More and more likely that double CO2 means <2°C: New study The results of a new approach to calculating the effect of CO2 - using empirical observations - suggest it has a lower impact on the climate than previously thought, and its effects are being over-estimated by the IPCC. Publishing in the American Meterological Society's Journal of Climate, a new paper called An improved, …
I'm very surprised however that GCM's don't use actual data from actual weather stations historical records as seeds for the start of a run.
As in all things climate related it's not just the worst case but the probability of that case (and them most likely value) that matter, and probability density functions in this case do not seem to be the nice bell curve beloved of mathmaticians.
They don't, on both counts.
GCMs attempt to do something called hindcasting. They set up the inputs the way they were at a point in time in the past and then run the model forward attempting to simulate past climate. When doing this they don't take the temperature from, say, Geenwhich and another from Heathrow as inputs. Instead they will use a gridded dataset such as GISS or HADCRUT. These datasets take the data from individual weather stations and apply multiple adjustments before using them to calculate the temperature of a gridcell.
The GCM's never see the data from an actual weather station.
"GCMs attempt to do something called hindcasting. They set up the inputs the way they were at a point in time in the past and then run the model forward attempting to simulate past climate. When doing this they don't take the temperature from, say, Geenwhich and another from Heathrow as inputs. Instead they will use a gridded dataset such as GISS or HADCRUT. These datasets take the data from individual weather stations and apply multiple adjustments before using them to calculate the temperature of a gridcell."
I suspected it was something like this but reading the article certainly did not give that impression. A lucid explanation Mr (or Ms) AC.
It's still odd to me that model grids are not aligned to weather station locations. Obviously some of them have moved over time (possibly by quite a lot) but some of them should have stayed more or less in the same place. Yes I am aware of the "heat island" effect.
Well done for a sensible article, especially this:
"Very few people disagree with the basic fact that the greenhouse gas CO2 warms the climate"
It's equally stupid to deny greenhouse effect, which is pretty basic physics, as it is to project remote worst-case scenarios as being likely / guaranteed, and then run around panicking like chicken little tinking the sky is falling on your head.
No one has ever denied that CO2 affects climate: that was an invented slur by the warmists.
The argument was always whether it was
1/. Detectably relevant
2/. If (1/.) in any way man made.
3/. If (1/. and 2/.) serious enough to warrant political action.
The answer to 1/. appear to be 'probably, just'
The answer to 2/. appears to be 'probably, just'
The answer to 3/. appears to be, 'no not really'
And by the way, the answer is NOT basic physics. Its very complicated physics, as there are many many feedbacks inherent in the system,
Not the least of which complexities, is that what we as a species are most concerned about is surface temperature, sunlight and rainfall, because that drives agricultural policies. And sea levels.. We don't actually care if the stratosphere suddenly warms two degrees in isolation because we don't live there.
ALL of the consensus is now shifting from 'stop emitting at any cost' towards 'be prepared for slow gradual changes in the ecosphere, whose outcome we cant actually predict with any certainty whatsoever'.
I.e. all the money wasted on CO2 reductions is ...er money wasted on CO2 reduction.
WE have a far more serious problem in that we are running out of CHEAP primary energy sources, and 'renewable energy' so called hasn't a cat's chance in hell of replacing it
The only actual hope is transition to a nuclear electric society, and that in itself is a bugger of a problem.
"We know this because our emissions are *larger* than the atmospheric CO2 increase."
Which proves there are other processes at work that neutralise man-made emissions. It doesn't prove that there aren't other processes that also release CO2 that are also being partially neutralised by these processes.
Greenhouse gasses certainly aren't ZERO towards global warming.
The major question is...
How much do they contribute? How much value is there in significant efforts to reduce it? How sure are we that NOTHING else contributes to the observed warming?
This Euro-Zeitgeist needs these answers before we follow it into the woods...
The other day my daughter aged 10 came to me saying: I'm glad I won't live for a hundred year. Why? I asked her. "Because the world is going to be destroyed by CO2 and we won't have anything to eat and the land will be flooded by the sea and it will be terrible". "Don't worry about the CO2" I told her. "When I was 10 years old (more than 30 years ago), I was coming home from school scared and telling my parents that we were soon going to have another ice age, everything would be freezing cold, we were all going to die, and on top of that, the oxygen and the water would be running out soon anyway. Plus the Chinese were going to invade any moment. The things they teach kids in school, eh! No wonder education is compulsory.
At 2C per doubling of CO2, even 1.5C, the problem is less, but still exists. It doesn't limit us to 2C warming because we aren't limited to only doubling CO2. Doubling would mean elevating CO2 level to 560ppm (compared to the preindustrial 280ppm level). But there's enough coal, oil, shale gas and other proven reserves of fossil fuels to lift CO2 much higher than 560ppm. Possibly even above 1000ppm. On top of that are other greenhouse gases like methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexaflouride which are also increasing. Bit players, but they still add on the equivalent of a few hundred ppm CO2 in the end.
I would guess that business as usual would be capable of leading to at least do two doublings of CO2 (to 1120ppm), which even if we assume 1.5C warming per doubling means 3C warming.
To put that in context, global temperature of the last 10,000 years is thought to have been varied within a range of 1C.
It would be nice to at least have some acknowledgement from the climate skeptics that these numbers make CO2 the primary driver of climate. It can no longer be thought as some irrelevant bit player when the warming it produces is greater than historical variations.
@Nom - true, and we should not be complacent about the issue, rather, we should be able to take steps that are proportional to the problem. For example, reducing methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexaflouride are easier wins than cutting down CO2. Fracking is being championed as produsing gas that reduces dependency on coal and reduces CO2, but also releases a lot of methane, and depending on how well-sealed or not th eweel is, can produce a worse overall effect.
We need on work on reducing total greenhouse effect, instead of concentrating only on CO2
At an increase of 2ppm/year (which is what it is at the moment) it will take 80 years to reach 560ppm and 300 years to reach 1000ppm. If you want to use an accelerating increase of CO2 then that looks to be 1ppm/40 years which means it will take 59 years to reach 560ppm and 153 to reach 1000ppm. The indications are that the Western countries that have already industrialised have plateaued (fallen in the USA) with their output of CO2 and the same should happen with China. It is unlikely to take China (the main culprit) more than a few decades to fully industrialise which means that any acceleration should stop and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere level off well below 1000ppm (and probably below 560ppm).
> To put that in context, global temperature of the last 10,000 years is thought to have been varied within a range of 1C.
Depends entirely upon which reconstruction you use. One thing most of them agree on is that most of the past 10,000 years were warmer than today. Another problem with the reconstructions is the resolution. Nearly all are low resolution which results in the peaks and troughs being smoothed and leads to narrowing of the temperature range. Other proxies, such as ice cores, have problems with diffusion which will also level out the peaks and troughs.
> It would be nice to at least have some acknowledgement from the climate skeptics that these numbers make CO2 the primary driver of climate. It can no longer be thought as some irrelevant bit player when the warming it produces is greater than historical variations.
The only evidence CO2 is the primary driver is in the GCM's. It might turn out to be a primary driver but so far there is no proof of that. The longer the hiatus in temperature increase goes on, the smaller the role of CO2.
The problem is that we really just don't know. ISTR it was a Dutch scientist a while ago who worked out that CO2 in the atmosphere allows the Earth to hold on to heat energy from the sun. It was other people who said that there was a massive positive feedback mechanism, and quoted all sorts of things that would cause temperature to spiral to Venus like levels and perhaps lead would melt on the surface on the planet, like at Venus.
However, people have done scientific studies on the individual statements of how the positive feedback works, and found that not all of them were positive. The problem is that we really have no idea. If the Earth has had a climate with global temperatures with 1°C for 10,000 years, then perhaps we should wonder if there are a number of negative fedbacks.
For me, I think the climate models are like a drunken walk home. Heading generally in the right direction, with corrections added every few months as more knowledge about affects on the climate are known. Generally we are heading towards a more accurate model, but it seems at any particular time we might be heading away from the correct route. As long as people recognise this, and devote energy into improving our knowledge that is OK. But to put e.g. 95% on a model based on guesswork because we don't know yet, which then gets presented as 95% fact in the press or to politicians without stating what it assumes/ignores is dangerous IMHO.
@nomnomnomnomnomnomnom
I think that the relationship between CO2 and its direct heating effect is logarithmic, so the base rise expected from the second doubling of CO2 will be much much less than the second. What feedback will add to it, who knows?
You ask sceptics to accept that co2 is the main driver of warming. I'm not prepared to do that until there's more research that provides a better quantification of anthropogenic effects such as land use change, aerosols and soot pollution as well as some other non anthropogenic causes like cloud formation. Once we have more reliable data for these, then I'd be happy to accept that we know exactly what's going on with the climate system.
It is becoming apparent that we were misled during the late 90s and the early part of this century. A lot of people made predictions that have been shown to be false. We were *assured* that the science was settled and government policy changed as a result. Well, now we that that the science isn't settled.
When someone produces a verifiable explanation for the divergence of measured surface and tropospheric temperatures from model predictions I will be more impressed. Then, someone will also have to explain to me why, when the science was settled, we need this new explanation at all...
multi-response follows
>>"Depends entirely upon which reconstruction you use. One thing most of them agree on is that most of the past 10,000 years were warmer than today"
I only know of one reconstruction and temperature records from ice cores. Both suggest most of the past 10,000 were cooler than today.
>>"I think that the relationship between CO2 and its direct heating effect is logarithmic, so the base rise expected from the second doubling of CO2 will be much much less than the second."
Warming being the same for the first and second doubling IS logarithmic.
>>"The only evidence CO2 is the primary driver is in the GCM's."
This study that reports a "90 per cent confidence in a range of 1.2°C to 2.2°C" per doubling of CO2. There was less than 1C warming over the 20th century so a substantial part of that warming must have been due to the CO2 rise according to this study. Given everyone seems to agree CO2 levels are going to at least double, it means the study is saying humans will be responsible for at least 1.2°C to 2.2°C warming. That would mean human CO2 emissions are the dominating driver of global temperature over this period.
The question is do skeptics really accept this study or not.
well if I were to say to you that are obese fat and sugar guzzling society has in fact a life expectancy double the Victorian age, would you then accept that high levels of consumption of fat and sugar were in fact the 'primary drivers of increased longevity'?
If not then you are using precisely the same logic.
> I only know of one reconstruction and temperature records from ice cores. Both suggest most of the past 10,000 were cooler than today.I only know of one reconstruction and temperature records from ice cores. Both suggest most of the past 10,000 were cooler than today.
Which one? There are many of them. Which cores did they use? NorthGRIP, GISP2, Dye 3, EPICA, Dome F, Vostok, Dome C? Please point to the paper that the reconstruction is from.
> This study that reports a "90 per cent confidence in a range of 1.2°C to 2.2°C" per doubling of CO2.
That range is dependant on the MIT 2D model
Skeptic 1: "EPIC FAIL. These numbers are obtained by ASSUMING that CO2 is the primary driver of climate."
Skeptic 2: "That range is dependant on the MIT 2D model"
This is an interesting bit of climate debate psychology. The above quotes are from climate skeptics throwing this study under the bus. Strange all round the internet I see skeptics promoting this study, so what's happened here?
Answer is that the study provides a RANGE "90 per cent confidence in a range of 1.2°C to 2.2°C" per doubling of CO2. Climate skeptics are keen to promote that upper limit as evidence warming is less than thought. For example this article is titled "More and more likely that double CO2 means <2°C: New study". That's perfectly valid.
But what about the unspoken lower limit of that range? Couldn't we write a similar headline "More and more likely that double CO2 means >1.4°C: New study". Yes we could, because the paper provides a range, not a single limit. If the study is evidence for the upper range, it's also evidence for the lower.
But, skeptics are loathe to accept there's any evidence for a substantial lower limit, because the implications of a lower limit of eg 1.4C is that human CO2 emissions are driving global temperature and recent warming is largely human CO2 caused.
So the reaction is to attack the study. Which is odd because they never attacked the study when the upper limit was being promoted! What they want is to be able to go around claiming doubling CO2 could just as likely have a negligible tiny irrelevant effect (eg ~0.1C) on global temperature. They don't want to have to accept there's evidence that CO2 (in the modern day) is the driver.
EPIC FAIL. These numbers are obtained by ASSUMING that CO2 is the primary driver of climate.
If for example some hitherto unknown thing is driving climate, like cloud cover and so on, it makes CO2 a minor player of no significance whatsoever in the grand scheme of things.
If for example, the earth surface temps are controlled largely by a negative feedback of water vapour convection and clouds, then sensitivity to CO2 might be less than half a degree, and what is more relevant is anything that affects that feedback system. Like aerosols, maybe cosmic rays and so on..and the key factor MIGHT be to emit more or less particulates. Or point particle accelerators at the sky.
All that this has done is bang in yet more data into the 'assume its CO2' model and get a lower sensitivity, to align with the lower recorded temperatures. Only when it start to cool with rising CO2 will we be able to say that the probability is that CO2 by itself has almost no effect on climate at all. It was all coincidence and a drive for profit that created the global warming scare in the first place.
So this doubling will conclude about the year 2100, the next doubling will take 200+ years.
Human population growth is already slowing, will peak in 30-40 years, and will begin a long, slow decline. By the year 2200 there could as few as one billion humans meaning of course few cars, power plants and all the rest.
AGW is a non problem. So relax already.
Might be possible under the very unlinkely scenario where carbon uptake does not respond accordingly. Even so, the relation is logarithmic, so with the last doubling we are already converging on a asymptotic maximum. Not sure what that would be, but if feedbacks are as little as these approaches indicate, and it is the pure CO2 driving the warming with the next doubling, it does not seem that it would amount to much. So relax, it won't be so bad
I'm generally with Orlowski and his climate realism, but even I would baulk at calling 2ppm CO2 rise on a total of 390 (up from a pre-industrial 280 average) a "mere" rise. That's a pretty big number and I think you betray your prejudices by calling this "mere". Keep posting the articles, but I think you'd be a lot more persuasive if you actually acknowledged one of the few properly measurable numbers in climate science with less pejorative language.
If the 2ppm per year remains the same, that means it'll take roughly 200 years to double CO2 from today's level. Boosting the global temp by 1.5C over 200 years doesn't seem "big" to me. Certainly it seems like a problem we should be able to solve, given 200 years to work on it. Imagine if early-19th-century climate boffins had demanded of Thomas Jefferson that we stop all woods-clearing, mammal-raising, and use of whale oil and coal immediately to prevent the disastrous rise of 1C expected by the year 2010!
Quite aside from the debate on CO2 causing or contributing to climate change, it seems to be having an adverse effect on our oceans.
My point was that it's always possible to cherry pick the science you report on, to further an agenda. Here's a video (so you should be able to understand it), which doesn't cherry pick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U
You may not be so confident that there is no urgency to reduce emissions fast after watching that. Alternatively, here's the reason why it's vital to keep pumping out the CO2:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/carbon-problems-financial-crisis-hutton
Wait, are you suggesting the people claiming we are all doomed are like all those who have gone before? These people who have (through complicated process and little evidence) divined the great plan and know the future with pretty pictures of the end (this time a graph instead of hellfire) surely have the answer. My psychic told me so.
Because it gives us time to deal with the problem rather than having to cram all of our abatement into the next decade as some loons keep telling us we must do.
Two things.
1) Who thinks that in 50 years time solar cells, fuel cells, thorium reactors etc, are going to be anything like as expensive as they are now? Quite, so, if we've a few decades to change our ways this is good for us. We get to install these things when they become cheaper. And we've got all sorts of people telling us that solar is going to be cheaper than coal any day now (I think perhaps a decade but that's just an opinion). so, we can all install it when it is cheaper and then the problem's over, isn't it?
2) It enables us to work with the capital cycle. Ripping down power plants we've already built makes us poorer. When they run out, as they of course will, we'll have to replace them with something or other. If we've a few decades to deal with all of this then we can, instead of junking a lot of what we've got (making us poorer) simply insist that the new stuff we build in the future is low/non-carbon whatever.
This is essentially the William Nordhaus view of the whole subject and he's pretty much the economist who has been calling it right for the past 20 years.
That discussion you linked to appears to be someone who's being skeptical about the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Denying basic physics is a bit much, even for climate skeptics.
1C per doubling is the straightforward number, which gets the temperatures of the moon, Mars, Venus and Mercury right (a useful observational check on the theoretical physics).
The feedbacks have always been the toughest part of the climate models.
"The objection to short-term measures is that renewable sources of energy are not currently economically viable"
short term = a motor on a 6.5Mw wind turnbine, and having a 10 acre field with 100 of them in mini silos
long term = the same dynamo would be generating 100Mw every minute in 20 years tops
so on and so on, along with all cargo ship conversions, not needing any diesel for combustion electric electric generators
>short term = a motor on a 6.5Mw wind turnbine, and having a 10 acre field with 100 of them in mini silos
Indeed, because that's all the energy there is in the wind,
>long term = the same dynamo would be generating 100Mw every minute in 20 years tops
Only if its coupled to a nuclear power station. and '100Mw very minute' means nothing anyway.
First it ought to be 100MW, and secondly that's a measure of continuous POWER power. 'Every minute' is meaningless.
So once again the fantasists of renewable energy deny the basic laws of physics/.
Hint: there isn't any more energy IN the wind, and if you start pulling gigawatts out of upper level winds you will be fucking with climate a hundred times more than CO2 (allegedly) does.
and so on. its nothing todo with physics, its just a delayed loop back,. when the dynamo is above the minimum RPM for generating electric, the electric goes into the "battery" and 2% of it loops back to the motor, while the rest goes off to the main grid
its alot more renewable then wind farms costing billions to build or dams. and all the infrastructure for gas pipelines etc etc etc
you can put them anywhere you like,. and there are millions of ships using billions of gallons of diesel just to generate electric which can all be converted to use 6.5Mw wind turbine with a direct drive motor on, cutting down billions of co2 whatevers
wind farms only work when there is wind, they generate 4% of power to the national grid, if all dynamo were in use with a constant source of power that is generated by using a electric motor instead of wind, tey would add 20% + and the RPM would be able to be controlled by the power station
the germans have 10Wm wind farm turbine, as long as wind farms are the aim, then weight of the dynamo will always play a part in how much can be generated
i have said it a million times.....
if you have a setup like this http://s24.postimg.org/wvt4f8qt1/generator.png where the electro magnet motor turns the axle of a direct drive dynamo
1>the fully charged battery is used to start up the loop and as the motor turns up to the dynamo`s minimum generating RPM, it uses most of the power in the battery
2>once the dynamo has reached itts minimum RPM for generating power, it recharges the battery and makes the motor become faster, because it uses a small amount of power
3>the motor uses alot less power then is generated when the dynamo is at its maxium generating RPM
it has nothing todo with physics, you just need a external power source to start them up, once they are at the maximum RPM for the dynamo, they can easily be perpetual
You are extracting the dilute urea solution, aren't you?
Five minutes with a hand cranked dynamo and you will discover that you have to put more energy in than you get out. Otherwise, I would not need to put petrol in my Prius - in which one motor can indeed drive the other as a generator, to give an infinitely variable drive.
you dont need to put more energy in, double deck trains in france are powered by 10x 750kw motors
electric motors do not have shaft power, the input power the magnets which turn the axle
no body would complain about whinding up to charge a battery if its the last resort
to redesign a farm turbine and add a motor and loop and put them into production would cost £20m
its kind of obvious, if they can be made and put into production in 3 or 4 months and they are able to give national grids a constant on demand green energy supply
and cargo ships could be convert to using them, average sized trains would only need 4-5mw generators in a carrage
they would cut down alot of fossile fuel usage in 2-3 years
etc etc, in 20 years time, a generator would no doubt be alot lighter and efficient
Zmodem, you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.
Here is a simple proof: Follow the energy in your sketch.
Let's assume the following unreasonably high efficiencies for the equipment in the loop:
Wiring: 100% (superconducting)
The motor and dynamo: 99.9% of motor input electrical energy comes out the dynamo.
Battery and charger: 99.9% of input electrical energy can be discharged from the battery.
We will start with 1000 Joules of energy in the battery and assume no energy is consumed when starting the system.
After the dynamo, there are now 1000 * 0.999 = 999 Joules.
After the battery charge/discharge, there are now 999 *0.999 = 998 Joules
Then 997, 996, 995, 994...
Eventually it's all gone.
what wire does wind farms use to add power to the national grid, after it goes through the transformer on some of them
http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/10/3/0/4/50978101848559442.gif
if you had a wind farm turbine, you would probaly just use the national grid to start it up... then disconnect when its perpetual
on every 1 full rotation of the blade when a dynamo is running at 20 RPM which generates 6.5Mw, the dynamo is generating 325.000 watts of AC or DC power and volts the dynamo has been made to generate
a small bit of the generated power loops back to power an electro magnet motor, the opposite poles on them, turn the motors axle, which is just the axle of a direct drive dynamo
I give up. You clearly have no understanding of any of the components you mention or any of the terminology that you keep using, and appear incapable or unwilling to even try.
Build one yourself, and see how long it runs for - take a DC motor, DC dynamo and rechargeable battery, connect them up and try it.
build 1 yourself,
the loop in this http://s24.postimg.org/wvt4f8qt1/generator.png
is just a standard domestic wind turbine kit you will have installed in your atic, if you take a 24v power drill apart, the motor has enough torque probaly to go upto a 10kw turbine
Zmodem, I looked at your setup and I can see that the motor, regulator, inverter all have cooling vents and fins. Those cooling vents and fins are there because energy in the system is being lost to heat. That heat loss is the clue as to why it won't work.
Your claim of "infinate endless power" from a system which is "perpetual" is a very extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so please build one and demonstrate a working system. I'll bet you double the construction cost of the system that you can't make it work. Seriously.
So they got their numbers wrong, impending doom isn't impending anymore. NASA recently released a report stating that the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere was responsible for reducing the atmospheric temperature by reflecting more solar power back into space.... Ya can't win!
But all these studies never declare the "Roman Warming Period" where temperatures rose much more than they are today, and oddly enough, their chariots didn't belch fumes, but then again, perhaps they did because there was the Medieval Mini-IceAge which must have been brought about by those nasty polluting toga wearers from Rome.
Looking at the ice cores, we can see that Mother Earth's climate rises and falls, and newer solar data, and other geological seismic data show similar patterns which to my simple mind tells me that it's not us, it's the sun at the root of all evil, and to save ourselves it must be put out! ;)
Political hype of climate change has been nothing more than a reason to tax and restrict the population more and more. Socialism had been in decline for some time, now it's back with new clothes.
The planet is now well instrumented and so the theories can finally be tested with actual observations. What a concept! Hansen and his acolytes have had a free run since the late-1980s. Not any more they don't!
So we can all relax and get back to normal life, shut down the global warming religion and focus on humanity's real issues. e.g., disease, water, wars, jobs
Agreed. Wonder if we are well instrumenting the scientists themselves as well. Seems like the more money is flaunted in front of them, with promising potentials for far more, the further asway from science the scientists move.
Now all we have to do is get the understanding that CO2 is not a pollutant, is not causing warming, cooling or anything like that, and get with the complete picture of what creates our climate, which is the Sun, gravity, planet shape and tilt on axis, etc, etc. Got nothing to do with gases, especially a trace gas to boot.
"Now all we have to do is get the understanding that CO2 is not a pollutant, is not causing warming, cooling or anything like that, and get with the complete picture of what creates our climate, which is the Sun, gravity, planet shape and tilt on axis, etc, etc. Got nothing to do with gases, especially a trace gas to boot."
Did you not read the article? I'll highlight the part you seem to have missed.
"Lewis finds mode and median climate sensitivity of 1.6°C, with 90 per cent confidence in a range of 1.2°C to 2.2°C"
yeah, I read it. The confidence in what these charlatains have stated before was of similar "impressiveness", so much so that governmental policy was being pushed, agendas being furthered, to head off all the calamity that we all understand now as pure bovine excrement.
Bovine excrement, now co-mingled with equine excrement after such claims have been made yet again.
Ever hear of the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? These charlatains need to stop trying to find an answer before writing the questions. In effect, what they are doing is assuming carbon dioxide is the culprit (because it just HAS to be burning oil/ fossil fuels, which has been the nonsensical claim since the late 1800's) and then modelling to "prove" the claims are correct. Perhaps through dropping this tired assumption and trying to prove this assumption is true, despite well over 100 years of imperical proof it is not, that they completely catalog all dynamics of our climate and measure the significance of each facet of this very complex diamond. Of course, once the truth is discovered that much of our climate's drivers are completely out of our control (thereby negating any justification to tax and spend and curtail the people) then the money train will dry up...
Can't have that....
"yeah, I read it"
Okay. Lets do this slowly. Scroll up. Look at the title. It says:
"MORE AND MORE LIKELY THAT DOUBLE CO2 MEANS <2°C: NEW STUDY"
So you are saying this headline isn't true because the study is done by "charlatains"?
Have you really thought through what you are arguing?
Nom, please..... Its like watching a bunch of kids play pin the tail on the donkey, except there is no donkey to pin the tail to.
These climate scientists are as clueless today as they were 100 years ago. In today's context, the reason they are so clueless is their tunnel vision on carbon dioxide as the demon that they cannot widen their gaze to find other factors and to get the big picture. This is due to political agendas and money-grab schemes. It is understandable (the continual nonsense followed by more nonsense) as no one wants to see their pay evaporate, but as has been demonstrated in the past (its carbon, no its nitrogen, no its soot, no its carbon, no its nitrogen......) the focus of the "science" truly has little to do with the climate and everything to do with a BS agenda and coming up with "proof" to buttress said agenda.
Its a disgrace to the disciplines of science.
It's science. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which contributes to the Earth's greenhouse effect that makes it warmer. Humans are emitting vast quantities of CO2 causing the CO2 level in the atmosphere to rise, enhancing the greenhouse effect. If you deny any of that then you are just as much a science denier as the creationists.
It's hilarious isn't it,
Every time something like this is discussed it starts out with the "reasonable" deniers saying things like "of course nobody doubts the greenhouse effect" then later on a nutter comes along and denies the greenhouse effect.
(Page even says "Very few people disagree with the basic fact that the greenhouse gas CO2 warms the climate," in the article).
"got nothing to do with gases". What a twit.
Look at it from another angle, Nom..... These same dip sticks that have been claiming global calamity in 10 years or 20 years if we do not act now, act in concert with the other anti-oil, anti-fossil fuels, anti-energy kabals that have been spewing for years we have 10 years of oil left in the world and then we're doomed.
This kind of thing has been said for longer than the climate goofs have been flip-flopping between impending ice age and infernos from hades, I believe.
Both schools of "thought" have been wrong continually and continue to be wrong to this day.
According to all the ilk that is responsible for the "studies" reported on in this story, we should all be either dead from drowning, starvation, no hope, all doom, all gloom, and this should have happened 10 times over throughout the past 100 years. And we should also be out of oil, too.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...... Again I ask you, do you think its a puppy? Done.
He also uses a technique called objective Bayesian analysis. Conventional subjective Bayesian analysis relies on highly subjective uniform priors, aka deliberatively-informative "expert" priors, as parameters.
Well, that's a glorious oversimplification and misrepresentation. Hell, various Wikipedia articles have better two-sentence treatments of the distinction.
First, there's nothing more "conventional" about subjectivist interpretations of Bayesian priors than about objectivist ones. That adjective is pure pathos - it's an attempt to bolster your argument by presenting Lewis' as somehow daring or groundbreaking merely because he adopts an objectivist stance. Weak.
Second, it's completely untrue that a subjectivist interpretation of priors "relies on ... subjective ... priors", much less ones that are "highly subjective" (more weaseling), and particularly not on uniform ones. Indeed, Jaynes' classic three-card-monty example of an objectivist prior uses a uniform prior; Jaynes' point is that the use of the uniform prior is justified merely by the restricted information available to the observer, and is so is not subjective. (That is, any rational observer would conclude that the prior probability of the winning token being in any one of the third slots is 1/3. That's not a belief, he argues; it's the only sensible choice.)
The difference between objectivist Bayesians and subjectivist Bayesians is that the latter say: hey, when you choose a prior probability, you're doing it based on what you believe is the appropriate value. There's no formal way to arrive at a "correct" prior. The objectivists, on the other hand, say, no, often there is a formally-correct way to arrive at a valid prior, based only on the structure of the problem and the limited factual information available to the observer.
It's a philosophical distinction that affects how the model is set up, so it's certainly appropriate for Lewis to include it in his title and describe how he arrives at his priors. But the article does its readers a disservice by treating the distinction as 1) supporting Lewis' argument or granting him any special authority, and 2) some sort of failing on the part of subjectivists. And, of course, if you're not going to explain a technical point correctly, it would really be better to avoid trying to explain it at all.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
