Hi David‹Well, I read the article‹what a lot of nonsense. Aside from little errors like not doing the math of the CO2 projection right to 2050 and not understanding how the greenhouse effect works, to major problems (as a start):
1. The 2 plus 2 = 5 explanation of systematic errors is really flawed and (intentionally or ignorantly?) misleading. Imagine that we have a thermometer and we stick it into a pot of warming water. In that we are measuring at one point, we¹ll likely not get the exact integral of the pot of water¹s temperature‹but we will likely be close. We likely cannot calculate exactly how close due to not being able to perfectly represent the physics of each eddy in the water, etc. So, there is a systematic difference from whatever the real temperature is. We might even discover that our placement of the thermometer toward the edge of the pot makes it be noticeably different than a test measurement at the center of the pot. Okay, so we are measuring the heat into the pot and the rate of temperature rise. That our measurement of temperature at the spot we have chosen has a systematic difference from the temperature in the center of the pot remains the case‹but one does not use and then linearly grow that difference over time and say the rising temperature on your thermometer is meaningless. 2. And the author applies statements about the limits of prediction for detailed weather and seasonal climate anomalies to the issue of projecting changes in the average state of the climate system‹the first is an initial condition driven issue, and the second is a boundary driven problem. Think of a washing machine churning away‹the detailed position and size and movement of the bubbles represents the weather‹know the IC well and one may be able to predict how the exact state of the bubbles will change for a short time‹just as for weather prediction. Seasonal prediction instead would focus on predicting the changes in where there are masses of bubbles over time, and would also want information about the exact state of the moving waters and clothes underneath. One might imagine one could, at least in some locations, predict how the large clumps of bubbles might evolve for a period longer than the exact positions of the individual bubbles. Well for climate change, what is essentially happening is that the size of the tub is changing (or the rate of the agitator is changing. With a good model and a lot of experience from before, one might expect one would be able to project how the likelihood of the big and small batches of bubbles and even of changes in their size distribution would change‹there is certainly no attempt to be predicting the position of each bubble from now into the indefinite future‹just the statistical characteristics. And, I would add, that one does not just grow linearly errors in predicting the size of each original bubble indefinitely in time to get to 100 C errors‹there are quite a number of other physics limits that prevent such error growth. So, what that paper you are referring to shows me is what happens when someone from outside a field ventures naively in‹you chide others when they venture into your field naively. Well, if you are going to belief this article, then stop rejecting anyone else coming into your field and putting out nonsense. Mike MacCracken On 12/5/08 2:46 PM, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike: > > Take the AR4 WG1 A2 scenario, apply a plus/minus 10.5% uncertainty to the > feedbacks for clouds and you end up with the large variation. > > See Figure 4,in Frank's article in the Skeptic v.14 No. 1 (2008), which I've > attached for your review. It's simple math (well simple, if you run the > GCMs). The IPCC uncertainty estimate is probably low, but using it gets you > the temperature range to which I've alluded. > > David. > > > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Mike MacCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dear David‹Regarding your comment >> >> >> On 12/4/08 10:13 AM, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> > wrote: >> >>> After all, the IPCC has described the uncertainties of the projections as so >>> large that forecasts of temperature 100 years from now are plus or minus >>> more than 100 deg. C. That's rather a lot of uncertainty, and does not >>> warrent harm to the global economy, since it is that economy to which we >>> must look for ways to rebalance the carbon cycles. >>> >>> >> What is your citation for this comment about 100 C? I know of nothing >> anywhere near that large. >> >> Mike MacCracken >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:47 AM, John Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> > wrote: >>>> >>>> John is 100% right in all of these points. I t cant be proved till >>>> afterwards. Asking for proof in advance is just a way of guaranteeing more >>>> research and no action. It is also the wrong philosophy. In his lecture to >>>> the world bank the Nobel Laureat economist -?- pointed out that we should >>>> not be looking at probabilities or cost effectiveness or cost benifit. >>>> Possibility plus dire consequences requires action -now >>>> >>>> JOhn Gorman >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Andrew Lockley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> > >>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> > >>>> Cc: "Gwynne Dyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> >; >>>> "geoengineering" >>>> <[email protected] <http://[email protected]/> >>>> >; "Wilfried Haeberli" >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> >; >>>> "Paul Crutzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> >; >>>> "Rapley Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:12 PM >>>> Subject: [geo] Re: Can't Get There from Here >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That's the critical point and it needs to be made clearly and backed >>>> up with evidence. Further, you need to PROVE that the arctic sea ice >>>> is the tipping point. >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>> >>>> 2008/12/3 John Nissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> >: >>>>> > >>>>> > Gwynne and everybody, >>>>> > >>>>> > One additional point to make it absolutely clear about why we need >>>>> > geoengineering. I'll number this zero, so it begins the chain of >>>>> > argument: >>>>> > >>>>> > 0. Even if we were to stop all CO2 emissions overnight, the CO2 level >>>>> in >>>>> > the atmosphere would remain at around 385 ppm, and the net positive >>>>> > climate >>>>> > forcing (i.e. heating) around 1.6 Watts per square metre, for decades. >>>>> > The >>>>> > global warming would therefore continue for decades. Therefore there is >>>>> > no >>>>> > way that emissions reductions can produce a cooling effect on a >>>>> timescale >>>>> > of >>>>> > a few years. >>>>> > >>>>> > Actually the point can be made even stronger. To produce a cooling >>>>> > effect, >>>>> > one would need to have a net negative forcing. To produce this you >>>>> would >>>>> > need to bring the CO2 down below the pre-industrial equilibrium point, >>>>> > generally taken as 280 ppm. And to do this in the Arctic, and counter >>>>> the >>>>> > local albedo forcing, you'd need to take CO2 well below 280 ppm within a >>>>> > few >>>>> > years. This is clearly absolutely impossible. >>>>> > >>>>> > And as regards geoengineering "as a last resort" [1], when do you >>>>> > determine >>>>> > the time that you should use it? When you can see that other methods >>>>> are >>>>> > not working, surely. That was probably in the mid 80s, when the glacier >>>>> > mass ice loss suddenly deviated from the curve it had previously >>>>> > followed - >>>>> > showing a doubling of global warming per decade [2]. This sudden >>>>> > acceleration could not be explained by CO2 - but could have been >>>>> explained >>>>> > either by the additional forcing of Arctic sea ice which had started to >>>>> > retreat, or by the removal of "pollutant" sulphur compounds from the >>>>> > atmosphere, or a combination of the two. (I discussed this with the >>>>> > glacier >>>>> > expert Wilfred Haeberli himself, to no definite conclusion.) We should >>>>> > then >>>>> > have realised that putting sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere was an >>>>> > obvious way to stop the acceleration, as it could counter both the >>>>> effect >>>>> > of >>>>> > sulphur removal from the troposphere AND any additional forcing of >>>>> Arctic >>>>> > sea ice. >>>>> > >>>>> > But it is easy to be wise in hindsight. Now we have no time to lose as >>>>> > the >>>>> > sea ice threatens to disappear faster than we ever imagined possible. >>>>> > >>>>> > Cheers from Chiswick, >>>>> > >>>>> > John >>>>> > >>>>> > [1] Paul Crutzen has considered albedo enhancement a last resort: >>>>> > www.springerlink.com/content/t1vn75m458373h63/fulltext.pdf >>>>> <http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1vn75m458373h63/fulltext.pdf> >>>>> <http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1vn75m458373h63/fulltext.pdf> >>>>> > >>>>> > [2] Glacier mass ice loss. Haeberli et al. See trend on figure 1b: >>>>> > http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> > From: John Nissen >>>>> > To: Gwynne Dyer >>>>> > Cc: geoengineering >>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:58 PM >>>>> > Subject: Fw: [geo] Can't Get There from Here >>>>> > >>>>> > Hello Gwynne, >>>>> > >>>>> > I appreciate very much that you explore the security dimension. But >>>>> > there's >>>>> > one vital thing you miss. >>>>> > >>>>> > You write: >>>>> > >>>>> > "The third conclusion is that there is a point of no return after which >>>>> > warming becomes unstoppable‹and we are probably going to sail right >>>>> > through >>>>> > it. It is the point at which anthropogenic (human-caused) warming >>>>> triggers >>>>> > huge releases of carbon dioxide from warming oceans, or similar releases >>>>> > of >>>>> > both carbon dioxide and methane from melting permafrost, or both. Most >>>>> > climate scientists think that point lies not far beyond 2 degrees C >>>>> hotter >>>>> > (3.6 degrees F). " >>>>> > >>>>> > but you miss the glaring example of a tipping point - the disappearance >>>>> of >>>>> > the Arctic sea ice. So here is a logical argument. Considering: >>>>> > >>>>> > 1. The Arctic is warming at least double the speed of average global >>>>> > warming. >>>>> > >>>>> > 2. If the sea ice goes, the Arctic warming accelerates and is liable to >>>>> > trigger huge releases of methane from permafrost, long before the global >>>>> > warming reaches 2 degrees. (It is also liable to trigger disastrous sea >>>>> > level rise from Greenland ice sheet melting.) >>>>> > >>>>> > 3. According the latest research, documented in the Climate Safety >>>>> report >>>>> > (launched last week [1]), the sea ice could disappear in 3-7 years (at >>>>> the >>>>> > end of summer). >>>>> > >>>>> > 4. Geoengineering now appears to be the only possible means to save the >>>>> > Arctic sea ice, and prevent a "tipping point" becoming a "point of no >>>>> > return". >>>>> > >>>>> > 5. The local climate forcing (heating) from the albedo effect, as >>>>> Arctic >>>>> > sea ice retreats in summer, could more than double between now and >>>>> > complete >>>>> > sea ice disappearance. >>>>> > >>>>> > 6. Geoengineering needs to be up to full scale as quickly as possible, >>>>> to >>>>> > maximise the chance of saving the Arctic sea ice. >>>>> > >>>>> > Therefore: >>>>> > >>>>> > 7. We need immediately to initiate a top-priority, super-urgent project >>>>> > for >>>>> > geoengineering to save the Arctic sea ice - a project with the focus, >>>>> > determination and urgency of the Manhattan project. >>>>> > >>>>> > The consequences of failure are too dreadful to contemplate. Failure is >>>>> > not >>>>> > an option. Psychologically, we have to think of this as war, in order >>>>> to >>>>> > accept the enormity of the predicament we are in and be spurned to >>>>> action. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Can you refute this argument? Can anybody refute this argument? >>>>> > >>>>> > Could Obama and his defense advisers accept this argument? (I shall >>>>> work >>>>> > on >>>>> > our own Prime Minister Brown.) >>>>> > >>>>> > Cheers from Chiswick, >>>>> > >>>>> > John >>>>> > >>>>> > [1] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/12/414238.html >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> > From: Alvia Gaskill >>>>> > To: [email protected] >>>>> <http://[email protected]/> >>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:08 PM >>>>> > Subject: [geo] Can't Get There from Here >>>>> > Like the financial crisis, when the roof falls in, watch out, it may be >>>>> > your >>>>> > own. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.straight.com/article-173168/gwynne-dyer-four-harsh-truths-about >>>>> -climate-change >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Gwynne Dyer: Four harsh truths about climate change >>>>> > >>>>> > By Gwynne Dyer >>>>> > Publish Date: December 2, 2008 >>>>> > >>>>> > About two years ago, I realized that the military in various countries >>>>> > were >>>>> > starting to do climate change scenarios in-house‹scenarios that started >>>>> > with >>>>> > the scientific predictions about rising temperatures, falling crop >>>>> yields, >>>>> > and other physical effects, and examined what that would do to politics >>>>> > and >>>>> > strategy. >>>>> > >>>>> > The scenarios predicted failed states proliferating because governments >>>>> > couldn't feed their people; waves of climate refugees washing up against >>>>> > the >>>>> > borders of more fortunate countries; even wars between countries that >>>>> > shared >>>>> > the same rivers. So I started interviewing everybody I could get access >>>>> > to: >>>>> > not only senior military people but also scientists, diplomats, and >>>>> > politicians. >>>>> > >>>>> > About seventy interviews, a dozen countries, and eighteen months later, I >>>>> > have reached four conclusions that I didn't even suspect when I began >>>>> the >>>>> > process. The first is simply this: the scientists are really scared. >>>>> Their >>>>> > observations over the past two or three years suggest that everything is >>>>> > happening a lot faster than their climate models predicted. >>>>> > >>>>> > This creates a dilemma for them, because for the past decade they have >>>>> > been >>>>> > struggling against a well-funded campaign that cast doubt on the >>>>> > phenomenon >>>>> > of climate change. Now, finally, people and even governments are >>>>> > listening. >>>>> > Even in the United States, the world headquarters of climate change >>>>> > denial, >>>>> > 85 percent of the population now sees climate change as a major issue, >>>>> and >>>>> > both presidential candidates in last month's election promised 80 >>>>> percent >>>>> > cuts in American emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. >>>>> > >>>>> > The scientists are understandably reluctant at this point to publicly >>>>> > announce that their predictions were wrong; that they are really much >>>>> > worse >>>>> > and the targets will have to be revised. Most of them are waiting for >>>>> > overwhelming proof that climate change really is moving faster, even >>>>> > though >>>>> > they are already privately convinced that it is. >>>>> > >>>>> > So governments, now awakened to the danger at last, are still working to >>>>> > the >>>>> > wrong emissions target. The real requirement, if we are to avoid runaway >>>>> > global warming, is probably 80 percent cuts by 2030, and almost no >>>>> burning >>>>> > whatsoever of fossil fuels (coal, gas, and oil) by 2050. >>>>> > >>>>> > The second conclusion is that the generals are right. Food is the key >>>>> > issue, >>>>> > and the world food supply is already very tight: we have eaten up about >>>>> > two-thirds of the world's grain reserve in the past five years, leaving >>>>> > only >>>>> > 50 days' worth in store. Even a one degree C (1.8 degrees F) rise in >>>>> > average >>>>> > global temperature will take a major bite out of food production in >>>>> almost >>>>> > all the countries that are closer to the equator than to the poles, and >>>>> > that >>>>> > includes nearly all of the planet's bread-baskets. >>>>> > >>>>> > So the international grain market will wither for lack of supplies. >>>>> > Countries that can no longer feed their people will not be able to buy >>>>> > their >>>>> > way out of trouble by importing grain from elsewhere, even if they have >>>>> > the >>>>> > money. Starving refugees will flood across borders, whole nations will >>>>> > collapse into anarchy‹and some countries may make a grab for their >>>>> > neighbours' land or water. >>>>> > >>>>> > These are scenarios that the Pentagon and other military planning staffs >>>>> > are >>>>> > examining now. They could start to come true as little as 15 or 20 years >>>>> > down the road. If this kind of breakdown becomes widespread, there will >>>>> be >>>>> > little chance of making or keeping global agreements to curb greenhouse >>>>> > gas >>>>> > emissions and avoid further warming. >>>>> > >>>>> > The third conclusion is that there is a point of no return after which >>>>> > warming becomes unstoppable‹and we are probably going to sail right >>>>> > through >>>>> > it. It is the point at which anthropogenic (human-caused) warming >>>>> triggers >>>>> > huge releases of carbon dioxide from warming oceans, or similar releases >>>>> > of >>>>> > both carbon dioxide and methane from melting permafrost, or both. Most >>>>> > climate scientists think that point lies not far beyond 2 degrees C >>>>> hotter >>>>> > (3.6 degrees F). >>>>> > >>>>> > Once that point is passed, the human race loses control and cutting our >>>>> > own >>>>> > emissions may not stop the warming. But we are almost certainly going to >>>>> > miss our deadline. We cannot get the ten lost years back, and by the >>>>> time >>>>> > a >>>>> > new global agreement to replace the Kyoto accord is negotiated and put >>>>> > into >>>>> > effect, there will probably not be enough time left to stop the warming >>>>> > short of the point where we must not go. >>>>> > >>>>> > So‹final conclusion‹we will have to cheat. In the past two years, >>>>> various >>>>> > scientists have suggested several "geo-engineering" techniques for >>>>> holding >>>>> > the temperature down directly. We might put a kind of temporary chemical >>>>> > sunscreen in the stratosphere by seeding it with sulphur particles, for >>>>> > example, or we could artificially thicken low-lying maritime clouds to >>>>> > reflect more sunlight. >>>>> > >>>>> > These are not permanent solutions but merely ways of winning more time >>>>> to >>>>> > cut our emissions without triggering runaway warming in the meanwhile. >>>>> > However, the situation is getting very grave, and we are probably going >>>>> to >>>>> > see the first experiments with these techniques within five years. >>>>> > >>>>> > There is a way through this crisis, but it isn't easy and there is no >>>>> > guarantee of success. As the Irishman said to the lost traveler: If >>>>> that's >>>>> > where you want to go, sir, I wouldn't start from here. >>>>> > >>>>> > Gwynne Dyer will be speaking on his new book, Climate Wars, at the Park >>>>> > Theatre (Cambie and 18th) in Vancouver on December 6 and 7 at 1 p.m. >>>>> > Tickets >>>>> > available from www.festivalcinemas.ca/ <http://www.festivalcinemas.ca/> >>>>> <http://www.festivalcinemas.ca/> or at the door. >>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > ________________________________ >>>>> > Source URL: >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.straight.com/article-173168/gwynne-dyer-four-harsh-truths-about >>>>> -climate-change >>>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
