The Free Market and the Climate Model: Models, Water, and Temperature (8)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:17 PM GMT on September 22, 2012

Share this Blog
8
+

The Free Market and the Climate Model: Models, Water, and Temperature (8)

I am returning to my series of blogs on models, water, and temperature (see Intro, and previous entry). The earlier entries in the series are linked at the end.

The previous blog was a diversion from the series and reported on A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling. Accompanying the publication of that document a new website was published Climate Modeling 101, which is an introduction to modeling more anchored in scientific language than the series I am currently writing. Give it a try.

Doing Science with Models 1.5: I have used the example of balancing a checkbook to write about the balance of energy at the center of the study of the Earth’s climate. I have shown that despite the simplicity of balancing the budget of a single account, there are many ways in which complexity emerges.

Let’s look at just one of these exchanges of energy, say between the atmosphere and ocean. We have wind in the atmosphere, which as it blows over the ocean, exerts a stress that causes waves and large surface currents, for example, the The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is a warm-water current that carries heat from the Gulf of Mexico to the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. At high latitudes, heat is transferred from the warm water of the Gulf Stream to the air. This heat keeps western Europe far warmer than would be the case if warming came only from the Sun. We have here the transfer of energy by motion of air and water, referred to as kinetic energy, as well as the transfer of heat or thermal energy between air and water.

Rain also represents energy transfer. We naturally think of rain as a source of water. However, in order for water to get into the atmosphere from the ocean, it must evaporate – turn from liquid to vapor. This takes energy, just as you have to add energy to a pan of water to boil it. This type of energy is latent energy, because it just sits in the water vapor until it gets cold enough to give up that energy as it condenses back to liquid water or ice, maybe many thousands of miles from where it evaporated.

If you focus on evaporation, then the heat from the Sun that is absorbed at the Earth’s surface is one source of the energy that evaporates water. So in our accounting problem, we account for some energy from the Sun that is absorbed at the ocean’s surface, which evaporates water, transferring energy to the atmosphere that is released in the atmosphere when it rains.

Hence, as we break down the problem to understand the accounting of energy between the ocean and atmosphere, we find several types of transfers that can occur. If we extend our consideration to the land, then we would consider trees, which take up energy from the Sun to drive photosynthesis and move liquid water from the soil to water vapor in the air through their roots and leaves. If we are doing an accounting of what trees do, then we have to take into the specifics of different types of trees: oaks behave differently from pines and bristlecone pines behave differently from loblolly pines. Trees behave differently from grasses, which are different from cacti, which are different from mushrooms.

The diversity of the natural world presents us with enormous complexity when we desire to describe it quantitatively. But at the foundation of the accounting is the budget equation for energy

Today’s Energy = Yesterday’s Energy + Energy Gained – Energy Lost

We write an energy equation for the atmosphere, and that energy equation will include how much energy is lost to the land surface over grassy surfaces, tree covered surfaces, and sandy deserts. There will be contributions to the energy equation for each process on Earth that our point of view brings us to. The total energy accounting is computed by adding up all of these energy transactions.

I want to return, now, explicitly to the budget equation for money. I made the point in Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings that many of us have become familiar and comfortable with the idea of using computers to do our accounting and account balancing. The budget equations that represent our checking and savings accounts and the transfers between them are managed by software like Quicken or in spreadsheets like Excel. It is possible to do monthly accounting to the penny. If we think about our credit union, it manages thousands of accounts with near-perfect accuracy. A large bank manages millions of accounts, and a credit card company manages billions of transactions. Therefore, it is routine to accumulate millions of accounts and billions of transactions into large calculations. This sort of accounting problem is large and complex and requires diligence, rigor, and checking to get correct. The same is true with climate modeling. Each of the sales and returns and the transfers are, individually, simple, and in their total, complex. All of these financial accounting challenges are shared with climate modelers. The fact that we can do this financial accounting should demystify climate modeling. The complexity is a challenge, but it does not suggest impossibility. There is no magic that has to be invoked in the building of a climate model. (And, yes, you could write a climate model in Excel.)

As we collect information from all of our financial accounts, we start to describe our economy. In the United States, we imagine that we want a free market, one whose behavior is described by the law of supply and demand. If there is low supply and high demand for gasoline, the price is high. If there is high supply and low demand for terrier sweaters, then the price is low. Our purchase of gasoline and terrier sweaters is a loss of money to us, but a gain of money to their respective industries. We also make money itself a marketable item; we loan and lend for a price. We find these relations that emerge, for instance, when money is tight, then it costs more to borrow. Again, it is an issue of supply and demand, which is viewed as a defining law of markets and economies.

It is at this point of my comparison of financial budgets with energy budgets that an important difference emerges. It is in principle easier to predict the Earth’s climate than it is to predict how our economy will evolve. Why? Behavior. In financial transactions and our economy, people make decisions based upon necessity and whim. The fortunate among us might spend vast amounts on terrier sweaters, simply because we want terrier sweaters. The energy transactions in the Earth’s climate are far more boring: they are constrained by physical laws of conservation. The amount of rain cannot be just any number. It can be no more than the amount of water vapor that is available in the atmosphere to condense and fall out. The sea ice in the Arctic requires a certain amount of energy to melt. Once that melting has occurred, additional heat warms the ocean, and some of that heat expands the water. There are strict limits on behavior of the individual parts of the Earth’s climate, which do not hold true when buying and selling.

For the Earth’s climate, a strong constraint in any quantitative description is the amount of energy provided to the Earth by the Sun. The Sun is relatively stable in the amount of energy that it emits. Over the life of the Sun, its energy emission has increased by about 25 percent (Newman and Rood (Robert)). Over the span of a human life, the Sun varies up and down only a percent or so. But this is not true with money. We print money as our economies and populations grow. We try to engineer a stable economy, which actually means an economy that is growing fast enough to provide employment to an increasing population. This requires exploitation of new resources, innovation, fashionable ideas, or, perhaps, printing more money.

There is no denying that quantifying the observed behavior of our climate is a problem of immense complexity. It is, however, not a problem that is difficult to conceive. We have simple relationships based on calculating budgets of energy: production, loss, and transfers. These relationships define and constrain behavior of the processes that make up the climate as a whole. There is no free will, no credit, no overdraft protection to behave outside of these constraints. Arguments that the climate problem is too large and too complex to model and understand are simply spurious. We just require diligence, rigor, and checking our work in our accounting.


r


Series links:

Models, Water, and Temperature



Models are Not All Wet: Series Introduction

Models are Everywhere

Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings

Balancing the Budget

Point of View

Looking Under the Cloak of Complexity


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 128 - 78

Page: 1 | 2 | 3Blog Index

128. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
1:41 AM GMT on October 05, 2012
RickyRood has created a new entry.
127. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:38 AM GMT on October 05, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I see Al Gore blamed the air (altitude) in Denver for the POTUS losing last night.

MORE PROOF OF AGWT OR MORE PROOF OF NOTHING?

To think some of you think this guy is great.
WOW


Al Gore is NOT a scientist. When I want answers that require a scientist, I will ask a scientist. All you want to do is to shoot the messenger. What is your gain from this?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
126. nymore
1:18 AM GMT on October 05, 2012
I see Al Gore blamed the air (altitude) in Denver for the POTUS losing last night.

MORE PROOF OF AGWT OR MORE PROOF OF NOTHING?

To think some of you think this guy is great.
WOW
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2209
125. Some1Has2BtheRookie
9:24 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Tamino just posted a pretty disturbing blog entry. It's nothing we science-minded, non-ideological objective realists aren't already aware of, but, still, seeing things condensed this way is eye-opening. In short, the entry states that we are in deep, deep trouble. A brief excerpt (boldface mine):

"The evidence is right before our eyes. The climate system is out of control. I don’t mean 'our' control, we never had that, I mean out of control of its own self-regulating mechanisms. It’s changing in astounding ways, with frightening speed, and it’s going to get worse.

We are no longer in a position to consider the coming changes 'acceptable' or even 'tolerable. Adaptation is not a viable option. The coming changes involve food and water shortages, and all the human conflict (like nuclear war) which that kind of strife induces."


Tamino's Wordpress blog

Permafrost Projections

Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback

(A cheery snippet from that last link: "The permafrost feedback response to our historic emissions, even in the absence of future human emissions, is likely to be self-sustaining and will cancel out future natural carbon sinks in the oceans and biosphere over the next two centuries.")

Oh, sh--er, dear. :\


In my unscientific terms, I had already felt that this was the case. I am just here to swat the flies, as the flesh begins to rot away.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
124. Some1Has2BtheRookie
9:20 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting yoboi:



the president has made plenty of executive orders...


Which one?

Barack Obama

George W. Bush

William Clinton

George H. W. Bush

Ronald Reagan

Jimmy Carter

Gerald Ford

Richard Nixon

Lyndon Johnson

John F. Kennedy

Dwight Eisenhower

The presidents before this were involved with WWII and before.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
123. Neapolitan
8:39 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Tamino just posted a pretty disturbing blog entry. It's nothing we science-minded, non-ideological objective realists aren't already aware of, but, still, seeing things condensed this way is eye-opening. In short, the entry states that we are in deep, deep trouble. A brief excerpt (boldface mine):

"The evidence is right before our eyes. The climate system is out of control. I don’t mean 'our' control, we never had that, I mean out of control of its own self-regulating mechanisms. It’s changing in astounding ways, with frightening speed, and it’s going to get worse.

We are no longer in a position to consider the coming changes 'acceptable' or even 'tolerable. Adaptation is not a viable option. The coming changes involve food and water shortages, and all the human conflict (like nuclear war) which that kind of strife induces."


Tamino's Wordpress blog

Permafrost Projections

Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback

(A cheery snippet from that last link: "The permafrost feedback response to our historic emissions, even in the absence of future human emissions, is likely to be self-sustaining and will cancel out future natural carbon sinks in the oceans and biosphere over the next two centuries.")

Oh, sh--er, dear. :\
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13273
122. yoboi
8:24 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Congress controls the purse strings. All candidates seem to make promises that are not within their powers to keep. The only real power, that a sitting president has, is to withdraw troops. Executive orders can easily be over turned, by any incoming president.



the president has made plenty of executive orders...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1983
121. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:13 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting yoboi:


yeah it does and someone promised 4 yrs ago that he would end all that and now i see it was all an act...


Congress controls the purse strings. All candidates seem to make promises that are not within their powers to keep. The only real power, that a sitting president has, is to withdraw troops. Executive orders can easily be over turned, by any incoming president.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
120. yoboi
7:58 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Because it moves so fast, one can post a lot of comments over at Dr. Masters' blog forum that may go unanswered and unchallenged. Here, however, posting blatant falsehoods will get one ridiculed at best, and possibly humiliated. If you're going to step into this arena, then, you need to come armed with more than a handful of denialist talking points cribbed from a lie-filled contender's debate performance.


then i suggest you go back to the other blog...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1983
119. Neapolitan
7:44 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Because it moves so fast, one can post a lot of comments over at Dr. Masters' blog forum that may go unanswered and unchallenged. Here, however, posting blatant falsehoods will get one ridiculed at best, and possibly humiliated. If you're going to step into this arena, then, you need to come armed with more than a handful of denialist talking points cribbed from a lie-filled contender's debate performance.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13273
118. yoboi
7:20 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Does it make you mad when our tax dollars are used to subsidize some of the wealthiest companies in the world?


yeah it does and someone promised 4 yrs ago that he would end all that and now i see it was all an act...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1983
117. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:12 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting yoboi:


i am mad we got scammed out of 90 billion for a green energy company that went bankrupt...


Does it make you mad when our tax dollars are used to subsidize some of the wealthiest companies in the world?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
116. yoboi
4:49 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting RevElvis:


WashingtonPost.com

Romney also wrongly claimed that about half of the companies funded by these energy programs have gone out of business - a statement that was quickly rebutted by fact-checkers. (The true figure is less than 1 percent.)

Most of the MSM have posted "fact-check" articles on their web-sites this morning (with the exception of the "Fair & Balanced" one - they have already "called the election".)

BTW - (deleted - my bad math skills)

AZdailysun.com


the ones he named did go bankrupt and the statement pick losers more than winners is a true statement...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1983
115. RevElvis
4:28 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting yoboi:


i am mad we got scammed out of 90 billion for a green energy company that went bankrupt...


WashingtonPost.com

Romney also wrongly claimed that about half of the companies funded by these energy programs have gone out of business - a statement that was quickly rebutted by fact-checkers. (The true figure is less than 1 percent.)

Most of the MSM have posted "fact-check" articles on their web-sites this morning (with the exception of the "Fair & Balanced" one - they have already "called the election".)

BTW - (deleted - my bad math skills)

AZdailysun.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
114. yoboi
3:32 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
No written consent necessary. You may want to brush up on copyright law and Fair Use--though I'd prefer you do that after catching up on climate science, and that may take a while as you've obviously got a lot of catching up to do. ;-)

In other news: I see nymore is back with us again, still confused about what climate change and global warming mean. Nymore, please avail yourself of some of the many excellent and extant resources created for steering neophytes such as yourself through the basics of climate science. Doing so will help you avoid repeating silly beginner's mistakes, such as assuming global warming means the end of snowfall.


i am mad we got scammed out of 90 billion for a green energy company that went bankrupt...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1983
112. Snowfire
1:42 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
It is more difficult to describe the day-to-day evolution of an economy than the evolution of a climate because this is the wrong analogy. The ups and downs of an economy are analogous to weather, not climate. Chaotic systems are difficult to model in detail very far out. A branch of economics called thermodynamic economics does in fact build on the idea that wealth and free energy are interchangeable quantities.
Member Since: June 29, 2005 Posts: 24 Comments: 308
111. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:38 PM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:
109:

More attacks and name calling, I see. That's okay. Your true colors are beginning to show right before your eyes. If only you can see it.


Neapolitan is able to defend his actions for himself. However the ones he is responding to are well known here. Ossqss is "the music man" that also seems to have a beleif that he is the son of Apollo and that his father is responsible for all that we see. Ossqss is notorious for his drive by deposits of links to long debunked science and his posts of music videos. Ossqss can sometimes appear to be a jerk, but he will try to shift attention to the action of others. This is what he is best at doing. Understanding the science behind the AGWT is not one of his fortes.

Nymore is a nice person, but last year he confessed to being nothing more than a troll here. Nymore is an intelligent individual and I am still at a loss as to why he would use such trollish behavior on such a serious topic.

Stick around, TomballTXPride and you will be able to make some interesting studies of the personalities that will frequent here. Soon, if you are paying attention, you will discover who is bringing the actual science and who is trying to distort and confuse the science for the novice that is still trying to learn the truth.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
109. Neapolitan
11:51 AM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Soooooo, you did have written consent to copy and publicly reproduce images from a published document for your own financial benefit?
I do smell something.......
No written consent necessary. You may want to brush up on copyright law and Fair Use--though I'd prefer you do that after catching up on climate science, and that may take a while as you've obviously got a lot of catching up to do. ;-)

In other news: I see nymore is back with us again, still confused about what climate change and global warming mean. Nymore, please avail yourself of some of the many excellent and extant resources created for steering neophytes such as yourself through the basics of climate science. Doing so will help you avoid repeating silly beginner's mistakes, such as assuming global warming means the end of snowfall.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13273
108. Ossqss
3:38 AM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Of course, those able to read (and my apologies to those who apparently can't) will have seen that that image comes directly from the Science Direct article to which I linked immediately prior.

One can almost smell the frustration
of the denialistas. As they become increasingly aware that they've got nothing scientific on which to stand, they resort to ad hominems and the posting of blather from discredited Big Energy-funded "scientists" such as Willie Soon. But as irritating as such behavior is, it at least tells us just how desperate they've become, no?


Soooooo, you did have written consent to copy and publicly reproduce images from a published document for your own financial benefit?

Nice!



I do smell something.......
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
107. cyclonebuster
2:49 AM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting nymore:


Well since it is west of the great lakes, I do not see how this would effect it.

MAYBE WE CAN DRILL TUNNELS FROM MILES CITY, MT TO DULUTH,MN?


The ignorants such as yourself don't see a lot of things..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
106. nymore
2:09 AM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:


That's what happens when the great lakes are so hot.......


Well since it is west of the great lakes, I do not see how this would effect it.

MAYBE WE CAN DRILL TUNNELS FROM MILES CITY, MT TO DULUTH,MN?
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2209
105. cyclonebuster
12:44 AM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting nymore:
More proof of AGWT.

Around a foot or more of snow is expected in Minnesota starting tonight.

img src=" Winter Storm Warning Statement as of 3:30 PM CDT on October 03, 2012
... Winter Storm Warning in effect from 1 am Thursday to 10 am CDT
Friday...

The National Weather Service in Grand Forks has issued a Winter
Storm Warning for heavy snow and blowing snow... which is in effect
from 1 am Thursday to 10 am CDT Friday. The Winter Storm Watch is
no longer in effect.

* Timing... rain is expected to change to snow on Thursday
morning... and continue into Friday morning. The snow may be
heavy at times.

* Winds... north winds will increase on Thursday and become 20 to
30 mph with higher gusts... continuing into early Friday morning.

* Visibilities... may be near zero within falling and blowing
snow.

* Snow accumulations... 10 to 12 inches are possible.

* Wind chill values... in the mid to upper teens.

* Other impacts... heavy snow on tree branches and power lines may
cause them to break.

Precautionary/preparedness actions...

A Winter Storm Warning for heavy snow means severe winter weather
conditions are expected or occurring. Significant amounts of snow
are forecast that will make travel dangerous. Only travel in an
emergency. If you must travel... keep an extra flashlight... food... and
water in your vehicle in case of an emergency.
">

Actually is snowed the first time 2 or 3 weeks ago.


That's what happens when the great lakes are so hot.......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
104. Xulonn
12:34 AM GMT on October 04, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I must update, it is now up to 2 feet of snow.

MORE PROOF OF AGWT OR PROOF OF NOTHING?


Obviously, the answer is "Proof of nothing."

If you know anything about statistics (and I only know a little bit), a single data point is meaningless.

Are you just being snarky, or are you unaware of the relationship between weather, climate, and the fundamentals of global warming hypotheses?

AGW/CC "theories" posit that weather extremes and new weather-related records will occur with increasing frequency, but also that individual weather events cannot be easily tied to AGW/CC. Scientists are beginning to see relationships as data accumulates, and we "regular folks" will see the long term changes over time.

In fact, many past models underestimated the climate changes we are now seeing. New models are tested by trying to predict past events by running them with data available before the event. Plus, there are previously unknown factors and poorly understood large-scale environmental processes that scientists are desperately trying to recognize, analyze, understand, and model. Another difficulty is "connecting the dots." By that, I mean the difficulty of looking at changes in the biosphere, including the atmosphere, and oceanic and land biomes and subsystems, and separating out normal changes that would occur in a relatively stable climate.

Note: I studied "Biomes and Subsystems" under Professor (now Emeritus) Arnold Schultz at U.C. Berkeley in the 1970's. "[Professor Schultz] is a well-loved mentor of the College of Natural Resources (CNR) and one of the founding fathers of conservation and resource studies at UC Berkeley." I graduated with one of the earliest classes of the CNR program at U.C. Berkeley, where I learned to appreciate the complexity of the world we live in, and how to think critically about environmental/ecological issues.

Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1139
103. nymore
11:49 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
I must update, it is now up to 2 feet of snow.

MORE PROOF OF AGWT OR PROOF OF NOTHING?
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2209
102. Xulonn
11:37 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:
The models had suggested that we may see a summer without — with very little ice by the end of this century.” This all sounds very alarming to the uninformed viewer.


And even more alarming to the truly informed and knowledgeable!

Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1139
101. Patrap
10:22 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
The Lurker thesis is well under way and guess who has the lead "dissonance" Highlight part in it ?

One guess,


...they Guard sheep.

: )
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125572
100. nymore
9:53 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
More proof of AGWT.

Around a foot or more of snow is expected in Minnesota starting tonight.

img src=" Winter Storm Warning Statement as of 3:30 PM CDT on October 03, 2012
... Winter Storm Warning in effect from 1 am Thursday to 10 am CDT
Friday...

The National Weather Service in Grand Forks has issued a Winter
Storm Warning for heavy snow and blowing snow... which is in effect
from 1 am Thursday to 10 am CDT Friday. The Winter Storm Watch is
no longer in effect.

* Timing... rain is expected to change to snow on Thursday
morning... and continue into Friday morning. The snow may be
heavy at times.

* Winds... north winds will increase on Thursday and become 20 to
30 mph with higher gusts... continuing into early Friday morning.

* Visibilities... may be near zero within falling and blowing
snow.

* Snow accumulations... 10 to 12 inches are possible.

* Wind chill values... in the mid to upper teens.

* Other impacts... heavy snow on tree branches and power lines may
cause them to break.

Precautionary/preparedness actions...

A Winter Storm Warning for heavy snow means severe winter weather
conditions are expected or occurring. Significant amounts of snow
are forecast that will make travel dangerous. Only travel in an
emergency. If you must travel... keep an extra flashlight... food... and
water in your vehicle in case of an emergency.
">

Actually is snowed the first time 2 or 3 weeks ago.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2209
99. Neapolitan
7:49 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:
Daisyworld ~ Does that apply to comment 57 as well?

Since that individual choose to attack the blogger instead of trying to rebut the piece, we'll try it again.
See, another problem with cherry-picking--in this case a comment--is that in doing so, one misses vital necessary information--in this case earlier comments. If you'd taken the time to look back a bit, you'd doubtless have noticed that the person to whom I responded in #57 is in the habit of driving by and dumping little one-line denialist comments out the window, not in pursuit of a scientific discussion but simply to stir the pot with some debunked point. (See comments #46 & #47) It has proven fruitless to respond to him, as those responses will just be wasted. So, instead, I simply noted that I hope he's getting paid for quantity, not quality; if it's the latter, the poor guy's going to starve to death. ;-)

Of course, the confusion displayed in comment #57 (that is, his inability to distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctica) has been addressed countless times in the past few weeks, including several times by me. If he truly is interested--which, again, he definitely is not--three seconds Googling would give him all the answers he would want.

The climate is changing and the earth is warming more rapidly than at any time in human history, and it's doing so mostly if not wholly because of our unimpeded burning of fossil fuels. Any conversation that begins by denying either of those concrete facts is not worthy of attention, if you ask me. So let's move on from there, shall we? Thanks!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13273
98. RevElvis
6:34 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
Methane Emissions Can Be Traced Back to Roman Times

ScienceDaily.com

Emissions of the greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere can be traced back thousands of years in the Greenland ice sheet. Using special analytical methods, researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute, among others, have determined how much methane originates from natural sources and how much is due to human activity. The results go all the way back to Roman times and up to the present, where more than half of the emissions are now human-made.

The results are published in the scientific journal, Nature.

Methane is an important greenhouse gas, which today is partly emitted from natural sources and partly from human activities. The emissions from natural sources varies due to the climate variations. For example, bacteria in wetlands release methane and less is emitted in dry periods as the wetlands shrink.

Methane emissions are peaking now

"We have analysed the methane composition more than 2,000 years back in time. We can see that already 2,100 years ago during Roman times, some cultures were spreading out and burning large amounts of wood for fuel in furnaces to work with metals that required intense heat to process. But the level was still low. The next significant increase was during the Middle Ages around 1,000 years ago. It was a warm period and it was dry so there were presumably many forest fires that emitted methane while the wetlands dwindled and reduced methane emissions from that source. We also find emissions from natural forest fires and deforestation during the so-called 'Little Ice Age' (between 1350 and 1850), which was a very cold and dry period, Emissions of methane increased dramatically from around 1800, when the industrial revolution took off and where there occurred a large increase in population," explains Thomas Blunier.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
97. theshepherd
3:42 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting Daisyworld:


I think you just made my point.


Spin it as you wish.

Another typical demonstration of what happens here.

Don't shoot the messenger. All I did was read your present and past posts and notice your glaring propensities.

You can have the last word.
I'm not going to play dodge ball with you.

Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
95. Daisyworld
3:10 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting theshepherd:


Get real, Daisy

I think what you were really trying to say is:

Ossqss

Only those of us who I like can attack anyone.



The proof of that is...well...the truth.



I think you just made my point.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 786
94. Daisyworld
3:10 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Daisyworld ~ Does that apply to comment 57 as well?


TomballTXPride, yes it does. I won't argue with you on that. The point I was trying to make was that I feel we should bring some civility back into the discussion.

Quoting TomballTXPride:


Daisyworld ~ Does that apply to comment 57 as well?

Since that individual choose to attack the blogger instead of trying to rebut the piece, we'll try it again.



Okay, that's fair. It looks like you went to the trouble of posting something of substance, so let's take a look at it, shall we? To be fair, I'll not even look at who wrote it, nor where the piece came from. I'll just look at the wording and analyze it:



Sounding the ice cap alarm while ignoring the elephant

On Sept. 20, the PBS News Hour did a segment titled “Arctic Icecap Shrinks to Record Low Level,” with Ray Suarez interviewing Walt Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Ray leads off the segment: “The seasonal shrinkage in Arctic ice is more extensive than ever before. … According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the low point came on Sunday, when ice covered just 24 percent of the Arctic Ocean. The previous low of 29 percent was set in 2007.” The substance of the PBS segment was correct but misleading for what it did not tell viewers.


Interesting that the author starts out quoting the PBS segment, which provided real numbers to make it look like what the author is writing will be authentic material, lulling the reader into thinking it won't be misrepresented. Unfortunately, the final sentence shows the impending bias before the paragraph even ends by using the word "misleading".



PBS has long supported Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. PBS programming and website carry stories about melting icecaps, stronger hurricanes, flash floods, drought, wildfires, and even a poor cherry crop in Michigan, all assumed to be due to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, a trace gas in our atmosphere.

Fortunately, those of us who are educated in critical thinking know that these connections are not all assumed. In fact, most of the connections have been scientifically (i.e., mathematically) proven. As for "Climatism", I'm amused that someone chose a new buzzword for the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change.



To an objective observer who looks at the science, the theory of man-made global warming is incredible. Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide and the amount that mankind could have added in all of human history is a fraction of only one of these molecules. Yet PBS and others claim that CO2 emissions are the source of our coming climate destruction.

This is a very laughable paragraph. "Objective" in this sense is purely subjective. Using weasle-statements like "theory of man-made global warming is incredible" is proof enough of bias, as the writer tells the reader how to think through poignant exclamations rather than fact. Peer-reviewed scientific literature would never do this. I also find the statement "four of every 10,000 air molecules" contradictory when the writer states in the same sentence that only a "fraction" of CO2 was added by humankind, thus failing to provide an actual number. Most amusingly, the words "coming climate destruction" was likely a fabrication of the author, as I don't recall the PBS segment ever using that statement.



During the interview, Ray Suarez pointed out that Arctic Ice was disappearing faster than climate models had predicted. Dr. Meier confirmed this, stating, “… we are seeing things go much faster than what the models had projected. The models had suggested that we may see a summer without — with very little ice by the end of this century.” This all sounds very alarming to the uninformed viewer.

And yet, no denial of the statement? Just a deragatory term to describe a subset of people who happen to watch PBS?


But PBS and Dr. Meier have ignored the elephant in the room. The elephant is the Antarctic Icecap. While satellite data shows that Arctic ice has been declining for the last 30 years, the same satellite data shows that Antarctic ice has been expanding for 30 years.

Yes, but how different are the rates? Saying one thing is increasing while another is decreasing doesn't give much context. If anything, the "elephant in the room" is the numbers? How much? No where in the article you posted does he/she mention that.



It’s interesting that climate scientists are so alarmed by declining Arctic ice. The Arctic Icecap is only 1 to 2 percent of Earth’s ice, while the elephant, the Antarctic Icecap, contains about 90 percent of Earth’s ice. The climate models underestimated the decline in Arctic ice, but they are confounded by the growth in Antarctic ice. Data from Dr. Meier’s own National Snow and Ice Center shows that the extent of Antarctic sea ice for 2012 is greater than the 1979-2000 average. I wonder why he didn’t mention the good news about Antarctic ice on the PBS segment.

And now, the perfect deflection of issue, by citing widely known data, yet making assumptions based on numbers that the author never even presented in the article. Topping it off, another weasel statement of "good news" about Antarctica, thus continuing to tell the reader what to think.



The Amundsen-Scott station is the current American scientific research station at the South Pole. For more than 50 years, the United States has maintained a continuous presence at the South Pole. The Amundsen-Scott station is the third U.S. station. The first two stations were buried by accumulating snow. Every year, the South Pole receives a net snow accumulation of about eight inches. The current station is modular and supported on stilts. It can be jacked up every year above the accumulating snow to prolong its life. Contrary to the fears of Climatism, 90 percent of Earth’s icecaps are expanding!

And we're now back to the subject mentioned in the beginning of the article. No new information, several assumptions, several weasel statements, was well as numerous opinions based on non-data, and then the author comes back and basically says because it snows in Antartica, no one should be concerned with the melting Arctic.

Thank you very, very much for bringing something of substance to the argument. I think you presented a fantastic piece of denialist propaganda to the forum, and helps establish that while climate scientists are busy recording numbers and taking measurements, those who do not like the conclusions will work to distort the facts, pull out single pieces of some information while ignoring other pieces, plant belief and disbelief by reaching for metaphors outside of the field, and assert broad claims when there is no evidence to support such claims.

Again, thank you very much. You've contributed greatly here.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 786
93. Neapolitan
12:49 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Folks, keep an eye on this guy. He posts images he creates as evidence of that of which he cannot copy.

Just sayin, the image is from imageshack, not NOAA or any other accredited place.

Here are the tracks from it!

Sound familiar?
Of course, those able to read (and my apologies to those who apparently can't) will have seen that that image comes directly from the Science Direct article to which I linked immediately prior.

One can almost smell the frustration of the denialistas. As they become increasingly aware that they've got nothing scientific on which to stand, they resort to ad hominems and the posting of blather from discredited Big Energy-funded "scientists" such as Willie Soon. But as irritating as such behavior is, it at least tells us just how desperate they've become, no?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13273
92. theshepherd
12:40 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting Daisyworld:


Ossqss,

You are engaging in one of the classic fallacies of logic and rhetoric: Attacking the arguer and not the argument. If you have something of substance to add to the discussion, then do so. Otherwise, your antagonism isn't very productive, and brings nothing helpful to this forum.


Get real, Daisy

I think what you were really trying to say is:

Ossqss

Only those of us who I like can attack anyone.



The proof of that is...well...the truth.

Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
90. OldLeatherneck
12:12 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:
Antarctic Ice is growing, Folks.em>
Just like it does every year. The sun is now moving south and this Antarctic Sea ice will start melting again, just like it does every year.

Quoting TomballTXPride:
It all balances out.
The Arctic Ocean Sea Ice is not going to recover. It's foolish to say that that what is happening in the Antarctic balances what is happening in the Arctic.

Quoting TomballTXPride:
No need to hit the panic button and jump.
The panic button should have been hit years ago!!
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
86. Ossqss
4:02 AM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting Daisyworld:


Ossqss,

You are engaging in one of the classic fallacies of logic and rhetoric: Attacking the arguer and not the argument. If you have something of substance to add to the discussion, then do so. Otherwise, your antagonism isn't very productive, and brings nothing helpful to this forum.


So, cleaning up rubbish means nothing?

What is it exactly you bring to the table with such a comment?



Nightall>
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
85. Ossqss
3:58 AM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting RevElvis:
Melting Sea Ice Has Changed Life in Greenland

MotherJones Video



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
84. Daisyworld
3:51 AM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Folks, keep an eye on this guy. He posts images he creates as evidence of that of which he cannot copy.

Just sayin, your image is from imageshack, not NOAA or any other accredited place.

Here are the tracks from it!

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9718/14f8dbc09 47444c996e7739.png

Sound familiar?



Ossqss,

You are engaging in one of the classic fallacies of logic and rhetoric: Attacking the arguer and not the argument. If you have something of substance to add to the discussion, then do so. Otherwise, your antagonism isn't very productive, and brings nothing helpful to this forum.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 786
83. Ossqss
3:26 AM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Interesting that you'd highlight that article--which, by the way, doesn't say what you think it says--while ignoring the one that speaks of rapid 20th century glacial loss. Here's an image:

Glacier

Now, as ice disappears, there's less of it to melt every year. (I'm sure the same silly denialist argument will made about the Arctic; in, say, 2025, denialists will proclaim, "Only 6 million square kilometers of sea ice melted this year, but back in 2012 that was eleven million. So much for global warming! Hyuk-hyuk-hyuk...")

On a larger not, and as someone else has already mentioned: what relevance does your comment have?


Folks, keep an eye on this guy. He posts images he creates as evidence of that of which he cannot copy.

Just sayin, the image is from imageshack, not NOAA or any other accredited place.

Here are the tracks from it!

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9718/14f8dbc09 47444c996e7739.png

Sound familiar?



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
82. cyclonebuster
1:30 PM GMT on October 02, 2012
WOW! What do you know? FOX NEWS reports a climate change nasty......




Half of Great Barrier Reef has vanished, study finds

Saving the reef

As for what can be done to save the reef, or what's left of it, some say reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is key. "International efforts to cap and reduce CO2 emissions are equally critical and must occur at the same time as cleaning up local impacts," said Les Kaufman, a biologist at Boston University who is part of an international consensus statement on climate change and coral reefs.

Fabricius says not much can be done in the short term about the climate-change-driven frequency of cyclones %u2014 five category 5 storms in the past seven years have pounded the reefs %u2014 or high temperatures. However, there are efforts in place to stem the damage from starfish, which can grow up to 3 feet (0.9 meters) in diameter and sport long venomous spines and 21 arms. Young starfish feed on coral-making algae, and leave behind the coral's skeleton.

One project encourages farmers to adopt practices that limit the amount of nutrient-rich runoff draining into reef areas. Another would allow tour operators to manually remove starfish from tourist areas, which Fabricius admits isn't a solution, just a temporary fix.





Link


TUNNELS YET ANYONE???


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
81. RevElvis
1:05 AM GMT on October 02, 2012
From Start to Finish: Why We Won and How We Are Losing

Truth-Out.org (Op-Ed)

Paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall ends his recent book about the "Masters of the Planet" with such reflection:

[A]part from death, the only ironclad rule of human experience has been the Law of Unintended Consequences. Our brains are extraordinary mechanisms, and they have allowed us to accomplish truly amazing things; but we are still only good at anticipating — or at least of paying attention to — highly immediate consequences. We are notably bad at assessing risk, especially long-term risk. We believe crazy things, such as that human sacrifice will propitiate the gods, or that people are kidnapped by space aliens, or that endless economic expansion is possible in a finite world, or that if we just ignore climate change we won’t have to face its consequences. Or at the very least, we act as if we do (p. 227).

We humans routinely believe crazy things, but are we a crazy species? Does the big brain that allowed us to master the planet have a basic design flaw? Given the depth of the social and ecological crises we face — or, in some cases, refuse to face — should we be worried about whether we can slip out of the traps we have created?

We may not be driving ourselves into extinction, but we are creating conditions that make our future frightening. Our symbolic reasoning capabilities, impressive as they may be, are not yet developed to the point where we can cope with the problems our symbolic reasoning capabilities have created. And, what’s worse, those capabilities seem to make it difficult for us collectively to face reality — call that the delusional revolution, perhaps the scariest revolution of them all. The message transmitted and/or reinforced by the culture’s dominant institutions (government, corporations, media, universities) seems to be: (1) it’s not as bad as some people think, but; (2) even if it is that bad, we’ll invent our way out of the problems, and (3) if we can’t invent our way out we’ll just pretend the problems aren’t really problems. In short: deny, minimize, ignore.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
80. RevElvis
12:36 AM GMT on October 02, 2012
Melting Sea Ice Has Changed Life in Greenland

MotherJones Video

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
79. RevElvis
12:24 AM GMT on October 02, 2012
Forget Baconpocalypse—Fishageddon Will Be Worse

MotherJones.com

While editors and bloggers gorged on a trumped-up baconpocalypse, they largely ignored a story with real implications for global food security: a new report on how how climate change will sharply reduce the productivity of the oceans, particularly in the global south, where hundreds of millions of people rely on the sea as a primary source of protein. The report, by American NGO Oceana, ranks the nations that are most vulnerable to a reduction in available fish brought on by climate change—that is, nations that will struggle to replace dwindling fish stocks with other foods. To create its rankings, Oceana looked for countries with low per capita incomes, high population growth rates, and high rates of malnutrition, and then looked at how climate change would effect their access to wild-caught fish.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
78. RevElvis
6:32 PM GMT on October 01, 2012
High-Arctic Heat Tops 1,800-Year High, Says Study; Modern Spike Outmatches Naturally Driven 'Medieval Warm Period'

ScienceDaily.com

The naturally driven Medieval Warm Period, from about 950 to 1250, has been a favorite time for people who deny evidence that humans are heating the planet with industrial greenhouse gases. But the climate reconstruction from Svalbard casts new doubt on that era's reach, and undercuts skeptics who argue that current warming is also natural. Since 1987, summers on Svalbard have been 2 degrees to 2.5 degrees C (3.6 to 4.5 degrees F) hotter than they were there during warmest parts of the Medieval Warm Period, the study found.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948

Viewing: 128 - 78

Page: 1 | 2 | 3Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.