Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Sceptics' impact on climate science | Main | Quote of the day, recycling edition »
Monday
Oct052015

Puffed rice

Here's an interesting wrinkle in climate science that I hadn't thought about before. It came up in a thread at Ken Rice's place, underneath an article about carbon dioxide reductions.

The specific claim of interest was that "the amount of warming depends almost linearly on cumulative emissions". This is a claim that you hear quite often, with the corollary being that even if we halt carbon dioxide emissions, temperatures are going to remain high for centuries. However, it seems that the scientific veracity of the statement is not exactly set in stone, as Nic Lewis points out in the comments.

For the record, whilst this may be true for simulations by most current Earth system models, it is an entirely model dependent result. So please don’t present it as if a fact. If one builds a model with a low ECS, and moderate climate-cycle feedbacks, warming peaks immediately if emissions cease and declines quite rapidly thereafter. Which would happen in the real climate system is not as yet known, of course.

Encouragingly, Dr Rice fully accepted Nic's case: an encouraging example of consensus emerging among colleagues. Indeed, I'm sure I sense him trying very hard to enhance the atmosphere of collegiality:

Yes, I realise it is not a fact. So, for clarity, our current understanding is that it depends almost linearly on temperature.

However, given the sites, and organisation, that you associate with, the idea that you can come here and tone troll me is utterly amazing. What the hell are you playing at? Do you have no self-awareness whatsoever? Do you really not get the irony of you writing appallingly dishonest posts at Climate Audit, commenting at Bishop Hill, and writing reports for a pseudo-denial organisation like the GWPF, and then coming here and suggesting that maybe I should have qualified myself a bit more carefully than I did. You really do need to look at how you present and defend your own work before coming here and tone trolling me. Seriously; WTF!!!!!

In fact, a thoughtful and decent response might actually be in order, because I really cannot believe that someone like yourself, who seems completely unwilling to acknowledge possible issues with your own work, can have just done what you’ve done.

He is trying isn't he?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (183)

I'm glad to learn that Ken Rice is bored with the echo chamber he has created and engages elsewhere.

I would have thought that my comments on Carney were to the point, as I have worked on both climate policy and climate impacts (the subjects of his talk), and I of course know a lot of people who work in central banks and a few central bankers, as well as users of their work. I even dare say that I know more about monetary policy than the average astronomer.

Oct 5, 2015 at 6:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol

Yes, very trying.

Oct 5, 2015 at 6:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveS

> don't appeal to what you assume I ought to have swallowed and internalized

I leave mind probing to you, Shub. What you trumpet is trumpeted loud enough for anyone to see. The "but CAGW" you were dogwhistling with your appeal to ignorance is also duly acknowledged.

***


> If you cannot show explain Nic L is completely and absolutely wrong [...]

How irrelevant of you, Shub. There's no need to overanalyze Nic's "don't present it as fact" concern. My own policy would have been to thank Nic for his concern, and be done with it: trying to help Nic reestablish his solvency by appealing to his INTEGRITY (tm) is a wild squirrel chase.

Incidentally, AT's inexact wording is of the same kind as accusing someone of "disinformation" about his belief states. Would you have preferred if AT excused himself by telling Nic "I’m not as sold on linguistic point as you are"?

Oct 5, 2015 at 6:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterwillard

Willard,
It appears to me that you're attempting to write in a style that you think makes you seem witty and erudite.

In fact, your rather confusing screeds make you sound like one of the nerdy kids in school who thought saying things such as ,"hello my good and noble friends" was amusing. It wasn't amusing and it didn't attract the women.

I spent my school days actually talking to girls and now I'm married to a tall and blond multi-milliomaire (and she thinks CAGW alarmism is a crock of 5h1t too.)

Willard, just talk and write in a straight-forward and coherent style and people will listen to you more and you'll have a much more fulfilling social life.

Oct 5, 2015 at 7:15 PM | Unregistered Commenterdavid smith

Thank you for your concerns, DavidS.

Oct 5, 2015 at 7:17 PM | Unregistered Commenterwillard

...and Then There's Physics says

I mostly regard Nic as a pedantic nit-picker

That's correct. It's called attention to detail in real science and it is what drives science toward the truth.

Oct 5, 2015 at 7:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

Willard,
Happy to help.
I hope I can assume that your comments will actually be readable from now on.

Oct 5, 2015 at 7:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterdavid smith

Why is it impossible to get the people on the MGW side of the case to debate the science.

1. It is generally accepted that for two decades the global temperature has not increased significatly.
2. The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere over this period have continued to increase at about the same rate.
3. Therefore the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere CAN NOT be the principle cause of global Warming.
Discus.

Oct 5, 2015 at 7:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss Lea

David Smith,

Hey, give Willard a break. At least he doesn't think he's a rabbit.

Oct 5, 2015 at 8:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn M

Speaking of attention to detail, here's James:

Nic Lewis appears to be arguing primarily on the basis that all work on climate sensitivity is wrong, except his own, and one other team who gets similar results. In reality, all research has limitations, uncertainties and assumptions built in. I certainly agree that estimates based primarily on energy balance considerations (as his are) are important and it’s a useful approach to take, but these estimates are not as unimpeachable or model-free as he claims. Rather, they are based on a highly simplified model that imperfectly represents the climate system.

http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/#comment-901

Discuss.

Oct 5, 2015 at 8:48 PM | Unregistered Commenterwillard

Puffed Rice

Your heading for this post is so apt. And this person who also writes under the initials attp has underscored the appropriateness of your heading with all the comments he has made today.

He is the epitome of puffery.

Oct 5, 2015 at 8:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterDouglas

Interesting that Dr Rice thinks someone pointing out that he sgould represent as fact something that has not been physically proven and is entirely an artifact of models is a form of nit picking.

Maybe the name of his pet elephant is Nit. (Cause that is what Nic's comment is to your theory Ken. A huge elephant which you appear to get all pissy about when someone comments about it being in the room.)

Oct 5, 2015 at 9:20 PM | Unregistered Commentertimg56

You let one putz in the door (ATTP) and before you know it another (willard) follows.

Oct 5, 2015 at 9:36 PM | Unregistered Commentertimg56

Ken Rice might be a bit rude on his own blog, but it is nothing to when seriously challenged elsewhere. Early this year he utterly dismissed "simplistic" Bjorn Lomborg's idea behind the Copenhagen Consensus - of bringing together some of the best minds (including 7 Economics Nobel Laureates) to prioritize the problems of the world with the purpose of making the greatest difference with finite resources. This rational approach is to be dismissed, as the climate issue comes well down the list. Instead we should build some sort of super-model that solves all the related issues together.
But on Ken's pet subject of climatology, he cannot instance a single instance of a predictive achievement that would mark out the subject as a science rather than dogma. I gave him plenty of opportunity, but he avoided the subject instead hurling abuse. As Radical Rodent said in the comments:-

For one who is “…not really interested…” ATTP writes an awful lot of verbiage. How much more would he produce if he were interested? The very thought alarms me!

Anyway, I await with interest for Dr Rice's revolutionary paper on economics. A single computer model that rationally solves all the world's problems at once. I am sure we would be awestruck by his brilliance - even Professor Tol.

Oct 5, 2015 at 9:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall

In climate science, there has been an increase of nits, big and small, that require picking, every year that the globe has failed to warm as predicted by climate scientists.

If the globe had warmed, as predicted, there would be no nits requiring picking.

An abundance of Climate science nits, is a clear indication, of climate science failing, and the planet, and it's inhabitants can rejoice.

Some of the biggest nickers in climate science, may not make it to the Paris nit picker fest.

Oct 5, 2015 at 9:56 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Gentlemen,

If all you have left are cheap ad homs (expressed or not as concerns), I'll back away slowly from the carcass.

Thanks for playing,

W

Oct 5, 2015 at 9:57 PM | Unregistered Commenterwillard

Willard

You cite a comment by James Annan on my Climate Dialogue guest blog against me. Let's see if it is justified:

"Nic Lewis appears to be arguing primarily on the basis that all work on climate sensitivity is wrong, except his own, and one other team who gets similar results."

What I had written was:

Which instrumental warming studies are satisfactory?
After setting aside all those instrumental-period-warming based studies where I find substantive faults, only three remain: Aldrin et al (2012), Lewis (2013) [solid line Box 12.1 Figure 1 range using improved diagnostic only] and Otto et al (2013). These all constrain ECS well, with best estimates of 1.5–2.0°C. Ring et al (2012), cited in AR5 but not shown in Box 12.1 Figure 1 as it provided no uncertainty ranges, also appears satisfactory.

That makes three other teams getting similar results (joined by others post AR5), not one. And I gave detailed explanations of what the serious faults in all the other studies were. Moreover, this related only to instrumental warming based studies (the largest source of ECS estimates in AR5). I also gave detailed reasons for rejecting the AR5 Climatological constrain studies. For other observationally-based studies I simply concurred with the serious caveats in AR5.

The quote from James' continues with:

"In reality, all research has limitations, uncertainties and assumptions built in. I certainly agree that estimates based primarily on energy balance considerations (as his are) are important and it’s a useful approach to take, but these estimates are not as unimpeachable or model-free as he claims. Rather, they are based on a highly simplified model that imperfectly represents the climate system."

Perhaps James's attention to detail was inadequate when reading my guest post, for I wrote in it:

Whichever method is employed, GCMs or similar models have to be used to help estimate most radiative forcings and their efficacy, the characteristics of internal climate variability and maybe other ancillary items.

and that most instrumental period warming studies
use relatively simple climate models to simulate temperatures

I also stated the single equation on which energy balance/budget models were based, making it obvious that it was highly simplified.


In another comment, you wrote: "That CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long while is basic science."

Not really, even allowing for ocean chemistry (Revelle factor, etc.). Whilst it does appear likely that a small fraction of emitted CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for a millennium or more, there is no good evidence for the rest having a long (centennial upwards) lifetime.

Oct 5, 2015 at 10:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterNic Lewis

Isn't it funny how the proponents of CAGW (Willard, ATTP for eg) spend so much of their blog comment time discussing their feelings, rather than putting forward rational arguments in favour of CAGW?

Oct 5, 2015 at 10:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterBudgie

That nice Mr. Rice writes of models. Why is it that such as Mr. Rice give precedence to models over real world data, when there is SUCH a divergence between model projections (one could also use that word in the sense that psychologists do) and what the real world tells us. maybe they struggle to live in the real world, and have to retreat to Academe?

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d16250d4970c-pi exemplifies what I note above, with regard to ocean temperatures and Hurricane Joaquin. Reality versus fantasy.

What is good is that Mr. Rice works Edinburgh Uni, which is a charity. That at least means that us suckers are not funding him. Rather like that nice Mr. Mann, he seems to be able to spend a lot of time socially mediating in his job.

Oct 5, 2015 at 10:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton

Ever since a certain movie, I have- rightly, it appears- associated the name 'willard' WITH A RAT.....

Oct 5, 2015 at 10:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterClimateOtter

@john m
"At least he doesn't think he's a rabbit."
Yep, you've got a point. The Rabbit (I presume you mean Eli) is extremely comical.

It seems to me that there is a bit of a dichotomy:
Warmsits invariably get all ranty and upset when skeptics dare to comment on their blogs (Ken Krispies being a case in point) . However, when a warmist visits a sceptical blog such as we have here they just get laughed at.

Warmists: up-tight and humorless hand-wringers
Sceptics: easy-going and fun-loving realists

Oct 5, 2015 at 10:25 PM | Unregistered Commenterdavid smith

No offense to real rats. I've had several for pets.

Oct 5, 2015 at 10:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterClimateOtter

Nic,
Can you qualify this, because I'm starting to feel that maybe I gave you too easy a time when you last commented on my blog (I thought you were just being complaining that I hadn't qualified something sufficiently, rather than actually suggesting that the alternative we really a likely possibility)


Not really, even allowing for ocean chemistry (Revelle factor, etc.). Whilst it does appear likely that a small fraction of emitted CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for a millennium or more, there is no good evidence for the rest having a long (centennial upwards) lifetime.

I'll even provide some basics of how I understand our current position. If we get to 600ppm and stop emitting entirely, after 100 years, the concentration would still be above 500ppm, and after 1000 years it would probably be around 350ppm. If we got to 600ppm and then reduced emissions to around 1GtC/yr (i.e., a reduction of 90% compared to current emissions) it would still exceed 500ppm after 1000 years. Of course, this is for a single model, but most models suggest something similar; the atmospheric concentration will decay over many centuries; see Figure 1 in here.

In other words, our current understanding is that the timescale over which atmospheric CO2 would return back to pre-industrial levels is indeed many centuries - in fact, to get back to something like 280ppm would likely take thousands of years. Your comment seems to suggest that you disagree and think it would reduce much faster than this? Do you think this and - if so - why?

Oct 5, 2015 at 10:45 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

"it would still exceed 500ppm after 1000 years"

Is that bad? It doesn't appear to be doing much warming, but it does make plants grow. I've worked in greenhouses at 1200ppm, but I only know that because it was measured. The tomatoes seemed to like it, though.

Oct 5, 2015 at 10:59 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Awww Willard!

Don't go yet, I've only just started!
There's nothing wrong with a good ad hom - try throwing some back at me. It'll be fun.

On another note:
I noticed at Ken's article that he'd written this in the first paragraph:

...but one should always be a little careful given the uncertainties in climate sensitivity and carbon cycle feedbacks.

When I submitted a comment to tell Ken that such a statement about 'uncertainties' meant he was admitting that the CAGW hypothesis was built around something of little or no certainty he deleted my comment.
He's a touchy old sod isn't he?

Oct 5, 2015 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered Commenterdavid smith

David~ sod hangs out at NoTricksZone. It seems every Skeptic blog has to have its' own CAGW @$$#0!&. ATTP is Bishop's.

Oct 5, 2015 at 11:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterClimateOtter

"In other words, our current understanding is that the timescale over which atmospheric CO2 would return back to pre-industrial levels is indeed many centuries"

But how good is "our current understanding"?

Your linked paper says:

While these results are in line with expected long-term vegetation feedback (Bala et al 2005, Plattner et al 2008), many uncertainties in the representation of long-term land biogeochemistry make the land feedback story more comprehensive. Modeling of soil carbon dynamics is still in its infancy: many important mechanisms, for example the priming effect of addition of fresh organic material to the soils (Fontaine 2003) or processes of anaerobic decomposition of organic matter (Frolking et al 2001) are not yet accounted for in the coupled global models. Nitrogen and phosphorus balance is ignored in most of the models (Reich et al 2006), and changes in carbonate storages in dry land soils are neglected (Lal et al 2000). Models of vegetation (forest) dynamics on a global scale are extremely simplified and difficult to validate because of long time scale involved (Purves & Pacala 2008). Finally, changes in the land carbon uptake due to future alteration of land use by humans are almost impossible to foresee. All these limitations of the land model assumptions make the simulations of the land carbon response to the CO2 pulse presented here rather illustrative than predictive.

"... rather illustrative than predictive." And that's just one of the factors affecting it. How confident can we be that there are no "unknown unknowns" that would completely change the game? For example, a 'thermostat' effect that pushed the CO2 level up against a fixed limit? It has always struck me as odd that the CO2 level should have been historically so stable, dropping only to the point where it started to impact plant life, and no further. I suspect there's a limiting mechanism at work there.

Your paper mentions that much of the CO2 will leave the atmosphere in the 1-2 century timeframe, and acknowledges pervasive uncertainties about the rest. The "known knowns" are included in the models, but with the science "in its infancy" I don't believe there can be any great confidence in their predictive power - it's certainly not been demonstrated.

Nic can answer for himself, I'm sure, but I for one don't think genuine doubt about the point is unreasonable.

Oct 5, 2015 at 11:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterNullius in Verba

ATTP:

"In other words, our current understanding is that the timescale over which atmospheric CO2 would return back to pre-industrial levels is indeed many centuries - in fact, to get back to something like 280ppm would likely take thousands of years. Your comment seems to suggest that you disagree and think it would reduce much faster than this? Do you think this and - if so - why?"

As I wrote at your blog:

"If one builds a model with a low ECS, and moderate climate-cycle feedbacks, warming peaks immediately if emissions cease and declines quite rapidly thereafter. Which would happen in the real climate system is not as yet known, of course."

I certainly think it likely that both ECS and climate-carbon-cycle (which is what I meant to write) feedbacks are lower than in typical Earth System models. I don't dispute that getting back to ~280 ppm may very well take thousands of years after a cessation of emissions, although I don't regard it as a matter of basic physics. But that doesn't imply that getting back to, say , 350 ppm after reaching, say, 560 ppm (a doubling of CO2) would necessarily take even several hundred years.

Oct 5, 2015 at 11:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterNic Lewis

Nic,


But that doesn't imply that getting back to, say , 350 ppm after reaching, say, 560 ppm (a doubling of CO2) would necessarily take even several hundred years.

This Geological carbon cycle model suggest otherwise: 560ppm to 350ppm takes about 650 years. Can you explain why you think it might not, because - as I understand it - few who work on this think that it would not take several hundred years.

Oct 5, 2015 at 11:25 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Glad to see that the carcass' still moving. First, I'll note this:

> There's nothing wrong with a good ad hom – try throwing some back at me. It'll be fun.

It'll be even more fun to ask you which points I've made that you failed to grasp because, style.

[P]lease don't present a "low ECS" as a number, when a whole range need to be considered. Some might think you'd wish to present the lowest number the lowest bound of justified disingenuousness the GWPF would buy.

Let me ask you a question. Which part of that do you not get?

There was also a question just before about an "engineer-level derivation where we see the difference a "low ECS" can make". Do you want me to spell that one out too?

Please don't interpret this as a way to hit on you. Either you or life's too short.

Oct 5, 2015 at 11:35 PM | Unregistered Commenterwillard

David Smith says 10.59PM

When I submitted a comment to tell Ken that such a statement about 'uncertainties' meant he was admitting that the CAGW hypothesis was built around something of little or no certainty he deleted my comment.
He's a touchy old sod isn't he?

ATTP is simply following the policy of most propagandists through history.
1. Treat differing viewpoints with extreme prejudice. Approval for those you agree with and invective against those you disagree with.
2. Encourage people to follow the hearsay and opinion, and discourage checking the evidence for themselves.I bit like the Prosecution dismissing fingerprint evidence in favor of an opinion poll of Sun or Mirror readers.
3. Claim that arguments prove your case, when in fact they are a complete distraction.
4. Delete or suppress contrary opinion, especially those that undermine your own.
I constructed a chart of the ATTP method with respect to Temperature Homogenisation earlier in the year. It is not copyright of Dr Rice. Similar methods have been used by Bob Ward, Dana1981 and others in climate.

Oct 5, 2015 at 11:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall

the moral and scientific bankruptcy of alarmism is clearly displayed by the two unmentionables here.

Imagine the scene, it's the year 2100 and amid climate upheavals of all sorts, a multidecadal Rice or Willard sit with their great-grandchildren in a temporary shelter, away from the hurricanes and rising sea levels that are devastating the world whole.

Great-grandchild: Great-grandpa, tell me about the times before the Great Climate Change Disaster!

WillardRice: Yes, my child. I still remember those

GGC: Well, wasn't there anyone who could have stopped this?

WR: Of course. We were many. We all knew what was going to happen.

GGC: You knew? Did you try to do anything to prevent it?

WR: Well, yes. We wrote and wrote and wrote about it on the internet, for the whole world to know

GGC: Oh, I see. And did you obtain any result? It seems all that writing was for nothing, look outside!

WR: You know, my child, we wrote but there was a group of evil people called skeptics who would not listen

GGC: It's their fault, then! Our future cancelled, because of those evil people! But...did you not fight them?

WR: Yes, we did. We tried everything, we spent all our time arguing with them, we called them names, and often we tried to prevent them from speaking

GGC: What? All of your time?

WR: Yes, it was a hard fight.

GGC: You argued all of your time and tried to silence people, even if you knew the world was getting into a climatic hell?

WR: Erm..

GGC: Your solution to prevent the future from being stolen from future generations, was to engage people on the internet and harangue them?

WR: Erm...

GGC (sighing to the other great-grandchildren): Come on, guys, great-grandpa has a confession to make. Please be gentle with him. He's a bit slow in the reasoning, but now fully aware it's basically all his fault!

WR: No, wait! It's not my fault! It's the skeptics' fault! It's your fault!! (runs away into the stormy night)

Oct 6, 2015 at 12:05 AM | Registered Commenteromnologos

.> That makes three other teams getting similar results [...]

Are you referring to Otto & al as an "other team," Nic?

Sounds like double accounting to me.

Oct 6, 2015 at 1:12 AM | Unregistered Commenterwillard

Nic Lewis @ Oct 5, 2015 at 11:20 PM
ATTP @ Oct 5, 2015 at 11:25 PM

Would be good to see this debate fleshed out on both sides.

I guess probably already done for those not too lazy/busy to go read actual papers as against the smaller (?) effort of trying to get some kind of vague understanding via filtering out blog-warrior noise from blog posts.

Oct 6, 2015 at 1:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterSzilard

Szilard,

ATTP and Willard haven't got a clue what they are talking about.

Oct 6, 2015 at 1:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterIbrahim

"... (I thought you were just being complaining that I hadn't qualified something sufficiently, rather than actually suggesting that the alternative we really a likely possibility)..."

Reading comprehension issues?

Or is that your meaning for "tone trolling". Make your words sound unsure yet willing, when your every comment is a sad twisted mockery of discussion.

As always, ATToiletPaper puffed rice is mostly CO2 without substance.

"...This Geological carbon cycle model suggest otherwise: 560ppm to 350ppm takes about 650 years..."

University of Chicago!? Not a top line geology university?

So, nice model. Useless, completely useless. If you happened to read about the model you might have stumbled across this note:

"...released to the atmosphere as volcanic degassing, and consumed by chemical weathering of rocks on land. These dynamics generate a stabilizing negative feedback called the weathering CO2 feedback..."

The model only takes a stab at the geologically very slow process of tectonic thermal carbonate decomposition, chemical weathering (eons of naturally acidic rain).

The model does not attempt to represent the actual complete CO2 cycle! But your reading comprehension was never very good.

Don't forget to take willyabsrd or is that really vvussell, back with you.

Oct 6, 2015 at 6:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterATheoK

ATTP said at 11.25pm to Nic Lewis

Can you explain why you think it might not, because - as I understand it - few who work on this think that it would not take several hundred years.

This comment represents a fundamental split between the two camps. The sceptic who tries to relate theory to the real world and the supporter of consensus who evaluates results relative to consensus opinion.

Oct 6, 2015 at 7:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall

"Implying that I've written terrible things about you, doesn't make it so.

I do regard your site as one of the biggest scientific misinformation sites in internet history."

???

Oct 6, 2015 at 8:18 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

another issue that is inherent to alarmism is the self-debasement that inevitably grips all of its proponents.

What is a little lie, compared to the task of saving the planet? What is a little deception, or even a big one, when the survival of millions of cute animals is at stake?

What is the problem in effectively abandoning current children to die because of respiratory diseases due to dung-based heating and cooking, when the goal is to save countless billion future children from fiery climate change?

What is it, in fact. Like the Underminer at the end of The Incredibles, this is what a climate alarmist sounds like

Behold, the Underminer! I'm always beneath you, but nothing is beneath me! I hereby declare war on peace and happiness! Soon, all will tremble before me!

This is another reason not to reply to the unmentionables. At most, one can yawn at the predictability.

Oct 6, 2015 at 8:26 AM | Registered Commenteromnologos

"I leave mind probing to you, Shub. What you trumpet is trumpeted loud enough for anyone to see."

Is this the new post modern science? We no longer listen to trumpets we see them when they are loud?

Oct 6, 2015 at 9:31 AM | Registered Commentergeronimo

Nullius,


It has always struck me as odd that the CO2 level should have been historically so stable, dropping only to the point where it started to impact plant life, and no further. I suspect there's a limiting mechanism at work there.

My understanding is that - over the Holocene - at least, the stability of atmospheric CO2 was largely determined by the slow carbon cycle. This is the cycle in which CO2 is sequestered into the deep ocean or removed via weathering. It is then returned via geolocgical activity (volcanoes). The rate is around 0.1GtC/year. So, as I understand it, if the atmospheric concentration were higher than 280ppm, the rate it would be sequestered via the slow carbon cycle would be greater than the rate it was returned via volcanoes, and atmospheric concentration would drop. If it were lower than 280ppm, it would rise since the volcanoes would return CO2 faster than it was being sequestered. Hence, the system tends towards a quasi-stable state with atmsopheric CO2 at around 280ppm. Presumably the reason it appears okay for plant life is partly related to natural selection resulting in plants that are suited to that level.

I've seen Ferdinand Engelbreen explain this much better than I have, so if you search for his comments here and on Climate Etc you may find a better explanation.

The fundamental point about today is that we're emitting CO2 at a much faster rate than it can be removed via the slow carbon cycle. If we stopped emitting completely, the slow carbon cycle would certainly sequester CO2 faster than it did during the pre-industrial holocene, but still slow enough that it would likely take hundreds/thousands of years to return to levels similar to those during pre-industry.

Oct 6, 2015 at 9:35 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

AttP

I repeat my earlier question - what is so bad about high(er) CO2 levels? It used to be thought that it caused runaway heating, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Oct 6, 2015 at 9:43 AM | Registered Commenterjamesp

"My understanding is that - over the Holocene - at least, the stability of atmospheric CO2 was largely determined by the slow carbon cycle."

The slow carbon cycle certainly contributes to the stability - but is it the only such mechanism? Having found one, should we assume that's all there is?

The slow carbon cycle is slow. But a lot of other things affecting CO2 levels - like the biological ones - are very quick. CO2 levels appear to be stable on short timescales too. I would therefore suspect short-term stabilisation mechanisms as well as long-term ones. That's speculative, though - it's very young science.

" Presumably the reason it appears okay for plant life is partly related to natural selection resulting in plants that are suited to that level."

As I understand it, plants evolved for, and are still adapted for a significantly higher CO2 level. (The biochemistry of photosynthesis is intricate and it is hard to tinker with now without breaking it completely.) They deliberately fill greenhouses with higher-than-atmospheric levels of CO2 to boost their growth. I've seen it said that with CO2 levels much lower, a lot of plants would no longer be able to survive.

The sort of mechanism I was thinking of was something like plants or plankton sequestering atmospheric carbon in a fast feedback cycle, such that when the plants/plankton stop growing, the sequestration slows down. The mechanism has a high capacity (the annual cycle in CO2 level shows that), a very quick response time, and is a highly non-linear level-dependent response. When CO2 drops to the critical level at which life start to struggle, the growth-rate response is very sharp. And given that the Himalayas eroding has forced CO2 levels down against the buffers, and all the potential unknown sequestration mechanisms therefore *have* virtually stopped, it wouldn't be very surprising that we haven't previously observed them.

"I've seen Ferdinand Engelbreen explain this much better than I have, so if you search for his comments here and on Climate Etc you may find a better explanation."

Your explanation is fine. Volcanoes emit CO2 at a roughly fixed rate. Sequestration rate increases with CO2 level. The lines cross around 280 ppm and a rate of 0.1 GtC. At higher CO2 levels, the sequestration rate will be higher.

"The fundamental point about today is that we're emitting CO2 at a much faster rate than it can be removed via the slow carbon cycle."

Yes, and my point is that we don't know that the slow carbon cycle is the only stabilisation mechanism in operation. It's just the only one we know about.

There's a nice analogy I sometimes use for the history of science. Andrew Wiles was describing mathematical discovery, but it applies to science generally:

Perhaps I can best describe my experience of doing mathematics in terms of a journey through a dark unexplored mansion. You enter the first room of the mansion and it's completely dark. You stumble around bumping into the furniture, but gradually you learn where each piece of furniture is. Finally, after six months or so, you find the light switch, you turn it on, and suddenly it''s all illuminated. You can see exactly where you were. Then you move into the next room and spend another six months in the dark. So each of these breakthroughs, while sometimes they're momentary, sometimes over a period of a day or two, they are the culmination of—and couldn't exist without—the many months of stumbling around in the dark that proceed them.

When it comes to the carbon cycle, we're still in a dark room and we've found a couple of chairs near the door. Trying to extrapolate from those to the rest of the room's contents is precisely what we should be doing as scientists, but we shouldn't be putting any confidence in those speculations just yet. It's virtually certain that we're missing major pieces of the puzzle, and that our speculations are as a result substantially wrong. It's a completely different situation from mature sciences with well-validated models where the lights are on, we can see how everything fits together, and there are no large shadows left for unexpected furniture to lurk in.

As your linked paper says: "All these limitations of the land model assumptions make the simulations of the land carbon response to the CO2 pulse presented here rather illustrative than predictive." We just don't know. We shouldn't be selling our early speculative extrapolations as being more certain or less open to being doubted than they really are.

Oct 6, 2015 at 10:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterNullius in Verba

Does the tale of Walter Mitty provide insight into some climate alarmers and their acolytes?

Climate Alarmer: Michael Mann. Hypothesis 1: he sees himself as a leading physicist (such as Feynman, only in a different speciality). His speciality happens to have political implications and he is being hounded by nasty conspirators with vested interests. Nevertheless he is heroically resisting them. Hypothesis 2: he is a mediocre scientist in a subject area artificially puffed-up by political schemers, and he tends to bully rather than reason when opportunity presents itself.

Alarmer Acolyte: Ken Rice. Hypothesis 3: he sees himself as a devastatingly effective putter-down of critics of the alarmed camp, using 'physics' as a sword of reason and justice; a hero in his own mind. This suits a combative nature which finds little outlet for such aggression in the more peaceable world of astronomy. Hypothesis 4: he is a hot-headed sophist, intent on scoring points and careless of good manners. His behaviour too has elements of bullying in it.

To investigate these hypotheses further requires an ability to detach oneself from the emotive insults produced by these two people, and examine what they have said, and what others have said about them, over extended periods of time. The Climategate Revelations (see, for example this annotated summary of the first of them) provide a source for such work on Mann, and the recent book by Steyn brings together a great deal of what might be called peer review of the man's work and working practices. Kevin Marshall (see his comment above, at 11:48 pm) has done such work on Rice in the particular topic of discussions about temperature adjustments . I don't suppose a book will be written about Rice as an individual, although as a member of a category of followers he might well deserve a footnote in some study of what attracted such people to the cause and how they behaved in the pursuit of it.

I stumbled on some advice from an online psychologist about how to deal with people suffering from what he referred to informally as the Walter Mitty Syndrome :

If you ever meet one of these great fabulists, ask them to write down their stories: they are often generated by the most wonderfully creative people. And more than one has gone on to collect high honors.
Challenging people like this is rarely helpful. They are spinning these yarns to protect and bolster themselves. Destroying their defences can be disastrous. There are a few who tell these tales because of grandiosity or narcissism, but most are just unfortunate people who feel the need to project a new image of themselves.
Listen politely; don’t commit yourself, and let them carry on. Unless they are using their tales to “con” people, it is often best to leave them alone.

Seems like good advice to me. We should note their stories, and when they seem to be sufficiently misleading, we might hope that more intelligent and better-informed people will be able to help them back to less damaging paths. Nic Lewis did this with his very helpful comment on Ken's recent post. Ken's astonishing reaction suggests that he saw this as an intolerable challenge. Which is quite interesting.

Oct 6, 2015 at 10:58 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Nullius,


Yes, and my point is that we don't know that the slow carbon cycle is the only stabilisation mechanism in operation. It's just the only one we know about.

Yes, but the possibility that something we don't yet know about - or understand - might exist, is not a good reason for assuming that it will, or that it is probable. Our best understanding today is that atmospheric CO2 concentrations will decay slowly, taking hundreds of years to reduce by a factor of 2 - 3 (i.e., from Co + C, to Co + C/x, where x is somewhere between 2 and 3), and taking thousands of years to return to pre-industrial levels.

Of course things may behave differently to what we currently expect; in fact, it would be highly surprising if it didn't. That - IMO - does not mean that we diminish the significance of our current understanding simply because something different may happen to what we currently expect.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting we simply accept the current position. Being skeptical is good, and that things will change with time is normal. The problem I have is with the apparent suggestion that this possibility is somehow likely. That things could be very different to what we currently expect does not mean that this is likely to be the case; it is much more likely that things will be similar to what we currently expect, than very different.

I also think that the quote you've included is really a scientist doing the absolutely correct thing of highlighting all the caveats and uncertainties in their work. I seriously doubt that they're really suggesting that it could be wildly different to what their model results suggest.

Oct 6, 2015 at 11:02 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

> Is this the new post modern science? We no longer listen to trumpets we see them when they are loud?

Even pre-moderns knew that trumpeting does not require a trumpet, geronimo:

1520s, from trumpet (n.). Figurative sense of "to proclaim, extol" is attested from 1580s.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=trumpet

Is geronimo's anachronism a lukewarm irony flip?

Oct 6, 2015 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered Commenterwillard

"Yes, but the possibility that something we don't yet know about - or understand - might exist, is not a good reason for assuming that it will, or that it is probable."

Is alien life probable? Is unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics probable? Are there any undiscovered species on Earth we don't yet know about? Have we already done everything it's possible to do with computers? Or genetic engineering? Or nanotechnology? Is it probable that there will be any future scientific discoveries at all?

Most of the universe consists of things we don't know about and don't understand. Science aspires to find out. But obviously it's all a big waste of time if we figure that anything we don't understand we should assume doesn't exist. Why are we wasting all this money looking, then?

We don't assume that it will. We don't assume that it won't. We don't know.

Oct 6, 2015 at 12:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterNullius in Verba

Yes Nullius, Newton said it all when he spoke of playing with pebbles by the vast unknown ocean.

Science is many things, and one of them is finding this situation exhilarating instead of running around in the vain search of certitude.

Oct 6, 2015 at 12:15 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

Oct 6, 2015 at 10:50 AM | Unregistered Commenter Nullius in Verba

Brilliant post; factual, clear and concise.

Oct 6, 2015 at 12:37 PM | Registered CommenterDung

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>