Climategate II

...The article also says (indeed, it is the main thrust of the article) that GW is neither as severe or as rapid as speculated by studies. No one here has said GW isn't occurring, the debate is about AGW. It seems to me there is no need for a mad rush off the cliff with half baked economy destroying ideas when the "crisis" may not be as severe as predicted.

It basically claims that the sensitivity is at the lowball of the current mainstream estimates, 2.4°C per doubling. It also points out that such sensitivity may result in as much change as has been seen from the last glacial maximum to the present day over the next couple hundred years.

That's pretty much in line with my take away on the other stuff I've read. That the climate change alarmists' suggestions for dealing with it are insane does not mean it is not going to be a seriously non-trivial problem. You are looking at sizeable dislocations of coastal communities, inundations of some island nations and, less certainly, aridification of large swaths of the tropics and sub-tropics.

How one concludes, "aw, hell, let's just keep on. It's all good" is a mystery to me.

Since you're directing your comment to me and you are posting a quote I have to assume you mean it to be mine. Or is this just an offhand way of putting words in my mouth?

...It basically claims that the sensitivity is at the lowball of the current mainstream estimates, 2.4°C per doubling. It also points out that such sensitivity may result in as much change as has been seen from the last glacial maximum to the present day over the next couple hundred years.

That's pretty much in line with my take away on the other stuff I've read. That the climate change alarmists' suggestions for dealing with it are insane does not mean it is not going to be a seriously non-trivial problem. You are looking at sizeable dislocations of coastal communities, inundations of some island nations and, less certainly, aridification of large swaths of the tropics and sub-tropics.

How one concludes, "aw, hell, let's just keep on. It's all good" is a mystery to me.

Since you're directing your comment to me and you are posting a quote I have to assume you mean it to be mine. Or is this just an offhand way of putting words in my mouth?

Sorry about that. Since this is the "Climategate" thread, I meant it in the general direction of (a) anybody who is not already convinced that Rick Perry, Rush Limbaugh, et al, are either liars or morons and (b) everybody else still in the oh-well-it's-just-natural camp who is opposed to any action just because the leftists have been alarmists about proposed solutions.

...It basically claims that the sensitivity is at the lowball of the current mainstream estimates, 2.4°C per doubling. It also points out that such sensitivity may result in as much change as has been seen from the last glacial maximum to the present day over the next couple hundred years.

That's pretty much in line with my take away on the other stuff I've read. That the climate change alarmists' suggestions for dealing with it are insane does not mean it is not going to be a seriously non-trivial problem. You are looking at sizeable dislocations of coastal communities, inundations of some island nations and, less certainly, aridification of large swaths of the tropics and sub-tropics.

How one concludes, "aw, hell, let's just keep on. It's all good" is a mystery to me.

Since you're directing your comment to me and you are posting a quote I have to assume you mean it to be mine. Or is this just an offhand way of putting words in my mouth?

Sorry about that. Since this is the "Climategate" thread, I meant it in the general direction of (a) anybody who is not already convinced that Rick Perry, Rush Limbaugh, et al, are either liars or morons and (b) everybody else still in the oh-well-it's-just-natural camp who is opposed to any action just because the leftists have been alarmists about proposed solutions.

The leftists have no solutions that don't involve increasing the size and scope of government. Indeed, that is the thrust of all their proposals. They are not serious about solving the problem. They are very serious about exploiting the issue.

...The leftists have no solutions that don't involve increasing the size and scope of government. Indeed, that is the thrust of all their proposals. They are not serious about solving the problem. They are very serious about exploiting the issue.

Fine. Then the sane side that is supposedly made up of adults should acknowledge the problem and propose solutions that make sense. Not deny there is a problem and promote ignorant zealotry for fan points.

...The leftists have no solutions that don't involve increasing the size and scope of government. Indeed, that is the thrust of all their proposals. They are not serious about solving the problem. They are very serious about exploiting the issue.

Fine. Then the sane side that is supposedly made up of adults should acknowledge the problem and propose solutions that make sense. Not deny there is a problem and promote ignorant zealotry for fan points.

What solutions do you propose?

...What solutions do you propose?

As I said upthread:

Seeking some ways to generate all the power we need without endlessly dumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere? That would be a good idea. Some suggestions: partner with China and India to develop a thorium fission cycle. That would eliminate both the proliferation and meltdown risks associated with fission today, and allow cheap, plentiful energy. Double down on research into fusion, even though it hasn't been successful to date. Review the government created incentives that exist and either eliminate them or ensure that they don't tilt towards coal and other dirty tech.

It's been public information for a while now that there are requirements to include boilerplate language in order to get just about any paper about climate published:

It is often argued that in science the truth must eventually emerge. This may well be true, but, so far, attempts to deal with the science of climate change objectively have been largely forced to conceal such truths as may call into question global warming alarmism (even if only implicitly). The usual vehicle is peer review, and the changes imposed were often made in order to get a given paper published. Publication is, of course, essential for funding, promotion, etc. The following examples are but a few from cases that I am personally familiar with. These, almost certainly, barely scratch the surface. What is generally involved, is simply the inclusion of an irrelevant comment supporting global warming accepted wisdom. When the substance of the paper is described, it is generally claimed that the added comment represents the ‘true’ intent of the paper. In addition to the following examples, Appendix 2 offers excellent examples of ‘spin control.’...

(Emphasis added.)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762

The existence of this de-facto requirement by the (now pretty dubious) "peer review" process of the climate science community automatically nullifies the content of the required boilerplate. That doesn't mean that such boilerplate statements are automatically wrong. It just means that they're essentially meaningless, because the (informed, clued-in, aware-of-the-requirement) reader can never be sure if the authors really mean what they say in the boilerplate language, or if they merely stuck it in to try to appease the reviewers and editors.

This sickening practice serves only to poison the well of legitimate scientific debate, because once such requirements are allowed, but not made explicit in the published editorial policies of the journal, even the informed reader will find it increasingly difficult to discern where the required boilerplate stops and the authors' actual claims begin. And woe to the uninformed, casual consumer of the MSM versions of the reports, because they probably have no idea that such boilerplate is even required, much less that it is then often presented by the MSM as carrying equal weight to the actual results the authors are trying to convey.

...What solutions do you propose?

As I said upthread:

Seeking some ways to generate all the power we need without endlessly dumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere? That would be a good idea. Some suggestions: partner with China and India to develop a thorium fission cycle. That would eliminate both the proliferation and meltdown risks associated with fission today, and allow cheap, plentiful energy. Double down on research into fusion, even though it hasn't been successful to date. Review the government created incentives that exist and either eliminate them or ensure that they don't tilt towards coal and other dirty tech.

Your solutions center on nuclear and although I happen to agree with you I don't foresee nuclear energy gaining any momentum. In fact, just the opposite in light of the Japanese nuclear disaster. What other options do you have in mind?

...Your solutions center on nuclear and although I happen to agree with you I don't foresee nuclear energy gaining any momentum. In fact, just the opposite in light of the Japanese nuclear disaster. What other options do you have in mind?

A thorium cycle (which probably would have been the first choice way back when except for certain actors' desire for bomb grade material) avoids almost all the downside of the uranium cycle.

This needs to be explained, though it may be painful for those same parties to admit they really pushed the current incarnation of nuclear power mostly so they'd have a ready supply of Shit-To-Blow-Up-The-Planet-With.

Otherwise, concentrating on moving from coal and petroleum fired electric plants to natural gas plants, encouraging electric and hybrid cars using the (now much) cleaner electricity, eliminating incentives for coal use through the developed world, and getting the developing world (insofar as it is possible) moving toward natural gas, would be a good start.

...Your solutions center on nuclear and although I happen to agree with you I don't foresee nuclear energy gaining any momentum. In fact, just the opposite in light of the Japanese nuclear disaster. What other options do you have in mind?

A thorium cycle (which probably would have been the first choice way back when except for certain actors' desire for bomb grade material) avoids almost all the downside of the uranium cycle.

This needs to be explained, though it may be painful for those same parties to admit they really pushed the current incarnation of nuclear power mostly so they'd have a ready supply of Shit-To-Blow-Up-The-Planet-With.

Otherwise, concentrating on moving from coal and petroleum fired electric plants to natural gas plants, encouraging electric and hybrid cars using the (now much) cleaner electricity, eliminating incentives for coal use through the developed world, and getting the developing world (insofar as it is possible) moving toward natural gas, would be a good start.

I posted a thread here somewhere on an Indian plan to build a thorium reactor. Others here have noted in other threads that the US built an experimental thorium reactor in the fifties or sixties.

Natural gas is the near term answer and extracting more of same is critical to using it to replace coal but I can see a real possibility that the primary means of getting the NG, fracking, will be banned or severely restricted by the EPA.

That's the dilemma. The solutions that will work are opposed by those on the left who cite other environmental concerns besides global warming to block their implementation. That's why I say the left isn't interested in solutions. They can't make a rational choice to accept some harm to areas of the environment even if it ameliorates global warming.

...That's the dilemma. The solutions that will work are opposed by those on the left who cite other environmental concerns besides global warming to block their implementation. That's why I say the left isn't interested in solutions. They can't make a rational choice to accept some harm to areas of the environment even if it ameliorates global warming.

And that's where I think they're weak enough that the fight is worth engaging. Here. Here is a solution. What? You're not interested in solutions? What are you, a lying douchebag?

It would work a lot better than denying the obvious, which is, sadly, where the fight seems to be shaping up.

...Your solutions center on nuclear and although I happen to agree with you I don't foresee nuclear energy gaining any momentum. In fact, just the opposite in light of the Japanese nuclear disaster. What other options do you have in mind?

A thorium cycle (which probably would have been the first choice way back when except for certain actors' desire for bomb grade material) avoids almost all the downside of the uranium cycle.

This needs to be explained, though it may be painful for those same parties to admit they really pushed the current incarnation of nuclear power mostly so they'd have a ready supply of Shit-To-Blow-Up-The-Planet-With.

Otherwise, concentrating on moving from coal and petroleum fired electric plants to natural gas plants, encouraging electric and hybrid cars using the (now much) cleaner electricity, eliminating incentives for coal use through the developed world, and getting the developing world (insofar as it is possible) moving toward natural gas, would be a good start.

I posted a thread here somewhere on an Indian plan to build a thorium reactor. Others here have noted in other threads that the US built an experimental thorium reactor in the fifties or sixties.

Natural gas is the near term answer and extracting more of same is critical to using it to replace coal but I can see a real possibility that the primary means of getting the NG, fracking, will be banned or severely restricted by the EPA.

That's the dilemma. The solutions that will work are opposed by those on the left who cite other environmental concerns besides global warming to block their implementation. That's why I say the left isn't interested in solutions. They can't make a rational choice to accept some harm to areas of the environment even if it ameliorates global warming.

Pretty much agree with you on how the left is going to act. Disagree about why. I think it is because the left has this Utopian tendency and thinks that there is a perfect solution if only someone tries hard enough. Listen to what they say, it is clear enough. They won't face up to the necessity of making trade offs and the fact there are just too many people for a solution with negligible environmental damage to be possible.

Replacing coal with natural gas does nothing to alleviate the CO₂ increase. It does burn cleaner, reduces other pollution (CO and photoreactive hydrocarbons) and puts lots less radioactivity into the air.

The only (at present and in the forseeable future) feasible technology is nuclear power.

Since we're discussing solutions here I thought I would dredge up this old post from earlier this year. This and advances in extracting more energy from waste heat for example are improvements that are flying under the radar.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=43506

Replacing coal with natural gas does nothing to alleviate the CO₂ increase. It does burn cleaner, reduces other pollution (CO and photoreactive hydrocarbons) and puts lots less radioactivity into the air.

It seems to be about twice as good on CO2, as well:

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html

The only (at present and in the forseeable future) feasible technology is nuclear power.

That's the best solution, I agree.

Since we're discussing solutions here I thought I would dredge up this old post from earlier this year. This and advances in extracting more energy from waste heat for example are improvements that are flying under the radar.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=43506

That is a really phenomenally cool toy!

Replacing coal with natural gas does nothing to alleviate the CO₂ increase. It does burn cleaner, reduces other pollution (CO and photoreactive hydrocarbons) and puts lots less radioactivity into the air.

It seems to be about twice as good on CO2, as well:

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html

The only (at present and in the forseeable future) feasible technology is nuclear power.

That's the best solution, I agree.

So it does.

Replacing coal with natural gas does nothing to alleviate the CO₂ increase. It does burn cleaner, reduces other pollution (CO and photoreactive hydrocarbons) and puts lots less radioactivity into the air.

The only (at present and in the forseeable future) feasible technology is nuclear power.

I see every call for natural gas conversion as more BS-bloviating and paid-for-politicking from T. Boone Pickens and his ilk. It is not a solution, it won't change anything, and it would divert scarce resources from nuclear power research and engineering.

Leaving aside for a moment the CO2 aspect, I don't know if it diverts resources...it makes money and increases resources, at least financial resources. A lot of people in PA are already getting rich from it, from what I've heard.

In particular it looks like sea level rise will be quicker than expected. And there are strong indications that the frequency of extreme weather events will increase more rapidly than expected. The Actic Ice Cap is going more quickly than expected.

No the rate of sea level rise is falling. "Extreme weather Events"? Obviously you are talking about something other than the "Climate" as promulgated by IPCC and your claim is false anyway. And you are wrong about the Arctic Cap going more quickly than expected.

Could you possibly be anymore wrong?

What do you think about the latest sensitivity estimate of 2.4˚ That is less than a third of some of the original sensitivity estimates and much less than the current "consensus" of 3˚.

What are you alarmists going to do when the sensitivity drops so low that you don't have a cause? Directly supporting population controls?

3.0° C is the usual point estimate. The range quoted is usually 2.0° C to 4.5° C. 2.4° C is well within that range. Just as current temperature rises have been well within the predicted ranges. You don't seem to get the idea of prediction ranges. No one expects that the actual value will be equal to the point estimate.. You are trying to spin a refinement and confirmation as a refutation. You are only fooling yourself and other wishful thinkers. And you are getting worked up over single studies whenever you think you can interpreted them as supporting what you want to believe. Scientist s tend not to get terribly exited over most single papers unless they are major breakthroughs. Even then they want confirmation from independent studies.

What I was talking about with sea level rise was not an extension of current trends but likely changes in glacier behaviour in parts of the West Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps. If all that happens is melting in place of these glaciers then sea level rise will be slow. The danger is that they might collapse instead. That is what happens at the end of glacials. Disappearance of pack ice can remove a brake on glaciers exiting to the sea leading to an acceleration of glacier flow. And parts of the ice sheets are grounded underwater. There is a danger that they might break up in place and float away. Some of them are already being eaten at from below. When would this happen? Not for a while but if it does we will have serious problems.

And funnily I see all these statements from climate scientists saying that the Arcic ice is going more quickly than they expected it to.

If you want to look at what is happening to ice volume.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic_Volume_loss_2011.html

An overall look at what is happening.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made-intermediate.htm

Melting of the Arctic pack ice (as opposed to melting Greenland's Icy Mountains) would raise the sea leve by little (mostly through the expansion due to warming.) It would be a big food disaster though. The bottom few centimeters of the pack ice provide a lot of area for algae to grow and feed the krill.

Melting of the glacial ice in Greenland or Antarctica would raise sea levels quite a bit. Greenland could turn into a problem rather quickly (the warm Gulf waters flow a long way north). The Antarctic seems less likely to do so because of the Antarctic Ocean barrier. The barrier does move north and south but there seems to be little if any secular northward drift as far as I can find on Google. Because the barrier crosses no land, there is little to disrupt it. Should the barrier disappear, the Antarctic would melt quickly (decades, not hours.)

It's rather strange to sail (or diesel) across the barrier. There's nothing to be seen on the surface. However, over the period of a few minutes, there is a noticeable temperature drop (at least if one is standing on deck). I don't know how much, but enough to be felt on the skin.

(a) anybody who is not already convinced that Rick Perry, Rush Limbaugh, et al, are either liars or morons and (b) everybody else still in the oh-well-it's-just-natural camp who is opposed to any action just because the leftists have been alarmists about proposed solutions.

DC may be a place to argue about the science, but in the political world that Perry and Limbaugh inhabit, "hoax" is a reasonable description of what the left is pushing.

What else would you call the actions of a person who claims that "X" is happening, so therefore we must take "Y" actions (that have no chance of curing "X")? Hoax is a reasonable label for such BS.

Personally, I'm still not convinced that the warming seen between 1970 and 2000 was AGW in the first place. Yeah, the current theories about how the climate operates says that AGW should work, but the fact that there was no warming between 1940 and '70, and hasn't been for the last 10 years, with no explanation offered as to why, tells me there are significant other elements to climate that to my knowledge are unexplained, that have proven capable of overriding GHG driven warming.

That there is a built-in bias to papers on climate science that require some sort of lip service to AGW in order to be published lends credence to Perry and Limbaugh et. al. labeling the entire thing a hoax, even if it's only the "solution" component that actually is.

DC may be a place to argue about the science, but in the political world that Perry and Limbaugh inhabit, "hoax" is a reasonable description of what the left is pushing.

What world's that? Fantasyland?

3.0° C is the usual point estimate. The range quoted is usually 2.0° C to 4.5° C. 2.4° C is well within that range.

You seem to be missing the fact that that point has steadily declined from 10˚ down to the actual grey body value of .8˚ to 1.2˚ and the final result may even be negative.

Just as current temperature rises have been well within the predicted ranges. You don't seem to get the idea of prediction ranges. No one expects that the actual value will be equal to the point estimate..

First off the Modelers are adamant that they can't and don't make predictions, they make projections. But sadly all of the projections are higher than the current values. As a result that falsifies the Models, why do you think that they are lowering the CO2 sensitivity parameters in their Models? Because they are slowly learning that the CO2 sensitivity is not very high.

What I was talking about with sea level rise was not an extension of current trends but likely changes in glacier behaviour in parts of the West Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps. If all that happens is melting in place of these glaciers then sea level rise will be slow. The danger is that they might collapse instead. That is what happens at the end of glacials. Disappearance of pack ice can remove a brake on glaciers exiting to the sea leading to an acceleration of glacier flow. And parts of the ice sheets are grounded underwater. There is a danger that they might break up in place and float away. Some of them are already being eaten at from below. When would this happen? Not for a while but if it does we will have serious problems.

Antarctic ice volume has been increasing not shrinking and Greenlands Ice cap is not going to slide into the ocean. We have already covered this ground and RWP claimed that the ice increases were already "predicted".

3.0° C is the usual point estimate. The range quoted is usually 2.0° C to 4.5° C. 2.4° C is well within that range.

You seem to be missing the fact that that point has steadily declined from 10˚ down to the actual grey body value of .8˚ to 1.2˚ and the final result may even be negative.

A quick clarification: when they talk about "negative feedback" it does NOT mean the temperature will go down when CO₂ levels rise -- it simply means that the non-feedback value of 1.2 C per doubling will be reduced to some value smaller than 100%. Positive feedback means the feedback-included sensitivity value will be larger than 100% of the non feedback 1.2 C per doubling of CO₂ value. So, when Linzden and others report a value of less than 1.2C, that is a negative feedback value they are proposing. The temperature will still increase with increasing CO₂ levels, just no very much.