tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post1571862796774563405..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Thin Kool-AdeMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3250590811353041252010-01-03T18:52:12.457-08:002010-01-03T18:52:12.457-08:00Short context of Knorr: with lessened airbourne fr...Short context of Knorr: with lessened airbourne fraction there might be perhaps in the ballpark of 10% more emissions for similar warming than with a constant airbourne fraction...<br /><br />Shorter Green: The above shows no emissions reductions are necessary.<br /><br />It doesn't compute. Green has exposed himself nicely and quickly. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-69608925057641567842010-01-02T17:55:51.815-08:002010-01-02T17:55:51.815-08:00"Really good teaching sooner or later involve..."Really good teaching sooner or later involves a certain amount of pain. Whether it's the pain of tedious work or the pain of stinging criticism, seeking a totally pain-free education is kind of wishful thinking."<br />(from Randy Olson's Don't Be Such a Scientist)Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-85761166821899267992010-01-01T15:04:21.500-08:002010-01-01T15:04:21.500-08:00To avoid misunderstanding, I used "expectatio...To avoid misunderstanding, I used "expectation" in the above in the sense a statistician would.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-70824505127263887952010-01-01T15:00:18.101-08:002010-01-01T15:00:18.101-08:00Ken, on Knorr:
Of course Knorr is slightly reassu...Ken, on Knorr:<br /><br />Of course Knorr is slightly reassuring compared to Canadell, but Knorr is a very long way from refuting any need to restrain emissions. You said Knorr would be "sufficient". <br /><br />I can understand you wanting to drop this and I won't push it further. You should understand that I think your response does not reflect well on your candidness any more than your original point reflected well on your grasp of the scientific material.<br /><br />Regarding the risk point:<br /><br />We don't have any basis for expecting space aliens, but we already increasing concentrations of CO2 in a very substantial ratio to their preindustrial levels. <br /><br />The event itself is not speculative; it is already well underway. This is in contrast to your Martians, asteroid, etc. and is what makes the difference. The chances of Martians are unknown but very small. The chances of a large CO2 perturbation are 100%.<br /><br />Only the consequences are, according to some, poorly constrained. But the more poorly constrained the higher your risk profile, presuming your expectation is unchanged. <br /><br />If you propose a very low sensitivity along with weak science, you'd still best be very sure of yourself. No matter what you think the sensitivity is, the lower your confidence, the greater your risk.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-46133811767487455602010-01-01T14:47:06.681-08:002010-01-01T14:47:06.681-08:00Dr. Green,
your logic on this point still fail...Dr. Green,<br /><br /> your logic on this point still fails to make any sense. Your original claim was "CO2 fraction in the atmosphere hasn't changed since 1850" and that if that might be correct "that's all you need".<br /><br />Now you are saying that you were referring to Knorr's paper, and that it means "less human emissions are staying in the atmosphere". No, it doesn't mean less human emissions, it means the *fraction staying hasn't changed since 1850* (so far). Given that you are changing your phrasing on this from "hasn't changed" to "less", it seems perfectly clear that you did indeed misunderstand the original claim associated with Knorr - as no doubt the Science Daily headline and AGU press release have confused countless other people. Just admit it and we'll have a little respect for you.<br /><br />Or else, please explain why the marginal issue of airborne fraction actually makes any significant difference to future projections of warming? As Michael has already explained, the difference Knorr's paper makes, if that constant fraction continues to hold, is at the level of delaying CO2 doubling by maybe 1 decade. It doesn't comfort those of us who care about our future at all.Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-8199322705570327622010-01-01T14:31:45.896-08:002010-01-01T14:31:45.896-08:00A few quick points during a commercial break for t...A few quick points during a commercial break for the Rose Bowl:<br /><br />1) I was the lead author on AEI's Outlook which argued that a carbon tax is superior to cap-and-trade.<br /><br />2) I'm also quoted as suggesting that Maria Cantwell's bill is superior to cap-and-trade.<br /><br />3) I also think Ross McKitrick's T3 tax would be a good idea.<br /><br />4) On the airborne fraction thing, Vinny made my point. If less human emissions are staying in the atmosphere, projections of future warming are likely exaggerated.<br /><br />5) I'll take on Michael's rather bizarre thoughts about risk at greater length, but if he is sincere in what he says, then he would want vastly greater research into asteroid interception and influenza than into climate change. The fact that the less you know about a risk means the MORE you should do stands our usual reasoning on its head. Should we be worrying about an alien invasion from space too? Or perhaps a spontaneous solar eruption that carbonizes half the planet? Should we be pouring money into all those, and re-ordering the world's political and economic systems because of those risks?Ken Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07020096316237429568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-59983008506319351222010-01-01T13:43:11.335-08:002010-01-01T13:43:11.335-08:00Dan, sometimes a cigar isn't just a cigar. Th...Dan, sometimes a cigar isn't just a cigar. The likes of AEI can push a carbon tax alternative at this stage because to do so serves as an attack on existing climate legislation without running any risk of seeing a tax implemented. Even taking the cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax debate at face value, I think it hardly matters since Congress will only pass a very weak measure. Getting that done is still important, though, since it will provide the needed cover for the old-fashioned command-and-control measures enabled by the Clean Air Act CO2 endangerment finding (and the forthcoming Clean Water Act one). IMHO the appointments of Holdren, Chu and Lubchenco are evidence that Obama is serious about proceeding with those measures. We'll see soon enough if I'm right.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-21363842869330208342010-01-01T12:39:07.703-08:002010-01-01T12:39:07.703-08:00A offer of as guest post is great. At the very lea...A offer of as guest post is great. At the very least you are removing his ability to honestly claim that the AGW camp is not willing to take people like him seriously... and as an added side effect I am learning new and interesting things.Scruffy Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09576996151807188873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-69977015019587038142010-01-01T12:13:49.542-08:002010-01-01T12:13:49.542-08:00Dan, he has already got an offer of a guest postin...Dan, he has already got an offer of a guest posting, but on the other hand he posts already in more congenial (to him) locations. It really doesn't matter where somebody posts. <br /><br />It's just that it would be nice if somebody slowed down the firehose of innuendo long enough to explain what they think the "hoax" is all about. <br /><br />It all seems less plausible than a typical Philip K. Dick paranoid science fiction novel. It's always a bit feverish and unreal. So the combination of Ken's calm demeanor, his acceptance of the conspiracy model, his prominence, and his willingness to participate left some hope that he could provide us with a clear picture of what we're accused of.<br /><br />I'm still waiting.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-67508341469280896742010-01-01T11:53:51.801-08:002010-01-01T11:53:51.801-08:00Airborne fractions only figure implicitly in IPCC ...Airborne fractions only figure implicitly in IPCC model runs through AR4. <br /><br />The actual concentrations as a function of time are the scenarios. A given scenario could equally correspond to many cases. For any two cases one would have fractionally higher emissions and correspondingly fractionally lower airborne fraction than another.<br /><br />The coupling of the carbon cycle to the climate system as described in the Charney tradition and modeled in CGCMs is loose. <br /><br />I think we should take all the loose couplings we can get, but there's lots of pressure and effort to build coupled climate/geochemistry models. I think it's premature at best, but that's neither here nor there.<br /><br />The physical climate system responds to CO2 concentrations, not to airborne emission fraction. It's a well-posed problem to just specify the former, and a better constrained one. So mostly that is what we have been doing so far.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-18878823702868246872010-01-01T11:31:50.424-08:002010-01-01T11:31:50.424-08:00You troped me! I didn't want to be too specifi...You troped me! I didn't want to be too specific about which models I was talking about because I wasn't sure whether CCCCs were a flavour of GCMs. Thanks for clarifying.<br /><br />But your second paragraph isn't quite so accessible to a beginner. I read it as saying that airborne fractions didn't feature at all in any of those IPCC A1, B2 etc. analyses, but that can't be right. (Not least because it would be even better news for naysayers.)<br /><br />I take your point about the scale of the difference between outcomes for a stable fraction and for the model-found increases.Vinny Burgoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13830703358571312302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-87037494895622620322010-01-01T11:27:59.372-08:002010-01-01T11:27:59.372-08:00@ Steve Bloom "I'm not so sure about that...@ Steve Bloom "I'm not so sure about that. Both AEI and Ken's present funders likely would drop him, and where would he go from there?"<br /><br />I don't have much info on AEI, but I do recall a while back some excellent writings from them pushing for a carbon tax. At the very least this suggests that AEI is open to policy discussions that assume that the consensus view is correct. Ken Green may be another matter altogether. And some of his reasoning here seems to suggest so but the sample size is small so I could be quote wrong.<br /><br />@ MT<br /><br />The only thing I would add, is that since Ken is complaining about lack of space in the comments here to fully make his case, perhaps an alternate venue could be established. This conversation is very interesting and it would be a shame to see it limited by a technological limitation.Scruffy Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09576996151807188873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-13480140286242351792010-01-01T10:01:15.265-08:002010-01-01T10:01:15.265-08:00One naysayer trope is "the models". A ca...One naysayer trope is "the models". A carbon cycle model is not a GCM, and geochemical modeling is far behind climate modeling in fidelity and confidence.<br /><br />Carbon cycle feedbacks are not included in GCM projections up to and including AR4. This is an important thing for the beginner to understand. The carbon trajectories are inputs to the GCMs; to make generalizations across models, this is why IPCC makes atmospheric concentration scenarios and not emission scenarios.<br /><br />Any evidence about the real world that is legitimately comforting to the naysayers is comforting to any sane person. <br /><br />The comfort offered by Knorr, should the result stand and be robust into the future, is of far too small an order to support the sort of outcome Dr Green was proposing. <br /><br />Let's be quantitative. Say we're at 400 ppmv now and we are going to constrain ourselves to a 550 ppmv peak. <br /><br />Let's simplify the question at hand to being whether that the oceans and land could retain 50% rather than 60% over that period. That is, for every four units of increase in the Knorr case we'd get five units in the non-Knorr case. <br /><br />So in the non-Knorr scenario the identical economic behavior leading to 550 ppmv would only lead to 520 ppmv in the Knorr case. Good news to be sure, but not good enough to abandon all constraints by any means.<br /><br />Hope that's clear.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-75614479038381056362010-01-01T09:24:15.864-08:002010-01-01T09:24:15.864-08:00Why is misunderstanding the most likely explanatio...Why is misunderstanding the most likely explanation? The observed stability of the airborne fraction (as opposed to atmospheric concentration) could indeed be a comfort to naysayers. If the modelled fraction is wrong then the modelled projections of temperature rise etc. will have to be scaled down. The right-hand bump in your handy chart would then move to the left, away from 'catastrophe' and towards the naysayers' 'neutral'. (This should make everyone happy, of course, not just naysayers.)<br /><br />Are the models wrong? Again, I don't know. But Knorr ended his abstract by juxtaposing his findings with what the models find (and use). That does suggest that at least one expert is a bit sceptical about them.<br /><br />But perhaps I should read the study.Vinny Burgoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13830703358571312302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-9697045177641099872010-01-01T07:01:04.185-08:002010-01-01T07:01:04.185-08:00Vinny, I have more for you, stick around.
Regard...Vinny, I have more for you, stick around. <br /><br />Regarding 'airborne fraction', I say what Anna said. That is totally clear.<br /><br />It's a big open question, but it sure looks a lot smaller than "oh, no worries, then". I think the most likely explanation is that Dr Green spectacularly misunderstood the abstract and is trying to cover his tracks. But I remain willing to be proven wrong.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-73369773200617974102010-01-01T05:58:09.768-08:002010-01-01T05:58:09.768-08:00'Airborne fraction' is the standard shorth...'Airborne fraction' is the standard shorthand for 'the ratio of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 to [anthropogenic] CO2 emissions'* (AR4 WG1 Chapter 2). I'd say that 'CO2 fraction in the atmosphere' is an acceptable rejigging of this term and is no more (or less) ambiguous than the original.<br /><br />As for whether a stable airborne fraction supports the naysayers ... I don't know. That's certainly over *my* head. The observational IPCC reports note the stability of the airborne fraction; the futurological IPCC reports model an increasing trend. I'm tempted to say that the past is a better guide to the future than a lot of models I don't understand, but that would be foolish, so I won't.<br /><br /><br />*While we're on sloppy English,** the Chapter 2 definition is gibberish. It actually says, 'ratio of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 to the CO2 emissions from annual fossil fuel and cement manufacture combined'. Annual fossil fuel manufacture? Oh! Is that the problem? Not the burning of fossil fuels but all those coal pixies beavering away underground to make the stuff.<br /><br />**Sloppy English, Part Deux: The Burke et al prediction I mentioned is in WG1 Chapter 10, not 11.<br /><br />***Stray footnote: Thanks for the response, MT. I've penned a few comments on it but they are very general (and a bit long-winded) and I don't want to muddy things with generalities at the moment. Maybe later.Vinny Burgoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13830703358571312302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-68529823632674865672009-12-31T22:04:58.309-08:002009-12-31T22:04:58.309-08:00Kenneth Green
Accepting that the line about a con...Kenneth Green<br /><br />Accepting that the line about a constant atmosperic fraction of CO2is "all you need" was a throw-away, not meant to be taken seriously, you make two points: that AGW would not be a concern if climate sensitivity is much lower (as argued by Christy and Lindzen) or that there is a negative feedback effect, as also argued by these and others.<br /><br />I can agree that, IF either of these were so, then the level of concern would be much less. But what evidence is there that these are so? I understand there are strong arguments, drawn from multiple lines of evidence, against a sensitivity of less than ~2C. The case for a negative feedback would be much stronger if an observable mechanism consistent with the observed warming could be put forward. Has one been?Peter Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13289172253358199028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-28497399994601369362009-12-31T21:11:50.290-08:002009-12-31T21:11:50.290-08:00Dr. Green - I (and Michael and presumably others h...Dr. Green - I (and Michael and presumably others here) have no objection to Knorr's result, and we do not find it alleviates any of our concern about impending climate impacts. We wonder why it has any affect on yours, if you have indeed understood the result? Let's be clear about what it means:<br /><br />Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from a value around 270 or 280 ppm in the early 1800's to the present value of 390 ppm. This change means the mass of CO2 added to Earth's atmosphere over that period is only about 40% of the CO2 emitted by human burning of fossil fuels. If 100% of our emitted CO2 had all be retained by the atmosphere, the concentration now would be already close to double pre-industrial levels.<br /><br />So we should be grateful that Earth's system has responded by absorbing 60% of our emissions. Of course that was not unexpected - before the late 1950's when Keeling and Revelle proved atmospheric CO2 was increasing some people (like Freeman Dyson - I have an essay of his on this) thought the oceans would absorb close to 100% of our emissions.<br /><br />There have been some expectations that that 60% figure would drop, especially as the oceans warm and start to lose some of their capacity to hold CO2. Knorr's result, if it's correct (one paper proves nothing, of course), shows merely that the drop hasn't started yet. But even if it never starts, we are still emitting so much CO2 that things will get bad quickly. I don't believe the IPCC actually anywhere assumes that these emisison fractions will change any time in the 21st century, and the scenarios are still bad enough.<br /><br />So is this really what you understood of this paper, when you claimed that "if you think the recent study showing that the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere hasn't changed since 1850 might be correct, that's all you need." Can you please explain your logic on this? Because Michael and I certainly do think Knorr's study might be correct, but it is very much not all we need to stop worrying about climate change!!!Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-46782825577184977152009-12-31T16:05:27.413-08:002009-12-31T16:05:27.413-08:00The exact words at issue are:
"As for your b...The exact words at issue are:<br /><br />"As for your bullet points about what needs to be thrown away to support the "naysayers" camp ... if you think the recent study showing that the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere hasn't changed since 1850 might be correct, that's all you need."<br /><br />You said "fraction in the atmosphere". That sounds like a concentration, not an emissions fraction, especially given the claims you make for it. But you just stated otherwise.<br /><br />OK, I am trying to be generous. I take your statement at face value. I will accept for the sake of argument you actually meant "fraction [of emissions that remain] in the atmosphere". How would <em><b>that</b></em> being constant be "all you need to support the naysayers camp"?<br /><br />Please explain.<br /><br />At this point the corner you find yourself in is your own paint job.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-2628351997052935962009-12-31T15:35:47.078-08:002009-12-31T15:35:47.078-08:00Oh, and I absolutely hate it when people confuse &...Oh, and I absolutely hate it when people confuse "loose" and "lose." On the other hand, given the way people abuse the King's English these days, that's among the least of the infractions.<br /><br />And, my captcha word is wisessa, which inverts to wise ass. I'll take it.Ken Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07020096316237429568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80310412152549433552009-12-31T15:32:32.921-08:002009-12-31T15:32:32.921-08:00Sigh. Again with the insinuations about background...Sigh. Again with the insinuations about background. Okay, for the record<br /><br />I have a BS in Bio, M.S. in Molecular, and the D.Env. you mention, Michael. I had a year of physics, a year of calculus, more than two years of chemistry, and an uncountable number of years of biology, all told.<br /><br />If you think I'm over my head here, there's not much sense in continuing the discussion, since you can't possibly think I have anything to say that you'd find reasonable.Ken Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07020096316237429568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3718559985413114772009-12-31T15:27:53.695-08:002009-12-31T15:27:53.695-08:00Michael,
I did say "CO2 fraction" in m...Michael, <br /><br />I did say "CO2 fraction" in my first post. I did not say CO2 concentration. You shouldn't make assumptions about what I write, and then tell me not to make assumptions about what others write.<br /><br />KenKen Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07020096316237429568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-11172863380816359762009-12-31T15:03:28.025-08:002009-12-31T15:03:28.025-08:00The Watts/Michaels take seems to be that "her...The Watts/Michaels take seems to be that "here's a result we like better than the model results, therefore the models are wrong" and it's all about ragging on "the" models (even though these are not climate models in question). Kind of cranky but not horribly wrongheaded.<br /><br />Dr Green, on the other hand, seems to have missed the point altogether. "Or, if you think the recent study showing that the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere hasn't changed since 1850 might be correct, that's all you need" [to completely refute concerns about the greenhouse effect]. <br /><br />In then referring us to Knorr to support this he inadvertently suggests a real lack of sophistication regarding climate science that I had simply assumed could not be his problem.<br /><br />My leading hypothesis at present is that Dr Green is out of his depth on this matter. <br /><br />It's more than a little disappointing. The only "D Env" program in the world seems to be sufficiently rigorous, requiring a year of calculus and physics, that a person ought to be able to learn quantitative material.<br /><br />This doesn't speak well for the thinking in the tank, I'm afraid. <br /><br />Perhaps it's a momentary glitch. We all make substantive mistakes from time to time I guess. I drop minus signs with wild abandon sometimes. The scary thing, the thing that will make it hard for Dr Green to back out of this mess in my opinion, is the complete lack of "wait - that can't be right" hesitation that any appreciation of how science works would require.<br /><br />The whole "climategate" worldview seems to require not knowing much about science as a social process.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-13477322508491707822009-12-31T14:35:25.572-08:002009-12-31T14:35:25.572-08:00Hey, maybe Dr. Green and the AEI can save the dime...Hey, maybe Dr. Green and the AEI can save the dime! Wattsamattaforyou has a free copy of Knorr's paper up <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf" rel="nofollow">here.</a><br /><br />It seems to me that the "best" possible interpretation of this result (if it even holds, and as I linked above, Corrine Lequerre's work suggests otherwise...) is that "Hey, maybe the radiative forcing will be very slightly less than forecast... but ocean acidification will be worse!" It's not exactly what I would lead with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-74766382867775642692009-12-31T14:23:12.912-08:002009-12-31T14:23:12.912-08:00Ordinarily, that would bother me alot.
:-)Ordinarily, that would bother me alot.<br /><br />:-)Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.com