This is GeoffBeacon's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following GeoffBeacon's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
WILDFIRES NOT IN THE CMIP5 MODELS I'm embarrassed to admit that I have just read the reply from AbruptSLR to a letter from the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change that I posted on the ASIF last December. The reply points to a thread AbruptSLR provided early last year.,41.0.html There are three postings about wildfires. There is also a thread on the ASIF that I started about missing feedbacks in the CMIP5 computer models.,610.html This starts ... "I have been asked to provide information on missing climate feedbacks to my MP. I hope this a good place for to compile a list. Please help. Starting with a more forest fires melting permafrost increased decomposition of wetlands" The thread ends with an acknowledgement by the UK Parliamentary Office Of Science and Technology ... "Some commentators suggest the uncertainties in our knowledge of carbon cycle and physical feedbacks may mean the Earth will warm faster than models currently estimate." I suppose I will have to find the energy to do battle with them again ... more pings with no echoes - depressing, very depressing.
Toggle Commented Jul 19, 2014 on ASI 2014 update 5: low times at Arctic Sea Ice
Francesco, Sorry, I should have addressed my last post to Jon. Hans You make a good point but I worry about taking economists on at their own game: Most of them are well behind on the climate science. Last Wednesday I attended a presentation on IPCC WG2 and WG3 organised by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. The co-chairs of both working groups gave presentations. They seemed to be taking the projections of WG1 (The Physical Science Basis)as solid but when they were challenged they didn't seem to be sure. Chris Field (WG2 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) did then talk about "low probability, high impact events". Otto Edenhofer's presentation as co-chair of WG3 (Mitigation of Climate Change) showed several scenario's from the climate modelling of WG1. The presentation gave the superficial impression that these scenarios were accurate. Many of us worry about the under-performance of these (CMIP5) models because of missing feedbacks. We also worry about "high impact events" that may not be of sufficiently "low probability" to give the world a good chance of survival. In my experience, reinforced by this meeting, those downstream of the climate science, particularly economists (e.g. Otto Edenhofer), give too little recognition of the imperfections in the climate science and the scale of the dangers we face. Is that because they just don't know?
Toggle Commented Apr 20, 2014 on Miscellanea at Arctic Sea Ice
First I'd like to add my congratulations for what you have achieved, Neven. Francesco. 1. The "direct rebound affect" is irrelevant to climate change. The relevant measure is the "total rebound effect" measured with respect to greenhouse gasses. Cheaper shipping will mean more high carbon goods flowing round the world. 2. I doubt that "mature market" applies to Arctic shipping. 3. Cheaper shipping means cheaper goods means more consumption means more greenhouse gasses means worse climate change. Unless ... 4. We change the nature of GDP by discouraging carbon intensive consumption. This broadens the point in the Wikipedia article alluded to in saying environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher. The energy efficiency argument is a cop out. Governments love it because energy efficiency allows them to pretend progress is being made without taxing the polluters properly. PS "Green taxes" should not be considered as "tax dollars" they are fines for destroying our world.
Toggle Commented Apr 20, 2014 on Miscellanea at Arctic Sea Ice
I am increasingly embarrassed in mentioning the Last Hours Video again. Its message: If we reach 6 degC the 12 is locked in from methane clathrate dissociation. Another great dying. Is it plausible? It does contain a clip of Michael Mann. Given the missing climate feedbacks in the CMIP5 models used to calculate the IPCC AR5 carbon budget and given some are already saying we are on course for 4 degC should I take Last Hours as any sort of warning? Was the decreasing Arctic albedo one of the missing/underestimated feedbacks in the models.
Sam The models based on the proven short term factors assert a 3 degC rise per 275 vppm CO2 rise. "I remember reading something recently" that questions the lower limit of climate sensitivity in the IPCC AR5, which was 1.5 to 4.5. As I remember the models giving 1.5 had poorer performance than the others. Has anyone a better memory? Should I be embarrassed in mentioning the Last Hours Video again? Its message: If we reach 6 degC the 12 is locked in from methane clathrate dissociation. Another great dying. Is it plausible? I'd like a wiser head than mine to comment - there are a lot of wise heads here.
A really weird thing: the BBC has just had an interview with Jennifer Francis on its news 24. It's also on their website "Wavier jet stream 'may drive weather shift'" The reporter is By Pallab Ghosh, Science correspondent, BBC News. He is the only reporter at the BBC that I have seen taking climate change this seriously.
Toggle Commented Feb 16, 2014 on Looking for winter weirdness 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
R.Gates Can I post your excellent comment on my blog I would obviously give appropriate credits.
Toggle Commented Jan 1, 2014 on Merry christPIOMAS at Arctic Sea Ice
Yes. Many many thanks. I hope you can keep going in the new year.
Toggle Commented Dec 27, 2013 on Merry christPIOMAS at Arctic Sea Ice
Osteopop1000 I shudder just thinking of the interview I heard about a mother beaten back by flames when her child was crying for her in the burning rubble and remains of her house in Hiroshima. But she's dead. So are many in the Philippines. We can do nothing for them now but perhaps we should stop killing the people of future generations - and the people of current generations in the poorer countries.
Toggle Commented Dec 5, 2013 on PIOMAS December 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
I'm getting dozier. I have just used Google's site search to find if there had been any mention on this blog of the Last Hours video about the Great Dyings caused by the dissociation of methane hydrates. It seems someone called GeoffBeacon mentioned it but there was no response. It's scary. But is it valid?
Toggle Commented Nov 27, 2013 on And the wind cries methane at Arctic Sea Ice
@jdallen_wa all available land can be put under production not "all" just much more. "5% of the population density" was an invitation to look deeper. Your comment begins to do that. Would "Can the world feed itself" be a good topic on the forum? - except that's a bit too narrow.
Werther For the arable lands, given a sustainable exploitation, the European countries are massively overpopulated. From my BrusselsBlog In Ireland before the famine, potatoes, with some milk and pigs could support a population density approaching 10 people per hectare (1). The world now has about 0.5 people per hectare. That’s about 5% of the population density of pre-famine Ireland. So the problem is not food (calories, protein & etc.) per. se. The problem is that the rich (i.e. us) turn lots of food growing capacity into not much food at all. Foods like beef and lamb require many more times the land area (and other resources) than fruit, vegetables and pulses. also see It's the poor that starve My small amount of hope is based on the belief that capitalism could solve the problem IF we had a very large pollution tax. I talking here of a carbon price ramping up to about $1000 (or more) within the next decade for each tonne of CO2e emitted. The pessimism comes from the fact that seems politically impossible. See my rather pathetic attempt at an AVAAZ petition Apart from people I more-or-less forced to sign I got about 10 signatures (57 signatures in all). But do look at Carbon tax in the mainstream ? A small amount of hope there. Before we can make progress we need some public awareness. That's why I like Last Hours I met some execs from BBC and Channel4 - I'm challenging them to show it. It would certainly raise the temperature of the debate. Is it's message plausible? (I suppose much of this should be moved to the Forum but I think this thread has quite naturally moved in this direction.)
Chris Thanks. Those are great posts. Although I don't agree with some of your judgements, I will quote them - with your permission. I will ask about that later. Your last answer raises a question I'm not keen to ask. Sellafield, 20m above sea level?
Jim That last post exhausted me. I'll try and answer more later. But Julia Slingo at the HOC Environmental Audit Committee, This is reported in the Guardian, Met Office: Arctic sea-ice loss linked to colder, drier UK winters: Slingo also dismissed fears that the Arctic could be entirely free of sea ice in summer as soon as 2015. Between 2025 and 2030 would be the earliest date she would consider it possible, she said, and the Met Office’s latest models suggested 2040-60 as most likely. "Our expectation is certainly not in the next few years as you’ve heard from some evidence," she said. She also said that suggestions the volume of sea ice had already declined by 75% already were not credible. "We know there is something [happening on the thinning of sea ice] but it’s not as dramatic as those numbers suggest." The problem, she explained, was that researchers did not know the thickness of Arctic sea ice with any confidence. She hoped a new ice-monitoring satellite launched in 2010, Cryosat2, would help with more accurate measurements.
Chris, Is the following a misrepresentation of your views. The Barnes paper says "We've not seen the Francis effect yet - only misleading artifacts" But you said "I think Dr Francis may end up being right, but that it is too early to get a stat sig result." I've seen the video and skimmed J A Screen 2013 (above) but it says Arctic sea ice loss induces a southward shift of the summer jet stream over Europe and increased northern European precipitation This paper is about model runs predicting the future showing the loss of Arctic ice will affect the weather (partly) by changing the jet stream. Seems to me that's not a million miles from the message from Jennifer Francis. She has a theory, which you don't completely dismiss; he has computer models. Jennifer Francis may not be statistically significant (a 19 to 1 on bet!) and I'm not sure whether the words and concepts used (even "jet stream") always have a precise meaning but I need to try and clear my mind for my lobbying activities (unpaid). Can I ask you and others to what extent the papers discussed here (and on Dosbat) support the idea of melting Arctic snow and ice causing various degrees of unpleasant weird weather events. I postulate some measures for this: S1: 0 (no effect) to 10 (really difficult events like Mid-West drought, hurricane Sandy, our wet weather, Pacific typhoons, floods, extra wild fires). S2: How many years before S1>8 (i.e. the effects are quite severe? S3: Your estimate of the support current evidence (all evidence not just in the paper) gives to the S1 score. -10 means S1 scores are strongly dismissed. +10 means that a high S1 score is strongly supported. If for example one thought Jennifer Francis predicts severe weather due to Arctic snow and ice melting within a decade and her arguments are very supportive of this then one might put: Francis: (8, 10, 8) S1, severity: 8 significant severe events S2, timescale: 10 yrs S3, evidence: 8 highly supported by current evidence Chris, I suspect you may not like this form of questionnaire but, if you were to answer, I think you would expect a higher level of severe events in the next decade or so due to Arctic changes but would give Jennifer Francis a very low (but not negative) evidence score. My current scores: Francis: (s1_severity 8, s2_timescale 10, s3_evidence:6) Barnes: Does Barnes address s1&s2 or just point out s3 for Francis is low? Screen: (s1_severity 6, s2_timescale 30, s3_evidence:6) The Barnes paper (as you describe it) may be correct and the "Jennifer Francis effect" may not have sufficient evidence but even you have not dismissed it. I think the Barnes paper could be heard as yet another climate denying "dog whistle". What else does it say other than "No evidence yet"? It obviously wasn't strong enough to prevent you saying that Dr Francis may end up being right. I live in hope that scientists will give up the term "statistically significant" and use the terms that readers of the popular press know. If it's statistically significant it's a 1/19 ON bet that you probably wouldn't go for in a a one horse race. It may be "too early to get a stat sig result" but decisions must be made now.
First of all, Jim, that was a good paraphrase. Thanks. Secondly. Chris did say in the comments on Dosbat "I think Dr Francis may end up being right, but that it is too early to get a stat sig result." Thirdly. Chris referenced Screen & Simmonds, 2013 (pub 03/2013). This is J A Screen 2013 (pub 28 October 2013). Hot of the press? As to "official views", this latest doesn't seem to fit. You can see how cynical I have become in DECC and the Committee on Climate Change It's not direct enough but I'm sure you understand the constraints - I've just found your comments in Met Office Admit "Our Climate Is Being Disrupted by the Warming of the Arctic". My reading of your comments is that you are up against the same official stance as I have found. Jennifer Francis' comment in that piece applies more strongly to the latest from James Screen. Don't you think?
Met Office says "No-one in the world can Explain Weird Weather". That's the official line. James Screen seems to give support to Jennifer Francis. I thought the "No-one in the world can explain" comment (OK that was a paraphrase) was intended to mean "Don't panic and don't listen to Jennifer Francis". I also understood that James Screen was at the Met Office meeting. Strange. Can anyone explain?
This seems to be the time of year for thanking you Neven. Thanks and congratulations. Geoff
Toggle Commented Sep 18, 2013 on Pinpointing the minimum at Arctic Sea Ice
Connie Sam, the science doesn't support that. Whose science? Or rather, "which scientists"? Since the official ones are so much behind the game why should we believe them? Was your graph from an ensemble of runs of those models that (as we've seen on this blog) are well behind the real world. Can you get any of these scientists to admit any of this? I can't. Despite the graphs showing their failures. Here, amongst readers and contributors that know a bit and read around the topic, "the science doesn't support that" should be replaced by "I don't think that".
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2013 on Perception of the Arctic 2 at Arctic Sea Ice
I've just seen a friend, a local shopkeeper who has retired. He and his family have just been on a cruise. In Alaska they had been told to expect temperatures as low as 50 below but found that the temperature was in the 80s. They saw no animals in the country park (except the odd moose) because they were all hiding from the heat. Later in Death Valley (in California?) their hosts were disappointed that the temperature only reached 130 they were hoping to break the record 131 again. As you say Neven What's striking is that even as scientists continue to debate this idea, the public seems to buy into it.
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2013 on Perception of the Arctic 2 at Arctic Sea Ice
Congratulations Neven, Well deserved. I hope this means you and this blog will be taken even more seriously by even more people. I did respond to the Guardian piece this morning. Looking back on it I feel uncomfortable mixing with the people that fill those blogs there with such carefully crafted nonsense. Again there is reference to "the world hasn't warmed for 15 years" (actually 15 years doesn't work now because the cherry-picked start of 1997 is necessary). Does anyone know what happened to that video based on Foster and Rahmsdorf that addressed this? It was on Climate Crocks. It no longer works. Was there a problem with it?
Henry Betting the historic average over a new normal is generally the safe bet. What odds are you offering? In this context what do you mean be the "new normal" and the "historic average"? Storm size/frequency, sea ice extent, sea ice area, wild fire activity, people drowned in floods?
Toggle Commented Aug 11, 2013 on Third storm at Arctic Sea Ice
Werther I'm more of an unpaid political lobbyist than a politician but I have made some important contacts. Looking forward to you considered opinion ... or any further comment.
Toggle Commented Jul 31, 2013 on Second storm at Arctic Sea Ice
Dolomin Can "research" be looking at data derived from satellites and seeing that the CMIP5 models are wrong? Could "research" be asking climate modellers about feedbacks missing from their models and being told "Yes. They are missing?" Is it "publishing" to inform readers through this blog?
Werther I'm interested in the difference in "weird weather" explanations. The Hadley Centre seems to say "Nobody understands it. It might be cyclic." Jennifer Francis says "The deceased temperature difference between temperate and Arctic regions is causing it." Do Jaiser et al. lean towards the Hadley or the Jennifer Francis view?
Toggle Commented Jul 30, 2013 on Second storm at Arctic Sea Ice