Stumpy 256
The doomsday scenario you're referring to is a life without power period, without regard to source. And nobody (reasonable) is proposing that we simply close the valves. A future energy portfolio with better representation from the renewable sector will not magically materialize, it will be built up over time. I'm advocating that we continue current efforts in that regard and accelerate them where feasible, that's all. It's not a lack of energy, it's just a migration from very carbon-intensive to less carbon-intensive.
As for snowpack, in the Sierra Nevadas it's decreased by about 10% over the last century (source). In the Cascades, if we remove the variability associated with annual-interdecadal weather patterns, the loss between 1930 and 2007 averaged 2% per decade, or 16% overall (it's much higher if we included the weather stuff...48% between 1950 and 1997). Note it is this snowpack that feeds the largest single power plant in the country (Grand Coulee dam) and that allows Washington to get 70+ percent of its electricity from water (and sell excess energy to California for much of the summer).
Blues,
Dave
As for snowpack, in the Sierra Nevadas it's decreased by about 10% over the last century (source). In the Cascades, if we remove the variability associated with annual-interdecadal weather patterns, the loss between 1930 and 2007 averaged 2% per decade, or 16% overall (it's much higher if we included the weather stuff...48% between 1950 and 1997). Note it is this snowpack that feeds the largest single power plant in the country (Grand Coulee dam) and that allows Washington to get 70+ percent of its electricity from water (and sell excess energy to California for much of the summer).
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
[Reply]Because it seems pretty clear to me that in an era of unprecedented carbon concentrations, we also have unprecedented warmth across the globe, as would be expected by if AGW is occurring.
The problem is that there are too many exceptions. As kelpdiver said previosuly, there have been too many predictions over the last 25 years that have not been borne out. The current trend falls BELOW the zeroi-emissions scenarios that have been presented. That's a problem.
A few years ago a climate scientist stated that the Arctic would be ice free by the end of summer, 2013. He said that may even be "consercative.". Right now the ice extent is normal or slightly above. No telling where it will end up, but "ice free" seems really unlikely. How many times have we hit a "tipping point" onlyto hear a few months later that we are nearing a tipping point?
Dave - you've been really reasonable and I appreciate all you add to this.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rushmc 18
GeorgiaDonDave,
You should be aware that Marc works for an energy company that is dependent on burning fossil fuel for electricity production. Not that that has anything to do with his "perspective", I'm sure.
Don
Got nothing to do with it as I work on the distribution side, not generation
That said, my company is ahead of the EPA in emissions compliance (look up the annual report for Alliant Energy if you wish)
And we have a big wind farm in Hardin County Iowa north of Iowa Falls and have proposed new gas fired plant in Marshalltown Iowa.
Nope
My opinions are my own and have nothing to do with the company I work for
So, you are not any more sure of anything...... again
But is it nice to see someone sucks up the lines Kallend like to post
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 18
Stumpy***Dave,
You should be aware that Marc works for an energy company that is dependent on burning fossil fuel for electricity production. Not that that has anything to do with his "perspective", I'm sure.
Don
Explains a lot.
Wow
another one
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
livendiveMy argument (I can't speak for others) has not been of the "Oh my god we're doomed" variety, and I don't know of anyone who's made tenable arguments including 50' sea rise, endless hurricanes, or the disappearance of snow. I believe in adaptation first, that is, building smarter and implementing policies that will likely be resilient against the most plausible predictions of climate change. Further, a gradual weening off carbon emissions, i.e. slowing our roll, will make for less air pollution, potentially contribute less to climate change, and make finite resources last longer. What is the downside here?
there are a lot of reasons for a gradual weening of carbon fuels...starting with the long term conservation of these finite resources, as well as the foreign policy gains for the US in doing so (ex: screwing the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela, fuck yeah!) Not contributing unnecessarily to the CO2 levels are another positive, though it's a hard sell for the first world to tell up and comers like China or India that the party is over.
But again, your rational stance is really not the topic at hand. We're talking about liars and exaggerators, some of whom would be happy for the planet if 3B people died abruptly.
livendive
2003: NOAA 4, NASA 4
2004: NOAA 9, NASA 9
2005: NOAA 2, NASA 2
2006: NOAA 6, NASA 6(T)
2007: NOAA 8, NASA 6(T)
2008: NOAA 14, NASA 8
2009: NOAA 7, NASA 6(T)
2010: NOAA 1, NASA 1
2011: NOAA 11, NASA 11
2012: NOAA 10, NASA 10
What about those rankings suggests to you that the globe is cooling? Or that CO2 concentrations and global climate are minimally correlated if at all?
We keep hearing that the CO2 level (now past 400) represents a violent tipping point and the ride will be harsh, yet if you tried to scatterplot the above (or more appropriately with actual temperatures, not ordinal rankings, you aren't going to see an heating trendline with these 10 years. We should be seeing a countdown.
So this last ten years of flatness could represent a pause in a heating trend, but if so, it certainly wasn't a tipping point.
lawrocket[Reply]Because it seems pretty clear to me that in an era of unprecedented carbon concentrations, we also have unprecedented warmth across the globe, as would be expected by if AGW is occurring.
The problem is that there are too many exceptions. As kelpdiver said previosuly, there have been too many predictions over the last 25 years that have not been borne out. The current trend falls BELOW the zeroi-emissions scenarios that have been presented. That's a problem.
A few years ago a climate scientist stated that the Arctic would be ice free by the end of summer, 2013. He said that may even be "consercative.". Right now the ice extent is normal or slightly above. No telling where it will end up, but "ice free" seems really unlikely. How many times have we hit a "tipping point" onlyto hear a few months later that we are nearing a tipping point?
Dave - you've been really reasonable and I appreciate all you add to this.
NASA said in 2008 that the arctic could be mostly ice-free by 2013. They said earlier this month that it could be ice free by 2015. Does a difference of 2 years, or even 10 or 15 years affect the underlying premise that a warming planet is melting arctic sea ice faster than models predicted? Pinning a particular year, or even 5 year span to an occurrence is just opening yourself up to criticism if weather makes it not happen. Hedging with "may" or "might" gets a different flavor of criticism. Personally, I look at the underlying premise and care a bit less about the details, but I'm not committed to finding any flaw I can point a finger at as evidence that "the scientists are WRONG". I'll read analyses, look at data, and see if it passes a red-face test.
I mentioned some of kelpdiver's predictions earlier...what one guy, or a group of quacks puts out can generally be taken with a grain of salt. Peer reviewed analyses that self-identify the uncertainty they contain and any identified gaps are much more reliable. Still, let's assume for a second that you're correct, and every commonly touted model is so wrong as to be ignored. Would that change the underlying premise that with increasing CO2 comes increasing temperature? Because I'm pretty sure the data indicate such a correlation and I'm aware of no reputable alternate theory to AGW that suggests this will not occur. Whether the climate warms by 0.5C or 5.0C by 2050 doesn't change the fact that, in addition to burning through finite resources and contributing to air pollution, human activities are having an effect that could spiral outside of our control due to natural positive feedbacks that we don't completely understand.
So, I'll ask again, what is the downside to building smarter, more resilient communities, decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels through conservation and adding renewable energy capacity, and trying to ensure developing countries have a feasible path that skips the whole "burn a ton of coal" phase? What are the risks associated with such an approach that are greater than the ones we currently face? There are knowns and unknowns on both sides, but the unknowns on the side of pursuing a synergistic relationship with our planet seem dramatically less threatening than the unknowns on the side of continuing business as usual and hoping for the best despite substantial evidence to the contrary.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
GeorgiaDon 340
No need to be insulting!QuoteYou a Carolina legislator?
From StreetScooby:
QuoteSome of us can agree that "models" are not science.
From lawrocket:
Most of what makes science useful can be described as models. All hypotheses are models. A scientific theory is a model that has been tested and has stood up many times under many conditions. How can you test a model/hypothesis/theory? The only way is to make predictions of what will happen, under certain conditions, then run the experiment and compare the actual result to the prediction. Model building, prediction, and comparing results to predictions is the essence of science.QuoteYou are dealing, again, with predictions. Not fact. Not conclusions. Predictions. Scientific Wild Assed Guesses.
Who has ever seen an electron? The electron is a model, yet much of modern technology is based on that model and it works. I've never seen a proton or a neutron, yet the model that is the Periodic Table does a great job of predicting the chemical properties of the elements. I can't see RNA or DNA with my own eyes, yet I routinely pull messenger RNA out of insects, make an artificial gene by converting it to cDNA, insert that into some cell line or bacteria, and lo and behold the cell line/bacteria starts making the insect protein. The DNA to mRNA to protein model works very well indeed.
If science were to be limited to observation, and to be barred from making models or predicting future outcomes, then it would just be an exercise in cataloging past events, unable to yield any understanding or any practical improvements in technology.
Now, some areas of inquiry are amenable to experimentation, and others not (or much less so). As a molecular biologist I can manipulate conditions, make predictions about outcomes, and compare results to predictions. In climatology we can't do much in the way of experiments, aside from the uncontrolled experiment currently underway to keep upping CO2 levels and see what happens. Model building is complicated by the number of inputs into the system, and by the requirements for computing power. Currently, the latter limits the number of inputs that can be built into the models. Even in short term prediction of things like hurricane tracks you can see that working; recently the European model has yielded better predictions than the NOAA models, largely because better supercomputing facilities in Europe allow for more sophisticated models. Clearly current long-term climate models are overly simplistic, because they don't generate predictions that match year-to-year variations in climate. Obviously there is much work to be done before anyone can claim that we fully understand climate, and that understanding will be further slowed because we can't do real controlled experiments. Still, to extrapolate from that that science should be restricted to record keeping of what has already happened, and eschew model building or efforts to predict outcomes of changing conditions such as increases in greenhouse gas levels, is absurd.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Quote
Obviously there is much work to be done before anyone can claim that we fully understand climate,...
My point: it is not rationale at this time to establish what will essentially be draconian government policies using these immature models. Especially considering said policies will not make any physical difference.
We are all engines of karma
GeorgiaDon 340
That I can agree with to some extent, especially considering the word "draconian". The statement that models are not science is what I took issue with.StreetScoobyQuote
Obviously there is much work to be done before anyone can claim that we fully understand climate,...
My point: it is not rationale at this time to establish what will essentially be draconian government policies using these immature models. Especially considering said policies will not make any physical difference.
I do think there are a lot of good reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, which means investing in energy-efficient technologies and in research and development of non-fossil-fuel based energy sources. I also think that the current inability to predict exactly what will happen from year to year with increasing CO2 inputs into the atmosphere does not mean that there is no risk in continuing to do so. I suspect it may not be a wise idea to carry out a long term uncontrolled experiment with the planet we depend on.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Quote
The statement that models are not science is what I took issue with.
We both know that science, when done right, is a hard and long road. I have done large scale math modeling as a professional chemical engineer. I know how difficult that is. I'm inspired by the "real" climatologist's publications. These guys are asking hard questions, and trying to measure along those lines (e.g., clouds). I'm all for letting them do their stuff, without politicians hoping in and claiming they need more money/power over our lives.
Quote
I do think there are a lot of good reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, which means investing in energy-efficient technologies and in research and development of non-fossil-fuel based energy sources. I also think that the current inability to predict exactly what will happen from year to year with increasing CO2 inputs into the atmosphere does not mean that there is no risk in continuing to do so. I suspect it may not be a wise idea to carry out a long term uncontrolled experiment with the planet we depend on.
As I said in my original post, I think most of us can agree that pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea. Many clean energy advocates in the media don't seem to have a firm grasp of full life cycle thermodynamics, IMO. We have a solution now, and that solution is nuclear. It's the only currently viable option to meet our society's present energy needs. If we are really serious about this, that is the option we need to pursue.
We are all engines of karma
I take it that you agree that a climate model is a hypothesis and that the hypothesis is being tested right now. Unfortunately we won't have the results of the tests to compare to the hypothesis for another 75 years...
Science is a process. Science provides testability. Scientific conclusions are subject to falsifiability.
Question: is a climate model falsifiable? Answer - no. It won't be for another 75 years. All we can do it look out the window and compare the results, of course, understanding that climate models are designed to be more accurate in the future as they filter out the noise from the signal.
Is the data that a climate model spits out falsifiable? Nope. Not yet. We have to wait and let the process do its job. Meaning "let's not jump to conclusions until we have the data to make those conclusions."
I take it you'd agree with this. I believe that this is one of the hallmarks of science - that the conclusions can be tested and falsified or confirmed.
Livendive has touched upon this. Is there another theory out there that counters the prevailing one? Nope. But that's rhetorical confirmation. It doesn't support the validity of the current theory nor the projected results. It's just an "our guess is better than yours" thing.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Science is a process. Science provides testability. Scientific conclusions are subject to falsifiability.
Question: is a climate model falsifiable? Answer - no. It won't be for another 75 years. All we can do it look out the window and compare the results, of course, understanding that climate models are designed to be more accurate in the future as they filter out the noise from the signal.
Is the data that a climate model spits out falsifiable? Nope. Not yet. We have to wait and let the process do its job. Meaning "let's not jump to conclusions until we have the data to make those conclusions."
I take it you'd agree with this. I believe that this is one of the hallmarks of science - that the conclusions can be tested and falsified or confirmed.
Livendive has touched upon this. Is there another theory out there that counters the prevailing one? Nope. But that's rhetorical confirmation. It doesn't support the validity of the current theory nor the projected results. It's just an "our guess is better than yours" thing.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
jcd11235 0
lawrocketQuestion: is a climate model falsifiable?
Yes.
lawrocketIs the data that a climate model spits out falsifiable?
A climate model does not spit out data. It spits out predictions.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
DanG 1
You're implying that the only way to test your model's accuracy is to make a prediction, wait 75 years, and see what happened. That's one way, but, as you point out, it's not very practical.
A better way to test a model's accuracy is to use a starting point of 75 years ago (or 150, or 1,000, or whatever), and predict what will happen up until today. You don't have to wait at all for confirmation. If the model isn't so good, adjust it and run it again. That what modelers actually do, and it's one reason why the models are constantly being updated. They are continuously being testing against actual conditions, and adjusted to fit. The model's aren't being rigged, they're being "grounded" to actual data. I know that you understand this, but there are lots of people who see any adjustments to predictions as rigging the results, but that's really not what it is going on.
In my field (engineering) we make predictions and run tests. After the tests, we go back and refine the models to match the test results, and hopefully our predictions for the next tests will be better. It's no different in other fields of study. Sometimes we don't fully understand physical processes. In cases like that, we do more modeling, and (budget allowing) more testing. Our models can be improved through the process. That doesn't mean our original models were "lies" or that we're "cooking the books", it just means we're learning.
- Dan G
A better way to test a model's accuracy is to use a starting point of 75 years ago (or 150, or 1,000, or whatever), and predict what will happen up until today. You don't have to wait at all for confirmation. If the model isn't so good, adjust it and run it again. That what modelers actually do, and it's one reason why the models are constantly being updated. They are continuously being testing against actual conditions, and adjusted to fit. The model's aren't being rigged, they're being "grounded" to actual data. I know that you understand this, but there are lots of people who see any adjustments to predictions as rigging the results, but that's really not what it is going on.
In my field (engineering) we make predictions and run tests. After the tests, we go back and refine the models to match the test results, and hopefully our predictions for the next tests will be better. It's no different in other fields of study. Sometimes we don't fully understand physical processes. In cases like that, we do more modeling, and (budget allowing) more testing. Our models can be improved through the process. That doesn't mean our original models were "lies" or that we're "cooking the books", it just means we're learning.
- Dan G
jcd11235***Question: is a climate model falsifiable?
Yes.
Okay. Tell me how to test whether the magnitude of climate change, let's say, in the year 2081 for the CCSM3. Tell me where I can find observational data for the year 2081.
[Quote]
lawrocketIs the data that a climate model spits out falsifiable?
A climate model does not spit out data. It spits out predictions.
I agree with you. The IPCC disagrees. [Url]http://www.ipcc-data.org/ar4/gcm_data.html[/url]
So do the folks that run realclimate.org, the source for "Climate science from climate scientists." [Url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/[/url]
Welcome to the ranks of the climate science skeptic.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
jcd11235 0
lawrocketOkay. Tell me how to test whether the magnitude of climate change, let's say, in the year 2081 for the CCSM3.
See post 47 in this thread.
lawrocket******Is the data that a climate model spits out falsifiable?
A climate model does not spit out data. It spits out predictions.
I agree with you. The IPCC disagrees. [Url]http://www.ipcc-data.org/ar4/gcm_data.html[/url]
So do the folks that run realclimate.org, the source for "Climate science from climate scientists." [Url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/[/url]
I don't see where they call models' predictions data. They refer to it as model output.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
billvon 2,464
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>As I said in my original post, I think most of us can agree that pumping large
>amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea.
Unfortunately the "most" might be a bit optimistic.
>We have a solution now, and that solution is nuclear.
Nuclear is an excellent baseline solution - AP1000 type designs now, and thorium reactors/PBMR's in the future. Hydro and geothermal are also great low-impact sources for baseline. Wind and solar are excellent opportunity and distributed power sources. Natural gas is not ideal but has a much lower carbon footprint than coal does, and is slowly replacing it.
>amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea.
Unfortunately the "most" might be a bit optimistic.
>We have a solution now, and that solution is nuclear.
Nuclear is an excellent baseline solution - AP1000 type designs now, and thorium reactors/PBMR's in the future. Hydro and geothermal are also great low-impact sources for baseline. Wind and solar are excellent opportunity and distributed power sources. Natural gas is not ideal but has a much lower carbon footprint than coal does, and is slowly replacing it.
Explains a lot.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites