Undeniable.
Rain washed away our snow drifts
daffodils appeared.
Boris says they still have snow in Tennessee. So, I couldn’t resist the urge to show that we have no snow here!
Winter has been cold, and lingered. So, I happily anticipate the approach of spring. Soon, Jim and I will be able to uncover the patio furniture, fire up our Weber grill and chow down on chicken, steaks and salmon. Yum!
Anyway Boris, as you can see, there is no snow here.
The daffodils are beginning to bloom here, but my reason for commenting is not to brag. It is probably off topic, but my problem relates tohow good is the evidence that warming precedes rise in carbon dioxide by 800 years. This claim seems to me to be crucial as to whether increasing carbon dioxide is a cause or a result of climate warming.
Morley
Morley–
In ice core records, the temperature precedes the rise in CO2. This is not controversial.
The controversy is over the explanation for why this is not inconsistent with CO2 causing a rise in temperature. As far as I can tell, climate scientists advance a plausibe argument explaining why CO2 can rise first, and temperature afterwards. It’s a positive feedback loop idea.
However, it is equally true that I have never seen any quantitative explanation that elevates the plausible qualitative (aka “hand waving”) explanation to something close to bulletproof. Also, I have not read explanations that make it through the full cycle from glacial to interglacial back to glacial and so on. These explanations may exist, but if they do, climate blog addicts of all stripes seem unaware of them.
Thanks, Lucia but I am still confused. The second-last sentence in your second paragraph seems bass-ackward.
Can you point me to an exposition as to how a positve feed back allows a carbon dioxide rise to be causal if it FOLLOWS the thing it is supposed to have caused i,e., a rise in temperature?
Morley
Morley:
The argument goes like this:
a) temperature increases can be triggered by more than one thing. These include both increases in solar intensity and CO2.
b) increasing temperature does trigger a release in CO2 from the oceans.
So, suppose we start with the planet is sitting in a glacial state, with CO2 at a low level. Now, due to the vagaries of orbital mechanics, the earth moves a bit closer to the sun for a period of years. The earth will warm– due to the sun. So, warming starts first.
Then, because the earth warms CO2 is released from the ocean into the atmosphere.
Now, even if the earth moves no closer to the sun, the temperature will warm further– because more CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm. Then, because it’s warmer, more CO2 is released.
This is positive feedback. In principle, it would continue until something made it stop.
Notice that my description is qualitative. To make it more convincing, we would need some quantitative estimates for release rates of CO2 as a function of temperature, for warming as a function of CO2 and temperature, and for a variety of other things.
To be really convincing, we need to understand what causes everything to stop warming up when CO2 is high.
That’s why I said it’s a qualitative (handwaving) argument. Maybe it’s fleshed out somewhere, but I haven’t read anything quantitative. That could be just me.
Morley, the observation that CO2 increases came after past temperature changes is irrelevant to the question of how changes in CO2 affect temperature. The scope of the questions is different.
.
Even the simplest of models show that increased levels of CO2 results in a temperature rise at the surface of the earth if all other factors are held constant. This (with the “all other factors held constant” caveat) can be repeated in laboratory experiments. CO2 definitely is a positive forcing. Other aspects of the climate have different forcings/feedbacks, some of which are positive and some of which are negative. How these additional forcings/feedbacks behave moderate or exacerbate the basic positive forcing from CO2.
.
On geological time scales, however, CO2 changes appear to come after temperature changes. This does not invalidate the notion that the feedback of CO2 is positive; all it indicates is that in past climate events there may have been some other forcing that initiated the temperature change. As a result of that initial temperature change, CO2 was either emitted or absorbed from its natural reservoirs (like the oceans) based on its solubility for that temperature. The change in CO2 concentrations would have positive feedback, enhancing the cooling or warming effect from the initial stressor.
.
There are also arguments that CO2 itself was the initial forcing and the resulting temperature change drove the additional release/absorption of CO2. Depending on how long it takes to reach equilibrium and how quickly other forcings/feedbacks respond, this could result in CO2 appearing to lag temperature despite the fact that it was the initial cause of the temperature change.
.
The outcome of the CO2 preceding/following argument is not really fundamental to AGW. It is related, but not the same. Some people believe that climate change on a geological time scale – so unrelated to human activity – has changes in trace atmospheric gasses as a primary cause. Others believe differently. Personally, I don’t see it as terribly relevant to AGW (because the AGW case defines the increase of CO2 as the initial forcing driving climate change) except insofar as I am unaware if the current climate models account for increased evolution of CO2 from natural sources as temperature rises.
Me and Lucia posting at the same time. 🙂
RyanO–
I don’t think any AOGCM’s include CO2 release from the oceans in the computations. But, the question about the ice cores comes up.
The positive feedback loop is entirely plausible. The question is of course: would the values we know correspond to an 800 year lag? Or not? If we knew more, the information we have could test a predictive model that included this sort of positive feedback. But… as far as I know, we don’t have that.
I often wonder about ice cores. e.g. do we know if gasses trapped under such pressure for such long periods get absobed/dissolved or maybe combine with other elements/compounds to give a possible false reading on the true concentrations in the atmosphere of the remote past? I presume these considerations have been covered by the ice-core experts but I am too lazy to enquire.
It seems to me that positive feedbacks are inherently unstable, at least those I am most familiar with such as fire (including explosions) and action potentials in living systems. The former results in ashes and goes out unless more fuel is provided; the latter returns to a baseline potential which might be stable until stimulated or unstable in which case, repetitive action potentials occur as in the heart or gut. I wonder which of these types occurs in Gaia? (Tongue in cheek).
Morley
back to the daffodils. Here in N Ca, our have already come and gone. I remember, when I lived in NY, they meant the worst was over, but here they come and go then we get a few more weeks of what we call winter.
Enjoy them whe they bloom!!
Lucia
My last comment on carbon dioxide. In the language of causality, carbon dioxide cannot be a necessary cause of rise in temperature since the latter can rise and fall independently of the concentration of carbon dioxide. It might be an amplifier but records don’t suggest that it is. It seems questionable whether lowering carbon dioxide concentration would significantly lower temperature (Historically it has not). This makes the accurate tracking of projected and recorded temperatures in the presence of rising carbon dioxide as you do, exceedingly important.
Morley
You can easily tell if a plant could be native to the area. If it blooms as early as the dumb daffodils, it is not native. Native pines and oaks know when to show their leaves and flowers. There are many redwoods and palms in Southern Oregon, all of which will probably die when that 100-year cold spell comes.
Don’t you get snowdrops before daffodils?
http://www.birchimages.co.uk/galleryimages/Snowdrops3.JPG
Nothing says, “Spring is coming” quite like snowdrops.
No flowers here in Boston yet. We just had snow, and the ground is still frozen. By the weekend we’ll be in the 50s, and some crocuses may sprout.
But that’s weather, not climate!
lucia (Comment#11137) March 4th, 2009 at 4:14
I have never seen any quantitative explanation that elevates the plausible qualitative (aka “hand wavingâ€) explanation to something close to bulletproof. Also, I have not read explanations that make it through the full cycle from glacial to interglacial back to glacial and so on. These explanations may exist, but if they do, climate blog addicts of all stripes seem unaware of them.
Does Hansen’s 2007 paper not satisfy?
“Climate change and trace gases”
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
Figure 2b shows the calculations of albedo and GHG forcings. The albedo calculations derive from Hansen et al 1993 “How sensitive is the world’s climate?”, which I can’t find on line. The GHG forcings are derived from ice core indications.
Simon–
I’m looking at it. I think I’ve seen it before… anyway, I’m not seeing how that paper provides coherent evidence that a lag of the size measured would be consistent with any known model for the rate of release of CO2 coupled with a known model for rise in earth’s surface temperature. Etc.
Where do you think that bit might be made explicit?
#11236
Simon doesn’t know. He scans papers, doesn’t read them. He reminds me of that other Sierra Club idiot, Steve Bloom.
bender,
Be nice. Insulting Simon really doesn’t help further your arguement, or engender a constructive discussion.
Bender– Behave.
1) Simon seems entirely rational.
2) Simon does not seem at all similar to Steve Bloom.
3) I prefer people not be called idiots.
Lucia,
As far as tracking down published quantitative modeling of the CO2-temp lag, it might be worth contacting Jeff Severinghaus (jseveringhaus@ucsd.edu) and asking him, since I believe its an issue has has written on in the past.
Ryan O and Lucia – what a team! Very nicely explained. Even I can understand that. Unfortunately, no daffodils in Southern New England. Too much global warming on the ground…. still about six inches, it looks like….
Old rock under snow
Weathered, cracked, scarred, broken, healed
Sun, melt my chilled blood
There were daffodils blooming last weekend near Delmar on the south Delaware, Maryland state line.
Zeke–
I have to admit to being reluctant to bother loads of people when I’m not in “specifically hunting for THIS” mode. Still, when the subject comes up, I mention I haven’t seen much.
It’s not so much that I want to spend a lot of time tracking it down — which I freely admit. The most I’ve done is read the explanation that appear at various places. RC did at least two posts: (Example: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ by Eric and this, by “group” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/langswitch_lang/en Note: in this comment, Eric says that article is written by Severinghaus )
Reading the first article, it appears that the most one can say is that a 800 year lag falls inside the extremely large range of all lags we cannot exclude based on other information. In other words: We don’t know enough to really predict (or hindcast) what the lag should be.
I follow the links in those paper and discover that’s about what the papers say: The RC written by http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 article above links to a paper that describes how we determined the timing from measurements, but nothing to link that to a model that would show we understand the physics well enough to either predict (or even hindcast) that timing based on physics.
I accept the qualitative explanation as plausible even if it’s not quantitative. But, I also haven’t seen those who wish people to accept it providing a quantitative explanation. If there’s been progress since 2007, or someone has written this up clearly, it’s probably time for those at RC to write a post that shows the quantitative connection. Then, I’ll be able to stop saying this. But… I admit I’m not going to make it a research project.
I’m fine with the notion that not all things are known quantatively, and I think qualitative (handwaving) explanations are often both the best we have and useful.
Lucia,
It doesn’t deal with a modeled rate of release – this is just inferred from ice core indications of concentration. I think it would be tricky indeed to model it, since changes in sea level, indicative of ice sheet area change, are not timeable to better than thousands of years.
I’m particularly uncertain as to what is inferred regarding the rate/timing of global warming/cooling as opposed to that at Vostok. The Vostok temperature change is considered to be roughly double that of the global mean. Footnote 2, p.1930 is pertinent –
Antarctic temperature change divided by 2 serves as a crude ‘global thermometer’ for large global climate change on time-scales of several thousand years or longer. Limitations of a local thermometer are obvious on time-scales of 1–2 kyr or less, when Antarctic and Greenland temperature fluctuations are often on a ‘see-saw’, i.e. out of phase (EPICA 2006). Leads and lags of temperature changes at different locations are crucial for understanding the mechanisms of climate change, and these short-term variations can involve complex dynamical processes, including possible ‘reorganizations’ of ocean and atmospheric circulation.
In terms of rate of change, it seems plausible that polar temperatures have ‘led’ the global mean, and that this would be a factor in the delayed response of atmospheric C02 concentration – but I am speculating. Either way, the 800 year (+/- 1,000 maybe!) lag is a relatively rapid response compared to the slow feedback of ice sheet albedo change.
Snow lies in Princeton
Daffodil sprouts thus covered
weekend warming to thaw
Simon,
I agree 100%. It would be tricky to model. That’s why it hasn’t been done. In my mind, observing that it has not been done does not suggest the qualitative explanation is implausible. It’s just observing this.
One of my issues with the climate-blog-wars is that some people (not you) tend to either assume or suggest that if our level of understanding is imperfect means we must know nothing. This leads both to
1) people insisting something is known with bang on certainty and there can be no doubt at all… period and
2) describing all alternate views as qualitative hand waving explanations that one is absolutely forbidden to speak of them.
The reality is: Many entirely qualitative explanations are plausible and we can explain why we believe them. At the same time, the information has not reached a level to fully quantify things, and some gaps exist. The theory is still plauible.
Other qualitative explanations are nuts. Even if we could firm them up and quantify, they are still nuts. Sort of like the Leprechaun theory of global warming. (Opps. That’s my theory that Zeke firmed up!)
So, in some sense, qualitatively plausible is more meaningful. Still, when we reach the point where the qualitatively plausible explanation give quantitatively correct answers and can predict lots evidence not yet seen before predictions are made, then we really have something!
The CO2- temperature feedback thing seems to be in the “qualitatively plausible” region. It’s passed some quantitative hurdles. But it’s not at the “we understand so well we can really predict things!” yet.
Or it seems so to me.
Lucia,
I’ve read Hansen’s paper and I came to the same conclusion: qualitatively plausible but relatively little information on the quantitative side – probably because there are so many unknowns. I would be neat to see quantitative work done . . . but I’m not sure how much reliable information there is. Besides, what’s even the accuracy on the 800 year lag number? Most of the relevant quantities are inferred, and I imagine the uncertainties are fairly large.
But it’s neat stuff to think about.
The problem is: I’ve read Hansen’s papers. So I know the ins and outs of his arguments and I know where they’re weak. And Simon cites these arguments as though they are “robust”. I’m not going to waste my time debunking the statistical errors of Hansen to a believer. It’s very hard to be nice to someone who doesn’t understand the statistics of Hansen & Schmidt et al., yet cites them as divine authorities.
.
I can’t be nice, so I’ll leave.
Bender– I don’t want you to leave. But not everyone is a statistician by training. And, really, Simon doesn’t have a history of treating Hansen as a divine authority. He just wants to know if that’s the type of thing I’m looking for. It’s not.
I don’t think what I’m looking for really exists– which doesn’t necessarily cast doubt on the qualitative explanation. It’s just nearly impossible to believe it exists because it would be very difficult to do that which I would call “firm and quantitative” in this particular case.
I can’t be nice, so I’ll leave.
Any chance of you growing up a bit before you get back? I see you’re still tossing out silly accusations on the previous thread – are you planning to follow me around trying to think up a new insult every time I post? Seems like trolling to me.
silly accusations? list them.
you also have some growing up to do.
the difference is I’m honest about it.
you infuriate me.
lucia:
“The CO2- temperature feedback thing seems to be in the “qualitatively plausible†region. It’s passed some quantitative hurdles. But it’s not at the “we understand so well we can really predict things!†yet. ”
Very good point, IMHO. And we certainly don’t understand so well that we should be severely slashing our standard of living and killing off millions of impoverished people in the world.
Bender remarks that,
“I’m not going to waste my time debunking the statistical errors of Hansen to a believer. It’s very hard to be nice to someone who doesn’t understand the statistics of Hansen & Schmidt et al.”
Now I’m curious. I’ve heard plenty of people railing against “Mannian statistics”, but what statistical fallacies is Hansen guilty of? I’m all ears, and please provide examples in addition to the usual ad homs.
Zeke,
Tell me: have you noticed the absence of statistics in those papers? And what do you think about that? Let’s start there, shall we? If you’re really interested in my POV you can always search for my comments at CA. I’m on record already. No sense repeating myself; it’s not a one-line story.
What about those snowdrops, eh? Aren’t they great?
Oh, and Zeke: try not to listen to the “railings” of “many” many when comes to Mannian pseudostatistics. Arthur Wegman says all you need to know.
lucia, this is another problem with Revkin’s critics: they are clueless about statistics. And folks, that’s not an ad hom. It simply helps to explain why the alarmists dismiss discussions about uncertainty as being aligned with an “inaction” agenda. I am angry and tired of this editorializing that says statistical uncertainty can not be discussed when it comes to climate science. It’s pure and simple anti-scientific political interference.
lucia (Comment#11253)
1) people insisting something is known with bang on certainty and there can be no doubt at all… period and
2) describing all alternate views as qualitative hand waving explanations that one is absolutely forbidden to speak of them.
The reality is: Many entirely qualitative explanations are plausible and we can explain why we believe them. At the same time, the information has not reached a level to fully quantify things, and some gaps exist. The theory is still plauible.
I agree. The climate-blog-wars rarely do much to advance us, and the entrenchment of positions is such that otherwise reasonable people are driven towards absolutism. Such is war, I guess. I think it’s human nature that people long for certainty (like Othello, who would seemingly rather have his innocent wife ‘proven’ a whore than live with the doubt…), and perhaps human nature that if there is uncertainty we will favour the chances that seem to suit us best.
I do think it’s become difficult for climate scientists to talk publicly as they might wish to about uncertainty. You’ll be aware of the tobacco campaign’s slogan “Doubt is our product”. The problem is that we need to be informed by scientific work, review and discussion, but that process is violated by the propaganda war that prevails (on both sides).
I do think that most of the blog-warring is entirely pointless (hee hee – I engage in pointless activity!). We’re well-armed on both sides, and the effect is really just to strengthen tribal identity rather than to persuade the 80%, say, of people who don’t belong to one tribe or the other. I think it’s an interesting speculation as to what would persuade that majority. It may for some, unreasonably perhaps, be the occurrence of a disaster, such as the Victoria bushfires. Or perhaps for those who follow the matter, the occurrence of the next El Nino either taking temperatures to new highs or else signally failing to do so. Who knows. I actually think it’s quite unlikely that ‘AGW theory’ (whatever that means) will be debunked, though the evolution of climate sensitivity remains, of course, of great interest. We seem to have too little confidence in our modelling of clouds, a rather ad hoc analysis of aerosols and a very limited capacity to time natural cycles, such that any AGW signal can reliably be ‘extracted’ from short to medium-term climate evolution.
Uncertainty does cut both ways, of course. For example, I get the impression that cryosphere specialists are, amongst themselves, mostly persuaded of outcomes being more severe than those projected in the AR4. IPCC projections do include a 10% chance, say, of AGW not being much of a problem at all. I don’t take too much comfort from that uncertainty!
Bender,
I’m rather amused that you consider Revkin’s critics to be both statistically ignorant and alarmist, considering that you would probably lump Revkin himself in the alarmist category given his personal views. I’m also not sure who “Revkin’s critics” are in this case other than Tobis and Romm, the former of which is not particularly ignorant of statistics, just guilty of a regrettably poor analogy and some rather muddled diction (I’m not going to try and defend Romm, as he a bit too good at digging his own holes for me to pull him out). There is certainly a legitimate argument (which I myself have made any number of times) that those of us concerned about climate change hurt our cause when we gloss over the uncertainties involved in the more extreme potential impacts. Most of the criticisms of Revkin’s piece did not take issue with his call for nuance, but rather the equivalence of what they see as a relatively small error on the part of Gore and a number of large, less defensible errors on the part of Will.
Also, calling people “idiots”, “clueless”, “dishonest”, and saying they need to “grow up” really won’t help convince folks that your point of view is correct. When in doubt, assume good faith!
Actually, Zeke, it was I who introduced the ‘grow up’ suggestion (under some duress, I feel). I apologise for the personal weakness!
Mea culpa Simon.
In fact, the whole last sentence of my post is a bit too close to a snark in hindsight, so I apologize to Bender for it.
“uncertainties involved in the more extreme potential impacts”
Zeke, those aren’t the important uncertainties. The ones that are important are the ones pointed to time and again in lucia’s blog.
Simon, you bring on your own duress.
Bender:
The important uncertainties, as I see them, primarily revolve around climate sensitivity. The includes aerosol forcings, ocean heat storage rates, and to a lesser extent cloud-related feedbacks. Other uncertainties involve the rate of sea level rise through dynamic ice sheet movement, the response of methane feedbacks, and the response of the biosphere to warming (e.g. species migration rates and tolerances).
The media certainly needs to do a better job communicating the uncertainties and debate surrounding these. On the other hand, the sooner we can get to discussing these issues rather than the usual canards of “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”, “anthropogenic CO2 is only 3% of total carbon emissions”, “how could 3 parts per million of the atmosphere have any effect on the earth’s climate”, “CO2 only last for 7 years in the atmosphere”, etc., the sooner we can have some interesting, productive discussions. Thats why I tend to like Lucia’s place: folks generally have a basic understanding of the issues, and there are enough genuine skeptics to allow for interesting debates.
Slowness of continental ice sheet albedo change on the cooling side is understandable. The system must lose not only the heat of fusion of the mass of water converted to ice, but I think also the heat of vaporization, which is nearly an order of magnitude larger. On warming, however, only the heat of fusion needs to be added and gravity does the rest. This appears to be reflected in the ice core temperature reconstructions that show the transition from glacial to interglacial temperature occurring much faster than the decline to glacial from interglacial.
And then there’s the sea ice. That should be both larger (well maybe not in the NH) in area and subject to more rapid change than continental ice sheets. I’m going to calculate sometime the ballpark net radiative imbalance over the last 55 million years represented by the decline in temperature (~9 C) of the deep ocean from its Eocene optimum peak and the formation of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.
Hey Zeke, it was Eli Rabbett who suggested Paltridge was not “clued in” to the limitations of the NCEP reanalysis:
“The problem is that everyone knows that the NCEP reanalysis has significant problems with humidity, and anyone who doesn’t is not clued in.”
So you’re 1 for 3. I hope you’re a batsman, not a goalie. No apology necessary.
Zeke says: “The media certainly needs to do a better job communicating the uncertainties”. What is there to communicate? Nobody’s calculated them yet.
Thank you, this picture made my day.
I’m so fed up with winter.
“When in doubt, assume good faith!”
Simon, Zeke is talking to you. Something about Paltridge.
“When in doubt, assume good faith!â€
Simon, Zeke is talking to you. Something about Paltridge.
Perhaps Palktridge might have assumed the good faith of the editor – apparently not, since he has sought to smear him/her on a blog in a context where the editor has no recourse to defence.
Simon, your schtick is old already, and I’ve known you, what, two days??!! Your continual attempts to prove a double standard and hypocrisy are incredibly boring. Not only that, but every time you incorrectly assume a double-standard is being applied it reveals your own biased judgement.
Bender… simon….. Are we going to have to drag you both to Wehauken for a duel? For some reason, you’ve both rubbed each other the wrong way– yet, you both are usually reasonable with others. Try a time out with each other! (If I could, I’d write a script to not show benders comments to Simon and vice versa for a day or two. But I can’t cache when I do that and it sucks too much CPU!)
Bender– not all uncertainties mean statistical uncertainties. Some are… other…!
Daffodils bow in
confusion as blowing snow
recalls mid-winter.
“Bender– not all uncertainties mean statistical uncertainties. Some are… other…!”
Of course you know that I know that. What burns me is that when you try to ask legitimate questions about statistical climatology you get tarred as an “inactivist”. The “other” uncertainties are somewhat less interesting to me, but are still very important. It’s how the uncertainties (all types) propagate through a calculation that really fuels my skepticism about Hansen’s just-so model scenarios. Anyone that systematically avoids goodness-of-fit statistics and proper validation when it comes to model predictions, well … you can guess what I think. Airplanes engineered that way don’t fly. Know what I’m saying?
.
So we have the precautionary principle. Pray tell: how much “precaution” is enough?
Lucia,
I already have some five people lined up to duel with me since I have been posting here, and now you’re arranging more! This is getting dangerous 😉
I agree. Bender, we should call a truce. I respect your passionate conviction. I forgive you for calling me a liar, so you must forgive me for calling you a hypocrite. Shall we make a deal, or must it be a duel? If the latter, you’ll have to wait your turn, and I will probably be dead before you have satisfaction 😉
lucia,
Simon is a marked man because he accused me of hypocrisy at CA. When I refuted his claim (Paltridge and The Team are demonstably inequivalent cases and should not necessarily be held to a common standard) he ran away. When he apologizes and admits his error I will bury the hatchet. Until such time I will continue to point out his own inconsistencies, distortions, biases.
You first, buddy.
Lucia, maybe we could have our own thread which no one else would have to read? What would that do to the CPU? Shucks, now I’m a “marked man”. I’ll probably never make it to Wehauken, so you will miss the satisfaction of gouging my heart out with your crochet hook…… (I did try, miss, honest)…
1. Dude, you accused me of hypocrisy AFTER I had ALREADY conceded that Paltridge might be spinning his experience and that I might have been misled. YOU are in the wrong. If that’s where you want to stay, that’s your business.
2. Why don’t you clarify, for the record, what you think the reviewer intended to accomplish by saying what he said:
“the only object I can see for this paper is for the authors to get something in the peer-reviewed literature which the ignorant can cite as supporting lower climate sensitivity than the standard IPCC rangeâ€
If the paper was so methodologically flawed as to be unpublishable then why was the reviewer compelled to say this? Please feel free to speculate, as that is allowed on this blog.
Bender– I don’t mind the precautionary principle if people actually advocate it. What I don’t like is simultaneously saying the scientific consensus is for things that are on the high side of the consensus range, that it is certain things are on the high of the consensus range and thenthen saying, well.. things could even be worse than this high side (which you insist is the middle) and so we must use the precautionary principle to deal with …. what are they “wooly-eyed fantasies” of terrifying calamaties no one anticipates will happen.
And then insisting we can’t have nukes because adding a few bicycle trains and solar panels are enough under the fantastically horrifyingly bad end of the forecast!
#11325
Couldn’t agree more.
P.S. What “inactivist” (Nathan’s language) advocates revolutionizing the energy sector from coal to nuclear? You want nukes. I don’t drive a car. Lukewarmers are *not* inactivist.
bender (Comment#11324)
[I apologise to anyone else reading this cr*p, but I must admit to the personal weakness of being unable to avoid responding to personally addressed challenges].
Why can’t you let this lie? I have already stated that I’m prepared to forget you calling me a liar, both here and at CA. Can you not, really, recognise that you’re making even more of a twerp of yourself than I am?
I am already on record, both here and at CA, as to what I think of the reviewer’s comment. Look for the word “improper” and you’ve probably come across my judgment.
Now please, stop trying to have your way by repeatedly posting your ad hominem attacks. I will not succumb to that. However, if Lucia would like me to stop posting in order to put an end to this nonsense, I would be happy to comply. I really don’t mind, but it is not in my nature otherwise to ignore your continuing attacks after I have done my best to suggest a truce in a good-humoured way.
For goodness sake, move on, and stop attacking me in the way that you have expressly stated as your intention.
Simon, I note that you still have not apologized. Not even after half dozen requests to do so. This twerp owes you nothing.
This twerp will further point out the following double standard in your own commentary: you ask several times that Paltridge’s review be disclosed in full. How many times have you asked that the reviews of the other journal – the one where the paper got accepted – be disclosed in full? Just an oversight on your part. You were getting around to it. To quote you: “Pah!”
Simon:
1. I have not promised to attack you. I have merely promised to microparse your text, just as you deserve.
2. You say you can not back down from a personal challenge, yet you expect me to do exactly that. There’s another double-standard for you. You seem to be full of them.
Bender,
I am going to bed. Good night, and sleep well when you do. I do suggest that it would be a relief for everyone if we started tomorrow with a clean sheet. I’m up for that if you are. I’m trying to find the right way to offer a withdrawal from this personal spat, but I’m not sure that I can find it. What I will promise is that if you wish to go for the ‘clean sheet’ approach, I will do the same. That’s the best I can do. I wish you well and good fortune. Good night 🙂
Simon: apologize.
bender (Comment#11356)
Simon: apologize.
bender – you win. I can’t be doing with wasting my time dealing with unreasonable people in this way. You have rejected all decent attempts at suggesting a truce, you are clearly determined to pursue a personal vendetta and evidently feel free to do so. I happen to think that you are a disturbed individual.
Lucia – thanks for putting up with my posts on your blog over a brief period. I wish you well. I think you might consider a somewhat tighter moderation policy, but that’s a view that is doubtless distorted by personal experience. All the best, and cheerio until we meet at Wehauken 😉
It is generally accepted (as well as anything that occurred a few hundred million years ago ) that the escape from the snowball earth state was through volcanic emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That is a clear case of where CO2 warmed the climate.
To Bender and Simon: I picked this paraphrasing of Neitzche off the interwub yesterday.
“Battle not with stupid, lest ye become stupid. And if you gaze into the Inetrnet, know that the Internet also gazes into you.”
Give it up, guys. Take 24 hours. Nothing will change in that time. Relax.
Eli Rabett (Comment#11372) March 5th, 2009 at 10:13 pm ,
But the existence of snowball earth is itself controversial. 9,480 hits at google and 3.450 at google scholar for “snowball earth controversy”.
Bender:
“P.S. What “inactivist†(Nathan’s language) advocates revolutionizing the energy sector from coal to nuclear? You want nukes. I don’t drive a car. Lukewarmers are *not* inactivist.”
I used the term “no-action”
Does this mean you actually want action taken? What action do you think should be taken?
Also nuclear is not always appropriate, it’s no silver bullet. There are many many other options available, from solar to geothermal, to wind and tidal. It’s horses for courses.
DeWitt:#11375
The Snowball may be controversial, as in whether the ice went from pole to pole, what isn’t controversial is that in the Cryogenian there was a very big glaciation that extended a long way north and south. A glaciation that needed a lot of warming to lead into the warmer world that followed.
Advocating nuclear power is going to be a steeply uphill battle. President Obama’s moving to shut down Yucca Mountain – the only “permanent” storage facility.
Simon: That’s not an apology. You’re one to talk about moderation policy! You call people “hypocrite” and then fail to apologize when you’re shown to be flat wrong. You picked the wrong target, friend. Better luck next time.
Doug W,
Simon can not expect to waltz into a forum like CA, start calling honest people hypocritical, and expect to get away with it. He’s playing nice guy now. That’s the game he should have been playing 24hrs ago. The truce is on as soon as he apologizes and references the specific error he made. That’s the honest thing to do. That’s what I would do.
Bender you call people worse names… Sounds like waaa waaa waaa to me.
Ohhhhhhhh that’s right you’re ignoring me.
Lucia, you say : “However, it is equally true that I have never seen any quantitative explanation that elevates the plausible qualitative (aka “hand wavingâ€) explanation to something close to bulletproof. Also, I have not read explanations that make it through the full cycle”
Spot on. This is one of the things that is most puzzling about the whole theory, I have never seen any explanation of what is supposed to cause the coolings either. It now seems to be generally admitted that there have been previous warmings and coolings, like even recently an MWP and perhaps even Roman warm period. The argument is then offered that these, if they happened, showed greater sensitivity of the climate to forcing than one would conclude from the Hockey Stick account of an even temperature followed by a sudden jump.
Yet is not the subsequent cooling the almost impossible thing to explain on this account? We would have first to suppose great sensitivity, then some so far undefined forcing, then a diminution of that forcing, then a recurrence of it, then another decline, then another warming but this time caused by CO2, a totally different cause by hypothesis from what caused the earlier two. It will remind those with an acquaintance with the history of science of the invention of increasing numbers of epicycles to keep intact the hypothesis that the planets moved in circular orbits.
So agreed, it is the cooling that is just as problematic to the CO2 account as the warming. As far as I can see from the graphs the fall of CO2 also precedes the cooling, so that can hardly be the explanation.
fred: “the fall of CO2 also precedes the cooling”. You mean cooling precedes the fall in CO2 koncentration, I think.
If there was a MWP comparable to the present, current models are not able to account for that. Solar? no. CO2? no. Other candidates? no.
.
Since when is anything related to the snowball earth “generally accepted”?
Yes, sorry, did mean that cooling precedes CO2 fall.
Eli – I am going to have to agree with Dewitt and Ryan O that there is still quite a bit of controversy still over the whole concept of a snowball earth and even if many of the deposits or other geologic features cited as evidence are in fact the result of glaciation. Certainly a plausible theory with many intriguing lines of evidence but controversial and not necessarily “generally accepted”.
Lucia – As much as I know you like to moderate as little as possible, this whole Bender-Simon Evans slamfest has become quite tiresome and obnoxious, and is spread over both CA and multiple threads here. Perhaps a timeout for the children is appropriate if they both insist on trying to have the last word.
Bob– I think they are both sleeping now. . . But yes, if they resume when they wake up, I’ll give them a time out.
Nick Eyles of the University of Toronto does not “accept” the snowball earth hypothesis. He observes on his webpage: http://www.geology.utoronto.ca/Members/eyles
Canadian geologists, especially in Ontario, are intimately familiar with glacial terrains and they seem to oppose the interpretation of diamictites as glaciogenic (Arnaud of Guelph is another). I’ve had a lot of personal contact with Canadian geologists over the years and I’d take their views very seriously. At a minimum, it can hardly be said to be “generally accepted” when leading figures disagree.
If diamictites cannot be proven to be glaciogenic, then everything building on this premise is a “castle in the clouds”.
Bob North (Comment#11409)
If you see my comment 11361 above, you may note that I have already stated I do not intend to continue posting here, in the context of a personal vendetta (explicitly expressed as “you’re a marked man”, etc.) being pursued against me. If you’ve read the threads, you should also note that I have made several offers of ‘truce’ and suggestions that the matter be left to lie, for example –
Simon Evans (Comment#11353) March 5th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Bender,
I am going to bed. Good night, and sleep well when you do. I do suggest that it would be a relief for everyone if we started tomorrow with a clean sheet. I’m up for that if you are. I’m trying to find the right way to offer a withdrawal from this personal spat, but I’m not sure that I can find it. What I will promise is that if you wish to go for the ‘clean sheet’ approach, I will do the same. That’s the best I can do. I wish you well and good fortune. Good night 🙂
What objection do you have to that statement?
In the light of that, i think your comment is extremely unfair.
Regardless, I will not be troubling you further.
Simon– I adjusted my moderation plugin to try to halt food-fights. But I don’t know if it will work. You can read on the top of the blog post.
As I commented, I need to be able to tailor settings for individuals. (Right now, only have “true troll” and “everyone else”. I’ve always figured I need four categories levels: “Troll”, “Known Food Fighter”, “Angel” and “Everyone else”.
Simon,
I think there are also greasemonkey plugins for wordpress if you really don’t want to be provoked by a particular person, though I tend to shy away from them.
I’d personally prefer you keep posting here despite Bender’s arguments. He isn’t that frequent a poster here, and there are few other places in the climate blogosphere that aren’t echo chambers for one side of the other (though http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange also has occasional good discussions).
Zeke – ok, thanks. I shall take a break for a while at least, though.
Lucia – I think you need a ‘loose cannon’ setting for me along with a ‘can’t help himself responding’ setting. Anyway, I’m off now before I trigger the new spam filter 😉
I’m disgusted by the judgement displayed here. Have your precious bandwidth back. Enjoy Simon’s company.
Bender– You are welcome here anytime. But other people (not simon) have suggested that letting the food fights go on and on gets distracting. So… I have to do something to moderate.
withering flowers:
precious bandwidth needed for
daffodil haiku
Simon and Bender-
I believe that both of you have the ability to contribute meaningfully discussions at this site and bandwidth really shouldn’t be an issue. It was just that both of you were getting carried away on a personal little food fight that was tedious and boring. It also made finding and getting to any meaningful posts time-consuming and difficult since one can never be quite sure when one of you might pop off with some elucidating comment. As they say on some of the other (non-climate) bulletin boards I frequent– peace out, bro.
Bob, lucia’s got my permission to clean things up, including my bad haiku. I have no vendetta against anyone. But let this be a warning: anyone choosing to spar with me is always going to have their hands full. When your arguments are grounded in solid fact you are immovable. Scientific debate is a martial art.
Bender
” But let this be a warning: anyone choosing to spar with me is always going to have their hands full. When your arguments are grounded in solid fact you are immovable. Scientific debate is a martial art.”
Tough talk is so cheesy…
bender– Bad haiku is permitted.
Nathan– The troll-anti-food fight plugin is automatic. Only authors are exempt. It will trigger for you too.