|
List Info Thread: Re: Re: answer to Win's questions, doesn't appear the first pos...
[1]
|
||||||||||||
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics ) |
||||||||||||
Re: Re: answer to Win's questions, doesn't appear the first pos... |
|
List Info Thread: Re: Re: answer to Win's questions, doesn't appear the first pos...
[1]
|
||||||||||||
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics ) |
||||||||||||
msn.com writes:
> Hansen’s most recent figure, just published in
Sciencexpress, is that the
> surface temperature ultimately changes 0.67˚C
per Watt per square meter
>
> (W/m2). In 1988 he said it was a full degree, and in
2001 he lowered it to
> 0.75. [will he continue to revise as the observable
measurements discount
> his projections?]
Up to this point, Hansen sounds very much like a
"real" scientist - i.e.,
adapting to the facts as they develop, even if it weakens or
contradicts an
earlier-taken position or a position identified with.
However, what you quote of
him in 2003, if not taken out of context, would indeed throw
a very different
light on the picture.
Maybe at some point science - and we ourselves - may need to
adopt or
re-adopt a set of philosophic groundrules. I suggest most
appropriate to science
would be Alfred Korzybsky's "the map is not the
territory," and some of its
concommittants. One concommittant: our job, whether as
scientists or as citizens,
is to keep reworking our maps into better approximations of
what they are maps
of. Another: all our maps are flawed, in error to at least
some degree. A
third: that to discover error - or even to be discovered in
error - is a very
good thing, not a catastrophe, it helps us move forward in
performing that job.
If so many scientists didn't have round heels is certainly
one thing in
which science could be much improved, but above and beyond
that, throughout the
history of science, science has been a matter of
positions-to-defend, which has
crippled progress enormously. Even with these faults, I
consider science to
be one of the very best things we have going on this planet,
but how much
better could it be?
On both sides, too many of the reporting scientists have
stakes to play to
and positions to defend. How do we get to a science that
everyone can
legitimately trust? Peer review, as in journals, I'm sure
you will agree, surely isn't
achieving that. I certainly don't mean a science above
doubt as to right or
wrong, I don't think we could ever have that where science
is a perceptual wave
front in a universe which is infinite, I just mean a science
without bias.
Meanwhile, it behooves us, I think, to problem-solve and
plan for
contingencies in a prospect more uncertain than it would be
if we did have a stakes-free
dependable science. ...win
>
> The lower the climate sensitivity, the less that the
global temperature will
>
> rise in the future (given the same amount atmospheric
carbon dioxide) and
> the lower the threat of catastrophic climate change.
>
> But the greenhouse emissions are also much lower than
people expected. The
> standard modeling technique raises the carbon dioxide
concentration of the
> atmosphere 1% per year, but the actual rate of increase
for the last three
> decades has been around 0.45% per year.
>
> And, despite scary news stories, there’s little
evidence for any sharp
> upward change. There was a lot of press when the 2003
concentration of
> atmospheric carbon dioxide rose considerably, and
virtually no coverage when
>
> it was balanced out by much smaller changes in 2004.
>
> The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) assumes
> an average change of roughly 0.65% per year in carbon
dioxide, or 41%
> greater than the observed, very constant rate.
>
> Hansen has written repeatedly a variant of his 2001
statement that “much of
> the warming of the next 50 years” will result from
emissions already in the
> atmosphere, and that’s also in his latest work.
Because as is characteristic
>
> of climate models to warm at a constant (not an
increasing rate), Hansen is
> really saying that the recent (very modest) rate of
warming is likely to
> continue.
>
> He arrives at the conclusion by using a combination of
climate model output
> and observations of heat build-up in the global oceans.
Hansen calculates
> that since the 1880s, there has been, in net, an added
+1.8W/m2 of radiation
>
> reaching the surface, (resulting from positive
additions from greenhouse
> gases, solar changes, black carbon aerosols, and
negative changes from
> sulfate aerosols and land-use changes). [THEORY]
>
> His Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) climate
model produces a
> total change in temperature as a result of the 1.8W/m2
of added energy to
> the earth’s climate system of about 1.2ºC
(indicating a climate sensitivity
> of about 0.67ºC/Wm2). Since the planet has warmed up
about 0.6-0.7ºC between
>
> 1880 and now, that leaves another 0.5-0.6ºC of warming
yet to occur.
>
> By “yet to occur” we mean that it is not yet being
measured by thermometers
>
> at the earth’s surface. [NOT BEING MEASURED BY
THERMOMETERS]
>
> Using the “old” sensitivity of 1 degree would give
a remaining warming of
> 1.1˚C, or nearly double what is now expected.
>
> These are big changes and should be big news, but it is
apparent that those
> who report on these matters may be far from a hand
calculator.
>
> Hint to taxpayers, who fund over $4 billion per year in
climate change
> research (at least that’s what’s in the proposed
budget): all of these
> calculations are pretty much unnecessary. It is already
become well
> established over the course of the past 35 years or so
that the rate of
> global average temperature rise is a remarkably
constant 0.17ºC/dec. That
> would give right around 0.8ºC additional warming to
2050.
>
> In his new work, Hansen is really just doing what any
rational scientist
> would do: adjusting the sensitivity for what has been
observed in the real
> world.
>
> Of course, there could be a more cynical explanation
for the reduced climate
>
> sensitivity, namely the rational tendency to cover ones
back. Here’s what
> Hansen wrote in 2003 in the Journal Natural Science:
>
> "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have
appropriate at one time, when the
> public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of
the global warming
> issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably
objective
> climate…scenarios consistent with what is realistic
under current
> conditions."
>
> (The logical parsing of that paragraph was that it was
OK for scientists to
> lie to gain policies they wanted, and that they
weren’t being objective).
>
> In climate science, we really have only two tools:
computer models and
> observations. And it is clear, when the two are
combined, that future
> warming is going to be at the low end of the wild
projections that have been
>
> made by the IPCC.
>
> What Hansen has done is really nothing more than this,
lending more evidence
>
> to what we already pretty much know. The rate of future
temperature rise
> will be modest, as will be the accompanying climate
impacts. Some will be
> positive, some will be negative, but they will all be
at the low end.
> [END OF ARTICLE]
>
> On another point, did you make note of the statistics
that showed the amount
>
> of money paid by oil interest to support scientists
skeptical of global
> warming was equal to $0.30 for every $1000 spent by
governments and others
> to support research predicting catastrophic scenarios?
Oh come now! The 800-pound gorilla in this particular
closet, as in so many
other closets, is the U.S. Federal Government, led by none
other than Mr. G.W.
Bush. The same one so flagrantly and overwhelmingly
notorious for firing
scientists whose findings are inconvenient to policy.
>
> Why would they do that? Why would government want you
to be afraid of a
> "predicted" life threatening future? Ah,
Kierkegaard's existential crisis
> and the manipulator setting themselves up to be the
existential hero and
> save everyone.
>
> If no one believes the future of the planet is at
stake, how can they know
> how much to reward you when you seemingly save them?
>
> Is that why there is such a desperate effort to silence
scientists who are
> skeptical of the dooms day scenarios. Proponents have
to alarm everyone
> sufficiently so they can take some precipitous action
that later will seem
> as they they rescued us. That is why there is such a
rush to make laws to
> control "man-made" causes of global
warming[THEORY].
>
> How terrible would it be if the situation revealed or
resolved itself as a
> natural phenomena before the "hero" has a
chance to appear to save us. Now
> that would be a catastrophe and a waste of all of the
money they have spent
> already to set you up to worship them after they
seemingly save you.
>
> Is that why there are calls for Nuremberg style trials
for scientists who
> question the reality of the predicted threats, or calls
to decertify
> meteorologists who question the theory of man-made
global warming, or
> efforts to discredit global warming "deniers"
with accusations they are sold
>
> out to oil interest for money when the reality is the
$0.30 to $1000 ratio
> of grant funds in favor of "global warming"
proponents?
(Ignoring, in that figure, the 800-pound gorilla. Please
re-check your
figures and, in those figures, how you are equating all
research money disbursed by
the Bush Administration with flaming neo-liberal
ecoenvironmentalist
alarmism. )
>
> just a thought. Read the science behind the IPCC
summary for yourself:
>