DanG 1
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Basic science has no profit motive.
Well, some does, some doesn't. Human genetics research has proven to be pretty lucrative, which is why biotech companies fund it. But I agree that much of it has no immediate profit motive.
>This is technology that would make a massive amount of money for
>the person or group that can create the process for doing it.
Agreed. But if there is basic research that only a large entity can do before it's even shown to be feasible, it might make sense to do it at a governmental level.
>The argument is that the greenhouse effect is well understood. This means
>it isn't basic science anymore. It is applied science, and the need for
>government funding is not as high as for basic science.
Well, the greenhouse effect itself is indeed well understood. But the question everyone wants answered now is "so what happens next?" We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know we're increasing its concentration, and we know that that will result in a forcing term that, all other things being equal, will warm up the planet. We've known that for decades.
Now the harder issues come into play. Will increased evaporation cause more cloud cover? If so, when? If it causes an increase in cloudiness at night we warm faster; if it causes an increase in cloudiness during the day we mitigate some of that warming.
Will increased CO2 levels cause more rapid carbonate formation? If so, then CO2 levels will 'level out' at some point as CO2 begins to be taken out as fast as we make it. Will increased temperatures melt clathrates and tundra, releasing CO2 and methane? If so, GHG levels will rise more quickly. Will changing ocean acidity affect the water/air boundary, changing evaporation rates and/or release of cloud nucleation particles?
That's the sort of things people are working on now.
> Still, it leads to questions about who will win and lose. There are many
>who will seek to gain from these choices in policy.
Of course. That's happened with every new advance in our understanding, and with every advance in technology.
>I think it's where we are with climate science. It's not climate science -
>it's climate policy.
There is indeed climate policy. But as with your example with the Apollo program, there is a difference between climate policy and climate science. During Apollo, you had a buttload of pure science going on - the effects of hypersonic re-entry on conical bodies, fluid dynamics in the largest rocket engines ever built, trajectory calculation for various mission plans and abort scenarios. You also had a lot of policy decisions going on like "we have to beat the Russians!"
Likewise, today we still have a lot of basic research going on into how the climate works. We also have policy decisions being made about what to do with the information we have so far. Is it cost effective to reduce our CO2 output? If not, how much will it cost to deal with the results? Those are the policy as opposed to the science decisions being made.
Well, some does, some doesn't. Human genetics research has proven to be pretty lucrative, which is why biotech companies fund it. But I agree that much of it has no immediate profit motive.
>This is technology that would make a massive amount of money for
>the person or group that can create the process for doing it.
Agreed. But if there is basic research that only a large entity can do before it's even shown to be feasible, it might make sense to do it at a governmental level.
>The argument is that the greenhouse effect is well understood. This means
>it isn't basic science anymore. It is applied science, and the need for
>government funding is not as high as for basic science.
Well, the greenhouse effect itself is indeed well understood. But the question everyone wants answered now is "so what happens next?" We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know we're increasing its concentration, and we know that that will result in a forcing term that, all other things being equal, will warm up the planet. We've known that for decades.
Now the harder issues come into play. Will increased evaporation cause more cloud cover? If so, when? If it causes an increase in cloudiness at night we warm faster; if it causes an increase in cloudiness during the day we mitigate some of that warming.
Will increased CO2 levels cause more rapid carbonate formation? If so, then CO2 levels will 'level out' at some point as CO2 begins to be taken out as fast as we make it. Will increased temperatures melt clathrates and tundra, releasing CO2 and methane? If so, GHG levels will rise more quickly. Will changing ocean acidity affect the water/air boundary, changing evaporation rates and/or release of cloud nucleation particles?
That's the sort of things people are working on now.
> Still, it leads to questions about who will win and lose. There are many
>who will seek to gain from these choices in policy.
Of course. That's happened with every new advance in our understanding, and with every advance in technology.
>I think it's where we are with climate science. It's not climate science -
>it's climate policy.
There is indeed climate policy. But as with your example with the Apollo program, there is a difference between climate policy and climate science. During Apollo, you had a buttload of pure science going on - the effects of hypersonic re-entry on conical bodies, fluid dynamics in the largest rocket engines ever built, trajectory calculation for various mission plans and abort scenarios. You also had a lot of policy decisions going on like "we have to beat the Russians!"
Likewise, today we still have a lot of basic research going on into how the climate works. We also have policy decisions being made about what to do with the information we have so far. Is it cost effective to reduce our CO2 output? If not, how much will it cost to deal with the results? Those are the policy as opposed to the science decisions being made.
Quote>I don't recall making a claim that 'trillions in carbon credits (have) been traded'
You didn't. You said:
"carbon credit trading is estimated to be a several TRILLION dollar market"
Perhaps you meant "I think that carbon credit trading might be a trillion dollar market in the future." If so, fine; you can imagine whatever you choose there. But saying "FOLLOW THE MONEY!" to a market that's in your head doesn't really work.
fucking weak.
I can see how intellectual discussions will be this Friday. Good thing I'm tied up with an ugly project for most of it.
QuoteQuoteThe argument is that the greenhouse effect is well understood. This means it isn't basic science anymore.
Did you just inadvertantly admit that global warming is real, and that the science is settled?
No. It is why I stated "The argument is that the greenhouse effect is well understood." In a sense, yes. You can go to a lab, fill a void with CO2 and hit is with shortwave IR and measure the effect versus a standard atmosphere. That's pretty well settled.
On the other hand, when there is a "consensus" about AGW, that would be an argument that this is not basic science. Rather, it is applied science. Indeed, the "consensus" argument is inherently political.
I think that many of the components of AGW are well understood. The interaction of these components - hundreds or thousands - are not as understood as we would hope. What effect does a decrease in methane emissions have with a concomitant increase in CO2 on the rainfall totals of the eastern US? What does the rainfall do to prevailing winds? How does the seasonability of these prevailing affect albedo? How does this albedo affect stratospheric CO2 and black carbon? Etc. Etc. Etc.
I suggest that this is not well understood. I suggest that the individual factors of these equations are not well understood - particularly with the weight given to them. It's why I call climate models "hypotheses." The climate models make predictions that are testable against data in the future and based upon present understanding. I myself would find it disingenuous to say that the climate model's temperature for the year 2100 is "fact."
My point? They are in the realm of basic science, but there is argument in the realm of applied science. That's why there is advocacy of policy.
It's all I'm saying.
QuoteIf not then your argument that government shouldn't fund the research is kinda weak.
If so, then welcome to the rest of the world, enjoy your stay.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
brenthutch 444
Remember the good old days when the ice caps were shrinking and global temps were rising. The science was simple and settled. Green house gasses go in and temps go up. Simple thermodynamics.
But now as temps level off and drop, as sea ice starts to rebound, climate science has become very complex. “Yes there is more ice but it is bad ice“, “yes it is colder but it is a warmie sort of cold.” Very complicated indeed.
But now as temps level off and drop, as sea ice starts to rebound, climate science has become very complex. “Yes there is more ice but it is bad ice“, “yes it is colder but it is a warmie sort of cold.” Very complicated indeed.
brenthutch 444
billvon 3,120
>The science was simple and settled. Green house gasses go in and
>temps go up. Simple thermodynamics.
If you really think that, there are a few points you were missing back then.
>temps go up. Simple thermodynamics.
If you really think that, there are a few points you were missing back then.
brenthutch 444
Really? I don’t recall the Nobel prize laureate and Oscar winning luminary; Al Gore having a nuanced position on this matter.
kallend 2,150
QuoteQuoteBarring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_change_happening_before_your_eyes
Too bad for your theory that it did NOT, and is now more than 2SD below the "normal".
nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,120
> I don’t recall the Nobel prize laureate and Oscar winning luminary;
>Al Gore having a nuanced position on this matter.
"The same kind of positive feedback loops commonly occur in nature as well and must be reckoned with when we try to calculate the damage that can result from a given pattern in our relationship to the global environment. Some of these feedback loops are quite complex . . . some of the most powerful feedback loops involving the ocean are still matters of intense scientific inquiry."
>Al Gore having a nuanced position on this matter.
"The same kind of positive feedback loops commonly occur in nature as well and must be reckoned with when we try to calculate the damage that can result from a given pattern in our relationship to the global environment. Some of these feedback loops are quite complex . . . some of the most powerful feedback loops involving the ocean are still matters of intense scientific inquiry."
mnealtx 0
QuoteToo bad for your theory that it did NOT, and is now more than 2SD below the "normal".
nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Odd - the current (May 4) ice analysis page doesn't show that...I guess it helps when you can snag a day after the melt season has started to try to make a false premise, though.
QuoteOverview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent averaged 14.69 million square kilometers (5.67 square miles) for the month of April, just 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The rate of ice extent decline for the month was also close to average, at 41,000 kilometers (16,000 square miles) per day. As a result, April 2010 fell well within one standard deviation of the mean for the month, and posted the highest April extent since 2001.
Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, and slightly below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay, where ice extent remained below average all winter.
Conditions in context
The very late maximum ice extent, on March 31, means that the melt season started almost a month later later than normal.
As we noted in last month's post, the late growth in ice extent came largely from expansion in the southernmost Bering Sea, Barents Sea, and Sea of Okhotsk. These areas remained cool, with northeasterly and northwesterly winds, keeping the overall ice extent close to the average for the month of April.
April 2010 compared to past years
Average ice extent for April 2010 was 820,000 square kilometers (317,000 square miles) greater than the record low for April, observed in 2007, and 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) below the average extent for the month. The linear rate of decline for April over the 1979 to 2010 period is now 2.6% per decade.
All of that *despite*
QuoteContinued high temperatures in the Arctic
Despite the late ice growth, Arctic air temperatures remained persistently warmer than average throughout the winter and early spring season. April temperatures were about 3 to 4 degrees Celsius (5 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average across much of the Arctic Ocean, and up to 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal in northern Canada. Conditions in the Arctic were part of a trend of warmer temperatures worldwide in the past few months. An exception was the Sea of Okhotsk, where cool April conditions and northerly winds have slowed the rate of ice retreat. Visit the NASA GISS temperatures Web site for more information on global and Arctic temperatures over the past few months.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Did you just inadvertantly admit that global warming is real, and that the science is settled?
If not then your argument that government shouldn't fund the research is kinda weak.
If so, then welcome to the rest of the world, enjoy your stay.
- Dan G
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites