Philip

Still refusing to accept that there is no evidence for a low ECS I see.

You may find these posts by James Annan interesting:

On Schwartz:

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/05/comments-about-comments.html

On Roe & Baker:

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/10/roe-and-baker.html

On Zaliapin & Ghil:

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/05/another-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html

On Schmittner (I think matthu brought this up about a week ago):

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2011/11/schmittner-on-sensitivity.html

Have fun ;-)

matthu

Anything to say about that accusation of racism?

That goes for everyone else too by the way. Or are we all going to pretend that it's okay to say anything you like about BBD? Including that I'm a racist?

DNFTT

matthu

[Unnecessary]

Matthu @ 12:10 PM,

"Diversification of energy supply, if this can be done without derailing the economy ...".

Of course.

"But is this possible?"

IMO, not at the moment, but things can and will change, as the result of research and innovation.

BBD @ 12:13 PM,

"Still refusing to accept that there is no evidence for a low ECS I see."

I'm not trying to endorse anybody.

Obviously bad form to comment on someone's book without reading it, but I noticed the following comments on Amazon reviewing Laughlin's book, which I think are probably accurate and in any case are quite interesting in their own right:-

The book takes place 200 or so years in the future, after burning carbon based fossil fuels is no longer possible, either because they have been completely used up ([Laughlin's] prediction) or because of carbon legislation. ... It's worth noting here that Laughlin ... is not denying global warming or its consequences here; it's just that he thinks that it's sort of beside the point when it comes to thinking about future energy, which will be mainly dictated by economics and prices more than anything else.

The alternative outcomes of "burn it all" or "legislation" sound feasible, but there is another possibility too, which is simply that new technology provides low-cost low-carbon alternatives to fossil fuels. Out of the three, the worst possibility IMO is legislation, the best is low-cost low-carbon alternatives. I noticed another great modern physicist (David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity) also recently criticizing the idea of "sustainability" - because it implies a static society in which there is no chance of improvement in people's living conditions or presumably of withstanding the impacts of climate change, natural or man-made. In the middle of our bickering over science, it's worth remembering that the green ideology should be our common target.

Philip

I'm not trying to endorse anybody.

Then why do you say this?

Here is the reasoning I make regarding CO2:-

1/ It seems feasible that if nothing else changes, then CO2 levels will rise to 1000 ppmv by 2100. This is 4x pre-industrial levels.

2/ "Sceptical" estimates for sensitivity to CO2 range between 0.5 - 2 C (near to 2 C are estimates from Shaviv, Schwartz, Chylek and a number of others). Happer I think has suggested 2 C.

3/ Putting together 1000 ppmv with 2 C implies a 4 C change by 2100.

In the light of the uncertainties, I'm not sure if it is possible to do much better than this.

There's only one possible interpretation: you endorse the "sceptical" estimates of ECS. After all, you do not even mention the mainstream estimate of ~3C. About which there is far less uncertainty than you pretend.

I'm starting to have a real problem with this pattern of 'say one thing - then claim another when questioned'. I'm sure you can see why.

In the middle of our bickering over science, it's worth remembering that the green ideology should be our common target.

Then attack the lies of the energy fantasists instead of indulging in crypto-'scepticism' in blog comments.

BBD,

"Then why do you say this?"

You .. are .. missing .. my .. point, which is that EVEN IF one uses "sceptic" estimates, one still arrives at the same conclusion.

"Then attack the lies of the energy fantasists instead of indulging in crypto-'scepticism' in blog comments."

Please accept that I am indeed trying to attack the lies of the energy fantasists, as well as green philosophy in general.

Philip

You .. are .. missing .. my .. point

No. I simply do not buy your pretence of neutrality. This thread is ample proof that you are aligned with the non-mainstream. I still do not understand why you refuse to admit this openly.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, but I prefer honesty and clarity. This is a filthy enough business as it is.

BBD,

FWIW, I am happy to endorse this position hot off the presses and relevant to your comments.

Things may possibly go a little quiet here for a while.

Philip

And I posted a link to a detailed examination of why RP Sr is wrong at the beginning of this thread.

Perhaps now you will read it. Once you have done so, you will understand why his views are not taken as seriously as he would wish.

And yes, I have seen the other news. Funny how another largely substance-free batch of emails is going to be touted as overturning 50-odd years' worth of work. Even though I bet you now absolutely nothing in there will seriously undermine the core science.

You are bloody silly to allow yourself to be manipulated like this.

BBD

I am ashamed. I cant live with you and I cant live without you, I must return to the battle.

In one of your recent posts you told me that the Milankovich cycle was the cause of the warming that started the interglacials in the current ice-age (both the IPCC and realclimate have said the cause of the original warming in interglacials is not known). The previous interglacials lasted an average of about 10,000 years but our current interglacial has already lasted 14.000 years.
Since you are in possession of great knowledge about Milankovich cycles and how they affect climate, may I then ask you a question or two?
Is our climate still under the influence of the Milankovich cycles and will they determine how and when this interglacial will end?
Is our climate totally controlled by CO2 and is the ice-age now at an end due to CO2?

BBD,

I've not disputed the 50% figure. It's your characterization of the mainstream view on climate sensitivity that I've questioned. It's wrong, if you accept the Royal Society statement. You've also repeatedly misrepresented my own comments as well, replacing what I have told you I think, with your own ideas. I'm at a loss to understand why you would want to do this.

Regarding the emails, I agree they don't disprove the core science. They do however demonstrate the poor standards of the scientists involved. This is what bothers most people; the scientists' behaviour therefore directly undermines their intended message.

Reflecting on this a little further, here is a suggestion. Why don't you and I agree to accept the Royal Society statement as representative of the mainstream scientific position? Doing this would at least enable us to move on and discuss the other more relevant issues around global warming. What do you say?

Dung

Since you are in possession of great knowledge about Milankovich cycles and how they affect climate, may I then ask you a question or two?

Is our climate still under the influence of the Milankovich cycles and will they determine how and when this interglacial will end?

Is our climate totally controlled by CO2 and is the ice-age now at an end due to CO2?

- Orbital eccentricity (100ky cycle) redistributes solar forcing spatially and seasonally in conjunction with axial tilt (obliquity) and 'wobble' (precession)

- The key zone/season nexus for triggering/terminating glacials is Summer insolation at 65N

- Orbital eccentricity is not regular; the Earth's oribit is currently near-circular and the next near-trigger event (in ca 3ky) will not trigger a glacial

- The next astronomically-paced glaciation is expected in 50ky

- As I understand it, there is already too much CO2 in the atmosphere for a glaciation to occur in 3ky even if the eccentricity of orbit were sufficient (all other factors being equal) to trigger one

Why can't you find these things our for yourself?

Philip

It's your characterization of the mainstream view on climate sensitivity that I've questioned. It's wrong, if you accept the Royal Society statement.

Eh? The RS disputes an ECS of ~3C for 550ppmv??

Where, exactly?

You've also repeatedly misrepresented my own comments as well

Oh no I haven't.

As soon as you stop referencing Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke Sr, Koutsoyiannis etc as though they were reliable sources, we will be be able to agree on something. Not until.

BBD,

I've clearly and consistently stated my position over the course of this thread, for anyone to read. Perhaps "misrepresentation" is the wrong word for your attitude; it is more as if you deny everything I tell you I think. A very curious feeling from my angle, and impossible to argue against, since no matter what I say you are likely to respond as if I've said something completely different. I'm not sure if you really think this is a good way to convince people to your point of view - but I very much doubt that it is.

Regarding the Royal Society statement, my offer from Nov 23, 2011 at 9:13 AM remains open. Or perhaps it is the case that you don't agree with it?

As soon as you stop referencing Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke Sr, Koutsoyiannis etc as though they were reliable sources, we will be be able to agree on something. Not until.
Nov 23, 2011 at 11:17 AM | Unregistered Commenter BBD

The master amateur 'expert' has spoken.

Find some reliable sources on his 'aproved list' or forever remain a second class citizen.

Shouldn't have tried to patronize me earlier for visiting this blog, you wouldn't last five minutes in a properly conducted R&D meeting. Without reference to one of your favoured research papers, you still haven't told us the difference between CO2 radiative forcing in the stratosphere compared to the troposphere. Is it 1/10th, 1/100/th? And once you've actually told us the correct, measured on multiple occasions, figure, can you the redefine your description of this as "dangerous" in slightly less dramatic terms. That is, once you've got your customary ad-homs out of the way. As for my personal opinions of your posts in general, I speak as I find.

Philip

Eh? The RS disputes an ECS of ~3C for 550ppmv??

Where, exactly?

Come on, let's have it.

"I hope you do not wish the poor people to be standing in the sun with their solar cookers (100% decarbonization). "

AND your reply,

"I definitely want poor people to become rich and to be using gas or electric energy to the same extent as people like us"

Was that a deflection of argument there? If so, it was in pretty poor taste.

Do you know of any poor person in Britain having to cut down bramble or use cakes of dung (Sorry Dung!) from a lack of options? I don't know of anyone, but I doubt it. Yet, I am sure that there are a lot of poor people in Britain.

The underlying fact, is that economic prosperity has raised the overall standard of living in the developed world that even the poor don't have to scrap around for fuel. Your statement amounts to: "Oh well, decarbonization and diversification of energy sources (that is how solar cookers will show up on audit spreadsheets) are to be pursued, and not everyone is going to be rich enough to climb out of the solar cooker hole.

"The trick is presumably to develop the technologies that are required."

Laughlin's book mainly is about this. It was a bit whimsical for my taste. The book has a good account of the Enron scandal.

BBD,

I wryly note your use of the word "disputes", but even so you are wrong. The summary document (which I linked earlier) is intended to represent the society's position on climate change. It simply affirms that climate models indicate the AR4 estimate and states that observations are unable to help in placing tighter bounds on the value. I'm sure you'll point to the ~ in front of your 3C. However, few (if any) would interpret your statement as intended to represent more than a small subset of the range suggested by the society. This is not a minor point, because the range of values is not a probability distribution, and your statement paints a dangerously misleading picture. I notice also that Judith Curry (who by now no doubt is also relegated to your "contrarian" box) has suggested that 0-10 C is a more accurate statement of the state of knowledge. Come to that, Richards B and T both agreed with Matthu's consensus summary as well, so presumably they should both join Judith in your box as well. Come to that, Richard B has collaborated with Pielke Sr in the past, so perhaps he should go in there twice! Add in the Royal Society committee (and anyone else who agrees with them) and your ~3C "mainstream" box starts to look distinctly empty.

Shub,

Please don't you start misreading my comments as well - BBD is enough for anyone to be going on with! My position is that I want everyone to have similar access to energy as Europe and the US.