Monday, July 17, 2017

Climate, RCPs and Forecasts

Jerry is confusing me again... So here we go:
"The IPCC uses four different "Representative Concentration Pathways," (replacing the complex set of "scenarios" i.e. assumptions about what the future will bring) as far as human emissions are concerned. They make assumptions about population, economic growth, energy requirements and production, "carbon intensity" of that energy, etc. LOTS of assumptions, and put them in 4 general categories: RCP 8.5, 6.0, 4.5, and 2.6. [as I understand it, named after the "old" predictions of temperature rise for each] The 100-year warming predicted, based on those RCPs, range from 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C. [You see why I say their predictive value is worthless?] They then have a "standard" computer tool called MAGICC, which quickly calculates the results of any change to basic parameters, rather than run thousands of hours of computer calculations.

Read Lomborg's paper and you find that he used RCP 8.5 (the "business as usual" scenario) and MAGICC to get his answers, the same thing other researchers have done, and achieved the same result-- that Paris doesn't matter because human CO2 is relatively insignificant, as I have shown using very simple math. You can do it with the lower emissions scenarios-- 6.0, etc.-- but of course the impact of adding Paris is even smaller.

You simply have to get to the point where you believe the actual math rather than the hyperventilating politicians with vested interests in keeping this scare going. Even some of them will very quietly admit that Paris "doesn't do much" by itself and that "much more is needed" to keep temperature rise below 2 degrees (an increase many consider beneficial). Why should that be, when the average of the 100-year climate models is now 2.5 degrees and falling (because of better understanding of "climate sensitivity," for one thing), and is still above simple projections of the historical record?" Jerry
Now what one has to remember is that this Lomborg is a Political Science major who has been dubbed dishonest and unqualified.  Here is a description of the RCPs and the graphed results.


jerrye92002 said...

You are still unwilling to accept math based on who does the calculations. Even when they use the "official approved" calculation, you somehow believe the answers are wrong. And who is claiming Lomborg is "dishonest and unqualified"? Is it someone who is dishonest and unqualified? Is it simply possible that someone doesn't like the hoax being exposed for what it is? Many other people get the same answer, and simple math lets you confirm it yourself.

I'm glad you are confused. It is the first step in finding the truth.

John said...

Lomborg qualifications...

"Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994."

"After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was formally accused of scientific dishonesty by a group of environmental scientists, who brought a total of three complaints against him to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI). Lomborg was asked whether he regarded the book as a "debate" publication, and thereby not under the purview of the DCSD, or as a scientific work; he chose the latter, clearing the way for the inquiry that followed.[35] The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.

In January 2003, the DCSD released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question."

Apparently sometimes it is good to be unqualified...

John said...

If he was actually using the same formula with the same assumptions I would expect his graph to look the same as the IPCC's...

If it doesn't it means that something is different or someone is making an error.

I am betting the scientists got it correct and the Polly Sci major got the math wrong... That would be pretty typical.

John said...

Or are you saying that the graph above contains an error?

That would pretty impressive if you could correct the IPCC's graph using their assumptions and formulas. I am pretty sure a number of different scientists have ground those numbers.

jerrye92002 said...

OK, I can see your confusion. It is caused by the IPCC's graph containing the results of dozens of different climate models (and I think using multiple RCP's). What it shows is the really wild spread of these predictions, IMHO making them worthless. If I told you the Twins would score between 1 and 8 runs tonight, would you want to place a bet on the point spread?

Recreating that scattershot chart is not what Lomborg did. He used the same tool everybody else does, including the US EPA, and got the same answer. That tool, called MAGICC, takes you straight to the "average" curve, without the thousands of hours of computation (times the number of models) you would otherwise need. Of course the average of errors is still an error, but ignore that. And yes, when you graph it out, which I have seen many times (and I thought was in the paper), you find the curves with and without [cuts to] human contribution laying (almost) right on top of one another.

Count the grains of rice, and you will see why it must be so. Everything else is HYPE. And if you still insist Lomborg is wrong, then argue against what apparently is his very rigorous scientific methodology. Fault him, if you want, for publishing the results that everybody else got but were afraid to mention.

John said...

Sorry. I will trust the real scientists and not the political scientist...

You go ahead and trust who you wish.

jerrye92002 said...

"Trust"? Who said anything about trust? I am asking you to consider the hard scientific evidence, regardless of where you find it. The alarmists are simply trusting to blind faith in things they cannot know nor understand. Feel free to do likewise, but you are trusting politicians, not science.

John said...

These folks really do not look like politicians...

IPCC Organization Site

jerrye92002 said...

Sure they do.

"The Panel takes major decisions at Plenary Sessions of government representatives."

It is, after all, the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel. By definition, the "summary for policymakers" is a political document. A number of IPCC's own scientists have claimed that summary does not accurately reflect their work (and if you skim the full report you will see that is true). The "certainty" of the summary is not backed up by the actual science and is not a mathematical certainty. In fact, the mathematical certainty is almost the reverse-- that we can be 95% confident the models are wrong, and the models are predicated on total CO2 being the "control dial" for global temperature. If the models are wrong, isn't that very basic assumption wrong? Or are you claiming the observations are wrong?

And if the models themselves show that manmade CO2 is a trivial contributor, then you have a choice of believing the models are right and CO2 is not a problem, or that the models are wrong and CO2 is not a problem. Take your pick.

John said...

As usual we will need to agree to disagree.

jerrye92002 said...

So, you disagree with the science? DENIER!

John said...

Yep that's me.

Ignore the expert summary documents, and instead strive to make the formulas and factors show my pre-conceived opinion.

jerrye92002 said...

A) they are not "expert" summary documents. B) you are dismissing the forumulas and factors in favor of your opinion.

What is it going to take for you to admit that the whole narrative is a house of cards, that doomsday scenarios have no basis in scientific fact (it being impossible to accurately predict the future), and that political solutions to a supposed problem do not address the problem they purport to solve?

John said...

I am not interested in "doomsday scenarios" and I don't think many people are.

The concern for most of us is the likelihood that billions of others will possibly suffer because we energy hogs were too cheap and selfish to use cleaner forms of energy:

- be it people who live near the oceans
- or people who live near the equator (ie hot already)
- or Minnesotans who likely will need to deal with a new variety of pests and critters as our winters become more mild

We can easily afford to develop and use cleaner forms of energy, the technology is within our grasp and yet folks like yourself insist that we keep using fuels as if we were cave men shivering to stay warm.

And I am assuming you did not review the list of people who have to approve of what is published by the IPCC... Then again it seems you believe that you know more than them.

jerrye92002 said...

Ah, now we are making progress. Let me ask this: What scientific evidence do you have that all of these negative consequences are the result of "unclean energy" and not entirely (or almost entirely) natural? You are conflating "global warming" and "manmade global warming" and you cannot logically or scientifically do that with no evidence.

And if your only concern is reducing CO2 emissions, aren't you taking away from those "billions of people" the benefits of higher food production and the lower number of deaths from extreme cold?

"We can easily afford to develop and use cleaner forms of energy, the technology is within our grasp..." You keep saying that, but the evidence is abundantly clear that we do NOT have the technology. In fact, to even refer to wind and solar as "cleaner" energy says that you believe CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, which we can prove it is not. It is essential to life on the planet, and the insignificant amount not put into the atmosphere by these sources is... insignificant. You do know that the "availability factor" for Minnesota wind is about 35%, and for solar it is about 14%? That means for every windmill Megawatt you install, you have to install a gas-fired generator to run the other 65% of the time. And for solar it is 85% of the time! Hardly worth doing. Sure, the "fuel" is free, but the capital costs are double. And it won't matter to the climate. Find a technology that produces cheap, /reliable/ power and we'll all buy it happily. If it doesn't emit CO2 and you care about that, I'm happy for you.

There ARE technologies out there but they are not yet "within our grasp" as economically feasible or scaleable. One of my favorites is the U of Ohio process that doubles the amount of energy available from a given amount of coal. CO2 is halved (which they cite as the major benefit) but, hey, the cost of the electricity is cut in half! THAT is worth doing. And of course nuclear power is really the best bet in current technologies and THAT could be vastly improved.

John said...

Well since the RCPs are focused around man made variables.

And the graphs change based on the RCPs.

It seems the experts are pretty convince that you are incorrect.

As for... "And if your only concern is reducing CO2 emissions, aren't you taking away from those "billions of people" the benefits of higher food production and the lower number of deaths from extreme cold? "

First of all the vast majority of humans live where there is no "extreme cold"... Dated but seems relevant So that is a minimal issue. And since the wind is often blowing in those areas it seems this is non-factor.

Secondly, as I linked to somewhere in the past. CO2 is not a significant factor in the limitation of food production. As we noted, my farmer friend add many fertilizers but no CO2.. And if storms / droughts do intensify in certain areas that will pretty much undo any gain made through having more CO2 available.

jerrye92002 said...

OK, you have forced me to do some digging. I found one source which discusses all of the studies of the Paris accords (including many, many variations on expectations of what countries will promise and what they will actually do, but unfortunately they do not tell me what the REDUCTION in temperature is going to be, only what the total rise will be. Interestingly, most of them already assume that every country is already meeting its promised reductions from Kyoto, Rio, etc., which is simply a fantasy. It appears scarce, but there is at least one source letting you use the MAGICC model (from the EPA) to do rough reduction calculations for yourself:

And that lends credence to Lomborg's more extensive paper using the same model:
Impact of Climate proposals

As for your other subject: The vast majority of humans do not live where there is extreme heat, either, yet overall, cold kills more people than heat does. And if wind was the answer, McMurdo Base in Antarctica would be perfect, since the wind blows all the time. But it still requires a diesel supplement, and oil for heat. Notice that these are much smaller windmills because of the extreme conditions, but essential because they are VERY "off the grid." For those sorts of uses these alternative energy sources may be effective choices. Of course, home nuclear generators would be better. They are simply NOT good solutions where there is ready access to reliable grid power from conventional sources.

CO2 isn't put on plants by farmers because they depend on the Earth providing it for free, like they depend on the SUN. It's just there. Sure, there are a few places where we use grow-lights, and likewise we have a few places where CO2 is artificially pumped in to increase plant growth (there's a whole body of literature describing which plants benefit most). NASA already reports a remarkable "greening of the Earth" visible from satellites. And again, increased CO2 not only stimulates growth it reduces water requirements, so we can grow crops in marginal areas that we could not before, and the increased greenery absorbs more CO2, and the world balances out, just like it has for millions of years.

And let's talk about those RCPs for a bit. If you look at definitions, you find that that they are named, not for the expected temperature rise as I thought, but for the closely-related "forcing factor" assumed to result from all of the dozens of other assumptions standardized into each of these cases. Again, the MAGICC model was created to replicate the results of the complex climate models without the thousands of hours of computer time involved. So, again from the definitions, we see that, depending on all the underlying assumptions, the climate models (and MAGICC) predict that year 2100 temperatures will be somewhere between 0.3 and 4.8 degrees higher. If I told you I was certain the Vikings would win their next game because they would almost certainly score between 3 and 48 points, would you bet on them, or against them?