tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post6515176033689572630..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: New York CityMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-61850083725541071172009-02-22T07:07:00.000-08:002009-02-22T07:07:00.000-08:00rcram's doubts about climate science are excessive...rcram's doubts about climate science are excessive in my opinion. If he were sincere these doubts would push him to support vigorous emissions restraints.<BR/><BR/>His choice of what to believe and what not to believe seems not based on a grounding in the discipline but in a preference for certain results, though. Accordingly one wonders about his strategies for evaluating evidence.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, rcram's way of treating science that agrees with his inclinations as demonstrated and science which disagrees with his inclinations as repudiated discourages conversation.<BR/><BR/>The proposition that extant GCMs have no predictive value is demonstrably false. <BR/><BR/>GCMs of the late 1980s correctly predicted very unusual aspects of the large scale behavior atmosphere over the past including polar amplification and stratospheric cooling. Transient models since then appear to be on track regarding global temperature trajectories and expansion of the arid subtropical zones.<BR/><BR/>What does that tell us about the role of modeling, and of physical climatology in general, in future governance? That's what I'm trying to address. <BR/><BR/>The position I'm trying to sketch out isn't all that simple. I'm certainly in favor of more work in climatology. <BR/><BR/>I think climatology as a purely theoretical discipline could be of great importance in itself. It seems to me that Lorenz proved that. I'll try to sketch this out sometime; I've believed it for a long time but I don't think I've expressed myself clearly on the subject as yet.<BR/><BR/>As an applied discipline, though, it is reaching practical constraints that will at best take some considerable time and effort to overcome.<BR/><BR/>In the long run such work may yet serve to inform regional adaptation. Those advocating a geoengineering fallback had best support a very vigorous discipline of physical climatology.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps progress of that sort is impractical. It's a plausible outcome. This doesn't mean climate science itself should be shut down, but it would mean that climate science has reached its limits as an input into policy.<BR/><BR/>At least for the present, I believe that we have said our piece. It will not change much for a generation. <BR/><BR/>It's daunting enough if you believe us, and worse yet if you don't.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-63864873554004782722009-02-22T06:21:00.000-08:002009-02-22T06:21:00.000-08:00The climate models are not close to correct yet. ...The climate models are not close to correct yet. The Petr Chylek paper published in 2007 shows the cooling impact estimated for aerosols is way too high. Climate models have not made the necessary adjustments yet. <BR/><BR/>Also, Spencer and his team wrote a paper in 2007 regarding the negative feedback over the tropics they identified as the Infrared Iris effect hypothesized by Lindzen. Climate models still are not calculating in this negative feedback. <BR/><BR/>Climate models still do not get clouds correct or understand what causes clouds to form. Is it galactic cosmic rays? (may or may not have a long term trend) Or is it the PDO which has a 30 year oscillating trendline? Or is it a combination of both? The climate models have no clue. <BR/><BR/>Orrin Pilkey at Duke University wrote a book about how climate models (and he respects the work of the IPCC) will never have predictive power. It's called "Useless Arithmetic." You should read it sometime.Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-74127910428513532652009-02-21T18:51:00.000-08:002009-02-21T18:51:00.000-08:00In NY you want to find a good pizza shop, not Tex-...In NY you want to find a good pizza shop, not Tex-MexEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-25401544008125491062009-02-21T17:32:00.000-08:002009-02-21T17:32:00.000-08:00> It sure would be nice if the stuff > that ...> It sure would be nice if the stuff <BR/>> that matters didn't actually <BR/>> compete with the stuff that pays, <BR/>> though. <BR/><BR/>Those of us grinding through work lives at the clerical level and trying to be of use to the world in our copious spare time can but agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80665892854381081652009-02-21T05:44:00.000-08:002009-02-21T05:44:00.000-08:00Naught101, I found Keen's blog a while ago, whilst...Naught101, I found Keen's blog a while ago, whilst trawling for online information to backup what I have read in various books such as "The Grip of death" by Michael Rowbotham, and also had confirmed by a friend who studied history of economics. The url is:<BR/>http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/<BR/><BR/>Suffice to say, far too many economists don't look at history or the history of their topic, and take up positions based upon ideology rather than a rational exploration of what has happened and does happen in the economic realm.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-45481513090728142412009-02-20T18:38:00.000-08:002009-02-20T18:38:00.000-08:00Scientists going into policy = good. Michael, on e...Scientists going into policy = good. <BR/><BR/>Michael, on economics, you should check out "Debunking Economics" by Steve Keen. He's an Australian economist, and the book completely ignores the problems with the basic assumptions of neo-classical economics, and concentrates on explaining the internal logical flaws of the theories - which are many, and serious. It's pretty mind blowing how far separated from reality most economist are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-51657902442553288202009-02-20T18:10:00.000-08:002009-02-20T18:10:00.000-08:00It's not outside the realm of possibility that ice...It's not outside the realm of possibility that ice sheet modeling will make sufficient progress to constrain the behavior of ice sheets effectively. It is certainly worth a try.<BR/><BR/>Carefully targeted expenditures on science can be effective, but you cannot hire nine women to make a baby in a month. Intellectual progress can reach some maximum rate but then it reaches a point where more manpower and more funding is just redundant.<BR/><BR/>Some problems in earth science are undecidable. We may never understand the ocean circulation of the Eocene, much though we might want to. <BR/><BR/>My guess is that the most likely outcome is that there will be several viable scenarios for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet until one of them occurs. Maybe Greenland will turn out to be a tad less capricious.<BR/><BR/>As for aerosols, (and as for clouds, and so on) yes improvements can perhaps narrow the uncertainty of climate prediction a bit, and I'm happy to be helping out in that regard, but the chances of the first order picture changing very much are slim.<BR/><BR/>The real issues are environmental, agricultural and civil engineering problems, and the response issues are in the social, political, economic and geopolitical realms. <BR/><BR/>Climatology is a worthy pursuit in itself, and if geoengineering is necessary you will need to rely on huge advancement in the field. Possibly we can improve our abilities for local and regional predictions, which would add a lot of value. So by all means support climatology, but don't look to us for input into what needs doing now on the mitigation front. We have said our piece and it is unlikely to change, not because we are stubborn, but because there are some things we understand pretty well.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-64061420241804811722009-02-20T17:06:00.000-08:002009-02-20T17:06:00.000-08:00I immediately thought of aerosols, but I see Mitch...I immediately thought of aerosols, but I see Mitchell beat me in mentioning the matter.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-9141347842763468842009-02-20T14:52:00.000-08:002009-02-20T14:52:00.000-08:00Sometime in the next decade there will be a Lake M...Sometime in the next decade there will be a Lake Missoula like event on Greenland resulting in a “sea level rise event”. Nine billion people will have an “Oh! Shit!” moment. A very few of us will shrug and say ”MCP”. In the following hours, there will be a lot of funding for modeling ice, and better GCM that includes ice sheets. Then, and only then will there be a chance to build FASTER, SMARTER, CHEAPER models. Of course, then it will be a lot easier because we will have a real live example of how fast it goes and people will not be saying, “Oh! It could not possibly happen that fast!” <BR/><BR/>Physical climatology is not done, it need to rethink its roles. We need risk assessments and cost analysis for ALL of the impacts of climate change. Good RA and CA need numbers a thousand times better than what we have. Only then, can we estimate how much we should tax carbon. Only with good RA and CA can we plan a cap and trade system. To say that Physical climatology is done, is to say that policy makers should just pull those programs out of their asses without any decision support or justification. We only have time for one whack at this problem. We need to go after the problem with every tool that we have. We must get it correct the first time, and that will take real data, prepared without reticence. Until we have very good numbers on which to base policy, and assure ourselves that our policies are in fact working, physical climatology is not done.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05150805906414546377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-85825453433676490992009-02-20T05:54:00.000-08:002009-02-20T05:54:00.000-08:00Michael,It was a pleasure to meet you as well. Its...Michael,<BR/><BR/>It was a pleasure to meet you as well. Its so great to connect with people who can discuss things with intelligence and flair, such as you and Bora. I am currently enjoying reading all of your sites. I really hope we will keep in touch.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-67029591106171561482009-02-20T05:02:00.000-08:002009-02-20T05:02:00.000-08:00Financial crisis... Stupid name really.People took...Financial crisis... Stupid name really.<BR/><BR/>People took too much debt they couldn't pay. They bought all kinds of fancy things with that debt.<BR/><BR/>I guess the loaners don't have use for that fancy stuff like huge houses etc.<BR/><BR/>So in a way the effort was wasted in building them.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if the price of houses dropped, who now has the money, who sold those houses at the high point?<BR/><BR/>It's just a transfer of money from the past home buyers (who got it from the banks) to the past home sellers.<BR/><BR/>So somebody must have gotten rich from the bubble...<BR/><BR/>Probably the building contractors as well.<BR/><BR/>I see nobody cheering them.<BR/><BR/>It's also interesting that they don't seem to be buying stuff ie that "lesser growth", lacking better words is occurring.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it's just that the previous growth was based on spending savings (money but ultimately labored products and raw materials) and that stash has now run dry. <BR/><BR/>So people can't spend at the previous level anymore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-62075770192367915562009-02-20T02:34:00.000-08:002009-02-20T02:34:00.000-08:00"Sometimes I wonder if most economists live on a d..."Sometimes I wonder if most economists live on a different planet from the rest of us."<BR/><BR/>Legend has it that they used to.<BR/><BR/>The planet we now know as Venus. ;DBuntyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460602998593326903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-32442193619209928932009-02-20T00:09:00.000-08:002009-02-20T00:09:00.000-08:00I would think that aerosols and the Arctic remain ...I would think that aerosols and the Arctic remain important topics. We don't know the magnitude or the timing of the Arctic threat, and it seems likely to me that managing anthropogenic aerosols with attention to their cooling influence is going to be part of future climate policy, with or without geoengineering.Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.com