Comments for RealClimate

Comment on Sealevelgate by JiminMpls

JiminMpls — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:46:58 +0000

104 Jean B

The paper is severely flawed. It only deals with proved reserves. Proved reserves are a small fraction of the projected technically and economically recoverable reserves.

A simple example that everyone should understand: ANWR. There are ZERO proved oil and natural gas reserves in ANWR. NOT ONE DROP or cubic foot has been discovered or proved. Does that mean that if ANWR were opened to production that no oil or natural gas would be produced?

The thesis also understates the potential for unonventional resources. Another example: US proved reserves – esp of conventional oil – have declined signifantly. Yet, US oil production is projected to INCREASE by 25% by 2027 and continue at a rate 20% higher than current production. The projected increase is due almost exclusively to the production of unconventional reserves. US production from unconventional natural gas reserved is projected to increase by 50% by 2030. NOTE: The unconventional oil reserves considered do NOT include oil sands or shale oil.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html#production

Comment on Sealevelgate by Gilles

Gilles — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:46:15 +0000

“Then with respect, you do not understand the Milankovitch cycles and how a relatively small change in insolation over only a relatively small part of Earth’s surface during only part of the year could lead to continent-wide glaciation or deglaciation.”
Sorry, something bothers me (again); I understood that the main feedback that amplifies anthropogenic CO2 action is water vapor, not CO2 it self (the gamma value is rather low, so the retroaction to raise the CO2 concentration can be neglected with regards to the H20 average concentration). But this should be true for any cause of variation of the forcing, including the Milankovitch cycles, so the main amplifier should be the water vapor, and not the CO2 which is only a (almost passive) tracker when it’s not the primary cause of change ?

Comment on Sealevelgate by Edward Greisch

Edward Greisch — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 06:19:47 +0000

111 response: Sorry Gavin. Oh! You mean some people will just give up and say: “Since it’s inevitable, there is nothing I can do.”? I have a neighbor like that, but I find that stance impossible to understand. Many other people say: “It won’t happen for centuries”; and “Let the grand kids solve their own problems.” For them, you have to have a hard date and it has to be right now. Neither type of person can be moved by anything I say. They leave me wanting to move to Mars.
How do you deal with them?

Comment on Sealevelgate by donald moore

donald moore — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:48:31 +0000

Could someone please tell me whether or not carbon sequestration from increase in humus on farms [which is going on worldwide and at the moment unquantifiable]has been taken into account in any of these scenario/climate models.

Comment on Sealevelgate by GlenFergus

GlenFergus — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:30:05 +0000

Thanks Stefan, really good stuff.

“Just to avoid any misunderstandings here: I am squarely against exaggerating climate change to ‘err on the safe side’.”

I’m not so sure. An old collegue runs flood forecasting in this state; has done for decades. He had to do his stuff again last week as a record flood approached a western town. He said 14 m, but I knew what the peak would really be, because I’ve watched him for a long time. It came in at about 13.5. Fact is, he’s always wrong. Not because he can’t run a flood model. Because, unlike most in his scientific organisation, he’s an engineer.

The object isn’t to be right. It’s to give the most useful answer, especially for those who won’t grasp the uncertainty.

[Response: There is a difference between doing science (as we do) and running operational flood warnings. I don't know much about the latter, but probably there is a case here for adding a safety margin to account for the fact that there is uncertainty and the warning should cover the worst case. If that's so, of course this should be a transparent and previously agreed procedure. -stefan]

Comment on Why we bother by J

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:06:37 +0000

Luke Lea (#7): [...] Arthur Pielke, Jr.?

There’s an Arthur, too? Good God, we’re being overrun with Pielkes!

Comment on Why we bother by Kooiti Masuda

Kooiti Masuda — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:04:27 +0000

I have not read “Golem”, but I recently read new a new work of Harry Collins with Robert Evans, “Rethinking Expertise”. I guess that his thought has changed very much. My summary of what I got from the new book is here. Excuse me, this is a blog with a menu for Japanese-speaking people. Also excuse me for not having enough time to discuss it in the present context. Now I just say: logical discussion is a good thing, but it would not make practical sense if the meaning of the words they use are not shared.

Comment on Why we bother by Lou Grinzo

Lou Grinzo — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:01:56 +0000

And yes, I mangled the title of Gavin’s book. D’oh! It’s “Climate Change: Picturing the Science”.

Sorry about that. As penance, I will buy an extra copy and give it to a relative.

Comment on Why we bother by Martin

Martin — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:00:49 +0000

Well I guess that settles it…….
I read one just like it the other day except where skeptic was changed to warmer …..
Is there a punchline or a gotcha moment coming?
.
Go figure.
.
M

Comment on Why we bother by Lou Grinzo

Lou Grinzo — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:00:17 +0000

To me, the key point in this discussion is how long non-scientists like the author of the e-mail quoted in the original post and, well, me, have to work to get our heads around enough of the basics of climate science to avoid sounding like a complete fool every time we talk about it.

I initially got into energy and climate issues via the peak oil topic. Compared to climate change, peak oil is much easier to grasp, and there are only a few pretty simple concepts one has to get, e.g. it doesn’t matter how large an oil reserve one finds if the oil can only be extracted at a low rate.

One climate book that I recommend very highly to newcomers is Picturing Climate Change by Gavin et al. A really terrific presentation on the topic was given this week by Katharine Hayhoe, which I mentioned here:

Must see presentation from Dr. Hayhoe

http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2010/03/12/must-see-presentation-from-dr-hayhoe/