Bishop Hill Puffed rice
Oct 5, 2015 Climate: Models Climate: sensitivity 
Here's an interesting wrinkle in climate science that I hadn't thought about before. It came up in a thread at Ken Rice's place, underneath an article about carbon dioxide reductions.
The specific claim of interest was that "the amount of warming depends almost linearly on cumulative emissions". This is a claim that you hear quite often, with the corollary being that even if we halt carbon dioxide emissions, temperatures are going to remain high for centuries. However, it seems that the scientific veracity of the statement is not exactly set in stone, as Nic Lewis points out in the comments.
For the record, whilst this may be true for simulations by most current Earth system models, it is an entirely model dependent result. So please don’t present it as if a fact. If one builds a model with a low ECS, and moderate climate-cycle feedbacks, warming peaks immediately if emissions cease and declines quite rapidly thereafter. Which would happen in the real climate system is not as yet known, of course.
Encouragingly, Dr Rice fully accepted Nic's case: an encouraging example of consensus emerging among colleagues. Indeed, I'm sure I sense him trying very hard to enhance the atmosphere of collegiality:
Yes, I realise it is not a fact. So, for clarity, our current understanding is that it depends almost linearly on temperature.
However, given the sites, and organisation, that you associate with, the idea that you can come here and tone troll me is utterly amazing. What the hell are you playing at? Do you have no self-awareness whatsoever? Do you really not get the irony of you writing appallingly dishonest posts at Climate Audit, commenting at Bishop Hill, and writing reports for a pseudo-denial organisation like the GWPF, and then coming here and suggesting that maybe I should have qualified myself a bit more carefully than I did. You really do need to look at how you present and defend your own work before coming here and tone trolling me. Seriously; WTF!!!!!
In fact, a thoughtful and decent response might actually be in order, because I really cannot believe that someone like yourself, who seems completely unwilling to acknowledge possible issues with your own work, can have just done what you’ve done.
He is trying isn't he?
Reader Comments (183)
I'm glad to learn that Ken Rice is bored with the echo chamber he has created and engages elsewhere.
I would have thought that my comments on Carney were to the point, as I have worked on both climate policy and climate impacts (the subjects of his talk), and I of course know a lot of people who work in central banks and a few central bankers, as well as users of their work. I even dare say that I know more about monetary policy than the average astronomer.
Yes, very trying.
> don't appeal to what you assume I ought to have swallowed and internalized
I leave mind probing to you, Shub. What you trumpet is trumpeted loud enough for anyone to see. The "but CAGW" you were dogwhistling with your appeal to ignorance is also duly acknowledged.
***
> If you cannot show explain Nic L is completely and absolutely wrong [...]
How irrelevant of you, Shub. There's no need to overanalyze Nic's "don't present it as fact" concern. My own policy would have been to thank Nic for his concern, and be done with it: trying to help Nic reestablish his solvency by appealing to his INTEGRITY (tm) is a wild squirrel chase.
Incidentally, AT's inexact wording is of the same kind as accusing someone of "disinformation" about his belief states. Would you have preferred if AT excused himself by telling Nic "I’m not as sold on linguistic point as you are"?
Willard,
It appears to me that you're attempting to write in a style that you think makes you seem witty and erudite.
In fact, your rather confusing screeds make you sound like one of the nerdy kids in school who thought saying things such as ,"hello my good and noble friends" was amusing. It wasn't amusing and it didn't attract the women.
I spent my school days actually talking to girls and now I'm married to a tall and blond multi-milliomaire (and she thinks CAGW alarmism is a crock of 5h1t too.)
Willard, just talk and write in a straight-forward and coherent style and people will listen to you more and you'll have a much more fulfilling social life.
Thank you for your concerns, DavidS.
...and Then There's Physics says
I mostly regard Nic as a pedantic nit-picker
That's correct. It's called attention to detail in real science and it is what drives science toward the truth.
Willard,
Happy to help.
I hope I can assume that your comments will actually be readable from now on.
Why is it impossible to get the people on the MGW side of the case to debate the science.
1. It is generally accepted that for two decades the global temperature has not increased significatly.
2. The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere over this period have continued to increase at about the same rate.
3. Therefore the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere CAN NOT be the principle cause of global Warming.
Discus.
David Smith,
Hey, give Willard a break. At least he doesn't think he's a rabbit.
Speaking of attention to detail, here's James:
http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/#comment-901
Discuss.
Puffed Rice
Your heading for this post is so apt. And this person who also writes under the initials attp has underscored the appropriateness of your heading with all the comments he has made today.
He is the epitome of puffery.
Interesting that Dr Rice thinks someone pointing out that he sgould represent as fact something that has not been physically proven and is entirely an artifact of models is a form of nit picking.
Maybe the name of his pet elephant is Nit. (Cause that is what Nic's comment is to your theory Ken. A huge elephant which you appear to get all pissy about when someone comments about it being in the room.)
You let one putz in the door (ATTP) and before you know it another (willard) follows.
Ken Rice might be a bit rude on his own blog, but it is nothing to when seriously challenged elsewhere. Early this year he utterly dismissed "simplistic" Bjorn Lomborg's idea behind the Copenhagen Consensus - of bringing together some of the best minds (including 7 Economics Nobel Laureates) to prioritize the problems of the world with the purpose of making the greatest difference with finite resources. This rational approach is to be dismissed, as the climate issue comes well down the list. Instead we should build some sort of super-model that solves all the related issues together.
But on Ken's pet subject of climatology, he cannot instance a single instance of a predictive achievement that would mark out the subject as a science rather than dogma. I gave him plenty of opportunity, but he avoided the subject instead hurling abuse. As Radical Rodent said in the comments:-
Anyway, I await with interest for Dr Rice's revolutionary paper on economics. A single computer model that rationally solves all the world's problems at once. I am sure we would be awestruck by his brilliance - even Professor Tol.
In climate science, there has been an increase of nits, big and small, that require picking, every year that the globe has failed to warm as predicted by climate scientists.
If the globe had warmed, as predicted, there would be no nits requiring picking.
An abundance of Climate science nits, is a clear indication, of climate science failing, and the planet, and it's inhabitants can rejoice.
Some of the biggest nickers in climate science, may not make it to the Paris nit picker fest.
Gentlemen,
If all you have left are cheap ad homs (expressed or not as concerns), I'll back away slowly from the carcass.
Thanks for playing,
W
Willard
You cite a comment by James Annan on my Climate Dialogue guest blog against me. Let's see if it is justified:
"Nic Lewis appears to be arguing primarily on the basis that all work on climate sensitivity is wrong, except his own, and one other team who gets similar results."
What I had written was:
That makes three other teams getting similar results (joined by others post AR5), not one. And I gave detailed explanations of what the serious faults in all the other studies were. Moreover, this related only to instrumental warming based studies (the largest source of ECS estimates in AR5). I also gave detailed reasons for rejecting the AR5 Climatological constrain studies. For other observationally-based studies I simply concurred with the serious caveats in AR5.
The quote from James' continues with:
"In reality, all research has limitations, uncertainties and assumptions built in. I certainly agree that estimates based primarily on energy balance considerations (as his are) are important and it’s a useful approach to take, but these estimates are not as unimpeachable or model-free as he claims. Rather, they are based on a highly simplified model that imperfectly represents the climate system."
Perhaps James's attention to detail was inadequate when reading my guest post, for I wrote in it:
and that most instrumental period warming studies
I also stated the single equation on which energy balance/budget models were based, making it obvious that it was highly simplified.
In another comment, you wrote: "That CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long while is basic science."
Not really, even allowing for ocean chemistry (Revelle factor, etc.). Whilst it does appear likely that a small fraction of emitted CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for a millennium or more, there is no good evidence for the rest having a long (centennial upwards) lifetime.
Isn't it funny how the proponents of CAGW (Willard, ATTP for eg) spend so much of their blog comment time discussing their feelings, rather than putting forward rational arguments in favour of CAGW?
That nice Mr. Rice writes of models. Why is it that such as Mr. Rice give precedence to models over real world data, when there is SUCH a divergence between model projections (one could also use that word in the sense that psychologists do) and what the real world tells us. maybe they struggle to live in the real world, and have to retreat to Academe?
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d16250d4970c-pi exemplifies what I note above, with regard to ocean temperatures and Hurricane Joaquin. Reality versus fantasy.
What is good is that Mr. Rice works Edinburgh Uni, which is a charity. That at least means that us suckers are not funding him. Rather like that nice Mr. Mann, he seems to be able to spend a lot of time socially mediating in his job.
Ever since a certain movie, I have- rightly, it appears- associated the name 'willard' WITH A RAT.....
@john m
"At least he doesn't think he's a rabbit."
Yep, you've got a point. The Rabbit (I presume you mean Eli) is extremely comical.
It seems to me that there is a bit of a dichotomy:
Warmsits invariably get all ranty and upset when skeptics dare to comment on their blogs (Ken Krispies being a case in point) . However, when a warmist visits a sceptical blog such as we have here they just get laughed at.
Warmists: up-tight and humorless hand-wringers
Sceptics: easy-going and fun-loving realists
No offense to real rats. I've had several for pets.
Nic,
Can you qualify this, because I'm starting to feel that maybe I gave you too easy a time when you last commented on my blog (I thought you were just being complaining that I hadn't qualified something sufficiently, rather than actually suggesting that the alternative we really a likely possibility)
I'll even provide some basics of how I understand our current position. If we get to 600ppm and stop emitting entirely, after 100 years, the concentration would still be above 500ppm, and after 1000 years it would probably be around 350ppm. If we got to 600ppm and then reduced emissions to around 1GtC/yr (i.e., a reduction of 90% compared to current emissions) it would still exceed 500ppm after 1000 years. Of course, this is for a single model, but most models suggest something similar; the atmospheric concentration will decay over many centuries; see Figure 1 in here.
In other words, our current understanding is that the timescale over which atmospheric CO2 would return back to pre-industrial levels is indeed many centuries - in fact, to get back to something like 280ppm would likely take thousands of years. Your comment seems to suggest that you disagree and think it would reduce much faster than this? Do you think this and - if so - why?
"it would still exceed 500ppm after 1000 years"
Is that bad? It doesn't appear to be doing much warming, but it does make plants grow. I've worked in greenhouses at 1200ppm, but I only know that because it was measured. The tomatoes seemed to like it, though.
Awww Willard!
Don't go yet, I've only just started!
There's nothing wrong with a good ad hom - try throwing some back at me. It'll be fun.
On another note:
I noticed at Ken's article that he'd written this in the first paragraph:
When I submitted a comment to tell Ken that such a statement about 'uncertainties' meant he was admitting that the CAGW hypothesis was built around something of little or no certainty he deleted my comment.
He's a touchy old sod isn't he?
David~ sod hangs out at NoTricksZone. It seems every Skeptic blog has to have its' own CAGW @$$#0!&. ATTP is Bishop's.
"In other words, our current understanding is that the timescale over which atmospheric CO2 would return back to pre-industrial levels is indeed many centuries"
But how good is "our current understanding"?
Your linked paper says:
"... rather illustrative than predictive." And that's just one of the factors affecting it. How confident can we be that there are no "unknown unknowns" that would completely change the game? For example, a 'thermostat' effect that pushed the CO2 level up against a fixed limit? It has always struck me as odd that the CO2 level should have been historically so stable, dropping only to the point where it started to impact plant life, and no further. I suspect there's a limiting mechanism at work there.
Your paper mentions that much of the CO2 will leave the atmosphere in the 1-2 century timeframe, and acknowledges pervasive uncertainties about the rest. The "known knowns" are included in the models, but with the science "in its infancy" I don't believe there can be any great confidence in their predictive power - it's certainly not been demonstrated.
Nic can answer for himself, I'm sure, but I for one don't think genuine doubt about the point is unreasonable.
ATTP:
"In other words, our current understanding is that the timescale over which atmospheric CO2 would return back to pre-industrial levels is indeed many centuries - in fact, to get back to something like 280ppm would likely take thousands of years. Your comment seems to suggest that you disagree and think it would reduce much faster than this? Do you think this and - if so - why?"
As I wrote at your blog:
"If one builds a model with a low ECS, and moderate climate-cycle feedbacks, warming peaks immediately if emissions cease and declines quite rapidly thereafter. Which would happen in the real climate system is not as yet known, of course."
I certainly think it likely that both ECS and climate-carbon-cycle (which is what I meant to write) feedbacks are lower than in typical Earth System models. I don't dispute that getting back to ~280 ppm may very well take thousands of years after a cessation of emissions, although I don't regard it as a matter of basic physics. But that doesn't imply that getting back to, say , 350 ppm after reaching, say, 560 ppm (a doubling of CO2) would necessarily take even several hundred years.
Nic,
This Geological carbon cycle model suggest otherwise: 560ppm to 350ppm takes about 650 years. Can you explain why you think it might not, because - as I understand it - few who work on this think that it would not take several hundred years.
Glad to see that the carcass' still moving. First, I'll note this:
> There's nothing wrong with a good ad hom – try throwing some back at me. It'll be fun.
It'll be even more fun to ask you which points I've made that you failed to grasp because, style.
Let me ask you a question. Which part of that do you not get?
There was also a question just before about an "engineer-level derivation where we see the difference a "low ECS" can make". Do you want me to spell that one out too?
Please don't interpret this as a way to hit on you. Either you or life's too short.
David Smith says 10.59PM
ATTP is simply following the policy of most propagandists through history.
1. Treat differing viewpoints with extreme prejudice. Approval for those you agree with and invective against those you disagree with.
2. Encourage people to follow the hearsay and opinion, and discourage checking the evidence for themselves.I bit like the Prosecution dismissing fingerprint evidence in favor of an opinion poll of Sun or Mirror readers.
3. Claim that arguments prove your case, when in fact they are a complete distraction.
4. Delete or suppress contrary opinion, especially those that undermine your own.
I constructed a chart of the ATTP method with respect to Temperature Homogenisation earlier in the year. It is not copyright of Dr Rice. Similar methods have been used by Bob Ward, Dana1981 and others in climate.
the moral and scientific bankruptcy of alarmism is clearly displayed by the two unmentionables here.
Imagine the scene, it's the year 2100 and amid climate upheavals of all sorts, a multidecadal Rice or Willard sit with their great-grandchildren in a temporary shelter, away from the hurricanes and rising sea levels that are devastating the world whole.
Great-grandchild: Great-grandpa, tell me about the times before the Great Climate Change Disaster!
WillardRice: Yes, my child. I still remember those
GGC: Well, wasn't there anyone who could have stopped this?
WR: Of course. We were many. We all knew what was going to happen.
GGC: You knew? Did you try to do anything to prevent it?
WR: Well, yes. We wrote and wrote and wrote about it on the internet, for the whole world to know
GGC: Oh, I see. And did you obtain any result? It seems all that writing was for nothing, look outside!
WR: You know, my child, we wrote but there was a group of evil people called skeptics who would not listen
GGC: It's their fault, then! Our future cancelled, because of those evil people! But...did you not fight them?
WR: Yes, we did. We tried everything, we spent all our time arguing with them, we called them names, and often we tried to prevent them from speaking
GGC: What? All of your time?
WR: Yes, it was a hard fight.
GGC: You argued all of your time and tried to silence people, even if you knew the world was getting into a climatic hell?
WR: Erm..
GGC: Your solution to prevent the future from being stolen from future generations, was to engage people on the internet and harangue them?
WR: Erm...
GGC (sighing to the other great-grandchildren): Come on, guys, great-grandpa has a confession to make. Please be gentle with him. He's a bit slow in the reasoning, but now fully aware it's basically all his fault!
WR: No, wait! It's not my fault! It's the skeptics' fault! It's your fault!! (runs away into the stormy night)
LOL. Does WillardRice look anything like this?
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/godofwar/images/3/3a/Pollux_Castor.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140219212446
.> That makes three other teams getting similar results [...]
Are you referring to Otto & al as an "other team," Nic?
Sounds like double accounting to me.
Nic Lewis @ Oct 5, 2015 at 11:20 PM
ATTP @ Oct 5, 2015 at 11:25 PM
Would be good to see this debate fleshed out on both sides.
I guess probably already done for those not too lazy/busy to go read actual papers as against the smaller (?) effort of trying to get some kind of vague understanding via filtering out blog-warrior noise from blog posts.
Szilard,
ATTP and Willard haven't got a clue what they are talking about.
Reading comprehension issues?
Or is that your meaning for "tone trolling". Make your words sound unsure yet willing, when your every comment is a sad twisted mockery of discussion.
As always, ATToiletPaper puffed rice is mostly CO2 without substance.
University of Chicago!? Not a top line geology university?
So, nice model. Useless, completely useless. If you happened to read about the model you might have stumbled across this note:
The model only takes a stab at the geologically very slow process of tectonic thermal carbonate decomposition, chemical weathering (eons of naturally acidic rain).
The model does not attempt to represent the actual complete CO2 cycle! But your reading comprehension was never very good.
Don't forget to take willyabsrd or is that really vvussell, back with you.
ATTP said at 11.25pm to Nic Lewis
This comment represents a fundamental split between the two camps. The sceptic who tries to relate theory to the real world and the supporter of consensus who evaluates results relative to consensus opinion.
"Implying that I've written terrible things about you, doesn't make it so.
I do regard your site as one of the biggest scientific misinformation sites in internet history."
???
another issue that is inherent to alarmism is the self-debasement that inevitably grips all of its proponents.
What is a little lie, compared to the task of saving the planet? What is a little deception, or even a big one, when the survival of millions of cute animals is at stake?
What is the problem in effectively abandoning current children to die because of respiratory diseases due to dung-based heating and cooking, when the goal is to save countless billion future children from fiery climate change?
What is it, in fact. Like the Underminer at the end of The Incredibles, this is what a climate alarmist sounds like
Behold, the Underminer! I'm always beneath you, but nothing is beneath me! I hereby declare war on peace and happiness! Soon, all will tremble before me!
This is another reason not to reply to the unmentionables. At most, one can yawn at the predictability.
"I leave mind probing to you, Shub. What you trumpet is trumpeted loud enough for anyone to see."
Is this the new post modern science? We no longer listen to trumpets we see them when they are loud?
Nullius,
My understanding is that - over the Holocene - at least, the stability of atmospheric CO2 was largely determined by the slow carbon cycle. This is the cycle in which CO2 is sequestered into the deep ocean or removed via weathering. It is then returned via geolocgical activity (volcanoes). The rate is around 0.1GtC/year. So, as I understand it, if the atmospheric concentration were higher than 280ppm, the rate it would be sequestered via the slow carbon cycle would be greater than the rate it was returned via volcanoes, and atmospheric concentration would drop. If it were lower than 280ppm, it would rise since the volcanoes would return CO2 faster than it was being sequestered. Hence, the system tends towards a quasi-stable state with atmsopheric CO2 at around 280ppm. Presumably the reason it appears okay for plant life is partly related to natural selection resulting in plants that are suited to that level.
I've seen Ferdinand Engelbreen explain this much better than I have, so if you search for his comments here and on Climate Etc you may find a better explanation.
The fundamental point about today is that we're emitting CO2 at a much faster rate than it can be removed via the slow carbon cycle. If we stopped emitting completely, the slow carbon cycle would certainly sequester CO2 faster than it did during the pre-industrial holocene, but still slow enough that it would likely take hundreds/thousands of years to return to levels similar to those during pre-industry.
AttP
I repeat my earlier question - what is so bad about high(er) CO2 levels? It used to be thought that it caused runaway heating, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
"My understanding is that - over the Holocene - at least, the stability of atmospheric CO2 was largely determined by the slow carbon cycle."
The slow carbon cycle certainly contributes to the stability - but is it the only such mechanism? Having found one, should we assume that's all there is?
The slow carbon cycle is slow. But a lot of other things affecting CO2 levels - like the biological ones - are very quick. CO2 levels appear to be stable on short timescales too. I would therefore suspect short-term stabilisation mechanisms as well as long-term ones. That's speculative, though - it's very young science.
" Presumably the reason it appears okay for plant life is partly related to natural selection resulting in plants that are suited to that level."
As I understand it, plants evolved for, and are still adapted for a significantly higher CO2 level. (The biochemistry of photosynthesis is intricate and it is hard to tinker with now without breaking it completely.) They deliberately fill greenhouses with higher-than-atmospheric levels of CO2 to boost their growth. I've seen it said that with CO2 levels much lower, a lot of plants would no longer be able to survive.
The sort of mechanism I was thinking of was something like plants or plankton sequestering atmospheric carbon in a fast feedback cycle, such that when the plants/plankton stop growing, the sequestration slows down. The mechanism has a high capacity (the annual cycle in CO2 level shows that), a very quick response time, and is a highly non-linear level-dependent response. When CO2 drops to the critical level at which life start to struggle, the growth-rate response is very sharp. And given that the Himalayas eroding has forced CO2 levels down against the buffers, and all the potential unknown sequestration mechanisms therefore *have* virtually stopped, it wouldn't be very surprising that we haven't previously observed them.
"I've seen Ferdinand Engelbreen explain this much better than I have, so if you search for his comments here and on Climate Etc you may find a better explanation."
Your explanation is fine. Volcanoes emit CO2 at a roughly fixed rate. Sequestration rate increases with CO2 level. The lines cross around 280 ppm and a rate of 0.1 GtC. At higher CO2 levels, the sequestration rate will be higher.
"The fundamental point about today is that we're emitting CO2 at a much faster rate than it can be removed via the slow carbon cycle."
Yes, and my point is that we don't know that the slow carbon cycle is the only stabilisation mechanism in operation. It's just the only one we know about.
There's a nice analogy I sometimes use for the history of science. Andrew Wiles was describing mathematical discovery, but it applies to science generally:
When it comes to the carbon cycle, we're still in a dark room and we've found a couple of chairs near the door. Trying to extrapolate from those to the rest of the room's contents is precisely what we should be doing as scientists, but we shouldn't be putting any confidence in those speculations just yet. It's virtually certain that we're missing major pieces of the puzzle, and that our speculations are as a result substantially wrong. It's a completely different situation from mature sciences with well-validated models where the lights are on, we can see how everything fits together, and there are no large shadows left for unexpected furniture to lurk in.
As your linked paper says: "All these limitations of the land model assumptions make the simulations of the land carbon response to the CO2 pulse presented here rather illustrative than predictive." We just don't know. We shouldn't be selling our early speculative extrapolations as being more certain or less open to being doubted than they really are.
Does the tale of Walter Mitty provide insight into some climate alarmers and their acolytes?
Climate Alarmer: Michael Mann. Hypothesis 1: he sees himself as a leading physicist (such as Feynman, only in a different speciality). His speciality happens to have political implications and he is being hounded by nasty conspirators with vested interests. Nevertheless he is heroically resisting them. Hypothesis 2: he is a mediocre scientist in a subject area artificially puffed-up by political schemers, and he tends to bully rather than reason when opportunity presents itself.
Alarmer Acolyte: Ken Rice. Hypothesis 3: he sees himself as a devastatingly effective putter-down of critics of the alarmed camp, using 'physics' as a sword of reason and justice; a hero in his own mind. This suits a combative nature which finds little outlet for such aggression in the more peaceable world of astronomy. Hypothesis 4: he is a hot-headed sophist, intent on scoring points and careless of good manners. His behaviour too has elements of bullying in it.
To investigate these hypotheses further requires an ability to detach oneself from the emotive insults produced by these two people, and examine what they have said, and what others have said about them, over extended periods of time. The Climategate Revelations (see, for example this annotated summary of the first of them) provide a source for such work on Mann, and the recent book by Steyn brings together a great deal of what might be called peer review of the man's work and working practices. Kevin Marshall (see his comment above, at 11:48 pm) has done such work on Rice in the particular topic of discussions about temperature adjustments . I don't suppose a book will be written about Rice as an individual, although as a member of a category of followers he might well deserve a footnote in some study of what attracted such people to the cause and how they behaved in the pursuit of it.
I stumbled on some advice from an online psychologist about how to deal with people suffering from what he referred to informally as the Walter Mitty Syndrome :
Seems like good advice to me. We should note their stories, and when they seem to be sufficiently misleading, we might hope that more intelligent and better-informed people will be able to help them back to less damaging paths. Nic Lewis did this with his very helpful comment on Ken's recent post. Ken's astonishing reaction suggests that he saw this as an intolerable challenge. Which is quite interesting.
Nullius,
Yes, but the possibility that something we don't yet know about - or understand - might exist, is not a good reason for assuming that it will, or that it is probable. Our best understanding today is that atmospheric CO2 concentrations will decay slowly, taking hundreds of years to reduce by a factor of 2 - 3 (i.e., from Co + C, to Co + C/x, where x is somewhere between 2 and 3), and taking thousands of years to return to pre-industrial levels.
Of course things may behave differently to what we currently expect; in fact, it would be highly surprising if it didn't. That - IMO - does not mean that we diminish the significance of our current understanding simply because something different may happen to what we currently expect.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting we simply accept the current position. Being skeptical is good, and that things will change with time is normal. The problem I have is with the apparent suggestion that this possibility is somehow likely. That things could be very different to what we currently expect does not mean that this is likely to be the case; it is much more likely that things will be similar to what we currently expect, than very different.
I also think that the quote you've included is really a scientist doing the absolutely correct thing of highlighting all the caveats and uncertainties in their work. I seriously doubt that they're really suggesting that it could be wildly different to what their model results suggest.
> Is this the new post modern science? We no longer listen to trumpets we see them when they are loud?
Even pre-moderns knew that trumpeting does not require a trumpet, geronimo:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=trumpet
Is geronimo's anachronism a lukewarm irony flip?
"Yes, but the possibility that something we don't yet know about - or understand - might exist, is not a good reason for assuming that it will, or that it is probable."
Is alien life probable? Is unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics probable? Are there any undiscovered species on Earth we don't yet know about? Have we already done everything it's possible to do with computers? Or genetic engineering? Or nanotechnology? Is it probable that there will be any future scientific discoveries at all?
Most of the universe consists of things we don't know about and don't understand. Science aspires to find out. But obviously it's all a big waste of time if we figure that anything we don't understand we should assume doesn't exist. Why are we wasting all this money looking, then?
We don't assume that it will. We don't assume that it won't. We don't know.
Yes Nullius, Newton said it all when he spoke of playing with pebbles by the vast unknown ocean.
Science is many things, and one of them is finding this situation exhilarating instead of running around in the vain search of certitude.
Oct 6, 2015 at 10:50 AM | Unregistered Commenter Nullius in Verba
Brilliant post; factual, clear and concise.