. I wouldn’t however even presume to guess whether that contribution has been significant.

I presume it hasn't been significant. A diversion, no more.

To pursue that diversion, it could be that the PDO phase is determined by climate change. The "Warm" phase could reflect a warming world (as in the early to mid-20thCE), the "Cool" phase a cooling world (40's to mid-70's) and warming thereafter. The "Mixed" phase of the 2000's could reflect relatively slow warming. Who can say? More data is required :).

macdoc

27th October 2009, 06:59 PM

I think it's simpler than that...IMNSHO it's a big slow eddy- or maybe two determined by the thermohaline and made unstable by continental shapes so that it slowly shifts back and forth in it's heat transport

Related to this and basically just a heat signature observed....maybe there is a heat exchange where the two big gyres meet in the tropics that varies in a vertical dimension

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

For AGW purposes - meaningless beyond damping or enhancing local impacts.

It appears quite significant in species distributions and populations however.

In this

More data is required :).

I concur ...but it ain't primary driver.

DogB

27th October 2009, 07:01 PM

That ain't no PDO

I love that graph. I know what it's trying to say but my god it's poorly labelled.

CapelDodger

27th October 2009, 07:01 PM

concur - they discovered the whole cyclic aspect about 18 months ago - prior to that the lacunae was the dark side of the moon category.

It was mhaze who brought it to attention, which speaks volumes. The more I looked into it the less I found. A subject of some small interest to people in NW US but that's about it. The usual subjects grabbed onto it because of the coming Cool phase which they could expand into global cooling just round the corner. The PDO being one product of climate science which they have absolute faith in. No need for a Mcintyre audit of that one, no siree.

DogB

27th October 2009, 07:04 PM

since it is patently NOT a forcing that is patently incorrect .:garfield:.

Doesn't have to be a forcing. If there's an upslope due to a cycle then there must be a contribution.

CapelDodger

27th October 2009, 07:05 PM

I love that graph. I know what it's trying to say but my god it's poorly labelled.

The title is the problem. It should have a delta in there.

I too think its a fine graph when you grasp the meaning.

DogB

27th October 2009, 07:06 PM

I presume it hasn't been significant...

A good first cut hypothesis. Currently I have it in the basket of effects that need to be better characterised.

DogB

27th October 2009, 07:08 PM

The title is the problem...

...and the axis label.

DogB

27th October 2009, 07:27 PM

I think it's simpler than that...

I missed this post somehow, sorry.

IMNSHO it's a big slow eddy- or maybe two determined by the thermohaline and made unstable by continental shapes so that it slowly shifts back and forth in it's heat transport

I agree completely. I see it as a cyclic movement whereby warm water sort of ‘piles up’ then spreads out.

Related to this and basically just a heat signature observed....maybe there is a heat exchange where the two big gyres meet in the tropics that varies in a vertical dimension

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

For AGW purposes - meaningless beyond damping or enhancing local impacts.

Meaningless other than the requirement to understand it for modelling purposes. Actually scratch that, we don’t need to understand it, we just need to be able to predict it with some degree of accuracy.

Oh and there’s some suggestion the cycle times are decreasing because of AGW but that’s pretty much pure speculation.

It appears quite significant in species distributions and populations however.

In this

More data is required :).

I concur ...but it ain't primary driver.

macdoc

27th October 2009, 08:16 PM

Still won't quite take the driver step eh ;)

Meaningless other than the requirement to understand it for modelling purposes. Actually scratch that, we don’t need to understand it, we just need to be able to predict it with some degree of accuracy.

Regionally maybe - not sure it matters globally - it's not a driver.

Oh and there’s some suggestion the cycle times are decreasing because of AGW but that’s pretty much pure speculation.

Yes now that requires some work..

Aussie Thinker

27th October 2009, 10:50 PM

Has anyone noticed the most virulent AGW proponents also propose the most doom from GW.

It’s almost like its no fun having GW unless we are doomed by it.

The simple fact that the world was a MORE hospitable place when it was considerably warmer than now is COMPLETELY ignored.

It’s a certain mindset that MUST find doom no matter what is happening.

‘IF’ GW is happening at the proposed rates it seems to me the benefits and dis-benefits seem to line up.

I have no doubt a warmer world would be MORE productive but this would be at least counterbalanced by the disruption to traditional supply and possible relocation of production and human habitation.

But don’t DARE tell the doomsayers it may not be that bad.. after all look at the disaster the Y2K bug caused.

DogB

27th October 2009, 10:59 PM

The simple fact that the world was a MORE hospitable place when it was considerably warmer than now is COMPLETELY ignored.

Are you sure, absolutely sure? Because the price of being wrong is high!

athon

27th October 2009, 11:00 PM

Has anyone noticed the most virulent AGW proponents also propose the most doom from GW.

It’s almost like its no fun having GW unless we are doomed by it.

I suspect you might have it the wrong way around. Those who are convinced there are serious consequences are more vocal about it.

Correlation, causation...you know the drill.

The simple fact that the world was a MORE hospitable place when it was considerably warmer than now is COMPLETELY ignored.

The question is 'for who'? Many plants will love it. There will be organisms that will take advantage of this. But many humans will find it tough going.

Maybe you haven't really been reading the thread, but this seems to have been covered quite clearly. The downside of global warming is subjective, however for a good proportion of humans, there will need to be some significant cultural adjustment to a different climate, and in the meantime people will be suffering the consequences.

I have no doubt a warmer world would be MORE productive but this would be at least counterbalanced by the disruption to traditional supply and possible relocation of production and human habitation.

Nobody is denying that some geographical regions may have milder weather, with an increase in useful resources. Most, however, won't.

But don’t DARE tell the doomsayers it may not be that bad.. after all look at the disaster the Y2K bug caused.

Again, you're confusing correlation with causation. I suspect that the greater somebody senses a threat, the more vocal they'll be about it.

Athon

DogB

27th October 2009, 11:10 PM

Regionally maybe - not sure it matters globally - it's not a driver.

No but it could effect our modelling in the 25-30 year time span - which is why I raised the topic in the first place. The severity of that effect is debatable. If you believe, as lomiller does, that it will be slight when compared to the AGW effect then I would find it hard to argue.

Yes now that requires some work..

It's a logical hypothesis. A cycle that is 'pumped' by heat input will accelerate if the incoming heat is increased. There is however nothing approaching reasonable evidence that I can find - and 'logic' can be a harsh mistress when it comes to science.
I agree it requires some work.

Aussie Thinker

27th October 2009, 11:25 PM

Dogb

Are you sure, absolutely sure? Because the price of being wrong is high!

That sounds EXACTLY what some Christians tell me (and for that matter Pascals wager).

The simple thing is we will know in 10 years if the deniers are right as their expected natural cooling cycle will not have occurred.

The PRICE of jumping on something now that MAY be unnecessary is way greater than the price of waiting. So the price of YOU being wrong is possibly higher !

Only the very worst of the doomsayers would argue that doing nothing for another 10 years would make little or no difference to the long term outcome.

BenBurch

28th October 2009, 12:56 AM

If you seriously thought Bad Stuff was about to happen, and it was preventable, and you decided to say nothing at all, that would make you a sociopath, IMNSHO.

Pixel42

28th October 2009, 01:25 AM

after all look at the disaster the Y2K bug caused.
As one of the software engineers who fixed it I see the Y2K bug story as an object lesson in how to prevent a problem by seeing it coming and doing something about it before it happens. A good lesson to apply to AGW indeed.

BenBurch

28th October 2009, 05:30 AM

As one of the software engineers who fixed it I see the Y2K bug story as an object lesson in how to prevent a problem by seeing it coming and doing something about it before it happens. A good lesson to apply to AGW indeed.

Exactly. Had it not been dealt with, it would have been a very bad situation.

macdoc

28th October 2009, 06:26 AM

Most have no idea what we dodged with the Montreal Protocol either - if anything it's a model for C02 reduction.

The SO2 ( acid rain ) campaign was very successful and cost far less than the naysayers anticipated.
We COULD use another effort on that end with global shipping and help for developing nations.

You never hear about the successful campaigns...:(

Trakar

28th October 2009, 02:00 PM

If you seriously thought Bad Stuff was about to happen, and it was preventable, and you decided to say nothing at all, that would make you a sociopath, IMNSHO.

"...and it was preventable..."

That seems a key point to me, especially given the nature of the human beast, I'm really not convinced that there's a whole lot that will be done to avoid some of the worst effects of conditions that are already in the pipeline, much less most or all of the "Bad Stuff." To a large degree, it is a self-correcting problem, once civilization is sufficiently disrupted and enough humans are killed through direct and indirect effects, the environment will seek a new balance of conditions.

Herzblut

28th October 2009, 03:51 PM

Please, explain to me, what principles of fluid dynamics necessarily lead to the following:

I did not say that.

BenBurch

28th October 2009, 03:59 PM

The new balance of conditions might be one where human life SUCKS though. Do we want that?

macdoc

28th October 2009, 04:12 PM

TS
That seems a key point to me, especially given the nature of the human beast, I'm really not convinced that there's a whole lot that will be done to avoid some of the worst effects of conditions that are already in the pipeline, much less most or all of the "Bad Stuff." To a large degree, it is a self-correcting problem, once civilization is sufficiently disrupted and enough humans are killed through direct and indirect effects, the environment will seek a new balance of conditions.why was S02 and CFC dealt with ??
The model for cooperation is there and the success of both is clear.

No question the climate is altered for the next thousands of years and there is at least another .6 degrees in the pipeline but at some point civilization has to go carbon neutral or low carbon and there is simply no reason not to get on with it.

The VCs know how much is to be made, Stern laid it out, China and Denmark and others are creating entire new industries to serve their own needs and to sell to others.

I don't think there is a climate scientist on the planet thinks we can hold it to 2 degrees by 2100 - but there is no harm in the effort and just maybe some technologies for actually extracting C02 and sequestering cost effectively might emerge...there are some promising ones.
No reason to make the load heavier and many reasons including ocean acidification and fossil fuel dependence to rapidly reduce fossil carbon emissions.

Fatalism serves no one.....:garfield:

DogB

28th October 2009, 04:32 PM

The PRICE of jumping on something now that MAY be unnecessary is way greater than the price of waiting. So the price of YOU being wrong is possibly higher!

Completely wrong. Like it or not generation of energy using non renewables is not sustainable in the long run. The things we need to do to fix this problem are inevitable requirements of our continued existence on this planet.

We might as well do them now while we have a little time to get it right. Every economic analysis I’ve seen indicates that the longer we take to make a decision the more it will cost.

CapelDodger

28th October 2009, 05:36 PM

I agree completely. I see it as a cyclic movement whereby warm water sort of ‘piles up’ then spreads out.

It's more a cycle between warm water piling up in one region and in another. It's unlike El Nino in that regard, and is probably why it doesn't have nearly as strong a global signal (if any at all).

Meaningless other than the requirement to understand it for modelling purposes. Actually scratch that, we don’t need to understand it, we just need to be able to predict it with some degree of accuracy.

If we understand it we may realise we can disregard it. Given that there's no strong global signal it's very likely we can disregard it. After all, nobody thought it terribly important before the usual suspects turned it up.

Oh and there’s some suggestion the cycle times are decreasing because of AGW but that’s pretty much pure speculation.

Given how little data we have and how little work has been done on the phaenomenon there's nothing but speculation.

How did we get here from upsides and downsides? :)

macdoc

28th October 2009, 06:00 PM

There must be more vertical convection given the change in heat load in the ocean.
But what?? :boggled::con2:

DogB

28th October 2009, 07:16 PM

It's more a cycle between warm water piling up in one region and in another. It's unlike El Nino in that regard, and is probably why it doesn't have nearly as strong a global signal (if any at all).

The pattern is a little more complicated than cold/hot east/west. It now seems fairly certain that ‘warm’ PDO phase amplifies the strength of El Nino and attenuates La Nina (and obviously the ‘cool’ phase does the opposite). If nothing else that will have some effect on long term averages.

If we understand it we may realise we can disregard it. Given that there's no strong global signal it's very likely we can disregard it. After all, nobody thought it terribly important before the usual suspects turned it up.

It's hard to explain the ‘77 regime change without it.

Given how little data we have and how little work has been done on the phaenomenon there's nothing but speculation.

True, but our arsenal of sensors grows all the time now. In the last 20 years we’ve probably learned more about the way our climate works than in all of human history before.

How did we get here from upsides and downsides? :)

My fault. :redface1

macdoc

28th October 2009, 07:18 PM

If nothing else that will have some effect on long term averages.

How could that possibly be - it's not a forcing.

DogB

28th October 2009, 07:35 PM

How could that possibly be - it's not a forcing.

It doesn't have to be. If the El Ninos are bigger and more frequent then the average SST will increase. AGW is the forcing, El Nino is the symptom.

macdoc

28th October 2009, 07:49 PM

Uh no - AGW is the forcing and driving the heat content up - hotter El Nino are an excursion of a warming geosystem.

ENSO is not driving the average up...AGW is....

It's still only pooling, just off a hotter baseload.

DogB

28th October 2009, 08:07 PM

Sometimes I find your posts difficult to parse but didn’t you just say ‘Uh no’ then proceed to agree exactly with what I had said?

Trakar

28th October 2009, 08:13 PM

The new balance of conditions might be one where human life SUCKS though. Do we want that?

Certainly don't want it, but I'm don't think our wants will have much impact on the situation. I mean, don't get me wrong, by all means we should all do as much as we can to minimize what is already occurring, I just don't think that our efforts will stop, much less reverse what has already been set in motion.

macdoc

28th October 2009, 08:16 PM

macdoc

28th October 2009, 08:23 PM

Certainly don't want it, but I'm don't think our wants will have much impact on the situation. I mean, don't get me wrong, by all means we should all do as much as we can to minimize what is already occurring, I just don't think that our efforts will stop, much less reverse what has already been set in motion.

Faint hope on reversal or stopping as what is in the pipeline is a done deal.

Curving the top off is feasible....

China came out pretty hard....

China has not voiced objection to the long-term objective to keep temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), he added.

Mechanical extraction IS possible tho.....

The nations responsible for the great bulk of emissions have the technology to get to low carbon in 3 decades and perhaps pull it down in 6.

Will power???

China has the warchest, the will and the vision and desire to make money on it.....sigh - sometimes command economies...

and all their engineers are heading home to make money......
China has to clean up quickly or smother and they are very very good at making money off of advanced technology.....and slicing a chunk off the $7 trillion a year fossil fuel industry is a tempting target.

Not to mention energy security.

We had what, 3 bilateral climate deals announced this week with India China and US and that's BEFORE Copenhagen even convenes.

Trakar

28th October 2009, 08:28 PM

TS
why was S02 and CFC dealt with ??

Huge difference of scale across the range of the situation.

No question the climate is altered for the next thousands of years and there is at least another .6 degrees in the pipeline but at some point civilization has to go carbon neutral or low carbon and there is simply no reason not to get on with it.

If 0.6 degrees C were all that were in the pipeline, I wouldn't be near so concerned. If we could wave a magic wand and completely stop all of humanity's CO2 emissions today, the temps will continue to rise for centuries. Albeitly at a slower rate. And we've got a lot of feedbacks that are at or beyond their trigger points now, and some of these are capable of doubling (or more) the impacts we have made so far.

And that's the good news, the bad news is that we don't have anything like a magic wand in the works.

Fatalism serves no one.....:garfield:

It isn't fatalism, merely pragmatic realism.

Aussie Thinker

28th October 2009, 08:30 PM

DogB

Completely wrong. Like it or not generation of energy using non renewables is not sustainable in the long run. The things we need to do to fix this problem are inevitable requirements of our continued existence on this planet.

We might as well do them now while we have a little time to get it right. Every economic analysis I’ve seen indicates that the longer we take to make a decision the more it will cost.

Sure for us snug and warm (or cool) in our Western economies it will probably be “relatively” easy to shift gears.

It will be devastating for those in emerging economies who cannot access cheap energy.

I am not against shifting energy sources.. probably a necessity (although not in the doomsayers timeframe).

Man almost always finds a gradual sustainable way.. lets not kill 50 million Africans to alleviate a problem that may not exist !

Aussie Thinker

28th October 2009, 08:32 PM

Macdoc, I have to ask you something.

Was there ever a time in your life when you weren’t doomed ?.. and were you happy then ?

DogB

28th October 2009, 08:44 PM

DogB

No I didn't say what you said.

Here is a summary again

AGW is driving the heat gain.
El Nino is just an excursion on an inclined plane - it is not driving the average
ONLY AGW drives the average up.

Think about it for a moment.

No you think about it.

Forget the baseline for a moment – image a situation where we get a phase characterised by larger and more frequent El Nino events and smaller and less frequent La Nina events. This is then followed by a phase where the situation is exactly reversed.

In the first phase the average will kick up, in the second it will kick down. The slope of this cycle will depend greatly on the time period over which you are averaging the data. If the time period begins to approach the ‘wavelength’ of your cycle and at the same time the total length of the ‘phases’ approaches to time period over which the AGW baseline effect has been active, then it becomes difficult to disentangle the effects.

As lomiller pointed out pages ago, over time the total effect of AGW will eventually increase to the point where such effects are not significant. Personally I’m not yet convinced we’ve reached that point.

Trakar

28th October 2009, 08:48 PM

We had what, 3 bilateral climate deals announced this week with India China and US and that's BEFORE Copenhagen even convenes.

And there's a reason for that.

I hope you are right,
I would love to wrong about this, but so far, I just don't see anything like the understanding, yet alone the will and drive to accomplish what all needs to be accomplished to dramatically cut down the top end, yet alone provide a smooth ride.

Personally, I see somewhere between 4-6o C as a very likely result by 2100

DogB

28th October 2009, 08:51 PM

DogB

Sure for us snug and warm (or cool) in our Western economies it will probably be “relatively” easy to shift gears.

It will be devastating for those in emerging economies who cannot access cheap energy.

I am not against shifting energy sources.. probably a necessity (although not in the doomsayers timeframe).

Man almost always finds a gradual sustainable way.. lets not kill 50 million Africans to alleviate a problem that may not exist !

Who said anything about Africa. I'm proposing we bear the burden of developing the technology. It’s only fair; we’ve reaped the benefits of the economic advantages that fossil fuels bring. The third world will naturally follow along when there’s a financial reason to do so.

When the total lifespan costs for a solar/thermal power plant matches or betters that for an equivalent coal fired power station then the battle is won.

BenBurch

28th October 2009, 09:14 PM

Macdoc, I have to ask you something.

Was there ever a time in your life when you weren’t doomed ?.. and were you happy then ?

He's not doomed. Neither am I. We are both sufficiently old that what is about to happen will see us in our graves.

So, you can go dream up some other imagined reason that we care about this issue.

macdoc

28th October 2009, 09:19 PM

TS
I hope you are right,
I would love to wrong about this, but so far, I just don't see anything like the understanding, yet alone the will and drive to accomplish what all needs to be accomplished to dramatically cut down the top end, yet alone provide a smooth ride.

Personally, I see somewhere between 4-6o C as a very likely result by 2100

I agree - but it's hellishly - pardon the pun - better than 10 which MIT gives a 5% chance.

IF we hold it to 4 - that means the curve will have flattened.

BAU gives 4 as early as 2055.

It is NOT going to be a smooth ride, it will be an interesting ride.
I have no doubt of China's will, resources and over riding "must do".

US has actually done okay in sectors.....needs to target coal big time.

Europe is on track anyway as is Japan. Sweden and France far along to carbon neutral.

India will need help and without a command economy or a large warchest - plus the hampering of democratic process..hard to do.

That said - they have brilliant scientists and are gung ho on nuclear and must get into desalination big time.

Oddly Cuba, out of sheer necessity is a model for poor nations to lower fossil dependence.

Don't get me wrong....I'm only cautiously optmistic and think we should look at was IS being accomplished rather than the size of the hill to climb.

Things like the LEEDs Platinum head office for Bank of America, Google's efforts and Portland's total green city program - all positives.

Faint hope but not hopeless.....:garfield:

macdoc

28th October 2009, 09:28 PM

AT ..doomed....

Piss off with the puerile pop psych.

It's blinkered ill-informed attitudes like yours that slow dealing with the issues.
Luckily policy maker and the climate science community have your ilk on ignore as Copenhagen shows

Have you even bothered to read the Synthesis report ??
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport/

...honest inquirer ...yeah right :rolleyes:??.

We have the capability to have all the comforts we have now on low or no carbon...does that sound like doom.
I have part of it now....I will have more of it soon as EV vehicles reach maturity.

Bit of maturity is sorely lacking in the denier cadre around here...:garfield:

Aussie Thinker

28th October 2009, 10:00 PM

Macdoc

AT ..doomed....

Piss off with the puerile pop psych.

It's blinkered ill-informed attitudes like yours that slow dealing with the issues.
Luckily policy maker and the climate science community have your ilk on ignore as Copenhagen shows

Have you even bothered to read the Synthesis report ??
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport/

...honest inquirer ...yeah right ??.

We have the capability to have all the comforts we have now on low or no carbon...does that sound like doom.
I have part of it now....I will have more of it soon as EV vehicles reach maturity.

Bit of maturity is sorely lacking in the denier cadre around here

Well I admit I was trying to push your button a little (soz) it just seems so easy to push !

As far as lacking maturity.. Its mainly from the warmer fraternity that we get the terms, ill-informed, piss off, dim witted, puerile, etc etc.

If you have an honest look at the approaches around here the only ones that come off as sensible to the layman are the “questioners”.

The full on warmers are almost incoherent.. and just post a gazillion links to stuff that all says the same basic thing.. that is we can find no natural cause for our overestimates of GW so man is to blame. And we are doomed

The full on deniers also get a bit carried away… lets face there is no way that many scientists are completely wrong or part of a giant conspiracy. And there is NO problem.

The questioners on the other hand seem to calmly say.. this AGW stuff doesn’t make sense as it is presented to me. And I think DOOM is a little overstaed.

Trakar

28th October 2009, 11:02 PM

TS

I agree - but it's hellishly - pardon the pun - better than 10 which MIT gives a 5% chance.
IF we hold it to 4 - that means the curve will have flattened.

BAU gives 4 as early as 2055..

Got linkee? I was thinking that those estimates were F not C?

It is NOT going to be a smooth ride, it will be an interesting ride.
I have no doubt of China's will, resources and over riding "must do".

US has actually done okay in sectors.....needs to target coal big time.

Europe is on track anyway as is Japan. Sweden and France far along to carbon neutral.

India will need help and without a command economy or a large warchest - plus the hampering of democratic process..hard to do.

That said - they have brilliant scientists and are gung ho on nuclear and must get into desalination big time.

Oddly Cuba, out of sheer necessity is a model for poor nations to lower fossil dependence.

Don't get me wrong....I'm only cautiously optmistic and think we should look at was IS being accomplished rather than the size of the hill to climb.

Things like the LEEDs Platinum head office for Bank of America, Google's efforts and Portland's total green city program - all positives.

Faint hope but not hopeless.....:garfield:

Oh, don't get me wrong, all of these steps are definite positives, I just see them as more adaptive measures than true mitigation and reversal steps.

macdoc

29th October 2009, 03:58 AM

Trakar

29th October 2009, 10:55 AM

TS - OOPS
You are correct - body of the article was talking F while the graphic is in C.. :boggled:

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/05/25/mit-scholars-say-climate-change-is-going-to-be-twice-as-extreme/

•••

Mitigation for me means moving off BAU.

No way in hell for reversal.

Mostly agreed, I just see us being moved off BAU more by Mother Nature, than by free will decisions and actions. Reversals may or may not someday become possible (part of becoming a true level one Civilization) I just think we aren't going to get there in time to save the current civilization structure. May provide great and real stimulus for off-world exploration and exploitation, however, so if we are looking for a silver lining to AGW, I might settle on that.

macdoc

29th October 2009, 04:30 PM

That depends a bit on "moved off".

To a degree China is already forced into that situation and India is soon to follow.

If you mass depopulation ala

How bad could it be...

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/scientist-warming-could-cut-population-to-1-billion/

Then I disagree in the near term - say 40 years.

Beyond that BAU with population peak and water scarcity gets pretty dire.

Even California is to some degree being "forced".

You anticipate a climate driven dark ages??.....can't see a tech oasis like say Japan ever in those straits.
Japan is over the population hump and becomes more and more sustainable all the time.

A big time virulent disease might create the conditions.

CapelDodger

29th October 2009, 07:24 PM

The pattern is a little more complicated than cold/hot east/west. It now seems fairly certain that ‘warm’ PDO phase amplifies the strength of El Nino and attenuates La Nina (and obviously the ‘cool’ phase does the opposite). If nothing else that will have some effect on long term averages.

Hang on, I'm the one who does "conclusions". You're "fairly certain" from such paltry evidence is more than equivalent. Correlation is not causation. The PDO may merely be a side-effect of whatever drives ENSO and cycles that do muscle their way in demanding an explanation. Eddy currents in the main flow.

It's hard to explain the ‘77 regime change without it.

It's a heroic task to explain it with it. What about the confounding factors of Clean Air legislation and AGW? The 70's energy crisis?

True, but our arsenal of sensors grows all the time now. In the last 20 years we’ve probably learned more about the way our climate works than in all of human history before.

The most silvery lining is the way attention (and funding) has been brought to our great oceans, which are more mysterious to us than some of Jupiter's frickin' moons. The upside of the "more research is needed" policy is that it had to stump up for some actual research. Aussies have been doing sterling service in that regard.

CapelDodger

29th October 2009, 07:31 PM

He's not doomed. Neither am I. We are both sufficiently old that what is about to happen will see us in our graves.

Me too. I'm kicking back and watching it unfold.

macdoc

29th October 2009, 08:08 PM

In my carbon neutral powered house...me too....kicking back in the hot tub no less. :D

DogB

29th October 2009, 08:20 PM

Hang on, I'm the one who does "conclusions". You're "fairly certain" from such paltry evidence is more than equivalent. Correlation is not causation.

There’s lots of papers supporting the proposition but I’m basing my sureness on something I read from the Indian monsoon prediction service. Never bet against an Indian weatherman, you’ll do you dough every time.

The PDO may merely be a side-effect of whatever drives ENSO and cycles that do muscle their way in demanding an explanation.

Sure, that’s possible. Either way the effect seems real enough.

Eddy currents in the main flow.

Does he?

It's a heroic task to explain it with it.

Are you claiming otherwise? This might well be the first time in our debates that you’re the one going against the scientific consensus. Good for you! ;)

What about the confounding factors of Clean Air legislation and AGW?

Various countries cleaned up their acts at various times - the UK did much of their work in the late 50’s; China and India are just getting started.

The 70's energy crisis?

There was a real drop in oil consumption in the right period but coal and gas usage continued to increase unabated over the same period. The graph of total emissions shows a very slight dip for 5 or 6 years then the acceleration continues as before.

The most silvery lining is the way attention (and funding) has been brought to our great oceans, which are more mysterious to us than some of Jupiter's frickin' moons.

Amen to that brother.

The upside of the "more research is needed" policy is that it had to stump up for some actual research.

Pure research is never wasted money.

Aussies have been doing sterling service in that regard.

Aussies are a little odd in that we do hardly any private sector R&D yet we have a very well funded government scientific organisation. Means we do some ‘pure’ research but the lion’s share goes into protecting and increasing our primary industries. We’d be doing a lot less work on the oceans if fish weren’t so tasty.

DogB

29th October 2009, 08:23 PM

In my carbon neutral powered house...me too....kicking back in the hot tub no less. :D

How do you generate power?

I'm currently investigating options - at the moment I'm very interested in a solar system that will actually stick some power back into the grid (mainly so that if my next car is a plug in electric I'll have some spare generation capacity).

macdoc

29th October 2009, 08:32 PM

There was a real drop in oil consumption in the right period but coal and gas usage continued to increase unabated over the same period. The graph of total emissions shows a very slight dip for 5 or 6 years then the acceleration continues as before.

I think you miss the very significant S02 situation.

S02 offset warming until the major cleanup - S02 reduces solar radiation incoming....as we see easily with volcanoes.

So total emissions is misleading as any indicator as it depends on the nature of those emissions.

I'd been bugging Gavin about what impact China and India were having both with S02 and aerosols.

Those super carriers chugging back and forth across the Pacific are burning high sulphur bunker fuel and pumping out the equivalent of two Pinatubos a year.

Some 80% gets washed out but 20% does reach the stratosphere.

Solar radiation reaching the ground in some parts of China is down as much as 25% due to aerosols.

The SE Asian brown cloud no doubt has an impact but it perhaps is as mcuh a negative forcing as a positive one.

CO2 is always and cumulatively positive and sticks around.

S02 is generally negative and thick aerosols somewhat negative until they hit the cryosphere and then they go positive.

methane......urk....all those bubbles are bad bad news...25 x the impact of C02 but short lived.
Downside?? there is multiples of the current carbon load of the atmosphere that could be released....

PDO in my view has local affect and a big effect on biological eco systems.

In climate change tho - it's just shoving heat markers around.

macdoc

29th October 2009, 08:46 PM

How do you generate power?

I'm currently investigating options - at the moment I'm very interested in a solar system that will actually stick some power back into the grid (mainly so that if my next car is a plug in electric I'll have some spare generation capacity).I don't - I pay a small premium to source from Bullfrog power.

Once in the grid electrons are electrons - the extra funding flows to them for more wind towers.

Ontario is committed to upping the percentage of green sourced.

http://www.bullfrogpower.com/

It's a small contribution but gets favourable comments from clients - biz and home are combined and we suck power due to the computers and I like my conveniences.

I support off grid and a few clients are there already up in the boonies but I'd rather pool resources for a wind farm ala Bullfrog approach..
Even Walmart has bought in and it is becoming the "thing to do" for many businesses and municipalities.

I also support retrofitting big time -but again at the ROI level for multiple dwellings and towers where 40% reduction in energy use has a payback on the 4-5 years range.
GE and Siemens have significant businesses in this and will boom once carbon taxes become a reality.

Frankly Ontario with 40% hydro and 30% nuclear is pretty green anyway but relaxing in the hot tub I can know I"m not leaving a 100k year legacy for my soaking.

I use as much electrical -= lawn mower, etc and will move to EV when practical without my having to create my own green source.

I have a gas furnace but A/c is electrical and the heat from the Macs keeps the house toasty 90% of the time without the furnace.

Do what i can without breaking the bank.
Pragmatic.

Just pissed the province hasn't built another nuke to lose the last remaining coal plant - it's ot on very often but the damn thing is the largest single C02 source in North America...:boggled:

Time to end that. It is due to be closed in 2014 - it was supposed to be closed already.:(

I use LED lights and the kids love this campaign with the suggestive stickers beside every light.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture17-1.jpg
http://www.flickoff.org/goflickyourself?page=3

So what I save in being a bit prudent offsets the extra cost of the Bullfrog Power.

I've saved about half the typical Canadian carbon footprint and given I work from home it's a pretty green program with not a lot of cost.

I have one client in the green industry that runs a 15,000 sq ft light industrial operation and office on about $500 of power a month....

They are reallllllly good. The purpose built the building and use geo-thermal hVac

Trakar

29th October 2009, 09:09 PM

You anticipate a climate driven dark ages??

Actually, yeah that's pretty close, not so much a total stagnation/decline, but much that effect overall. A few bright pockets, but lots of general darkness.

DogB

29th October 2009, 09:11 PM

I think you miss the very significant S02 situation.

I didn't miss it. I ignored it.

S02 offset warming until the major cleanup

What major clean up? The Acid Rain Act? The Sulphur Emissions Reduction Protocol?

China, Malaysian, Indonesia, India – these are the countries we need to talk about if we’re going to discuss sulphur dioxide.

This graph is getting a little old now but the situation hasn’t changed for the better. Last firm figures I saw – China alone is now producing more SO2 than the US did in 1980.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9284aea659ba43dd.gif

DogB

29th October 2009, 09:16 PM

I don't - I pay a small premium to source from Bullfrog power.

OK. We have a similar system over here but I don't trust it. I think it's going to be a long time before this country generates base power in any other way than burning coal. Besides, I live in a place where air conditioning is pretty much manditory for about 6 months of the year - and I can see a time coming where personal power generation might be the only way to get cool air.

Trakar

29th October 2009, 09:18 PM

In my carbon neutral powered house...me too....kicking back in the hot tub no less. :D

Well, I already sell back much more power than I use, and more than 90% of everything my family consumes, we produce, or personally know the people who do. So provided internet linkage remains available, we should be able to continue to add some commentary to the events as they unfold.

macdoc

29th October 2009, 09:27 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/acid-rain-pollution-halved-in-15-years-621510.html

.....

What's not to "trust"? :boggled:

Pooling resources to get a green source is pretty straight forward....

A/C is easier than heating and top notch insulation and clever airflow can reduce the load.

I'd do that plus purchase green rather than trying my own power system unless you have a high feed in tariff.

One key for us is the LEDs really keep the house cool.

I can light an entire works space on 6 watts.

DogB

29th October 2009, 11:09 PM

What's not to "trust"? :boggled:

Right now there's no formal designation on what is considered 'green power'. You have to remember we've just come out of an 11 year period where the government of this country didn't believe AGW was real. We're about a decade behind you on green initiatives.

Besides, this is Australia, we have a lot of sunlight. A 2kw system will pay itself off in about 3 years if I’ve done my sums correctly.

macdoc

30th October 2009, 12:01 AM

Pretty quick but I'm assuming you are staying hooked to the grid as backup?

Trakar

30th October 2009, 12:41 PM

Pretty quick but I'm assuming you are staying hooked to the grid as backup?

Initially, I considered the grid to be a backup in case I had problems. Now, a couple of years in, I consider the grid a revenue source. I'm seriously considering adding some additional capacity to enhance the income. I've got a couple of warm springs on the property and am considering investigation of the geothermal potential here. Even a small geothermal baseline capacity would allow me to sell a lot more of my PV generation as I wouldn't have to use so much recharging my night-time use batteries.

macdoc

30th October 2009, 01:26 PM

Trakar

30th October 2009, 03:27 PM

Oh yeah using a geo-thermal Hvac makes all sorts of sense and since you are already hooked into the grid why bother with batteries. Just sell them the excess as an offset to the little you use.
Skip the batteries altogether

Current PV system needs the battery backup to cover nighttime usage. I use a lot of power, it is a functional (if small) farm/ranch with a handful of dispersed guest cottages that are rented out during the more temperate part of the year (April -November here in SW Oregon). I wasn't really thinking of a full-fledged geo-power station, just something to take over the trickle-charging of the battery system during the day, and supplementing the battery system at night. That should allow me to reduce the size of the battery system and allow me to send more of the PV overage back into the grid, generating more revenue.

macdoc

30th October 2009, 04:18 PM

When I say geo-thermal I'm just suggesting HVAC ground loop

Trakar

30th October 2009, 04:51 PM

When I say geo-thermal I'm just suggesting HVAC ground loop

Ah,...missed that initially, focussed on other issues. Yeah, ground loop systems make a lot of sense. Don't use much AC, and the heating is largely handled through design and a combination of thermal mass and very good insulation though we do have a few electric-mat subfloor systems and several woodburning area-heat systems for the occassional deep chill situation that overwhelms design in the main house, the shop, the barn, and couple of the cabins (friends and family like to use them in the winter when they visit). Perhaps when (if?) the economy picks up a bit I'll look at a remodel to include such a system!

DogB

1st November 2009, 03:52 PM

Pretty quick but I'm assuming you are staying hooked to the grid as backup?

Absolutely. I use a lot of power for various reasons but my peak use times and peak generation times will not match. Fortunately my peak generation times do match the peak use times for the overall grid, so the power will be purchased from me in one way or another (waiting on parliament to decide the exact process).

I expect generate a considerable excess (perhaps 7kwh per day) during daylight hours – some of which I will buy back during the night. Just a curious point you might be interested in – I expect to generate much greater excesses during winter. Daylight hours in summer are far greater but summer is our wet season so rainy days are far more frequent and air conditioning is by far my greatest power demand. Winter is cool with clear days, perfect generating weather.

Wangler

1st November 2009, 11:13 PM

Those super carriers chugging back and forth across the Pacific are burning high sulphur bunker fuel and pumping out the equivalent of two Pinatubos a year.

These numbers seem off...

...two Pinatubos would be 40 million tons of SO2 per year...

In 2000, the global shipping fleet put out 12 million tons of SO2 burning 280 million tons of bunker oil....

Estimates for global fleet annual consumption in 2020 are on the order of 400 million tons, which would likely still leave SO2 output well below two Pinatubos.

macdoc

2nd November 2009, 04:17 AM

I think you are using old figures but yes I over stated the ratio against Pinatubo which was huge -

I recall the conversation with Gavin was two volcanoes worth each year - rather than 2 Pinatubos -
I found the release a shockingly high number given the low profile of shipping as a global factor in pollution....and one would think targetting the largest container ships plodding across the Pacific would give good results.

Wednesday, 10 October 2007

New research suggests that the impact of shipping on climate change has been seriously underestimated and that the industry is currently churning out greenhouse gases at nearly twice the rate of aviation.

Shipping, although traditionally thought of as environmentally friendly, is growing so fast that the pollution it creates is at least 50 per cent higher than previously thought. Maritime emissions are also set to leap by 75 per cent by 2020.

The International Maritime Organisation, the UN body set up to regulate shipping, has set up a working group due to report this year. Research seen by the group suggests previous calculations, which put the total at about 600 million tonnes per year, are signifi-cantly short. The true figure is set to be more than one billion tonnes, according to a confidential report produced for the IMO by Intertanko, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners.

In comparison, aviation produces an estimated 650 million tonnes. The old figures were based on 2001 estimates, but shipping has grown by 4.5 per cent on average annually.