tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post5846510117532505730..comments2024-02-14T22:50:48.749+10:30Comments on Bill Kerr: Hansen's book and sea level increaseBill Kerrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-20607404050081805472010-04-24T09:41:07.305+09:302010-04-24T09:41:07.305+09:30Hi Bill.
I'll continue commenting on it based...Hi Bill.<br /><br />I'll continue commenting on it based on the research that I did--in the past tense. I'm just not going to devote time researching it more.Mark Millerhttp://tekkie.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-66532145102984796052010-04-23T09:11:21.225+09:302010-04-23T09:11:21.225+09:30hi mark,
Roger Pielke jnr is the son of Roger Pie...hi mark,<br /><br />Roger Pielke jnr is the son of Roger Pielke snr. Pielke snr is a climate scientist and Pielke jnr looks at the role of science in policy making. See the <a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/occasionally-asked-questions-about.html" rel="nofollow">Q&A</a> at Pielke jnr for more detail.<br /><br />I think climate science is a fascinating area about the interaction of science with politics and policy making which is the focus of Pielke jnrs research. I will probably keep writing some things along those lines. I'm sure I'll never understand all the nuances of the science. As you imply it's more a matter of finding experts on these complex issues that you can trust. I think the Pielke's qualify.Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-70366022520441283372010-04-23T08:51:09.864+09:302010-04-23T08:51:09.864+09:30Hi Bill.
When I was intensely interested in looki...Hi Bill.<br /><br />When I was intensely interested in looking at this issue, Pielke, Sr.'s blog was one of the sources I would consult. I was occasionally confused by his conclusions, but I think that was because they were nuanced, and he didn't always clearly communicate what lay behind the nuances. Perhaps my own understanding of the issue had been polluted. Among everyone else that I could see, his assessments were the most sober, and were firmly based in the scientific thinking process. The main thing I noted was the lack of presumptive assertions and hysterics. What pained me was to hear him talk about his encounters with the media, I guess newspapers in particular. He has often been painted as a "denier", or someone who should be disregarded because "he's in the minority", simply because he doesn't toe the party line, and is much more interested in what the evidence says. It seemed like the only reason they'd talk to him at all was so that they could say, "We listened to both sides." This approach not only showed a total lack of understanding of the discipline of science on the part of newspapers, etc., it also showed the total absence of critical thought going on in the public discussion of the issue. As I think you can see, Pielke is anything but a "denier" of the human influence on climate.<br /><br />The dichotomy between Pielke, Sr. and Pielke, Jr. is interesting. I often got them confused because of their names. I assume they're related. Pielke is not a common name around here. From what I've seen, they each take a different tack on the issue, and they approach it from different angles. From what little I've seen of Pielke, Jr., he seems to think that AGW is likely a problem, but he's open to counter-arguments. From what I understand, Pielke, Sr. is a climate scientist. Pielke, Jr. is not. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me Pielke, Jr. has focused more attention on analyzing the public debate about AGW.<br /><br />My interest in the issue was more driven by my concern for the integrity of science, and the public's trust in information that was derived scientifically (the "cry wolf" problem). Honestly, though, my heart wasn't really in it. I have decided to distance myself from it. I've had my fill of it for now. I realized that it was distracting me in a significant way from what I really love doing, which is studying computing and searching for a way to apply it that will be relevant and powerful to society.Mark Millerhttp://tekkie.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-90101601694226882512010-04-19T07:08:41.510+09:302010-04-19T07:08:41.510+09:30hi mark,
I still haven't done a revisit of Lin...hi mark,<br />I still haven't done a revisit of Linzen's lack of tropospheric warming argument but did come across this summary from Roger Pielke Snr, which includes a reference that the IPCC has overstated the extent, his point 5: <a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/main-conclusions-2/" rel="nofollow">Main Conclusions</a><br /><br />I've subscribed to both Pielke Jnr and Snr blogs. I think they provide the best commentary on AGW issues.Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-43939589709396267152010-03-20T18:51:57.014+10:302010-03-20T18:51:57.014+10:30If you're interested in looking at the present...If you're interested in looking at the presentation I referred to earlier, you should go <a href="http://ceiondemand.org/2009/10/26/cooler-heads-event-with-dr-richard-lindzen-on-cap-and-trade/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. It was taken down from the old video source I had. This is CEI's own website. They were the sponsor of the presentation he gave.Mark Millerhttp://tekkie.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-32985058590618588962010-03-20T07:57:10.514+10:302010-03-20T07:57:10.514+10:30hi mark,
I will look again at what Lindzen said a...hi mark,<br /><br />I will look again at what Lindzen said and do some more research, at some time. <br /><br />Hansen does have several sections about Lindzen in his book, which are very interesting. One of the things he does is outline 6 key differences he has had with Lindzen in an Appendix. He did this early on in the debate because he realised the debate would go on for decades. I thought this approach was great but as far as I can tell not all the loose ends from the Lindzen points are tied up, although some of them are.Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-88013835013748172812010-03-19T18:07:56.783+10:302010-03-19T18:07:56.783+10:30If the concern is just about changing from dirty e...If the concern is just about changing from dirty energy sources to cleaner ones, regardless of the existing circumstances, then I can see it becoming a matter of economics, though there are more clear environmental reasons to switch away from certain energy sources. I would think that if AGW is a real problem then it's <i>not</i> a matter of economics, but of survival.<br /><br />The reason I pressed the issue of the troposphere is if we're concerned about AGW then we're concerned about the greenhouse effect. The two terms are practically synonymous. The difference being that there's a natural GH effect, and then there's the question of our contribution to it. I've already talked about where the GH effect takes place. AGW alarm is primarily concerned with the amount of heat that is being trapped by this layer of air--"trapped" meaning the portion of the energy which is radiated from the surface that is absorbed and then radiated by GH gases, before it finally escapes into space.<br /><br />The way I understand science to work is that if scientists are noticing something happening, they theorize about what's causing it, and then explore that theory. I don't know of any field of legitimate science which says with a straight face something like, "We're generating more of a substance that we expect to trap more heat. We see certain effects happening (ocean warming, melting glaciers, etc.) which indicate that this is the heat source (which is a big assumption). We therefor conclude that the substances we're emitting are causing it." This represents a short-circuiting of the process, and almost sounds like circular reasoning. There isn't even a pause to test the theory. Most of what's being looked at are indicators of climate change with an implicit assumption of cause, not a theory of cause and effect.<br /><br />Regardless of criticisms of Richard Lindzen's analysis of the evidence, in that presentation I referred you to earlier (called "Cooler Heads") he laid out some basic principles of science. One of them is in order for a theory to be validated scientists have to show that a theory fits the observed phenomenon well, and all other conceivable possibilities have been considered and eliminated through tests that failed, or come up with murky results with lesser certainty. Until that happens the best anyone can say is "We don't know what's causing it." Since, in the absence of this process, scientists are asserting anyway that "We do know what's causing it" (I recall Hansen saying years ago, "It's obvious that humans are causing it.") this indicates to me that there's something else besides science going on, perhaps indicating that the science isn't really that important to begin with.<br /><br />Anyway, I know I'm emphatic about this stuff. I hope I'm not coming across as trying to pressure you to change your mind, because that's not what I intend. I just wanted to present a perspective that you had perhaps not heard. We all need to find our own answers to our questions.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />MarkMark Millerhttp://tekkie.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-91283424369614608302010-03-19T11:06:11.744+10:302010-03-19T11:06:11.744+10:30hi mark,
I think what Hansen's book demonstra...hi mark,<br /><br />I think what Hansen's book demonstrates fairly clearly is:<br />-human greenhouse gas forcings have increased to the point where we do influence climate, see <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Storms/" rel="nofollow">Fig 1 </a><br />- small climate temperature changes, even 1 degree Celcius, do have a large influence on sea levels and species, which are migrating towards the poles (I hadn't been clear about that, the demarcation b/w climate and weather)<br />- the paleoclimate record shows that sea levels have 4-6 metres higher with only 1 degree Celcius higher difference (some cause for alarm here if it going to happen quickly or if the process becomes irreversible)<br /><br />At this stage I'm not going to do further deep research into the troposphere issue. I still think that political economy is our main problem and want to spend more time researching that. I agree that parts of the science are still uncertain. However, it does seem fairly clear that the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheet are beginning to melt, ocean temperature is increasing and sea level rise has accelerated (slightly but significantly). Hansen is an alarmist and I'm not sure that is justified (he does have as much right as anyone to become politically involved) but I do think there is a real problem based on an overview of the science evidence. I don't see how uncertainty on one point about the troposphere is a knockout punch against AGW. <br /><br />I think the real important issue is how the science, politics and economics connects to each other. I might spend some more time researching that. Check out <a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Roger Pielke's blog</a>, he has some good material on those issues.Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-26998119515953438962010-03-18T09:20:51.176+10:302010-03-18T09:20:51.176+10:30The conclusion at skepticalscience.com oversimplif...The conclusion at skepticalscience.com oversimplifies what the executive summary from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program says. In one part of the executive summary it says (which skepticalscience does not quote):<br /><br /><i>For observations during the satellite era (1979 onwards), the most recent versions of all <br />available data sets show that both the low and mid troposphere have warmed. The majority of these data sets show warming at the surface that is greater than in the troposphere. Some of these data sets, however, show the opposite - tropospheric warming that is greater than that at the surface. Thus, due to the considerable disagreements between tropospheric data sets, it is not clear whether the troposphere has warmed more than or less than the surface.</i><br /><br />Like you were saying, inconclusive.<br /><br />Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. You say that the "issue is not central to Hansen's argument, because it relies on computer models." If you're talking about tropospheric warming, the conclusions that AGW proponents have used does rely on computer models, as I think you're saying, but the issue itself--the actual phenomenon--is crucial to any argument about AGW if we're concerned about the actual physics of it. The only exception to this I can think of is if there's some other radiative forcing phenomenon, apart from what is known as the greenhouse effect, which is human induced, and which has not been discovered yet.<br /><br />I've come around to the idea that there is reason to criticize the current state of our civilization. Kenneth Clark called the era we've been in since the 20th century "Heroic Materialism". In his view the beauty of human creations was replaced by almost purely functional, utilitarian things; gigantism bereft of any aesthetic, certainly any sense of harmony with Nature. He said in the 19th century the philosophies of Malthus and Ricardo took precedence over what was otherwise sensible thought at the time, and their legacies have persisted to this day. It seems to me the movements to try to change things have been efforts to find a workable alternative to this. I'd prefer something along the lines of the Age of Enlightenment and the Renaissance, while still maintaining notions of freedom (though it's hard to say if that's possible, based on history), but humanity has chosen a different path.Mark Millerhttp://tekkie.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-14030058946609821022010-03-14T22:01:43.167+10:302010-03-14T22:01:43.167+10:30hi mark,
Hansen uses paleoclimate data as his mai...hi mark,<br /><br />Hansen uses paleoclimate data as his main evidence, current observations second and computer modelling third. He says models are unreliable, good for some things but limited.<br /><br />I checked the index just then and troposphere is not there. I then checked the skeptical of skeptics site and found this article (<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm" rel="nofollow">Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere </a>) which addresses the issue you raise and delivers some satisfaction but is not conclusive. I don't think that issue is central to Hansen's argument since it relies on computer models.Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-15710334104580722402010-03-14T21:42:16.232+10:302010-03-14T21:42:16.232+10:30The thing that has frustrated me about the pro-AGW...The thing that has frustrated me about the pro-AGW argument (particularly the "anthropogenic" part. The "global warming" part I have no problem with) is it has always boiled down to anecdotes and data correlation, which are very weak from a scientific perspective; or an argument about probability, that the probability is extremely small that it's natural given the conditions over the past 10,000 or 100,000 years (let's keep in mind that the current configuration of our atmosphere has existed for about 400 million years). The question I keep coming back to is "Where is the thermal evidence?" If the greenhouse effect is increasing we should be able to detect that where it takes place; in other words, the heat source itself, not just in the receivers of heat. To my knowledge no one has been able to do this. Does Hansen show warming in the troposphere in his data? If so, I'd like to take a look at his book myself.<br /><br />The thermal evidence is one of the lynchpins in the anthropogenic argument. Without it it's very difficult to justify an assertion that industrial and/or agricultural activity is the cause of the warming. There are other reasons to worry about both of these sources of pollution. I don't mean to take them off the table. And I think the scientific conclusions that can be drawn will tell us how soon we need to act to avoid catastrophe as a result of these pollutants, but IMO we need to be realistic about it.Mark Millerhttp://tekkie.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com