Glaciers draining Antarctic basin destabilized, 4m level rise all but certain

[Razgovory]

I really think it would be more productive to discuss how Grumbler has a crush on me.

[crazy canuck]

I really think it would be more productive to discuss how Grumbler has a crush on me.

He certainly tries to get your attention.

[grumbler]

Actually the IPCC report knows quite a lot about both the human causes of climate change and futher a whole report was done analyzing (and costing) the various methods that might be used to reduce the our impact on climate change.  Further quite a lot of work has been done to make the models they use more accurate and precise.  In fact the degree of confidence in the model is now very high.

I'm not sure what "the IPCC report knows" means here.  The report is a report; it cannot "know" anything.  The IPCC itself knows some things about the human causes of climate change, but not enough (yet) to accurately guide policies.  That's what i consider essential.  Whether the IPCC knows "quite a lot' is, of course, entirely subjective and trivial.

Of course "quite a lot of work' has been done on the modelling; modelling is the first priority in science once observations are made.  A number of models currently exist.  The IPCC itself uses AIM, MESSAGE, ASF, and IMAGE, and multiple "storylines" containing their assumptions (though only A1/A1B, A2, B1, and B2 are usedin the Fourth Assessment).    Your confidence in any given model (and especially given the fact that you don't even seem to realize that there are multiple models) is not of much interest or significance.  The models yield similar trends, but the specifics (which would guide policy) are different.  Further, these models are primarily tested against the past; only a few global events have occurred within the predictive envelope of any of the models, and their predictive performance was only grossly correct.  Further, observable sea level rise is above the levels predicted by any of the models.  Obviously, improvements in the models need to be made, and that is going to be fabulously expensive given the variables that have to be controlled.

But of course one needs to ignore all of this science to make your point.

One needs to ignore your pseudoscience in order to make my point.  One needs to ignore climate science in order to make yours.

On the bright side you would make one hell of a commentator for Fox News.

On the bright side, you would be able to replace Glenn Beck and his bullshit.  Your use of The Big Lie is very similar to his, while your weaseling is even more amusing.

[grumbler]

Anyway, let's leave cRazy cAnuck and raz to titter among themselves about how much attention I am paying to them, and look at the big question:

How much is it worth to validate the climate models enough to allow them to guide policy?

There are three elements that I think should be relatively easy to agree upon:
1.  the models do not, as yet, have sufficient predictive ability to guide policy choices between reducing global warming, and dealing with its effects
2.  We (the human race) do not, realistically, have the resources to do both things completely
3.  Resources spent on stopping global warming cannot, in any realistic analysis, be used to deal with the effects of global warming, and vice-versa.

Given the above truths, and the truth that policy-makers are not going to throw the kinds of resoiurces beghind either policy choice without some assurance that the resources will have a predictable impact, I will make the following assertion:

There is no more critical issue facing our entire civilization today than the issue of developing a valid model to predict how climate change policies will affect the habitability of the planet.

To validate a scientific model means that we have to control one or more key variables in a sort of grand "science experiment" that allows us to test the predictive accuracy of our models.  The one that seems most amenable to this, I would argue, is CO2 emissions.  We have the technology to change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  The cheapest change to implement would, of course, be to radically increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and see which models predict most accurately the effect of that on atmospheric temperatures.  However, that seems to me to be a rather poor way of testing the models, akin to testing the effects of antibiotics on patients with a fever by giving the patient more infections.  Reducing CO2 by a suffient amount to be measurable in modelling terms will cost a lot, though; small decreases (such as are currently being planned) will likely be lost in the noise.  It seems to me that we need to create a deliberate and radical change to achieve the kinds of clear answers we are looking for.

The IPCC's Fourth Assessment report list some possible means of mitigating climate change (both level of change and impact of change) summarized here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms4.html.  Notable are the variabilities in both level-of-effort needed and effects of changes.  The 2013 report doesn't have this level of detail yet, as far as I can find.

So, how do we introduce such a radical change as i am calling for?  It seems to me that we need to spend a shitload of resources on implementing some key measures like aerosol reduction, carbon capture (both synthetic and natural - as in more tree cover), and less CO2 production from power plants.  The CO2 issue is probably more important for our needs in the reduction of ocean acidification, because the IPCC points out that even reductions in emissions isn't going to affect the greenhouse gas effect within the timespan of our civilization.

Equally importantly, we need to ask how to pay for this experiment.  What are you willing to give up to conduct it?

[Admiral Yi]

No thanks.

[garbon]

Nada

[mongers]

I'm astonished by Yi's and Garbon's negative response to Grumbler's proposal, you could have knocked me over with a feather.

[garbon]

you could have knocked me over with a feather.

Noted for future reference.

[Agelastus]

I'm astonished by Yi's and Garbon's negative response to Grumbler's proposal, you could have knocked me over with a feather.

A feather from one of these, perchance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_white_pelican

[CountDeMoney]

grumbler hates on penguins.

[grumbler]

grumbler hates on penguins.

Anyone who wears a tuxedo to dine on fish deserves the hating.

[derspiess]

I'm astonished by Yi's and Garbon's negative response to Grumbler's proposal, you could have knocked me over with a feather.

I'd sacrifice Tim.

[Ed Anger]

I'm astonished by Yi's and Garbon's negative response to Grumbler's proposal, you could have knocked me over with a feather.

I'd sacrifice Tim.

For a Klondike Bar.

[Jacob]

you could have knocked me over with a feather.

Noted for future reference.

Surely you mean "quoted for posterity".

[grumbler]

I must admit amusement (but no surprise at all) that my attempt to have an intellectual discussion regarding climate change and the specific challenge it faces re; modelling has gone precisely nowhere, while the bickering and posturing remain precisely as popular as before my post.

See, Jake, this is why I seldom try here; languishites Like CC think themselves smart, but they lack any serious intellectual chops.  They can insult me and make up arguments to attribute to me, but they cannot actually address my arguments in intellectual terms.  The best they can do is claim that I am an "anti-sciencer" and that, since I want to validate scientific models (models whose predctive abilities the IPCC report itself discusses as inadequate for many purposes), I am claiming that "the scientists dont know what they are saying."  CC cannot even see how ironic it is that I am using, in fact, the scientific method while he uses the pop culture approach! 

The good news is that there are intellectual sites out there where i can discuss this.     I will resume considering languish a forum for lightweights, and will resume posting only lightweight material.