A stormy Forecast for Climate Change Reporting

[waldo]

Once you start, bias slips into the equation which will tarnish honest results.

so, of course, even though both groups emphasized science as their focus, you took it upon yourself, without substantiation, to bleat on that, "Scientists should not engage in politics".

[waldo]

On top of that the disaster scanarios depend on extremely optimistic economic assumptions that assume everyone in the world will enjoy a lifestyle like we have today. Change those ECONOMIC assumptions and the peak CO2 concentration will be much lower. And even if these ECONOMIC turn out to be true people in the future will be in a much better position to pay for adaptation measures. Than they are now.

this is the second time you've emphasized economics over physical science as determinants for climate sensitivity... citation request.

The economics was in the CAP n TRADE and Carbon Credits, which was a money scam more than anything, because it does not get at the root of AWG. But that has changed since, because people understand it was a scam. That is all the citation you need.

GostHacked, if you're prepared to answer for someone else, perhaps you should at least understand the discussion/question - hey? Does this help:

FWIW, the IPCC predicts a large temperature rise despite the decreasing effect of CO2 because the IPCC ECONOMIC models predict an exponential increase in emissions. The trouble with these claims is they are ECONOMIC models - not physics models and no rational person should ever take them as a fact or even as remotely plausible.

again, you are quite liberally mixing the physical science basis with economic modeling and predictive emission increases. As this is the second recent similar claim you've made, it would be helpful to gain a verifiable contextual link to your statements, particularly in regards to IPCC temperature

predictions

projections... citation request.

[GostHacked]

so, of course, even though both groups emphasized science as their focus, you took it upon yourself, without substantiation, to bleat on that, "Scientists should not engage in politics".

If you believe they should get involved in politics, they stop being scientists, and not even you would disagree with me. If you do, then you should understand that once it goes political, part or all of the science can get tossed out the window in order to promote their model. I linked an article that states just that. They now WILL get politically involved to promote the AWG situation. If that does not scream bias, I don't know what will scream it loud enough for people to hear it.

[waldo]

The next 100 years - if not the next 50 - will see practical solutions involving Fusion power generation....as well as energy from artificial photosynthesis - which has the potential to actually extract CO2 from the air and generate energy. These processes are farther along than most people would think - of course the alarmist community would like to keep a hush over any such advancements. Silly people would have us believe that nothing will change over the next 100 years. Here's an article on Artificial Photosynthesis:

Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090311103646.htm

more Simple ton drivel. Just who is this "alarmist community" that's keeping the lid on new scientific advances? You mean like all those scientists profiled in your linked 'artificial photosynthesis' article... working within Berkeley Lab. One shouldn't really be surprised at your myopic view, Simple... when you live and breathe your favourite denier TV weatherman's denier blog. Just how the hey did you end up at sciencedaily! (/snarc).

I do find it quite remarkable that an alternative energy source based on artificial photosynthesis, whether realistic or not, whether 50 years, 100 years, or more off... somehow... that alternate energy source (in direct competition with fossil-fuels), would somehow be welcomed wholeheartedly by the fossil-fuel industry and it's denial machine. Oh wait... because it's not actually a viable alternative today - or in the relative meaningful shorter-term - if ever, it's a handy go-to for deniers who will hang on anything and everything that isn't posed as an immediate threat to a continued reliance on fossil-fuels.

[GostHacked]

Waldo, I am going to equate you to an attack dog. Others bring up articles and items, and you poo poo them right away and with language that is, sub standard.

[GostHacked]

I do find it quite remarkable that an alternative energy source based on artificial photosynthesis, whether realistic or not, whether 50 years, 100 years, or more off... somehow... that alternate energy source (in direct competition with fossil-fuels), would somehow be welcomed wholeheartedly by the fossil-fuel industry and it's denial machine. Oh wait... because it's not actually a viable alternative today - or in the relative meaningful shorter-term - if ever, it's a handy go-to for deniers who will hang on anything and everything that isn't posed as an immediate threat to a continued reliance on fossil-fuels.

Any renewable energy is money out of big oils pocket. Big oil is not investing in renewable technologies, because they can't make money on that. Well not like they can on oil.

However we do have viable alternatives for energy, we've had them for a couple decades now. Solar and wind generated power.

Unless you take the initiative and get off the grid with renewable sustainable energy production, the powers that be will keep you hooked on the oil until the last drop.

[waldo]

so, of course, even though both groups emphasized science as their focus, you took it upon yourself, without substantiation, to bleat on that, "Scientists should not engage in politics".

If you believe they should get involved in politics, they stop being scientists, and not even you would disagree with me. If you do, then you should understand that once it goes political, part or all of the science can get tossed out the window in order to promote their model. I linked an article that states just that. They now WILL get politically involved to promote the AWG situation. If that does not scream bias, I don't know what will scream it loud enough for people to hear it.

aside from your need to actually fix your articles broken link... the emphasis from both groups, from the AGU and the so-called 'rapid response' team will be engaging those who attack climate science/scientists... by utilizing the science to dispel the lies, fabrications and distortions being flung freely and wildly about by deniers. Engaging your attackers is not, as you say, "getting involved in politics", regardless of how your linked newspaper journalist wished to portray it in his article.

[waldo]

Waldo, I am going to equate you to an attack dog. Others bring up articles and items, and you poo poo them right away and with language that is, sub standard.

grow a set - hey?

[waldo]

Any renewable energy is money out of big oils pocket. Big oil is not investing in renewable technologies, because they can't make money on that. Well not like they can on oil.

However we do have viable alternatives for energy, we've had them for a couple decades now. Solar and wind generated power.

Unless you take the initiative and get off the grid with renewable sustainable energy production, the powers that be will keep you hooked on the oil until the last drop.

concur... tell it to Simple ton with his comical myopic denier view that, as Simple claims, "alarmists (whoever the hell that is), are feverishly working to hide an information flow concerning scientific advances".

[GostHacked]

concur... tell it to Simple ton with his comical myopic denier view that, as Simple claims, "alarmists (whoever the hell that is), are feverishly working to hide an information flow concerning scientific advances".

Well, it is a possibility. If there happens to be some new technology that would get us off oil like right now, do you think the oil companies would want to put that out? It's a game changer, meaning the money train stops for them.

Any technology that is widely available today, has taken some years to get to that state. It's taken about 20-30 years for something called the F-22. I recall when the tender was issued for a new fighter. Mid 80's we had the YF22 and the YF23. Even as a prototype back then, you are still looking at about 10-20 years RnD. Now if you add it all up, the F22 is about 35 years in the making. So if there is some technology that people are working on now that would cure the problem, it might take another 20 years for said item to be widely available.

Solar panels are a good example of this. They are now pretty cheap compared to 20 years ago, and the tech is much much better and more efficient.

Never put it past anyone to make a buck by supressing technology.

grow a set - hey?

I don't need to grow a set, already got them. However, you might need to grow up.

Link

Took a couple tries, but above is the fixed link. But again, scientists should not get involved in the politics, because once bias sets in, they are no longer impartial or objectional to new information. They don't even become impartail or objective in their own work. Once they get involved in the politics of it all, they stop being scientists and stop actually doine objectional scientific work.

The data will show if AGW exits, a political agenda will not.

Edited November 8, 2010 by GostHacked

[TimG]

it would be helpful to gain a verifiable contextual link to your statements, particularly in regards to IPCC temperature

Here is a quick link that shows the exponential increase in CO2 assumed by the SRES scenarios:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=5-1

The statement that CO2 emissions scenarios are entirely based on an economic model should be self evident. The temperature rises predicted by the models depend entirely on these projected emissions scenarios. If the IPCC economic models are wrong then their temperature projections will also be wrong.

My position is it is irrational to treat the output of an economic model as a fact or even highly plausible. They are purely hypothetical and the science of CO2 has no relevance to the discussion of what to do about these hypothetical economic scenarios.

Edited November 9, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Well, it is a possibility. If there happens to be some new technology that would get us off oil like right now, do you think the oil companies would want to put that out? It's a game changer, meaning the money train stops for them.

Any technology that is widely available today, has taken some years to get to that state. It's taken about 20-30 years for something called the F-22. I recall when the tender was issued for a new fighter. Mid 80's we had the YF22 and the YF23. Even as a prototype back then, you are still looking at about 10-20 years RnD. Now if you add it all up, the F22 is about 35 years in the making. So if there is some technology that people are working on now that would cure the problem, it might take another 20 years for said item to be widely available.

Solar panels are a good example of this. They are now pretty cheap compared to 20 years ago, and the tech is much much better and more efficient.

Never put it past anyone to make a buck by supressing technology.

I don't need to grow a set, already got them. However, you might need to grow up.

Link

Took a couple tries, but above is the fixed link. But again, scientists should not get involved in the politics, because once bias sets in, they are no longer impartial or objectional to new information. They don't even become impartail or objective in their own work. Once they get involved in the politics of it all, they stop being scientists and stop actually doine objectional scientific work.

The data will show if AGW exits, a political agenda will not.

Well, it is a possibility. If there happens to be some new technology that would get us off oil like right now, do you think the oil companies would want to put that out? It's a game changer, meaning the money train stops for them.

Its not just big oil that would have an interest in dragging out the status quo, its the United States, whos currency is essentially backed by oil.

[Guest TrueMetis]

If you feel the study does not support it then provide an argument that explains why. Simply waving your arms after I gave you the formulas that the IPCC uses is quite absurd. It leaves the impression that you have no interest in learning and all you really care about is finding some way to rationalize your current beliefs.

No you made the claim which means proving it is your responsibility, give me the simplified version if you want to but your claim is at odds with my understanding of the physics of CO2 induced heating.

What the study says is that overall amount of warming due to CO2 has been slightly overestimated, and this has caused the amount of warming due to other gases to be slightly underestimated. No where does it say as CO2 increases the effect of each new particle decreases.

[TimG]

No where does it say as CO2 increases the effect of each new particle decreases.

Probably because that relationship is obvious from the formulas provided.

The formula for additional forcing caused by added CO2 is ln(C/C0) where C is the current concentration and C0 is the initial concentration.

If C0 = 280 and C = 380 (a 100ppm increase) the forcing change is 0.31

If we add another 100ppm the forcing change is 0.54

IOW. The first 100ppm causes a change of 0.31 but the second 100ppm only causes a change of 0.23

In percentage terms the first 100ppm has an effect that is 35% larger than the second 100ppm

The third 100ppm will have an effect that is 64% less than the first 100ppm

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don't get it so I'm just going to concede on this one.

[waldo]

FWIW, the IPCC predicts a large temperature rise despite the decreasing effect of CO2 because the IPCC ECONOMIC models predict an exponential increase in emissions. The trouble with these claims is they are ECONOMIC models - not physics models and no rational person should ever take them as a fact or even as remotely plausible.

again, you are quite liberally mixing the physical science basis with economic modelling and predictive emission increases. As this is the second recent similar claim you've made, it would be helpful to gain a verifiable contextual link to your statements, particularly in regards to IPCC temperature predictions projections

Here is a quick link that shows the exponential increase in CO2 assumed by the SRES scenarios:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=5-1

The statement that CO2 emissions scenarios are entirely based on an economic model should be self evident. The temperature rises predicted by the models depend entirely on these projected emissions scenarios. If the IPCC economic models are wrong then their temperature projections will also be wrong.

My position is it is irrational to treat the output of an economic model as a fact or even highly plausible. They are purely hypothetical and the science of CO2 has no relevance to the discussion of what to do about these hypothetical economic scenarios.

gee, thanks scoop… those would be the same AR4 SRES scenarios where I’ve been after you to verify your earlier claim that they include a ‘business as usual’ (BAU) scenario. Again, which one of those SRES scenarios is your earlier claimed ‘BAU’ scenario?

clearly, your labelling them as ECONOMIC models (your repeated caps highlighted emphasis) is a distortion, at best. The overall grouping of 40 SRES scenarios includes many models, of many types… certainly, inclusive of ‘macro-economic’ models… but not to the exclusion of so-called ‘systems-engineering’ types.

of course, coupled to that you’ve (purposely?) misrepresented the temperature rise aspects within those scenarios as being arrived at based on “ECONOMICS”… and that was the point I was highlighting in my point of clarification to you – i.e., the temperature rise aspects within the respective SRES scenarios are based on established AOGCM climate models (19 of them) inclusive of effective climate sensitivity across the 1.9°C to 5.9°C. range. Which, of course, brings us back to the physical science and the same unanswered challenge you’ve been given previously… offer substantiation to your claim that climate sensitivity is at the low end… or rather, lower than the low end, in your case. I will look it up if pressed – at this point I seem to recall you suggesting you’d accept climate sensitivity at 1.0°C. Please feel free to correct me…

the temperature rises modeled within the scenarios are simply that… modeled within the scenarios - based upon the respective emission results associated with each scenario. Obviously, those same climate models have been run separately from the formal scenarios to provide temperature rise versus emission level results. So, really… isn’t your beef with the scenarios themselves… don’t you simply have trouble accepting attempts to model eventualities (scenarios) based upon your favoured, no actual climate action being taken? (/snarc)

[waldo]

concur... tell it to Simple ton with his comical myopic denier view that, as Simple claims, "alarmists (whoever the hell that is), are feverishly working to hide an information flow concerning scientific advances".

Well, it is a possibility.

Never put it past anyone to make a buck by supressing technology.

after you posting something that actually made sense... where I concurred... you follow-up with this. Since you're buying into Simple's pretense, just who are these "alarmists" Simple speaks of? Just who are these "alarmists" Simple states are, purposely and knowingly, hiding and preventing the release of knowledge on scientific advances in alternate energies intended to supplant fossil-fuels? Just who are Simple's "alarmists"?

But again, scientists should not get involved in the politics, because once bias sets in, they are no longer impartial or objective to new information. They don't even become impartial or objective in their own work. Once they get involved in the politics of it all, they stop being scientists and stop actually doing objective scientific work.

The data will show if AGW exits, a political agenda will not.

nonsense - the 'data' does show AGW exists. Deniers aren't interested in or accepting of that data - duh!

you fail to grasp the intent of these two separate initiatives, both intent on utilizing science to refute the lies, distortions and fabrications pushed forward by the denial machine... whether that emanates from industry funded think-tanks, or the right-wing science denying echo chamber, or the denier blogosphere, or... U.S. Republican members of Congress. That's not politics. Simply because one portion of the science denying and misinformation contingent happens to include U.S. Republican members of Congress, that doesn't suddenly turn scientists into politicians, should scientists (now) choose to more aggressively refute the lies, distortions and fabrications. Perhaps you can offer another approach scientists should take if this one isn't to your liking...

[wyly]

I would add scientists aren't by nature political they don't care whether the general public believe their findings or not...but when those who aren't qualified(politicians and deniers) dismiss the science that is critical to everyone/planet then they have no choice but become politically active...

[lukin]

I would add scientists aren't by nature political they don't care whether the general public believe their findings or not...but when those who aren't qualified(politicians and deniers) dismiss the science that is critical to everyone/planet then they have no choice but become politically active...

Total BS. Scientists are paid big bucks to support what lobbyists want. That's why many scientists are afraid to come out against AGW. If they do , they'll get their funding cut.

[waldo]

Total BS. Scientists are paid big bucks to support what lobbyists want. That's why many scientists are afraid to come out against AGW. If they do , they'll get their funding cut.

so... scientists are afraid to go against consensus science... but you state they're also 'convincing' writers - hey? Buddy... why don't they just write a little less convincingly! Like I said previously in the following re-quoted post, "Why can’t your denier side just find better, more convincing writers (scientists) - why not just acknowledge your denier side’s scientists are shitty, unconvincing writers… at least start there – hey?"

The Green Lobby is powerful. Billions of dollars have been given to scientists from governments to write convincingly that ghgs are causing climate change. These scientists either find what they are told to find, or they have their funding cut.

ya, ya – the “Green Lobby” fits well with your earlier “Green Agenda” MLW thread/ramblings. But wait… it seems that thread went a bit cold – you sort of disappeared from it… apparently… your premise wasn’t well received, you had great difficulty in supporting it… and you opted for “Greener Pastures”.

in that same thread, your “Green Agenda” thread, various tangential discussions arose concerning funding sources/avenues… apparently, you took exception to reading all those accounts of the brazillions of dollars Big Oil, the Koch Brothers, the myriad of right-wing think tanks, etc., bring forward to combat the, uhhh… “Green Lobby” engaged in the “Green Agenda”. But you are consistent… for you, it’s simply enough to suggest “governments are purposely funding scientists” to, uhhh… as you say, “write convincingly”.

just “write convincingly”! That’s it… that’s all it takes! Well buddy, your denier side just needs to get better writers (scientists)… you know… more convincing ones. You would think that would be the biggest priority for the channelling of all that brazillions of denier funding - what’s your problem?… other than, as you say, the more convincing writers (scientists) are presenting the more convincing/actual prevailing science – go figure! Why can’t your denier side just find better, more convincing writers (scientists) - why not just acknowledge your denier side’s scientists are shitty, unconvincing writers… at least start there – hey?

[waldo]

speaking of CO2 emission levels/atmospheric concentration: ... for 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 has never been above the 300 ppm level - until now!

[GostHacked]

so... scientists are afraid to go against consensus science...

Because if they do, their funding could be cut. This is the political aspect of it. If your data does not support the official model then you will get your funding cut. That is not how science is done. If real science is getting rejected because of some political influence where many are screaming nothing but DENIER,... this is where the whole AGW believer crowd is being decieved.

speaking of CO2 emission levels/atmospheric concentration: ... for 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 has never been above the 300 ppm level - until now!

Has it been higher than 300PPM before then? If so, when and how high? 650,000 years is not a very long time considering the overal lenght of time life has existed on this planet. That time frame might cover just homo-sapiens.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Has it been higher than 300PPM before then? If so, when and how high? 650,000 years is not a very long time considering the overal lenght of time life has existed on this planet. That time frame might cover just homo-sapiens.

Yes....much higher...at least 20 times higher. The AGW faithful seem to think that the earth is only 1000's of years old.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Has it been higher than 300PPM before then? If so, when and how high? 650,000 years is not a very long time considering the overal lenght of time life has existed on this planet. That time frame might cover just homo-sapiens.

Modern Humans have existed for about a 1/4 million years so it covers us and some of our ancestors. And yes in the past it has been higher than 300PPM and much hotter than it is now. Technically we are still in an ice age. Of course CO2 levels in the past could have been safely slightly higher as the sun is getting hotter over time. (Before anyone says anything this is happening over a very large timescale)

[TimG]

The overall grouping of 40 SRES scenarios includes many models, of many types… certainly, inclusive of ‘macro-economic’ models… but not to the exclusion of so-called ‘systems-engineering’ types.

So what? The track record of these kinds of models is horrible. They are no better than astrology.

Which, of course, brings us back to the physical science and the same unanswered challenge you’ve been given previously.

The flatline in temps for the last 10 years and the flatline in OHC over the last 6 is what tells me sensitivity is likely at the lower end. I know many climate scientists are 'data deniers' and refuse to accept data that contradicts their precious models. In any case, the bigger elephant in the room are the economic assumptions that are built into the projections. If those economic assumption are wrong the temperature rise will be lower than expected too.

More importantly. We have plenty of precedents where economic doomsayers are proven wrong. Reality is NEVER as bad as it was claimed before hand. For that reason, I am extremely certain that BAU emissions will never reach the levels claimed in the SRES which means the temperature rise will lower than claimed.