This is PeteDunkelberg's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following PeteDunkelberg's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
PeteDunkelberg
Recent Activity
Geoff Bacon, I take back my previous remark. I had no idea of all the meetings you have attended, and consequently your sampling of scientists' views. I'm impressed and applaud your work. Your sampling may not be random, so I may not draw conclusions about "most "official" climate scientists". All the same, my remark was made in ignorance of your sampling, and was wrong.
Black Dragon: "Given that scale of carbon increase we are creating by putting our own emissions (millions of years of stored carbon) into the atmosphere, combined with the liberation we are likely about to see of millions of years of recently sequestered organic carbon, I think 1000ppm is the absolute minimum we are going to see, within some time in the next 1,000 - 30,000 years." The projections I've seen from those who know the carbon cycle best indicate reaching a peak based on our emissions and then slowly tapering off. "Next ice age? Back to hot house Earth much more likely. I think it is reasonable to expect Earth would be back to 2000ppm minimum in a hot house scenario." No wonder you're scared! And you're not the only one, even just in this thread. I glad that as far as I can see, you (and they) are pretty much imagining most of it past 450.
Kevin: "A very thoughtful discussion, which was one of my hopes in writing (I can't speak for Neven on that,)" OK technically you can't but I doubt that he has anything against thoughtful discussion. ;) But considering what came after you said that, cheese is priced! Thoughtful is one thing, let it all hang out is another. Oh well, perhaps an open thread is good once in a while. Or two types of open thread: Open thread (sea ice) and Open thread (catharsis) The analytical threads must stay analytical. And I don't comment much if at all since I am not an ice empiricist and not trying to become one. Which brings me to Geoff Beacon: "P.S. I wish I could find a better way of naming you than the "Neven clan of amateurs"." I think of them as The Ice Empiricists of Neven. Since "Neven" is not known as a personal name here where I live, this has a nice sciency yet mysterious ring to it. But Geoff, I like your contributions around the net, but in this case It sounds like you are making stuff up about "most scientists" - as if you could poll them by telepathy, and also somehow know better than they do. And I won't even touch some of the other conspiracy-sounding things posted today. Ljgeoff - one word: Flood. As part of the bunched precipitation problem you're in a "more rain, and more concentrated in short bursts" zone. Joe Smith - Calm down! Chill. Learn some climate science. Climate science is about as good as it gets for science buffs. First, it's planetary physics. It's all about how energy from the sun moves through our air and water, and moves them in turn before resuming its journey into the void. Then it's planetary chemistry (see for instance OA is not OK at Skeptical Science where you should be). Then it's geology. Then you notice that out in nature all the "subjects" run together. When it comes to "solving climate" even more things run together, from pine needles to the electric grid (see the current unforced thread at Real Climate). I'm guessing your specialty is none of the above. This can't be remedied over night. But if you want to teach a course, take at least one yourself first. Take David Archer's online Understanding the Forecast. The easiest way to find it is thru the link at Rabbet's. Get the first edition of the book - much cheaper. [RC has a thread for the course somewhere in case you have questions] Then read Archer's slightly more advanced little book The Global Carbon Cycle. The place for you to be online I suggest is Skeptical Science, learning. You are somewhat on the right track in thinking of a bunch of planetary ecology systems or factors that are under stress (but they are not exactly redundant the your multiple computers are). There was indeed a paper in Nature with a bunch of these factors in a wheel shaped diagram of wedges, with OK for each one near the center, yellow caution zone farther out, red bad zone near the edge. I hope someone here remembers the title or author or something. Amalgamated worriers: how high do you think CO2 will go? I think 450 or less. Here's why. Bunched precipitation. As warming continues, arid areas grow even as total rainfall increases. Most rain falls back into the sea, but the land areas that get it really get it. Combining drought and flood there is a cumulative likelyhood of at least one very bad year for global agriculture aka famine. It seems that no one knows how to calculate this with any respectable error bounds. I purely guess that as you get to 2030 and beyond, it's much too high for comfort. After that bad year, due to disruption & unrest aka war and more than a critical mass of survivors finally deciding that climate change is not a good thing, business can't or won't be allowed to go on as usual. Or some other shock will have the same effect. QED
PeteDunkelberg is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 27, 2012