From an alarming article from a group called Carbon Equity with a hat tip to Eric Swanson.
"Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors."
-Jonas Salk
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
me, Michael Tobis Ph.D., a.k.a. "mt"
The Best of "In It"
- Getting Things Backwards
- Childhood's End
- Nature Doesn't Need a Seat at the Table
- Quote Gallery
- My Point of View in a Nutshell
- Tobis's Tautology
- The Cruel Hoax
- The Lawnmower Problem
- Sunspots vs Global Temperature
- Climate Models- Is There a Better Way?
- Can Computation Solve Economics?
- The Opposite of Denialism
- Consequences for Getting It Wrong
- On Falsifying AGW
- How Loud to Squawk
- Getting Things Backwards
- Energy is Unbelievably Cheap
- Reply to Revkin
- Selling the Incomprehensible
- Nature is not a Budget Item
- Perpetuity Smaller in Texas
- Taking Lomborg Seriously
- The Missing Feedback
- Science Budget Talking Point
- Does My Prius Help?
- The First Meter
- B-Schools vs Scientists
- Climatological Culture
- The Mayor Feels My Pain
- Economists Overflow Bathtubs
- The Great Society
- Economists vs Engineers
- The Market for Lemons
- Is Climatology A Science?
- The Climate Science Budget
- Bambi vs Godzilla
- Why Truth is Losing Ground
Where the 4 Winds Dwell
- AGW Observer
- And Then There's Physics
- Brave New Climate
- Climate Abyss (Nielsen-Gammon)
- Climate SIght (Kate X)
- Covered in Bees
- Daily Climate
- Daily Dish
- Deltoid
- Empty
- Energy Collective, The
- Fleck
- Greenman (AKA CLimate Crock)
- Grist
- Grumbine
- Hale
- Hot Topic
- Ill Considered
- Krugman
- Long Now
- Maribo
- Planet 3.0
- Quark Soup
- Rabett Run
- RealClimate
- Resilience
- Samadhisoft
- Science of Doom
- Serendipity
- Stoat
- Tamino/Open Mind
- Texas Climate News
- Texas Observer
- The Other Onion
- Things Break
- Variable Variability
- Various Consequences
- Yale Forum
No Cattle and No Hat Either
me, Michael Tobis Ph.D., a.k.a. "mt"
Some biographical info is on
my home page
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(289)
-
▼
October
(45)
- Newt Gingrich???
- The code is not the model
- Speaking of Dramatic Changes
- Remember the Future?
- What's Really Scary
- Fallibility of Science
- BlogRolling
- UNEP Gets It
- Nature is not a Budget Item
- Jeffrey Sachs vs U of C Law Profs
- No Limits to the Mind
- Nature Doesn't Need a Seat at the Table
- Resilience Meanderings
- How Many People Can the Earth Support?
- Water Fireworks
- Nature is not a Luxury
- Perpetuity Smaller in Texas
- Ms. Zhivago
- Two Under-reported Climate Stories
- Chaos and Climate
- The Other Water Problem
- Gore Responds to 9 'errors'
- Kansas Rejects Coal!
- Planetary Emergency: To Go Far Quickly
- Sea Level Risk in East Texas
- Worried About the Intellectual Climate
- Gravityism
- About China, for Blog Action Day
- Eight 'errors' and an editing error
- Innocence by association
- Lomborg gets silly
- Detailed Geography of Ice Retreat
- History of AGW Consensus by Mashey
- Nice Argument for Mitigation
- The Co-Laureate
- Fallibility of Consensus Revisited
- Barton vs Gore: Discuss
- Fallibility of Consensus
- Montreal public bicycles
- Quark Soup
- Airline Mag: Green Edition
- Trust and Expertise
- Don't Major in Sea Ice
- Three Scary Postings
- Nordhaus Seeks Magic Bullet, Will Pay
-
▼
October
(45)
6 comments:
Sure looks like an inflection point to me. Do any of the models (IPCC or otherwise) predict an inflection point here?
Nope, that's the point of the graph.
We won't know for sure how important this is for a couple of years. Perhaps the curve will revert to the predicted slope, or even to the predicted line.
On the other hand, there is no denying that it has an ominous look. Barring an equally peculiar bounce back in the next couple of years, it's something that people who don't like the concept of 'tipping points" will have to account for.
This also reinforces my long held point that the consensus is more or less equally likely to understate as to overstate risks.
Understated risks being more severe than overstated risks, they should have more weight in our decisions.
I don't get it. I would expect any valid climate model to be full of "tipping points". I'd visualize a vast network of them interacting in overlapping positive and negative feedback loops.
Isn't that the way the real thing operates?
Nope, sorry. The short answer is that climate models don't act like that, and we don't know to what extent the world that we are modeling does.
That is a darned fine question, though. I'll try to ponder a better answer.
Thanks, that would be great. It's pretty much the same as my first question in my post over at Wired.
BTW, it occurred to me that the timing is right for it to be caused by the war in Afghanistan. Wouldn't that be a screamingly "politically unacceptable" model?
Post a Comment