The old man has been recovering recently, so a lot of discussion has gone by the board; apologies if this has already been discussed.

Fettweis et. al. have a new paper under discussion in The Cryosphere (Copernicus open access). Link here. if that doesn’t work, try: http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/2/225/2008/tcd-2-225-2008.pdf 

The conclusion (which has a large uncertainty), based on a modelling of the GrIS surface mass balance fron 1900 -2100, using the AR4 GCMs, is that the contribution to sea level rise is likely to be around 4cm by 2100. This, however, assumes no change in the rate of iceberg calving or basal sliding.

It also derives from an analysis of the models which shows a temperature increase in Greenland (area 1) of around 2 degrees, which is offset by greater precipitation.

Apart from concern over the idea that calving and sliding is likely to remain consistent (I’d suggest that reactions are more likely to be non-linear), there is the question of the implications of findings such as Rignot’s on the changes in key discharge glaciers.

An interesting and challenging conclusion of the reanalysis is that there were more rapid changes in the 1930s than there have been recently (which would be consistent with the Jones et al temperature analyses). This might suggest to a cynic that the impacts of AGW are within natural boundaries (& therefore, supposedly, not a matter for concern). This, though, ignores the cumulative effect of the changes over the longer time scale, a flaw which also appears to be in the paper.

I have some doubts about the Fettweis material, but am not qualified to say more than this; perhaps a Connolley or a Benestad can help explain what the paper appears to be missing. My suggestion is that, whilst this is a comprehensive and scientifically sound piece of work on the surface, there are some assumptions embedded within it which might not be sustainable given other work which the paper does not consider.

It also occurs to me that a change in accumulation to compensate for mass loss through melting, whilst it would help stabilist the GrIS mass balance, does not reduce the rate of melting per se; therefore, it may be that Fettweis’s SLR estimate is much too low.

I’d appreciate it if spome of you read the actual paper and gave us some hints where we (or Fettweis) are going wrong.

I’m still cnsidering the prospect of a global SLR of a metre or more, with a GrIS contribution of perhaps 10-20% by the end of the century.

Here goes another peculiar analogy. I notice that Uncle Eli has been thinking along related lines.

The doctor (and anyone else I speak to) tells me, unequivocally, that since my MI (heart attack), I absolutely have to quit smoking. No surprises there, then.

Why? Putting aside the derivative opinions of those who aren’t really qualified to know (most of the people who say this apart from the experts), what is the scientific basis of the nedical advice I am receiving? And what will the consequences of ignoring it be?

First, let’s look at the explanation I have been given. By continuing to smoke, I would increase the risk of further heart attacks, probably double it. How does the doctor know this? The cardiologists have a large information base, demonstrating a statistical relationship, historically, between smoking and heart attacks; the evidence is very strong that smokers are more at risk than non-smokers. This statistical probability is generated from real data, and expresses the likelihood/risk of future damage/injury on well-understood physical and theoretical principles.

I can be confident, though, that I don’t have to heed their advice; I could take up smoking again if I wish after all, it’s a free world (cough). For whilst I am told that I would be at an increased risk, it is, after all, only a statistical risk; there is no certainty that I would have another attack, nor can they specify a timescale, either for another prospective attack, or for my future mortality (which will come, its just a matter of when…).

So while I can reasonably assume that I would be at increased risk if I did smoke, I can also (apparently) rationally choose to ignore this advice, since it is speculative and not able to commit to a certainty that I will have a heart attack in the future.

What do you think? Should I take up smoking again? Am I trying to find an excuse to continue doing something which I enjoy and is a habit, even though I know that it is going to be bad for me eventually?

Likewise, I can (apparently) rationally choose to ignore the experts who have used real world data and have calculated the risks using statistical probability, to tell me that the climate is warming, that sea level will rise this century, that patterns of weather on which agriculture and food supply rely are likely to change. After all, their analysis is also ’speculative’, and there are no certainties about the future of the climate/environment.

Here is the chance for you to give me some advice, then; should I adapt (smoke, but stop if I don’t feel well?), mitigate (stop and avoid the increased risk altogether?), or ameliorate (buy some chewing gum/patches, eat boiled sweets, whatever?). Perhaps I can just ignore it, and it will all go away eventually… ater all, we all have to die some time.

Surviving a threat has a way of focussing the mind. For the past few days, the question of priorities has been uppermost. What is important, what is not needed? What and who do I care enough about to invest time in, having been made aware that time is the defining resource limitation?

The heart attack has served to remind me of what might be considered my core philosophy, the essential, buck-stops-here points. Which, at the same time, serves to remind why I thought, a year or so back, that pursuing the questions posed by climate change, and switching occupations, were worthwhile.

Being enagaged in an enforced idleness at home, sat on a day bed contemplating the options of computer chess or daytime TV, I am reminded that, for me, the meaning of being, the purpose of existence, is tied intimately and inexorably to the well-being and happiness of others (you, if you like). A person’s life in and of itself, self-contained and complete (all false imaginings, I promise you), is a very little thing, of small significance. What makes a life big, what makes it full, what gives it meaning and value, is the manner and extent of its interactions with other people.

And here is the connection with climate change and the current state of discussions. Notwithstanding the few who insist otherwise, by and large we are aware that there is a sickness, a malaise, a problem with our world (our home). Whilst one or two will dispute the causes, of more concern is the disagreement over the solutions; how should we treat the patient?

I suspect that it is going to be difficult to decide the best treatments, though, unless we first establish the priorities for governments and industry. Beyond that, we need to establish the priorities for communities and social groups; beyond that, the priorities for families and micro-communities. Which also means establishing our own, individual priorities.

I have established, to my own satisfaction, my list of priorities for a happy and fulfilling life. It goes: People (here and now and present); people future; place/world (environment)[home] and all that it contains; the Future; the rest.

Here is an arrogant suggestion, then. Let’s try this as a template for good decision making about climate change, about adaptation and mitigation, about policy, ,investment and cost.

First priority goes to the problems which need dealing with now; Darfur, Timor, Zimbabwe, poverty, unnecessary death, AIDS, water, food…

Then there are the problems which need dealing with to secure the future for people; food, water, medicine, peace, justice, liberty…

The next priority are the problems which, if they have not already had to be addressed because of the above, relate to the environment, the world, etc; conservation, preservation, protection from exploitation, biodiversity… (though, not unsurprisingly, many of the problems of the first two sets of priorities also involve an attitude to the third set).

The next priority is to resolve the potential longer-term problems; sea levels, water supply, agriculture, resource exploitation…

And, finally, we can invest time, effort and money into to dealing with the other shit.

This set of priorities should be usable to guide us to making first decisions about where effort is needed and how important it should be compared to other issues.

More on that, later.

Two streams of thought arise from the announcement from the BAS that yet another chunk of the Peninsula’s long-term ice shelf is on the verge of splitting off permanently.

The first is to wonder why there are still people who can honestly (inasmuch as they believe it, even though it’s misguided) claim that GW is not really happening. In this category go all the people who spend endless hours attempting to undermine the temperature record in one way or another.

If all that’s left in my gooey grasp is a lolly-stick, there doesn’t seem to be much point in wondering whether the lolly has melted temporarily or on a more long-term basis. There doesn’t seem to be much point discussing whether or not lolly-melting temperatures have been synthetically arrived at by a cabal of lolly-scientists in search of hoards of lolly, or whether the official body responsible for lolly checking is staffed by political radicals with dubious sexual tendencies and atheistic views.

Not much point, because the lolly has gone. No lolly. Bye-bye, cold stuff.

The other stream is the one about what, in the face of the scale and enormity of the problem of climate change, we should or shouldn’t be bothered to do as individuals or consumers (in contrast to institutions and industry). It is easy to understand why some people feel that action on climate change is somewhat pointless, and that token behaviour is simply hypocritical, or perhaps simply self-deluding. It is also easy to see that such an attitude stems, ultimately, from the conception of the world as constituted of many individuals (including ourselves), none of which has substantive power, as opposed to being made up of loosely cohesive groups of people with common desires, aims and beliefs.

You don’t have to join a club to be a part; by doing you are being a part. You don’t have to wear woollen clothing or eat vegetables; there are very few things you might feel compelled to do, unless perhaps it is such things as consuming with thought, travelling with the cost in mind, ending the inclination to waste or replace. You don’t have to sign up to anything, or pay anything. First off, you need to work out whether you belong to a society or are distinct from it. Are you a part, or apart? If you can come to terms with your relative place in the world, then you can start to see the value in your own actions.

Well, not so  much a hiccup, actually, more a small heart attack.

Happened a week last Saturday Night (probably the fourth of a short series),

Operation on Thursday put in two stents.

Now home and recuperating, but obviously, not overly active, for a while.

Honest, it had nothing to do with the paper…

This will probably give me a bit of time to trawl around the blogosphere and irritate a few folks.

Apologies to all those who were expecting to hear from me. Now you know why.

Some interesting may conceivably follow in the days to come.

It’s not even as if I’m actually really that old, you know….

First and above all, thank you to the several people who have commented, both here and elsewhere, on the poll of scientists’ opinions which we conducted and which has now been put up on Roger Pielke Sr.’s weblog.

Thank you to our fellow climate bloggers, who have been supportive and engaged themselves, for their comments and feedback.

Thank you to the people who have sent emails, and those who have given permission for extracts to be used on the website.

Now, to some points which arise from all the comment and discussion, to some clarifications and questions.

Does the opinion poll, as we conducted it, say, or hint at, anything important?

Does it matter what (climate) scientists think about the IPCC WG1?

Does the reaction to the paper in itself raise important matters?

To the validity/value/significance (hello to Steve Bloom) of the poll itself:

As I have explained elsewhere, in the absence of a known community, a properly conducted sample poll is not generally an option. Where there is an identifiable specialism, however, it is generally considered acceptable to sample a subset of the community, so long as it can be seen to be in some way representative of the larger (undefined) community.

I believe that, in the methodology adopted, and in particular, in the efforts made to eliminate sample errors in advance by triple-checking the suitability of the people sent the questionnaire, we successfully met the criteria for an acceptable subset of the community of scientists engaged in disciplines closely related to climate or climate science.

I further believe that, in sending questions to people in more than fifty countries, and in selecting second and third authors/presenters as well as first authors/presenters, we have met an acceptable standard of inclusiveness across the range of age, nationality and discipline, whilst retaining that original criterion.

Where our poll fails to meet the rigorous standards of statistical significance (about which we are open, not as a ‘get-out-jail’ card, but as recognition of the limitations of our work), in other words, the number of respondents and the risk of self-selection bias, are matters which were beyond our capacity to control. We could have chosen to limit our sample, or select a more specific subsample, but the same problems, of identifying the relationship between the subset of respondents and the larger community, would still have existed. As with all polls, the number of respondents is  in part defined by the time, resources and finance available to the pollsters. It should be understood that this exercise was conducted with no funding of any kind, in our own time, with only the resources we could obtain via the internet available to us.

In other words, we did the best we could with what we had, and worked hard to get the broadest mix of relevant subjects, in the most open and honest way possible. A lot of comment has focussed on the ’self-selection bias issue’, but on this I will make two comments: first, it has been claimed by one group of people that our poll may well be biased in favour of ’skepticism’, and by the other group of people as being biased in favour of ‘alarmism’. This might suggest to the observant mind that we may actualy have found a decent middle ground. Second, there is as likely to be a bias in favour of ‘the middle response’ as in either extreme. The only way we could ever find out if this preliminary poll was in fact biased is to run a validation test, or a better, larger poll, and compare the results.

I would argue that, the (well-justified) criticisms aside, if you are willing to look at the results as they stand, this work does provide potentially important suggestions/guidance/information. It tells me, anyway, that I will probably struggle to find a genuine ‘denialist’ in the community of people involved in this area. Even a couple of very well-known ’skeptics’ were polled and responded, and they did not opt for out-and-out denial. It suggests that one ‘end’ of the so-called ‘frame of discourse’ on climate science is to all intents and purposes defunct, and can be eliminated from serious discussion on climate change.

In contrast to this, it also does tantalisingly suggest that there really is a reasonably broad range of scientific opinion on the WG1, but that, by and large, the position as represented in the AR4 WG1 paper is the ‘middle ground’, the majority view, the default position. In this sense, if one wished to talk about a ‘consensus’, this suggests that the IPCC represents the ‘consensus position’.

But because the poll also hints at a range of opinion outside the ‘consensus’ view, it also suggests that scientists’ opinions in this respect are important to know about and to understand. I understand the political importance of presenting a clear and strong message about climate change to politicians and the general public, and am an advocate of the same myself, in my own words and deeds. However, that there (probably) exists a range of disagreement about the science as presented in the WG1, which could well be broader than is implied by the summaries and press releases of the official bodies, is not a trivial matter. It may be expedient to sweep such issues under the carpet, but is it honest? Is it right, if one is to be judged as a scientist, by scientific criteria, to exclude data which does not conform to the required results of a test or hypothesis?

What is intriguing to me is what has followed as a consequence of the original poll. One of the most striking things about the comments of scientists and non-scientists alike is that both sets of people are equally prone to prejudice and predispositional attitudes, and both tend to view material as ‘on my side’ or ‘not on my side’, with very little equanimity or balance in evidence. Also intriguing is that our efforts appear to have produced both positive and negative reactions from people of all shades of opinions. To me, this clearly demonstrates that the content of this, or any other piece of writing, is being attributed its meaning almost entirely in the minds of the readers, almost irrespective of its actual content. In other words, what people are getting out of it is what they put into it.

No doubt there will be more to say on the subject, but I would welcome any further comments. As it seems reasonably clear that many people agree that the poll and the paper could have been done better, it would be nice if we could focus instead on the results , rather than the means of getting them. You will have to accept my word that we did our best to honestly gauge the honest feelings of honest scientists. I still think we succeeded, however ‘better’ or ‘differently’ things might have been. So tell me what you think about the results…

Oh, and if I haven’t already made it clear, we really do appreciate your involvement.

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/22/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1/ 

Roger Pielke Sr has written up our experience of trying to get a poll published.

Thus should have been my job but, 1; Roger has a much larger audience than I, and b; he is the senior member of the team, even if I was the researcher, and c; I suddenly got busy and left him and James hanging on a limb. For this, I owe them my sincere and public apologies; I hate failing to keep a promise.

As Roger’s comments link is closed, if anyone wishes to comment on the article, or on our experience of the publications concerned, please feel free. Just don’t expect me to publish them if you are a total wingnut, or abusive.

If you are a scientist involved in a climate-related discipline, or a meteorologist, you may also wish to express your own opinion, as I only sent out 1807 original enquiries, and you may not have been on the list.

If you are just another ordinary Joe (like most of us are), and have an opinion, feel free…

I won’t comment on any of this yet; let’s see what comes in and I’ll try to respond to that.

Be free.

The old man has returned from his wanderings and has taken up residence in the cave once again.

I’ll write something sensible later.

Sorry to be so late.

Following on from the last post, ‘George’ was asking about mass-production and very small wind turbines. The impression was that he was thinking of extremely small ‘mills’, so for the sake of discussion, we’ll assume that something like the Eclectic Energy Stealthgen, or Marlec’s Rutland 903 is what he had in mind. These are 300 watt, lightweight HAWTs designed to mount on small yachts, lamp posts or road signs; I have seen a few used in this way in Oxfordshire, in conjunction with very small solar PV cells. As small turbines go, they are reasonably efficient for their size, and modestly priced (a few hundred pounds/dollars each). Being made of standard materials and of simple design, they are amenable to mass-production and could, in theory, be mounted in groups of fifty or a hundred in relatively small sites. Would this be a good idea?

To help explain why this would be less efficient (in both materials and productivity) than larger systems, a few very important basics of wind power need to be covered. I’ll skip some of the detail, but the principles are well-understood and already factored in to many manufacturing decisions.

The two most critical factors in the amount of power which can be generated from any wind turbine are the strength of the available wind (the wind energy potential) and the amount of wind ‘going through’ a turbine’s blades (the swept area). Other important factors include the ‘quality’ of the wind resource (energy-reducing elements such as shear and turbulence) and the siting of the turbine relative to surface conditions (surface roughness).

The greatest amount of wind energy potential anywhere is relative to height above ground level; the higher you go, the more energy is available. This is able to be calculated using the wind power law or the wind log law. Even a difference of a few inches can increase or decrease the average amount of wind received at the turbine head. And it is the average, or mean wind, which matters here; both in terms of directional stability and long-term unit productivity. This is why large wind turbines want to be sited on tall masts.

The ‘down-side’ of this factor is that effective (by which I mean cost-effective) installations are likely to be, by definition, visible in the landscape. Without going into the arguments here, I’d suggest that almost all of the objections (in the UK at least) to wind installations derive from people believing they will be visually intrusive or ‘ugly’. My simple response is that in many cases a single small or medium-sized turbine has considerably less visual impact than a radio mast or electricity pylon, and that, assuming that the aim of objectors is to preserve the countryside they cherish, the long-term view must be that, without renewable energy, the countryside is likely to be transformed in ways which are more permanent, more damaging, and more ‘ugly’ than almost any alternative.

The relation between swept area and power output is in a squared proportion. A turbine which sweeps 10% more area than an alternative will give perhaps 40% more power (I can’t be bothered to do the sums today) for the same wind energy available. This explains why the manufacturers of large systems, such as the ones used on wind farms, are focussing their production on ever-larger, ever more powerful turbines. In fact, most of the companies which once produced ‘mid-sized’ systems no longer make them at all. This is a matter which I’ll return to later, in discussing ‘affordable’ local solutions.

This does not mean that there is no place for small wind systems; on the contrary, ’small’ wind could (according to recent estimates) account for a sizeable percentage of the entire UK’s ‘domestic’ energy use. It also does not mean that only large systems are economically viable. This is because, whilst wind farms needs to justify their costs by providing a return on investment and productivity at rates of 2-4 pence per kWh, small systems only need to work out as competitive in relation to end-user energy charges (tariffs), in order to be worthwhile. Having just seen a 13% rise in electricity charges yesterday, anyone who has energy generating capacity to replace that provided on the grid is making a net gain, since energy prices are rising faster than background inflation.

As things stand, with the technology currently available, (and depending on individuals’ current best available tariff), if a small turbine can produce 700-1100 kWh per £100 spent ($200), then it is probably going to both pay for itself and provide a long-term net return on the cost. If domestic users are willing to accept a small penalty in terms of cost in return for making a contribution towards reducing emissions, then the productivity can be even lower. Given the likelihood of ongoing long-term energy price inflation, a canny reader might realise that, so long as the additional cost is less than the sum of the inflation over the turbine’s lifetime, there is a reasonable chance that no cost will be incurred at all.

Rather than a field filled with extremely small turbines, then, I’d suggest that a chain of slightly larger ones (5-25 kW), is a more practical and more economic idea. In the next post or two, I’ll continue with more reasons why it works out this way.

In the meantime, if you have been thinking about putting a wind turbine up but aren’t really sure whether it is for you, or if you have a company which is suffering because of the high cost of energy, be warned that the Old man is now working for an engineering company in the UK which installs these things; get in touch, and I’ll try to help give you some answers (no charge, since it’s you…).