On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:59 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/22/2014 8:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark <[email protected]>: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands >>>>>>> for, Google seems to think it's "Rich Client Platform" but that doesn't >>>>>>> sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> RCP either. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> For your information, that means "Regional Climate Prediction" >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure it's not "Russian Communist Party" but are you sure >>>> it's not "Representative Concentration Pathways"? >>>> >>> >>> I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... >>> As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... >>> >> >> This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems >> to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and >> technological perspective. >> >> He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous >> discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions >> (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. >> >> - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of >> them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we >> be in further predictions? >> >> >> "Failed" is a relative term >> > > Of course. Here we can't know for sure, so we have to estimate the > probability that the models are correct -- especially given the potentially > horrible side-effects of the cure. > > >> and "decade" is too short to constitute climate. >> > > Yes, what constitutes "climate" appears to be: > larger periods than can be observed in our lifetimes but smaller than what > can be observed in the Vostok data. > > >> So what exactly do you mean by "failed". >> > > I mean that, if this wasn't an ideologically charged issue, no reviewer > would accept these models for publication at this point: > http://www.thegwpf.org/judith-curry-disagreement-climate-models-reality/ > > >> My view is that they were relatively accurate about some things and not >> so accurate about others. >> > > Where they accurate significantly above what a null model would predict, > taking into account the amount of models that have been proposed? > > >> They all include a calculated range of uncertainty. >> > > Funnily, that was never mentioned before it became convenient. > > > That's simply false. Hansen's prediction in 1980 already included error > margins. Every IPCC report has included uncertainty ranges. In fact it's > very annoying to read because every almost every assertion has "likely" or > "probabale" or "very likely" in it. > I have no doubt. I meant that error margins where never part of the public discourse, as far as I can tell. Notice that error margins matter mostly a priori. It's not logical to hold models in the same regard when observations deviate considerably from the prediction, even if still inside some error margin. > > > > >> Have they "failed" if the observed weather is withing the range of >> uncertainty. The deniers and obfuscators seize on uncertainty as an >> obstruction to action, but uncertainty cuts both ways. >> > > AGW proponents are asking for an incredible amount of power to implement > measures that could cause immense human suffering. > > > Jim Hansen is asking for power? You're just spreading FUD. > I don't have the power or the influence to spread anything. I'm just stating my opinion in an obscure mailing list. > NOT implementing any measures is "very likely" to cause immense human > suffering. > > > It's not so abnormal that people get nervous when there is no tangible > evidence that the models are even correct. > > > AGW doesn't depend on the accuracy of models. It is observed. It is > consistent with the most basic science. Models are only needed to predict > exactly how big the problem will be - not whether there's a problem. > > > > >> As for further predictions, it's not as if we have to pick one (or a >> set) of these models and make THE prediction. What we need to do is figure >> out why they were inaccurate in to some vaiables and improve the models. >> > > Ok, and then validate them against reality -- hopefully. > > >> As has been pointed out, the effect of clouds is a major source of >> uncertainty. Clouds are generally much smaller than the grid size of GCMs, >> ~100Km square, and so it's not practical to directly model them within a >> simulation. >> > > Where climate scientists aware of this problem when they claimed 100% > certainty and consensus on AGW? Because if they were, they lied to us. > > > Show me where climate scientists claimed 100% certainty. > Famously this was claimed in "An Inconvenient Truth", a movie that was endorsed by climate scientists to the point of becoming part of the official curricula of many schools and colleges in several countries. > The consensus on AGW (97% by count) is that human burning of fossil fuel > is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and that is raising the Earth's > temperature. Consensus on AGW is not the same as agreeing about every > aspect of every model. > Ok. > You're just trying to pick at gaps in knowledge in an ideologically > motivated attempt to discredit the science. > I was a strong believer in AGW until a few years ago. I became more skeptical for several reasons that I already stated, and kept these doubts to myself. Maybe I am a victim of manipulation by misinformation spread by nefarious interests. One can never be sure. We can only use our best judgement to bet on what we find more plausible at a given moment. I am certainly open to reviewing my opinion, and I wouldn't be too surprised if I did at some point. At the moment, I'm agnostic on AGW. If I wanted to discredit science for some ideological reason, even an idiot like me could surely find some more effective use of his time than to reply to an obscure thread in an obscure mailing list? Google me and you will find that I never even discussed this anywhere else -- nor do I have a particular desire to. I'm quite anti-authoritarian, that's all. I think that people should be able to live their lives as they please and that the way I live mine is nobody's business. I am strongly opposed to violence and coercion. I think that Bruno is right in proposing "not lying" as a fundamental value. This is the extent of my "ideology". > Exactly the same thing creationist try to do to evolution. > This is just name-calling. > > > > >> The technique has been to use separate models just of cloud formation >> and dissipation to determine which GCM state would produce or dissipate >> clouds. Those models are being improved by including the effects of >> aerosols and freezing/thawing. >> >> Another source of uncertainty in *weather* is how the extra energy >> absorbed due to greenhouse gases is distributed. How much goes into >> warming the ocean vs the atmosphere? Model projections have to make >> assumptions about human activity too. >> > > Right, and all of this is an awful lot of uncertainty when we're dealing > with complex non-linear systems. > > > How do you know it's "an awful lot"? The models are run with Monte Carlo > variation of parameters precisely to quantify the uncertainty - but you > know it's an "awful lot" just because it's complex and non-linear!? > Yes. A variable that we are not considering (or even don't know about) could introduce significant changes in the behaviour of the system. The only scientific way to increase our confidence in such models is by way of correct predictions. > > > > >> >> >> >> >> - With current technology, how much would we have to shrink the global >> energy budget to transition to sustainable sources? >> >> >> Read Donald McKay's book "Without Hot Air", which is free online at >> withouthotair.org. He has detailed estimates of what it would take for >> the U.K. to almost eliminate fossil fuel consumption and still retain the >> same standard of living. It takes a lot of change, but it is less per >> capita than, for example, the U.S. war in Iraq over a time scale of a few >> decades. >> > > Ok, thanks. > Far from me to defend the war on Iraq (by the way). That was another shady > business, for sure. > > >> >> >> What would the human impact of that be? This is too serious an issue >> for wishful thinking. Theres 7 billion of us and counting. We need hard >> numbers here, that take into account the energy investment necessary to >> bootstrap the renewable sources, their efficiency and so on. >> >> - What is the probability that a climate catastrophe awaits us vs. the >> probability that an abrupt attempt to convert to sustainable sources would >> create a human catastrophe itself? >> >> >> What's "abrupt". You're raising spudboy's bugaboo. NOBODY wants to do >> something "abrupt". >> > > They did in my country, and it was disastrous. For a while Portugal was > a poster-child for proponents of similar action around the the globe. Now > it's not mentioned so much. > > >> It's just a Faux News scare point. Isn't is obvious that the longer we >> wait to address a problem the shorter will be the time to solve it. >> > > "Only 10 places left, register before it's too late!" > Time scarcity is one of the oldest tricks in the book of manipulation, and > a huge red flag. > > Again, I'm all for research and investment in renewable energies. I'm > all for letting people implement these ideas and compete in the open > market. I sincerely hope we switch to viable renewable energy as soon as > possible, and I strongly believe that this will happen easily once the > technology is available. > > > What makes you think it's not available? The problem is it's more > expensive than fossil fuel. > It has to be less expensive. > But the fossil fuel is only cheaper because it doesn't have to pay for > the consequences of burning it. > Some cases are easy, like the BP oil spill. But for most of it, who exactly should pay how much and to whom? We all benefit from cheaper energy. Wouldn't that just be a zero-sum? > > > I encourage everyone to invest in the research and development of such > technology -- or the implementation, if you believe it already exists. I > hope it does. > > What I am very suspicious of is requests for more centralised control -- > especially coming on the back of scare tactics. We've seen this pattern > over and over and it's never been good news. > > > Really? You prefer the good old days when it was every man for himself, > or when every Duke and Baron had his own army. > I don't pretend to know what the right balance is, but it seems fairly obvious that we are descending into oligarchy now. Surely you agree that it is not possible to have a functioning democracy under total surveillance and with a culture where leaders can lie about everything without any consequences. Or "misrepresent the truth" as the euphemism goes. I am doubtful that the "every man for himself" days ever existed. I strongly recommend this documentary, about a pre-agriculture tribe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV9GRNKqOKw We are not social insects nor are we a species of psychopaths. Or, to quote Nietzsche: "Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." > > > > >> >> >> - Given that environmentalists are claiming that it might even be too >> late to advert disaster, why aren't we seriously considering geoengineering >> approaches, as the one proposed by Nathan Myhrvold, which can be easily and >> cheaply tested and turned off at any moment? >> >> >> It's being considered just as seriously as any other unproven technology >> to address the problem - which is to say, hardly at all. If we started >> penalizing ExxonMobil, BP, Texaco, and Shell for the cost they are >> externalizing maybe they'd fund Myhrvold's scheme. >> > > Ok, we agree here. There are a number of environmental costs that these > criminals should pay for. > I just wonder why a fraction of the billions collected in carbon credits > and green miles and whatever can't be used to fund that research. > > > Last I saw Portugal was a democracy; elect some people who'll run the > country the way you want. > Unfortunately, it suffers from the same fundamental flaw as many other modern democracies: the options on the menu are all the same -- or they turn out to be the same once elected. In any case, my previous statement was not about Portugal at all. Telmo. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
