the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Lazy Redux – part Deux!!

Posted by Jeff Id on December 16, 2010

So in my last lazy post I asked, What is the amount of warming you expect for the next 100 years?  Thirty five comments before morning..

LOL,

There were so many opinions, many with statistically significant trends.  I wonder how it is that someone like me who reads endless papers blog’s and opinions hasn’t worked it out?  Still I wonder further, by your own numbers do those who had statistically significant or insignificant trends, has a clear scientific reason why..

Of course there were plenty of just plain funny comments but really I’m curious what drives people to conclusion where I can find none?

62 Responses to “Lazy Redux – part Deux!!”

  1. Carl Gullans said

    This is similar to asking what the US CPI inflation rate will be, say, 5 years from now. you’d get answers from -1% to 10%, all based on varying assumptions and outright guesses. Sure, we have models for inflation based on certain variables, similar to how we have GCMs, but nobody really can know the answer.

  2. Don B said

    In the stock market, appropriate valuation measures predict future, say, 7 to 12 year, total returns (with error bars, of course), but anyone with any sense knows the short term is unknowable, as it is as chaotic as the weather. While I try to invest based on the better probabilities, I am quite willing to guess with the rest of the world about the short term, indulging in the gambling instinct to some degree.

    In my view, the climate of the next 100 years is more unknowable than the short term stock market or autumn’s weather in year 2013, but that does not prevent idle speculation of what it might be.

  3. Greg. Cavanagh said

    Thats easy; you not only read but do the math as well. Your too much on the inside to see the trends that are obvious to us who are looking in from the outside.

    I’m being silly of course :)
    As are those who provided accurate guesses…I’m sure…

  4. M Simon said

    One hundred years out is tough. And I probably won’t be here to see the result.

    I can do a fair job for the next twenty or thirty years – cooling.

    But the kicker is the coming (is it?) ice age. No one has any definite ideas that are widely accepted about what triggers one.

  5. Jeroen B. said

    (delurks)

    All I can offer up is a warning that comes with investment/loan commercials here:

    “Warning: Past results are no guarantee for the future”

    It’s the same for climate. Nobody knows. (And those who claim to know should be treated similarly to those who claim immense returns on stock investments…) We can make educated guesses, we can hedge bets by predicting defensively, but we don’t know what it will be like in N years time until N years have passed.

    I don’t know either; I’m just an interested citizen who rolled into the blogosphere thanks to an excellent book called “Hockey Stick Illusion” — but I’m trying to make sense of it all … and this place (among others) does help!

    (relurks)

  6. Rick Bradford said

    If there are no trends that can be predicted to last 100 years, then you must take as the best guess that things will be about the same as they are now.

  7. Gigih said

    visit my blog, please!

  8. Dallas said

    That is a good question. I got nothing. It is funny to see scientists say things like 130% of AGW is due to CO2 and black carbon. Must be the new math.

  9. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Jeff,

    Is that a trick question?

    Some warming from GHG’s would seem inevitable, even if it can’t be easily quantified. If you assume that most of the rise in temperature in the last century was due to the forcing from GHG’s, then continued increases in GHG’s and continued warming (roughly in proportion to the applied future forcing) seem likely. If you assume some other cause for all or a large fraction of the warming in the last century, then you could reasonably expect less warming in the future. Of course, if that is the case, then it would be nice to know what the other cause(s) was (were), and the mechanism(s) involved. Assigning all (or nearly all) of the warming of the last century to forcing by GHG’s represents a reasonable ‘wost-case’ for projecting future warming. What seems most unlikely are the extreme sensitivities to GHG forcing claimed by many climate scientists; these are simply not supported by the data unless you assume extreme values for aerosol off-sets and ocean heat accumulation.

  10. David S said

    Must have been a trick question, since nobody knows, and we will not be here to see it. I thought we were just supposed to guess like the real climate scientists do.

  11. GregO said

    Jeff,

    I was very tempted to take a shot at the temperature over the next 100 years – but I am conflicted – is it:

    Scenario A) Cooling – Grand Minimum – Eddy/Landsheidt solar minimum – Little Ice age or even worse the big Kahuna; a real snowball-earth ice-age

    Scenario B) Business-as-usual

    Scenario C) A bit of warming

    Scenario D) Catastrophic warming

    A) The more I read, the more I watch, the more I am beginning to think that Earth heats up and wets up a bit then suddenly chills-out; drys out; bad things happen to humanity. Is that happening now? I haven’t the vaguest idea-but I’m not a specialist and it could be happening. Stay tuned.

    B) Why not?

    C) Right on. Nice weather for the grandkids.

    D) I don’t even know what that means anymore. I live in the desert and jog with the dogs at 118 deg F no problem. Drink water. Sea level rise? Run for high ground. Greenland ice melting? So what. Expand farming/mining/manufacturing in Greenland. As far as it’s likelihood (catastrophic warming) there is absolutely no credible evidence to believe that is happening; or will happen; and all the exaggerated claims that the terrible heat is coming are fodder for comedy.

  12. jknapp said

    Of course none of know, however, if you accept the “Wisdom of Crowds” ideas then all of us know a bit about the subject and if we all pool our thoughts then the resulting prediction will contain more information than any one of us can possibly have. To do this would require someone to set up a market so that our guesses and our certainty can be assessed and compiled. You know like, I bet 10 Quantloo’s that the temperature will rise 1.2F degrees by year 2100.

    There are websites that set up such markets.

  13. RB said

    #12, for wisdom of crowds to work well, you need 3 conditions – a diversity of opinion, a method of aggregation and incentive. The first two are met easily, if the last incentive is something like “I just don’t want you to lay your redistributive Govt hand on my money” crowds will not turn out to be very wise.

  14. Jeff Id said

    “I just don’t want you to lay your redistributive Govt hand on my money” crowds will not turn out to be very wise.”

    Sounds pretty wise to me!

  15. RB said

    If wise is defined as “what is the temperature rise after 100 years” …

  16. Luis Dias said

    Of course there were plenty of just plain funny comments but really I’m curious what drives people to conclusion where I can find none?

    You, sir, are denying the sheer power of making-stuff-up?

    You asked my opinion, I gave you one. Of course, my opinion should be degraded with a +-10ºC just for the fact that I’m an ignorant fool about the earth’s climate.

    Now, if you want to be real scientific about this, you should just average all results and publish them in the literature as a MSUGCM – “Making-Sh.. Stuff-Up Global Climate Model” so that it can be placed among the model ensemble of the next IPCC report.

    Jeesh. You could have warned me you were serious on that last lazy post.

  17. Luis Dias said

    That is a good question. I got nothing. It is funny to see scientists say things like 130% of AGW is due to CO2 and black carbon. Must be the new math.

    Dunno where you got this, but it’s no exotic math. It’s quite simple really. You have a 130% of the observed warming affected by black carbon and co2, which comes back to 100% once you discount cooling effects by the aerossols and etc.

    You may disagree with it, but to say it’s math nonsense is nonsensical.

  18. Tom Fuller said

    Just six or seven months ago I think I would have provided a best guess for this question. I no longer think I can.

  19. Ryan O said

    I was too lazy to come up with a prediction . . . and am now too lazy to come up with an explanation as to why I was too lazy to come up with a prediction.

    So there.

    :D

  20. kuhnkat said

    Excellent job Ryan!!

  21. Kenneth Fritsch said

    #12, for wisdom of crowds to work well, you need 3 conditions – a diversity of opinion, a method of aggregation and incentive. The first two are met easily, if the last incentive is something like “I just don’t want you to lay your redistributive Govt hand on my money” crowds will not turn out to be very wise.

    RB, I hope you see both sides of the coin here. What if the incentive were like: “well I see no harm and actually much good in the the redistributive or any other king of government getting involved”? I personally think that government involvement with attempts to mitigate AGW would be a disaster from unintended consequences and with the medicine worst than any potential disease. I would honestly have to answer Jeff’s temperature question with I do not know. Odds might be higher for it to go up some unknown amount than to go down or stay the same. I sincerely would not want to see it decline.

  22. curious said

    19 Ryan – “lazy” or “wise”?! :-)

  23. Carrick said

    Jeff, here is how I come up with my numbers:

    1) We know the “no-feedback” sensitivity from the added CO2 is around 1-1.2°C/CO2 doubling (I define “no feedback” as the sensitivity of a cloudless planet with a moist atmosphere.. e.g., 7°C/km adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere). 2) We know that increasing temperature increases the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere. This gives a range of environmental sensitivities from 2-4°C/doubling. 3) Preindustrial levels were around 280 ppm, current are around 390, doubling from preindustrial is 560 ppm. Dt = 2.5-0.5+1.5 °C/doubling (asymmetric errors) * log(580/390) = 0.75 to 1.5 °C (most probably value is 0.9°C). 4) 0.4°C increase from decrease sulfates is a guestimate (actually closer to an upper bound). The negative forcing from the increase in sulfates from preindustrial to now gives roughly a -0.5°C temperature change. Return to preindustrial levels (nearly) will give about a 0.4°C increase. But assigning any number to this is a WAG.

    Beyond that there are forcings that I have no way to characterize. Based on current solar science, solar cycle fluctuations can give at most ±0.2°C. Then there are effects of climate on clouds, on the hadley cells and a slew of other problems that aren’t fully addressed.

  24. Carrick said

    RB:

    #12, for wisdom of crowds to work well, you need 3 conditions – a diversity of opinion, a method of aggregation and incentive. The first two are met easily, if the last incentive is something like “I just don’t want you to lay your redistributive Govt hand on my money” crowds will not turn out to be very wise.

    It also won’t work if the incentive is something like “redistributing wealth will lead to a more just society.”

    I’d dare to say there are at least as many who operate from this incentive as those who operative from the “keep your hands off my money” movement.

  25. Carrick said

    On #23, I would also say I don’t actually expect it to peak at 560 ppm (probably closer to 500 ppm). That drops by 0.5°C the maximum expected warming from anthropogenic activity.

  26. AJ said

    I’m curious what drives people to conclusion where I can find none?

    I’d say capriciousness, tenuous assumptions, and/or misplaced faith. Count me in! Here’s my response to your original question:

    Based on linear regressions that I have done, I get an “apparent” sensitivity to a doubling of co2 of about 2C using the surface record and about 1C using the satellite record. Since your question doesn’t concern itself with the “real” sensitivity, the heat in the pipeline doesn’t matter in this analysis. I do, however, have to make the tenuous assumption that the rate of deposit into and withdrawal from the pipeline have the same shape (i.e. linearly increasing rate, quadratic accumulation).

    My preferred model (again tenuous) for co2 growth is to increase emissions linearly and to absorb excess co2 concentrations at a constant percentage. This gives a co2 concentration of about 600ppm in 100 years.

    So based on the above, I get 0.62C [LN(600/390)/LN(2)] warning given an apparent 1C sensitivity and 1.24C for an apparent 2C sensitivity. So I’ll wager 1C +/- .5C.

  27. RB said

    Yeah, I deliberately picked an example of choice, but noise in both directions won’t cancel out to yield a useful number.

  28. Dallas said

    Dallas
    “That is a good question. I got nothing. It is funny to see scientists say things like 130% of AGW is due to CO2 and black carbon. Must be the new math.”

    Luis
    “Dunno where you got this, but it’s no exotic math. It’s quite simple really. You have a 130% of the observed warming affected by black carbon and co2, which comes back to 100% once you discount cooling effects by the aerossols and etc.

    Dallas again,

    Luis,

    I guess you had to be there. My logic is this:

    All man-made warming sources would be 100% of the AGW. Manmade cooling would be AGC. CO2 would contribute less than 100% of the warming. So the case over at Dr. Curry’s site were CO2 contributes 67% of the warming is not incorrect given the three positive components.

    Of all man-made contributions to climate change (Forcings both positive and negative), if CO2 is 3, BC is 1, Strat H2O is 0.5 and aerosols is -1.5, the total forcing is 6, so CO2 would be 50% of the total man-made forcing impacting climate (neglecting any form of feedback of course.) This statement is not incorrect considering only the four values given.

    By subtracting (adding the negative aerosols), the three denominator (net forcing) is a meaningless term. But if you use it, CO2 = 100%, BC= 33%, Strat H2 = 17% and aerosols = -50% ,so CO2 contributes 100% of the what? It is not warming, because there are three warming components. It is not 100% of the total of man-made forcing. The three denominator is the net man-made forcing which happens to be positive. CO2 is not 100% of the net forcing, it just happens to be equal to the net forcing given the four values.

    Just for grins, say the ROW keeps building coal plants, scrubs most of the black carbon and finds vast resources of high sulfur coal. In this scenario, CO2 is 3, BC is 0.0, Strat H20 is 0.5 and aerosols are -3.0. Then CO2 would be 86% of the man-made warming components. CO2 would be 46% of the total man-made forcing impacting climate. Using the net forcing (3.0+0.0+0.5+(-3)) in the denominator, CO2 would contribute 600%, BC =0%, Strat H2O=100% and aerosols=-600% of whatever.

    Dividing by the net forcing may not be nonsensical math, but it can lead to a nonsensical discussion.

    dallas

    You may disagree with it, but to say it’s math nonsense is nonsensical.”

  29. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Yeah, I deliberately picked an example of choice, but noise in both directions won’t cancel out to yield a useful number.

    I am not clear here on whether your point is that a political POV can overwhelmingly influence your thinking on predictive climate. If that is the point, would not you be rather uncomfortable with the current consensus amongst climate scientists?

  30. Spen said

    Despite the statements that the ‘science is settled, move along please’ I think on the basis of current knowledge it must be 50/50 warmer/cooler, although it does depend on whether you have one zero or a double zero on the board. For sure it will be different in 2105 than it is in 2115. A bit like a white Christmas I suppose. However, I suppose we will still have a bunch of halfwit politicians spending our money and telling us what to think.

  31. RB said

    Ken,
    I don’t know if your point is that academics are mostly left-leaning and therefore, climate scientists too, but I’m not sure if you are saying that we should be uncomfortable with all of academic science all of which have a consensus at any given time. If so, no. At least there are methods of analysis to criticize and the method works enough outside of the hard sciences for conservative economists (e.g., Greg Mankiw) who recognize when Keynesianism works and liberal economists (e.g., Mark Thoma) who recognize the beneficial side of tax cuts. Obviously there are failure but even the betting markets assigned an 80% probability that WMD would be found . Quatloo wagering or 100-year bets though is not incentive enough for the non-academic population. The best I can think of is the catastrophe bond market , although I can’t really envision how.

  32. Carrick said

    RB:

    Obviously there are failure but even the betting markets assigned an 80% probability that WMD would be found .

    This is what happens when the data aren’t available for public review, and the people providing the data have an incentive to find something interesting.

    That’s a problem with classified/proprietary data in general.

    “The wisdom of the crowd” is like humans acting as a massive biological computer. The GIGO principle applies there as well as any place else.

  33. RB said

    Carrick #32, I don’t believe it is entirely analogous when there is also the incentive to “prove oneself at the expense of others” – therefore there is a much better approximation of the conditions for wisdom of crowds within the academic community. I know many believe that this is superseded by the fear of losing funding, but since the science has been more or less the same through various administrations, the funding authority for science is not quite analogous to the C-in-C executing on the basis of “the data not available for public review.”

  34. Carrick said

    RB:

    the funding authority for science is not quite analogous the C-in-C executing on the basis of “the data not available for public review

    I’m thinking of something more along the lines of the data aren’t reliable because they aren’t available to the same level of scrutiny and the data providers have an inherent conflict of interest in providing data that are “whazzam!”. I wasn’t suggesting that the CNC makes decisions that are counter to his (or the country’s) best interest because they aren’t available for public review (I realize some would make that argument), rather he is generally working with the “best intentions” on data that have an inherently flawed method for collection.

    The media deals with this same conflict as the intel services do (the tension between the truth and a sellable story).

  35. Bruce of Newcastle said

    Empirical 2XCO2 has been determined by Spencer and others to be in the range 0.4-0.6 K.

    I thought I’d cross check this by a quick and dirty method. If you take global SST anomaly as an arguably UHI and soot-free dataset you will see the anomaly trend is about 0.4 K/century over 160 years (Tisdale, Fig 8). This means the upper bound for 2XCO2 is roughly 0.4/(110/390)= 1.4 K. So now discount this because TSI peaked late in the millenium and a value of 0.6 K looks much more like the real value than the numbers the GCM’s seem to use.

    As soon as you see 2XCO2 is more like 0.6 K rather than 3 K you then have to ask “what else is contributing to the temperature anomaly record”, and at that point suddenly you’ve become a climate sceptic.

    And then you look at the current F10.7 data and you go buy some woolly jumpers.

  36. AusieDan said

    When economists make considered forecasts about the future, they usually end their submission with the wise statement “all other things being equal”, which means that they expect that their forecast will proved to be really accurate, providing all the assumptions and interactions that they hav estimated, prove to be really accurate and that there will be no unexpected or overlooked factors that make the estimate wildly inaccurate.

    The Australian treasury have been making forecasts of economic growth, at least since the end of WWII and probably ever since Keynes earth breaking “General Theory” was published in 1936.

    They re-do their forecasts at the six months mark.
    They have on occasion failed to even get the direction of change correct, when someting unexpected happens in the ensuind 180 days.

    Now climate and the economy are both chaotic systems, but economists at least are beginnig to understand what the main influences are in their field.

    Do all you good people making numerical forecasts not understand the implications of chaotic systems and the true underlying meaning of “unknown unknowns” which are not even built into your models?

    Please read Hamlet’s advice to his good friend Horatio, which I thought I could still quote but cannot.

    My very best response to Jeff’s question is that the answer is not only unknown but unknowable.

  37. AusieDan said

    Oh yes, I understand that weather is not climate and that many climatologists agree that weather is chaotic and unforecastable, except for a brief time into the future.
    But the climate is quite different they say, despite being just a conglomeration of a number of short term weather events.

    But I repeat my question – do you not understand the underlying nature of chaotic systems?
    There are cycles upon cycles upon cycles in the climate, with the average period of each layer getting larger and larger, up to billions of years in length.
    Having a very few centuries of weather data, we have no knowledge of the full range of possibilities.

    In fact, the climate has been remarkably stable since daily record keeping began.
    I will therefore make a bold forecast, which unfortunately I will not be here to see if it is correct or not.

    It is more likely than not, that the climate in 100 years hence will be wetter or dryer; and hotter or colder; with more or less number and strength of serious storms; than at present; or perhaps just less variable than we have become used to.

    But more of the same OR more of the same plus or minus any impact of human CO2 emissions – I think NOT.

  38. kim said

    Re: TF @ #18.

    Got the Kutsoyisannis Kooties, huh, Tom?
    ==================

  39. kim said

    er, Kutsoyiannis doesn’t need the ‘sanis’ part in it. That’s intrinsic in him and goes without saying.
    ============

  40. Jimmy Haigh said

    It doesn’t matter what the temperature will be in 100 years time – there is bugger all we can do about it anyway. Personally I think it will be a lot colder. But I may be wrong.

  41. curious said

    31, 32 RB, Carrick – you’ve reminded me of a book I should add to my Christmas list:

    RB – your firstlink doesn’t work for me – I’d be interested to see who the 80% expecting WMD were?

  42. kim said

    #s 31, 32 & 4l. Fear of Persia provoked Saddam into maintaining the illusion that he had WMD. He certainly had the will to them, and was gaining the means.
    ===============

  43. RB said

    Curious:
    Here’s the link
    /www.lmcm.com/pdf/HarryP.pdf

  44. RB said

    This should look better:

    http://www.lmcm.com/pdf/HarryP.pdf

  45. Carrick said

    Kim:

    Fear of Persia provoked Saddam into maintaining the illusion that he had WMD. He certainly had the will to them, and was gaining the means.

    You forget his own restless Kurdish and Shi’ite populations.

  46. kim said

    Ah, yes, Carrick, but Saddam had, shall we say, many other means by which to manage domestic restlessness. For the Persians he had to wave the gigantic light sword he so earnestly wished and worked for.
    ==============

  47. Kenneth Fritsch said

    therefore there is a much better approximation of the conditions for wisdom of crowds within the academic community.

    RB, that is a bit of a fuzzy statement, but I guess it means that that the “conditions” are more optimum for obtaining “wisdom” in the towers than on the streets. I am wondering if wisdom might sometimes mean stating: we just do not know or our predictions have these large error bands and that perhaps it is a failure to admit uncertainty that is at the root of the problem of mixing politics/advocacy with science.

    I do like your reference to “crowds” within the academic community as it connotes a show of hands or a polling of the “experts” which is rather an unscientific approach to a science. The so-called consensus on AGW, and particularly its consequences, comes out of a polling of experts in the field, but as it turns out many of the experts are so specialized that they are not as aware of some of the science in other areas as those “citizen” scientists who blog. What they raise their hand for than becomes suspect as determined by their advocacy position.

    That a conservative and liberal economist can agree on a fundamental policy issue would come as no surprise to a socialist or libertarian economist, who would already have shown how similar are their ascribed philosophies.

  48. BillyBob said

    My guess: Down 5C from today. This interglacial is coming to an end. CO2 won’t save us.

  49. harrywr2 said

    Well I know the warming won’t be 2 degree’s C because the rent seekers in Cancun lowered the definition of ‘dangerous warming’ from 2 degrees C to 1.5 degrees C.

  50. RB said

    Ken,
    I meant that there exists for those academic scientists the incentive to advance knowledge which can get us closer to the truth, but I think you like to interpret it differently. Those of the citizen scientists who are following this deeply and keeping up with the literature in the field, an extremely fraction of the vocal blogosphere, are after a while in my opinion on par with many in the field as well – something that cannot even be said of Nobel-caliber physicists on the skeptic side.

  51. John Norris said

    re: ” … but really I’m curious what drives people to conclusion where I can find none?”

    So if you are saying we need more / better data, I’m with you.

  52. curious said

    43 RB – thanks, I enjoyed that paper! I’d be interested if any of the statistical types who read here have any comments on the experimental design of the music labs experiment. I’m wondering if they should have had two independent world groups to see if they performed the same as each other. As it was an unbounded group of twice the sample size of the social groups I’m not sure this is exactly the same thing. Also re: the WMD – I’m not sure what to make of that 80% figure – whoever tradesports were they no longer exist so I can’t really form a view on who it represented and of how representative it was. All I can say is, following along from UK media coverage, I’d have put the expectation much much lower.

  53. Kenneth Fritsch said

    something that cannot even be said of Nobel-caliber physicists on the skeptic side.

    You make a good point here and one I made to my brother, the lawyer, who read what the physicist (I think you have in mind) had to say (and his critics). My point to him was much the same as I am making to you and that is that I have heard brilliant scientists outside the field (climate science) making comments that completely miss the more nuanced situation which I judge exists. That happens on all sides of the climate science issues, but I think with the general consensus that exists when a skeptic scientist steps into it we are more likely to hear about it. I strongly suspect that specialists within the climate science community have some of the same problems with other specialists areas in climate science and just as a brilliant physicist can miss the point so can a brilliant climate science specialist.

    Judith Curry eluded to a similar point in that she more or less confessed to accepting what other scientists had to say about AGW because, well, they were scientists. How many times do we hear that a gaggle of Nobel, or at least prominent, scientists have agreed on an issue that is hardly in their field or specialty, but all the same we are expected to view that as something near conclusive on the matter. Most times it says more about their political leanings than any great insights they may have.

    The incentive of the scholar it would appear is to push the boundaries in his specialized field and he can easily get “lost” in that effort with regards to obtaining more generalized knowledge and even having a world view. That is not to say that all scholars or even specialist scholars are lost and, in fact, a goodly number are no doubt in the mold of the Renaissance Man/Woman.

    I incorrectly posted this diatribe on “the paper” thread. I must admit that us lazy posters should get with it and post on the paper thread. I am through the paper on a couple of reads and hope to have some half-way intelligent questions to ask there.

  54. Gigih said

    Thanks the article, this article in this blog is long and rich

  55. Carrick said

    Kim:

    Ah, yes, Carrick, but Saddam had, shall we say, many other means by which to manage domestic restlessness. For the Persians he had to wave the gigantic light sword he so earnestly wished and worked for.

    You’re right of course, but remember he used that gigantic light on his own people too… The 1990s (post invasion) there was a lot of instability, an uprising in the south and the near splintering of the Kurdistans in the north. Whether it was a bluff, or he really had it as a weapon to use in the event of an uprising, it does seem that he used the threat of WMD against his own people as well as his many enemies in other countries….

  56. KuhnKat said

    Kim,

    You are stating that after Saddam gassed the Iranians and his own people he got rid of all his chemical weapons??

    What about the binary artillery shells found by our allies in Iraq that were not marked as chemical weapons??

    What about the 10+ tons of yellowcake and the 1.5 tons of low level enriched uranium that he kept laying around along with a well maintained mothballed nuclear research facility?

    What about the chemical labs found by our troops that have again made the news with Wikileaks??

    What about the scientist that brought in biologic agents he had been made to hide in his refrigerator before the invasion?

    What about the scientist who brought in a difficult to produce part of a centrifuge he was made to bury in his back yard?

    What about the hundreds of barrels of organophosphates found in bunkers on the edges of munitions dumps that were apparently a mix of formulations, degraded from sitting in the heat, and declared to be insecticide? (seriously, a number of these dumps were in the desert. They would need thousands of gallons of insecticide?? snicker)

    Finally, where is there any evidence at all of the destruction of the tons of old mustard and nerve agents Sadam was known to have had?? The US had to build an expensive burning plant and run it for a number of years to get rid of ours. Easy to track down. Bury it in the desert? Satellite photos. Pour it down the drain?? Well, there were some anomalous readings in the rivers for a while that may have been small amounts of materials being dumped. Still, with all the records found there has never been anything suggesting the destruction of his KNOWN supplies.

    Finally, do you remember the Web Site they decided to post all those Iraqi documents on so the public could help translate them? Remember that they closed it down when someone translated and reposted the plans for a nuclear weapon from it??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Sorry, the tired old story that Sadam was just pretending doesn’t make it in a real world.

  57. kim said

    #s 55 & 56, KK&C

    We agree violently. Furthermore, I suspect that Saddam sent $3 Billion to Khadaffi to develop a nuke program for him, a program that was abruptly terminated after we settled Saddam’s hash. Yellowcake was available just over an unpatrolled border between Libya and Niger.

    Free Scooter Libby. Well, free him to practice law again.
    =====================

  58. Rob R said

    Mostly I agree with Kenneth Fritsch. Especially with scientists who specialize but have limited knowledge outside their own specialist area.

    For me I would prefer to have a stab at a prediction for my own geographic region (South Island, New Zealand) while recogising that climate and weather seem to act more like a range-bound random walk than something predictable. So in my local area I expect +/- 0.3 deg C change in the mean annual on-land surface temperature between now and 2100. Here the historic change since the mid 1950’s is around +0.2 deg C or so. Given an interannual variation of around 1.5 deg C, the actual trend from 1950 to 2010 is indistinguishable from zero (my humble opinion). The rest of the world is too big to contemplate and globally the historic temperature measurements are not sufficiently well quality controlled to be reliable.

  59. curious said

    56, 57 I don’t know about all that – I’ve only read S3 of this but it makes the CIA sound like the IPCC:

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

    Mind you they share an interest in the climate issue:

    https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html

    and of course they have an historical interest too from the days before the IPCC when the southerly displacement of the arctic polar vortex was the issue:

    http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

  60. Joel Upchurch said

    I did a least square regression for the last 30 years of temperature data for UAH, RSS, HADCRU and GISS. When I projected them ahead to 2100, it turned out all 4 indexes gave the same answer to 1/4 a degree centigrade. Since temperature is a logarithmic response to C02, I figured predicting a range from 1 to 2 degrees centigrade would cover an enormous range of different emission scenarios.

  61. MarkB said

    I’m with Rick above – if you don’t know, then guess that tomorrow – or 100 years from now – will be the same as today.

  62. Bart said

    Future (equilibrium) warming depends on the product of climate sensitivity and net forcing (actual warming will be less due to inertia in the climate system).

    Taking a plausible number (or better, range) for both leads to a plausible conclusion. The future net forcing is hard to predict because it depends on what people will be doing over the next 90 years, but taking likely scenario’s in mind one can at least make “if…then…” statements.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: