I just watched the Q&A panel. As suspected Cory Bernardi denied climate change – even claiming CFCs are to blame (insert chuckles). Bill McKibben was brilliant, and spoke eloquently about the science and the ethics of acting on climate change.
But if I have any criticism it is towards the ABC and the producers of Q&A.
They framed the debate by giving equal time to an advocate for science (McKibben) and a denier (Bernardi). This perpetrates the myth there is a debate, and just further confuses the public. Thus what concerned my came to pass – which I noted in my previous post.
So was the public discussion advanced?
Perhaps…
It was New South Wales Labor MP Linda Burney who left the deepest impression on me.
Speaking about the future and the planet we will leave our children, she drew upon her indigenous heritage to say “Be an honorable ancestor”.
What do you want your legacy to be?
How do you wish your children and their children to remember you?
With honour.
Her insight helped cut through the white noise that so often characterizes the climate debate.
Respect the future of our children and the world we leave them.
I will put everything else about the show out of my mind, retaining only the elegance and beauty of that sentiment.
“Be an honorable ancestor”.
Watching the Deniers 
So Bernardi did wave Lu about! He’s ‘quick’ and obedient. The loony network is efficient at spreading the crud to the useful idiots….though not surprisingly as they have to recycle everything,Lu being no exception.
Tony Jones was dreadful. He spoke as if there really is a ‘debate’ about the science. Cory was predictable and could have been worse. The raps across the knuckles he’s had lately might have had an effect. He came across like a smirking fool to me. The dumb kid down the back of the class who sniggers and plays the clown because he actually is the clown and doesn’t understand what’s going on. However I expect deniers thought Cory was ‘clever’ and showed those silly scientists “just wot we fink of fancy ejukashun and .lernin'”.
Linda Burney for Prime Minister!
James Hansen said in a talk for TED recently that he doesn’t want his grandchildren to say to him in the future that he knew what was happening to the climate but he didn’t communicate it properly. I think this is hugely motivating for him. I don’t want to have to answer “nothing” if one day my future grandchildren ask me what I did to stop climate change.
Coming on the back of the recent Otto et al paper on climate sensitivity, the Max Planck Institute, two of whose directors formed part of the “al”, have found that Armageddon has been postponed:
They also found:
We’ve already had 0.8c warming since 1850 so a doubling of CO2 will see a further 0.5c in a couple of hundred years.
So its not my grandkids I need to worry about. Its my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandkids who have to live in a world half a degree hotter than now. Oh the humanity!.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/26/max-planck-institute-for-meteorology-prognoses-confirm-model-forecasts-warming-postponed-hundreds-of-years/
they are writing about reaching equilibrium after we stop emissions
you never reach equilibrium while you are putting up CO2
Only when this complicated interaction quiets down will the climate come to a stable condition. This long-term reaction by the climate is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ESC)
”
Because the climate has a very high thermal inertia and the oceans warm up only very slowly, it’s going to take some time before the effects of the greenhouse gases completely take hold. A warming from the greenhouse effect will be amplified by numerous feedbacks, and weakened by a few processes. Only when this complicated interaction quiets down will the climate come to a stable condition. This long-term reaction by the climate is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ESC) and is calculated by climate scientists. It is the final temperature increase that comes from a doubling of CO2 concentration, and will probably occur first after a few hundred years.”
well you have exposed your ignorance of the science
should had stayed silent
Mark do you have a link for that quote from otto et al ?
and
One of the paper’s authors, Myles Allen noted in The Guardian that the results of the study would make little difference with respect to long-term climate change.
“…our new findings mean that the changes we had previously expected between now and 2050 might take until 2065 to materialise instead.
ECS final GAT in a few hundred years is only after CO2 stops being emitted at quantities higher than natural sequestration time/capacity….who knew? Standard position of the science,Mark,whatever the sensitivity that unfolds.
Otto et al study limitations have been passed on to you. You don’t understand them,obviously. You are attracted to the lower envelope and slower response,that’s understandable,but the certainty is no better,perhaps worse, than other studies with higher conclusions. Just another day of typical behavior.
Found it
http://www.mpg.de/7262068/klimawandel_erderwaermung?filter_order=L&research_topicapart from
press release linked at notrickszone but obviously no one checks
“Only when this complex interplay is at rest, the air reaches again a steady state. This long-term climate response to climate scientists calculate the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ESC for equilibrium climate sensitivity). It corresponds to the final temperature increase due to a doubled CO 2 concentration, which probably sets in only after some 100 years.”
notrickzones same quote
“Only when this complicated interaction quiets down will the climate come to a stable condition. This long-term reaction by the climate is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ESC) and is calculated by climate scientists. It is the final temperature increase that comes from a doubling of CO2 concentration, and will probably occur first after a few hundred “years.”
“Mark do you have a link for that quote from otto et al ?”
Both quotes came from the same article to which I linked. They were translations of the MPI report.
Hi Mark,
We are headed for a great deal more than just a doubling of CO2. If emissions continue at their current rate, levels could be four times as high as preindustrial by the end of the century. Also, the paleoclimate record puts the sensitivity much higher. Here’s a recent paper – http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11574.html
Whether it’s our grandchildren or our great-great- grandchildren who bare the cost of climate change is irrelevant. Imagine a terrorist group launches a missile at Brisbane, Australia killing 100,000 people. By all ethical standards this is wrong and unjustifiable. Let’s change the story now to say that the terrorist group instead launches the missile into space where it orbits the Earth for 200 years. At this future date, 200 years from now, the missile changes direction and heads for Brisbane Australia where it kills 100,000 people. It makes no difference whether those 100,000 people are living now or 200 years from now. It is still wrong. We have an obligation to ensure that people of the future have a livable habitat.
Mark says:
June 4, 2013 at 3:34 am
“Mark do you have a link for that quote from otto et al ?”
Both quotes came from the same article to which I linked. They were translations of the MPI report.
not according to google translate,
Rachel,
I understand where you are coming from with this. But the alternate view is that, in 100 -200 yrs time the people of Brisbane would be much more technically advanced to handle the attack.
Similarly with climate change. In 100 yrs time, society is going to be much wealthier than now. The economics behind the IPCC guesses have the world being 4 times wealthier and the today’s poorest nations being better off than the USA is now. Consequently they will be much more able to afford adaptation if that becomes necessary. But they will also have technologies as yet unthought off. Think of the advances from 1900 to 2000 and double it. Its extremely unlikely our great-grandkids will still be burning coal for power in 2100. As an example, it is estimated that, if the current rate of advancements in solar continue (and they are actually accelerating) solar will become competitive with coal for base load (without subsidies) by 2040.
I don’t think we need to worry too much about our descendants in the year 2100.
“In 100 years time society is going to be much wealthier than now” Extrapolation based on assumptions is apparently acceptable in economics,but extrapolations from physics and observation is contentious in climate…..The 3 part IPCC report is a broad church,not all its parts have equal strength. It is standard forward assumption to believe that wealth will continue to grow, without much understanding of how that wealth is won or how it is defined and measured. Externalities may not remain defined thus. Is our economics soundly rooted in knowledge about the biosphere and its capacity to support ideas of wealth?
Do we want to leave our descendants with 1 or 2 metres of SLR or 4+? The time to make the decision about that is now,given our current,and currently marginalised, best knowledge about the earth system. End the coal subsidies,break the standard model of the incumbents serving their own interests before that of the greater community…in fact start the national conversation about the positioning of sectional interests as representative of the community. Address the tragedy of the commons with real economic thought,not blandishments about wealth and growth that have the physical integrity of fairy tales.
Paleoclimate behaviour becomes nearly impossible to explain with an ECS of ~1.3C (see Rohling et al. 2012 at Rachel’s link). So either the ~1.3C estimate is for the TRANSIENT RESPONSE or it is wrong.
“Extrapolation based on assumptions is apparently acceptable in economics,but extrapolations from physics and observation is contentious in climate…..The 3 part IPCC report is a broad church,not all its parts have equal strength.”
But but….the IPCC needs to estimate future economic growth so that it can estimate future emissions growth so that it estimate future temperature rises.
So if you reject the validity of their economic forecasts then it follows that you have to reject the validity of their temp forecast. Even going down the Henderson/Castle path and questioning the use of market rates as opposed to PPP is a problem.
But, trust me Nick, you don’t want to go down the path of questioning the economic forecasts from the IPCC and therefore their temp forecasts. If you do, its only a small step before people will start using the “D” word to describe your heresy.
And Nick, you don’t want to have people using the “D” word to describe you. I can handle it but you need the safety of the herd.
Besides when you become one of the “D”ers, you’ve got no idea of the type of person you have to deal with….morons, dullards, John.
So avoid even flirting with denial. Return to the fold and accept that every word in every version of the IPCC reports are the absolute truth, no errors at all, and if there are small errors they are inconsequential and probably the fault of the “D”ers, and beside there are no errors.
Repeat three times and reaffirm your love of Gaia by hugging a furry creature…but stay away from that horse.
Here is the translation from there down
At the end of the century, facing a warming of more than two degrees
Based on these values, the researchers calculate that the near-ground atmosphere for a doubling of CO 2 have warmed 90prozentiger content with probability between 0.9 and 2.0 degrees Celsius, most likely a temperature increase of 1.3 degrees. “The transient climate response, which we have calculated based on the latest data, which is within the predictions of climate models, though not at the top,” says Alexander Otto, who made the calculations at the University of Oxford.
If, after a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration, no additional greenhouse gases are blown into the atmosphere, the earth is heated in the following centuries compared to pre-industrial levels 90prozentiger with probability at 1.2 to 3.9 degrees. Most likely for the long-term climate response is an increase of two degrees. “How much will turn the long-term warming, but is still quite uncertain,” says Otto. “However, for the most critical policy decisions anyway, how much warming in the next 50 to 100 years of failure.”
The Earth will heat up so maybe not as strong as the worst predictions were afraid. “While this is good news,” says Reto Knutti, one of the participating researchers from ETH Zurich. “But if the greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, we are at the end of the century still have a temperature increase of more than two degrees.”
How get involved aerosols and clouds in the air, is not entirely clear
Whether the earth actually warmed a little slower than many climate models have been deposited close, also remains uncertain – despite the measurement data from the 2000s. “Given what we know about climate variability and do not know, we should not over-interpret a single decade,” says Jochem Marotzke. Because the researchers still need to clarify some details of how the climate responds to the increase in greenhouse gases. “Currently, we are, for example, assume that the strength of the feedback is constant over time,” says Jochem Marotzke. “But we do not know if this is actually like that.”
Also uncertain is the role of aerosols: How much sunlight reflect the suspended particles in the upper layer of the atmosphere? And how they affect the formation of clouds and precipitation? Ever the clouds. They mix with air in a variety of ways: They not only bring precipitation, they also shield the sun’s light. Uncertain, however, how they respond to a global warming: more clouds to form, when it is warmer on earth, because then more water evaporates? Or fewer clouds are formed because the air currents change?
So many questions are still open, but the gaps are, “climate science is just very exciting,” says Bjorn Stevens. “The measurements of the global heat exchange and air composition in the last two decades have made tremendous progress,” says Björn Stevens. “We have also developed models and to examine it better, we have advanced rapidly, especially in the question of how the earth will respond to the increase in greenhouse gases.”
“Do we want to leave our descendants with 1 or 2 metres of SLR or 4+? ”
But the IPCC forecast for this century is 59cm. So even one metre is 150yrs away. Or was Mr Williams right and we’re gunna get 100 metres next Tuesday week?
Yes, it is TCR. ECS best estimate is ~2C in a range 1.2C – 3.9C (90% probability). You or the liar at NTZ has confused TCR with ECS. A stupid, basic blunder.
In addition to this misrepresentation – TCR will occur at the time of doubling not centuries hence – the whole Notrickszone article fails to provide the necessary context.
This result is an estimate of the transient response to a doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial average of 280ppmv to 560ppmv. Current emissions growth is on track for >800ppmv by the end of the century, so seizing on 1.3C and misrepresenting it as the net end effect of 2xCO2 is doubly misleading. You have been lied to by your source. I suggest you delete it from your browser.
* * *
It’s important to note that Otto et al. (2013) suffers from the same problems undermining all instrumentally-derived estimates:
– Short time periods
– Uncertain data (especially OHC)
– Excessive sensitivity to decadal OHC variability
– Poorly constrained estimates of the influence of natural variability
The result is that instrumentally-derived estimates tend to be very low compared with those derived from paleoclimate, as Rachel points out above. Using *all* the evidence we have, the best estimate for ECS to 560 ppmv CO2 appears to be in the range 2.5C – 3C with TCR ~1.5C.
Very few sane people believe that there will be a magical switch-off of emissions at 560ppmv or 2100.
I can’t see any reason why we are not already fully on track for ~6m SLR.
The last time global average temperatures were ~1C – 2C above Holocene was during the previous interglacial (Eemian; MIS 5e; ~130 – 115ka). Mean sea level highstand was ~6m above present levels. This requires a major collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and a 1 – 2m contribution from the Greenland ice sheet (Dahl-Jensen et al. 2013).
Even conservative ECS/TCR estimates are sufficient to get us to ~6m eventually.
Notrickzone is, as proven a disinformation site. mark seems to be too ignorant of the science to have lied , so I would not blame him, being a sceptic he did not even bother to find out if he was been taken for a ride.
People like Mark are perfect Marks for conmen
Hansen has identified another problem from paleoclimate ECS, which is the speed that we are heading towards doubling, there may not be time for those long term negative feedbacks to occur
Mark asserts: ” if you reject their [the IPCC] economic forecasts then you have to reject their temperature forecast”….LOL .Reasoning,Mark? This should be funny….
Then,projecting furiously, he warns me against some heretical path I’m supposedly embarking on….and repeats the Williams slander from his favorite bullies at News. Pithy stuff,and heretical,on your part,Mark!
What a waste of time you are,Humpty.
The IPCC 18-59cm forecast from 2007 for SLR to 2100 excluded the Greenland and Antarctic land ice on the grounds that it was too difficult to quantify and time based on their synthesis of research to 2005/6. There has been plenty of work since including major ice sheet dynamics that raises the upper bound.
Whatever,the numbers I raise are for two to three centuries,based on palaeoclimate. What you thought it all stopped at 2100 because of the only SLR projection you know of?
Now JB and BBD have done your work for you,brought you up to speed,and incidentally torn you a new one, you can go back to spinning on the spot and reading News Ltd.
“LOL .Reasoning,Mark? ”
Really? You need me to explain this to you. Go figure.
Forecasts of temperature in say 2050 are based, in part, on forecasts of emissions up to that time. The temperature forecast will be different if emissions remain on their current trend as opposed to, say, a doubling or halving of the trend. If you think their economic forecasts are wrong then their temp forecasts must also be wrong, unless you think its possible they made a countervailing error that sets it right. But suggesting the IPCC has made two errors…well, I wouldn’t go there.
“and repeats the Williams slander from his favorite bullies at News”.
I can see I’m going to have to stop using sarcasm here. It seems to go over everyone’s head.
“Whatever,the numbers I raise are for two to three centuries”
Oh so I’m wrong because I should have realised you’d changed the time frame of the discussion even though you hadn’t mentioned the change? I think you are getting rather desperate old boy to score even one point here.
“Now JB and BBD have done your work for you,brought you up to speed”.
Umm..well. John has simply declared that TNZ is a “proven a disinformation site”, by which he means that in the fantasy world that is John-land, he has declared it as such and that’s all the proof he needs. And BBD has declared that we’ll get a trebling of CO2 by some date and therefore let’s talk about that instead. Not really convincing arguments there. But I know your standards are low.
I did rather more than that. You are now engaging in lying and evasion, which is standard tactics from a misrepresenter who has had their misrepresentations exposed.
This is you, either lying your arse off or demonstrating an absolute incomprehension of the basics:
Which is it?
mark you are a patsy
The tricks of No Tricks Zone
You don’t have to be a scientist to see that most of the so-called climate skepticism out there is complete bollocks. Step up to the plate Pierre Gosselin in Germany who writes the ironically titled “No Tricks Zone” .
Take this. Amospheric changes on all 9 planets explains the cause of global warming as “the sun, stupid” . A real skeptic would doubt any conclusion that is so forthright but Pierre expresses no doubts whatsoever and if you don’t agree you’re stupid. But what evidence is there that warming on other planets and the Earth share the same cause? Pierre offers none . He has arrived at his explanation for global warming on the Earth by … looking at completely different planets. Unfortunately none of those other bodies in the solar system support life, a point that I have made to P but it seems to have gone past him.
A few days later Pierre’s headline is “NOAA Data Shows Slowing Sea Level Rise”. Pierre sorts the results of a selection of coastal stations around the globe into four categories which he calls ‘observed most recent rate trend’. Although he claims six stations show a ‘steady drop’ three of those (Karachi, Walvis Bay and Tenerife) actually record numerical rises in sea level. So how does Pierre arrive at his ‘observed most recent rate trend’? I ask if it’s simply Pierre’s opinion of the most recent direction of the line on the graph perhaps. “It was arrived at by looking at the data” is P’s cryptic response. He then suggests “your time would be better spent if you asked [Stefan] Rahmstorf at the PIK how they reached their conclusions of accelerating SLR. ” Quite.
On reflection, it hardly matters. If you are a liar, you aren’t fit for civil discourse and should be shut out.
If you are clueless, you should be silent.
Net effect – no more rubbish from you.
that is pure gold from mark
“We’ve already had 0.8c warming since 1850 so a doubling of CO2 will see a further 0.5c in a couple of hundred years.”
we will see a further .5DegC in the next thirty years from the ocean alone.
I knew that once we got off the politics etc he would prove to be a total dill on the science
have to drop that one over at uki’s
Forecast for temperature rise by 2050 under ANY energy use/economic scenarios presented in AR4 are barely significantly different. The spread is a few tenths of a degree.
The divergence is greater by 2100,but so is the uncertainty. You can see the assessed likely temperature ranges under each scenario increasingly overlap the other scenarios. What is also uncertain is the response of the environment : non-linear SLR is very possible. So even a lower emission path,in a less ‘wealthy’ economy, doesn’t reassure if Greenland jumps a phase. Likewise step changes in temperature are possible,whether or not CO2 increases steadily as it does now. We may pass threshholds that release more methane from the natural environment no matter where IPCC scenarios now put us in 2100,reducing CO2 output only to have CH4 push on ahead. Arctic Ocean insolation and energy loss are now in a new paradigm,destabilising jet streams well before any divergence in temperatures under economic scenarios.
Wealth outcome/energy use/temperature/environmental outcome don’t line up like ducks in reality. Non-linear response may leave us poorer in 2100 whatever the energy use trajectory and temperature.
And your summation of the info BBD has provided in this little chat is just bullshit,Humpty. Too lazy to read, satisfied with dumb provocation,you cover all the bases.
“.LOL .Reasoning,Mark? This should be funny….”
So I provide the reasoning and guess what? The loud laughing stops. Dead.
It seems there was a general lack of understanding as to the significance of the IPCC’s economic forecasts. I don’t know what you thought those forecasts were for but hopefully you now have some understanding. If you are interested in how bad those economic forecasts are you should research the critiques by Henderson and Castle.
After all that, perhaps we can return to my original point which was that even under the IPCC scenarios, our descendants are going to be vastly better able to pay for any possible mitigation of what now seems to be a rather mild warming. Rachel’s original Brisbane bomb is gunna be mince-meat in the hands of our great-grandkids.
You still here after this drivel?
Mark “We’ve already had 0.8c warming since 1850 so a doubling of CO2 will see a further 0.5c in a couple of hundred years.”
“that is pure gold from mark
“We’ve already had 0.8c warming since 1850 so a doubling of CO2 will see a further 0.5c in a couple of hundred years.””
Well let me tarnish some of that gold for you.
I’ll try to keep is simple because, it seems, following a logical argument taxes your abilities.
Now for a start, I’m not (repeat not) saying we’ll get a 0.5c warming in 2050 or 2100 or at any other time.
I’m simply following the logic of conclusion of Otto et al as determined by MPI.
They have determined that a doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial will yield a temperature rise of 1.3c…
“Using these values, the scientists calculate with 90% certainty that the near-surface atmosphere will warm 0.9°C – 2.0°C with at doubling of CO2 content; most probable is a temperature increase of 1.3°C.””
So a doubling gives us a 1.3c rise. But we are still in the middle of that doubling..not even half way there yet. Nonetheless since we started increasing CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, temperatures have risen by 0.8c. Therefore (and you can use calculators here!) when we get to 560ppm we will see a further .5c rise (ie 1.3 – .8).
Now I’m not saying that’s what’ll happen. I’m just saying that’s the logically conclusion to be drawn from Otto. I don’t know if Otto’s right. You don’t know if Otto’s right. Otto doesn’t know if Otto’s right.
But, based on his paper, that’s where we stand.
Now I know that, in John-land, if you don’t like the conclusions they become magically wrong, but we don’t have to buy into that particular piece of fantasy.
Just one last point and then I’ll leave you to ponder how you got all this so wrong.
John asserts that “Notrickzone is, as proven a disinformation site.” Later he says it lied.
So how was it proven. Well it seems it said things that John thinks are wrong. So being in disagreement with John equals being proven to have spread misinformation and lies.
the example he gives is the data about how other planets appear to be warming as the earth has. some have taken that as evidence that the Sun is the cause of our warming. I don’t know the validity or otherwise of that. That’s not the point. But to say that holding that opinion proves you are a liar is insane. But John does it all the time.
A week or so ago John confidently asserted that Lindzen was paid via secret funds to assist the tobacco industry in its fight to show smoking was safe. Later I was able to show him (and Nick) that that was a load of rubbish. But just because he was utterly wrong doesn’t mean John was lying and I would never make that accusation. He was completely uninformed or more likely had fallen for misinformation from his favoured sources. But not lying.
But if the situation was reversed, John would be throwing the “L” word around with gay abandon. and that’s wrong.
Oh my god he just keeps digging
“So a doubling gives us a 1.3c rise. But we are still in the middle of that doubling..not even half way there yet.
exactly we are no where there yet and have an anomaly of 0.8degC and due to the inertia of the Ocean are already committed to another 0.5DegC within the next three decades. due to the accelerated warming of the last decade that committed warming is now assessed as 0.6DegC
so within the next three decades we will have already raised the global temperature
by 1.4DegC , with the natural variability this will gives us yearly anomalies of 1.1DegC to 1.7DegC
but wait there is more. with business as usual we will have added at least another
0.3DegC from RF by 2040
In effect we will be committed to 2DegC by 2040. which would be realised by 2070
and you stated ” in a couple of hundred years.”,
and now “Now for a start, I’m not (repeat not) saying we’ll get a 0.5c warming in 2050 or 2100 or at any other time.
you said a couple of hundred years and now backpeddle.
your level of understanding is below that of my thirteen year old grand daughter
mark” John asserts that “Notrickzone is, as proven a disinformation site.” Later he says it lied’
so it is proven that notrickzone has distorted the german to english translation of the article and you do not think that is a lie?
just a crap translation by someone who lives in germany ?
I directly replied to your reasoning,Mark,but you’re more interested in whether I’m laughing or not…and this was always about your original point,which boils down unsupported optimism.
‘Technologies as yet unthought of’ and presumption of greater wealth are handwavingly simple mathematical extrapolation,Mark,compared with understanding of CO2’s properties,the carbon cycle in process and history, and atmospheric residence time of GHGs. Yet the CO2 scenario is uncertain. We don’t know whether the current partitioning ratio of ACO2 between atmosphere and ocean will be sustained through to 2100. Methane in permafrost:we can estimate quantities,but stability? Shape of release curve? We know we don’t know a lot,which is why error margins widen,and is what gives rise to the powerful uncertainty which backs the precautionary approach of IPCC advice.
As I said,I understand why the IPCC process is bound to include economic projections,but the assumptions therein are huge. Critiques of the IPCC economic modelling also make huge assumptions. You know that,but given your ideological bent,it does not help you. Castles and Henderson….early 2000s [what response to C&H in AR4? Both MER and PPP approaches are used,and the IPCC thinks that technological change brings greater uncertainty to their estimates than choice of exchange rate]…suggested IPCC methodology lead to overestimating economic growth and thus emissions projections. Here we are in 2013,and emissions have exceeded forecasts.
“so it is proven that notrickzone has distorted the german to english translation of the article and you do not think that is a lie?”
That’s it. Your proof is that their translation doesn’t match google translate’s. Honestly, what a dill. I give up.
Paper google translate ECS 100 years
notrickzone which you repeated ECS a couple of hundred years
you should give up, you are out of your depth
from the Authors ‘this will give us an extra fifteen years to prevent 2DegC’
from the article in german
erst nach einigen 100 Jahren einstellt.
the figure 100 is used
google translate as some 100 years
notrickzone translates as a couple of 100 years?
which looks stupid so changes it to a couple of hundred years.
Oh for heavens sake. Check the word “einigen”. It is translated as “some” or “a few”. In English the phase “it’ll take me some weeks to get John to understand anything” is pretty much the same as “it’ll take me a few weeks to get John to understand anything”.
This is excruciating. the man has no pride.
dill
some 10 year time translates in markland
as a few ten years time
tried Babylon
CO2 concentration, which will probably be only after some 100 years
einigen restore to a state , settle
http://dictionary.reverso.net/CollabDict.aspx?lang=en&dirid=101&srcLang=1031&targLang=1033&searchIn=all&word=einigen
Fixed it for you
“it’ll take me some 100 weeks to get John to understand anything” is pretty much the same as “it’ll take me a few 100 weeks to get John to understand anything”
Using your source link
only after some 100 years
Prefer to play the fool than admit error.
Interesting dynamic.
I used you source of translation and that even did not agree with you,
and are still claiming that the extra 0.5DegC will not be realised for a few hundred years based on a translation which is clearly
“some 100 years ”
and you claim that is “few 100 years”
http://www.reverso.net/translationresults.aspx?lang=EN&direction=german-english
that is your source “to some” in the context of settle, reconcile
even the paper tells you you are wrong about your claim of a few 100 years
from the article
The Earth will heat up so maybe not as strong as the worst predictions were afraid. “While this is good news,” says Reto Knutti, one of the participating researchers from ETH Zurich. “But if the greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, we will at the end of the century still have a temperature increase of more than two degrees.”
how does the end of the century increase of more than 2 degrees match up with your claim of a maximum of 1.3DegC after a few centuries ?
the ECS would be bloody horrific if we still had a few hundreds to go after a 2 degc rise by 2100.
have to change my indian name from “argues with idiots”
There’s no getting out of this Mark.
No. Otto et al. provides a best estimate for TCR of 1.3C. That is the instantaneous response to a doubling of CO2. That is the temperature we get at 550ppmv. You are muddling up TCR and ECS.
Please now admit your error instead of trying to brazen your way out of this mess. Your extended display of dishonesty is unpleasant to behold and does you huge damage.
* * *
The point here is that Mark doesn’t understand the difference between TCR and ECS. Like Eric, Mark is clueless, even about the basics.
Mark pretends that he is disputing “the science” yet it is very obvious that he doesn’t understand any of it.
So Mark is revealed as a politicised and posturing buffoon bawling his rejectionism from a position of profound ignorance.
* * *
Since we are clearly on track for >800ppmv by the end of the century, and since Otto et al. is almost certainly an under-estimate, and since warming continues beyond TCR, Mark’s noise is meaningless except in terms of what it reveals about his political bias, lack of understanding of the basics, and of course, his dishonesty.
It is interesting to observe how the deniers are changing their tactics, and becoming farcicle in their attempt to do so as per the first comment above. What did strike me as revealing was the comment by M Stuchbury (?) that coal and oil industries are too important for us in Australia to lose. What do these people fear an ‘on’ and ‘off’ switch? Surely a change away from reliance upon fossil fuels is gradual, reflecting the changes in public understanding and availability of alternative technologies.
A debate is often won by the best debater, regardless of the merits of the respective cases.
Of course this applies especially to a situation where there is only one representing each side. A single debate on television means very little.
Indeed, but obviously my concern is the media’s continuing insistence on framing the science as a “debate”. False balance still reigns.
Vested interest, fake experts, false balance. All perfectly obvious to the objective observer, but not, apparently, to the deniers.
Object to this perversion of the truth by vested interest and the deniers howl “censorship”. As previous thread. There is no limit to how low they will go. None at all.
So, as far as I understand it, the Coal-ition’s plan to end massive government spending waste is to spend billions on reducing CO2 because it’s harmless. Or did I miss something in Cory’s fantasy-land vision?
And why do all the “Coal is wonderful” crowd not care what happens when the fossil fuels are used up? They seem to have been brought up on The Magic Pudding.
Meanwhile, in the UK, “(S)ome sections of the press are giving an uncritical campaigning platform to individuals and lobby groups. This is not the serious science of challenging, checking and probing. This is destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism born of vested interest, nimbyism, publicity seeking contraversialism or sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness. This tendency will seize upon the normal expression of scientific uncertainty and portray it as proof that all climate change policy is hopelessly misguided. By selectively misreading the evidence, they seek to suggest that climate change has stopped so we can all relax and burn all the dirty fuel we want without a care. Those who argue against all the actions we are taking to reduce emissions, without any serious and viable alternative, are asking us to take a massive gamble with the planet our children will inherit, in the face of all the evidence, against overwhelming odds.” And that’s from the government, not Labour.
“the Coal-ition’s plan to end massive government spending waste is to spend billions on reducing CO2 because it’s harmless.”
Yep, agreed. It makes little sense. I expect that the plan to spend money on reducing CO2 will be dropped or heavily curtailed post-election. They’ll get in, say “holy sh*t, look at how bad the finances are”, announce that the spending on CO2 mitigation will be held over until the finances are better or the rest of the world decides to do something (ie the twelfth of never), and the whole thing will be quietly forgotten.
“And why do all the “Coal is wonderful” crowd not care what happens when the fossil fuels are used up? ”
Because it’ll never happen. We never run out of resources. As they become scarcer they get substituted by other cheaper alternatives. Since we are at least two centuries away from that time as regards coal, who knows what that’ll be. I’d guess it’ll happen long before coal scarcity becomes an issue.
The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones and the fossil fuel age won’t end because we run out of FF.
“The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones” One of Eric’s favorites…the rejectionist playbook is a skinny dog-eared pamphlet.
“We never run out of resources” …certainly,no shortage of Cornucopian fools,though they are a resource of limited utility. The remaining coal,Mark : how good is the grade,where is it, what’s the accessibility like? What is the EROEI? What costs are unaccounted presently?
“As they become scarcer they get substituted by cheaper alternatives” You are trying to say that alternatives will be more competitive as scarcity makes coal more expensive,I guess…
Coal prices are weak because there is currently a glut caused by everyone opening new fields and undermining the profitability that originally attracted them. Boo-hoo boom-bust economics is the best we can do? Now the coal boys are lining up solar for some bashing because it’s f**king up their business models,cutting profitability promised to them by their corrupt pollie mates in selling off public assets. They will threaten job losses and royalties and tax revenues foresaken…and never mention CO2 being dumped into the biosphere at rates that overwhelm the biosphere’s ability to draw it down. Just give us more ‘CO2 is plant food’ pap…
Maybe coal is dying faster than predicted,and certainly faster than Gina wants.FF fools and their political mates will fight hard to keep peddling their rubbish, lying about the cost of solar and lying about the cost of the carbon price,and delaying our transition to renewables with gas/nuclear back-up. Will we prop up the coal industry like we do the car industry…or do we already?
How long is the coal tail going to wag the national interest dog?
“Now the coal boys are lining up solar for some bashing because it’s f**king up their business models,cutting profitability promised to them by their corrupt pollie mates in selling off public assets. They will threaten job losses and royalties and tax revenues foresaken…and never mention CO2 being dumped into the biosphere at rates that overwhelm the biosphere’s ability to draw it down. Just give us more ‘CO2 is plant food’ pap…”
Wow, glad to see your not into conspiracy theories. Imagine how agitated you’d be if you were. 🙂
““The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones” One of Eric’s favorites…”
Well some things get repeated a lot because they are just so very true. Of course, some people need to get smacked between the eyes with it more often than others before simple truths sink in.
Smacking you between the eyes is impossible,Cyclops.
The coal industry is lobbying away in just the mode I describe. It is no conspiracy,though details of their interactions with politicians take some teasing out.. It is standard interest group behavior in defense of their asset. Why do you think it is a conspiracy,simply because you are unaware of it?
Campbell Newman has been busy fibbing about the contribution of renewables to electricity price rises. Tony Abbott will throttle renewables to protect coal investors. The Libs killed their own modest renewables target soon after Howard introduced it,at the behest of the mining and generation lobby…Mark,do you know anything at all about recent actions and what they meant and mean?
Some things get repeated a lot because that’s the limit of your contribution. BAU means we will run out of coal in fifty years not 200. That is, run out of coal in the quantity and quality required for the endless growth model of economist dreams. Bottlenecks shape the future not on-paper total carboniferous resource. But the coalies are dead set determined to get their pound of flesh,no matter the environment and the broad community interest. In the absence of real leadership from people elected to do just that,it may happen.
The stone age ended because the price of stones increased dramatically ?
“BAU means we will run out of coal in fifty years not 200. ”
Yeah yeah…that’s what we’ve heard for a century. We’re gunna run out of coal. We’re gunna run out of oil. We’re gunna run out of copper. We’re gunna run out of…..
But it never happens. Why?
1. We find new reserves.
2. We find better ways to access the current reserves.
3. We find substitutes. If fracking takes off in Europe and China like it has in the US our current accessible, known coal reserves will extend, even under BAU, for at least 300 yrs. But they won’t have to.
Its the same old Malthusian error. If supply remains the same but demand continues to increase, well then things are going to go to hell. But supply never remains the same. It must annoy the hell out of the doomsayers.
“Yeah,yeah,that’s what we’ve heard for a century”. Bullshit. 60 years ago Hubbert was predicting 2150 for US reserves,now his method predicts 2030. Other methods say we are peaking between 2010 and 2050. The FF market is plagued by calculated over-optimism due to the need to attract investment.
It is impossible physically for supply in a constant growth economy to increase even with the substitution dance,as substitutes have poorer EROEI.
Personally, I’m not surprised by ABC. Increasingly, they are really giving more and more air to fringe / anti-science positions.
The first aim is to ‘entertain’..the aim to inform is a long way down the list.
Increasingly so to line up with most other media outlets.
I wonder if there’s been internal or external pre-emptive pressure placed on our ABC compelling them to seem more right wing (“balanced”) before the next election which is feared will result in an Abbott landslide?
That would fit in with other movements around the place. How often is Abbott criticised of late?
Some data for those who are feeding themselves the idea that the NH winter was unusually cold
That was five months. Now, the three months of NH winter
Not fair posting facts nick, only newspaper opinion pieces count in denierland
At least there was one good outcome from Otto et al , the deniers now accept the models are useful.
the analysis in Otto et al is based, in part, on climate models. The necessary observations for the 1860-1879 period simply do not exist. Models are also used to estimate the climate forcing.
If you accept the validity of the results from Otto et al, one assumes you also accept that models are indeed extremely useful tools.
@RC
QLD budget
Natural disasters have continued to plague the state budget. In terms of cost, ex-tropical cyclone Oswald is second only to the December 2010-January 2011 flooding disasters.
The Queensland Reconstruction Authority estimated the total cost of the disaster to be $2.5 billion.
The state’s contribution was more than $620 million.
Total disaster spending over the three years from 2012-13 to 2014-15 has been set at $9.3 billion.
A $80 million “betterment” fund, half financed by the federal government, has also been set. The state had sought a $100 million contribution from the Commonwealth.
This is the french ski resort reported as open
http://www.snow-forecast.com/resorts/Porte-Puymorens/6day/top
Forecast freezing level is higher than most of the Pyrenees, heavy rain over the next 4-6 days…snowfall is washed away this week. Too late to nip up from Pau for a quick ski!
Jeez,these straw grasping asses are tiresome and lazy.
wonder if all those who spent money on the strength of the news report will be
reimbursed for their rush to the powder which was only about 4cm anyway
SLR for the 21st century, uncertain,
http://www.climatecodered.org/2011/01/rethinking-safe-climate-have-we-already.html,
Just how crazy
Not so long back we decided that we should limit global warming to 1.5DegC
when we discovered that would be impossible we then set the target at 2DegC.
To do that we have to have emissions dropping fast over the next decade.
not happening, so will we set a new target of 3degc within a few years?
two degrees is bad enough, some of the consequences
Two degrees may not sound like much, but it is enough to make every European summer as hot as 2003, when 30,000 people died from heatstroke. That means extreme summers will be much hotter still. As Middle East-style temperatures sweep across Europe, the death toll may reach into the hundreds of thousands. The Mediterranean area can expect six more weeks of heatwave conditions, with wildfire risk also growing. Water worries will be aggravated as the southern Med loses a fifth of its rainfall, and the tourism industry could collapse as people move north outside the zones of extreme heat.
Two degrees is also enough to cause the eventual complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which would raise global sea levels by seven metres. Much of the ice-cap disappeared 125,000 years ago, when global temperatures were 1-2C higher than now. Because of the sheer size of the ice sheet, no one expects this full seven metres to come before the end of the century, but a top Nasa climate scientist, James Hansen, is warning that the mainstream projections of sea level rise (of 50cm or so by 2100) could be dangerously conservative. As if to underline Hansen’s warning, the rate of ice loss from Greenland has tripled since 2004.
This melting will also continue to affect the world’s mountain ranges, and in Peru all the glaciers will disappear from the Andean peaks that currently supply Lima with water. In California, the loss of snowpack from the Sierra Nevada – three-quarters of which could disappear in the two-degree world – will leave cities such as Los Angeles increasingly thirsty during the summer. Global food supplies, especially in the tropics, will also be affected but while two degrees of warming will be survivable for most humans, a third of all species alive today may be driven to extinction as climate change wipes out their habitat.
Scientists estimate that we have at best 10 years to bring down global carbon emissions if we are to stabilise world temperatures within two degrees of their present levels.
Have people here seen the trillionthtonne website? http://www.trillionthtonne.org/
It shows quite nicely how the longer we delay action, the more difficult eventual action will become. It’s like a snowball rolling down the hill, getting bigger and bigger and faster and faster. The earlier we try to stop it, the easier it will be.
eye opening, , would be an excellant widget thanks Rachel
Yes, I want that widget.
Thanks for that link Rachel – much appreciated. 🙂
It’s good isn’t it. Or perhaps I should say, it’s not good. Anyone who thinks the temperature will rise by just 1 degree is quite obviously mistaken. And anyone who thinks we should dump the problem on future generations is also seriously deluded.
[…] 2013/06/03: WtD: Q&A: “Be an honorable ancestor” and thoughts on media framing […]
[…] If you’re older, then you have the choice to be “an honorable ancestor“. […]