Recent Comments

Prev  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  Next

Comments 83601 to 83650:

83601. actually thoughtful at 17:45 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro Kano: "I love the free market, but I'm not in favor of cap and tax. In fact most true market fan are not in favor of government controlled and regulated CO2 market system." Sigh. It is time for you to choose - AGAIN. I grant you your right to think this (generous of me, I know). But you can't really claim to be a free market guy AND deny free markets all the information they need. Pick one. Either you believe in free markets, and all that entails (fully informed buyers and sellers) or you prefer a jerry-rigged system. It doesn't matter to me if the government fixes it or big business or my Aunt Edna - it is a fixed market and non-optimal outcomes are pouring out of it. The irony here is that we "greenies" out libertarian the libertarians and out conserve the conservatives. It all comes from being internally consistent in your world view, and thinking through the repercussions. I invite you to try it. A carbon tax provides the information. You either need to come up with a method for introducing the missing information, or admit you are not a free market guy (IF you want to be intellectually honest). As for the 2nd law - do me a favor. Write it up, get it peer reviewed and published. Then John Cook or another talented writer on this site will review it. THEN I will read their review, and if it still doesn't make sense, I will read your actual paper. Other than that - no way am I falling for your 2nd amendment follies. Life is short! I just don't need a 240 watt or 390 watt power supply.
83602. John Nicol at 16:35 PM on 5 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Again thanks to the moderator [DB] for your comments and invitation to include links. I was previously of the impression that it might be inappropriate to give another reference link for people on your post as a lot of other sites disallow the invitation to their own "audience" to go elsewhere. However, if that is OK here it would certainly make it easier perhaps to keep everyone happy and prevent unsettling other guests. Best, John
83603. John Nicol at 15:32 PM on 5 June 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       This comment may again be off topic for a site such as yours, but if one is going to list politicians who denounce the science from the IPCC without knowledge, would it not, in the intersts of balance, be fair to also list those like Ross Garnaut in particular and also Keven Rudd, Greg Combet and many others who continure to assure us that the science is settled, when in fact they do not have a single clue about the science.
83604. LazyTeenager at 14:46 PM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       One thing that I am curious about is the details of the actual measurement protocol for thermometers in Stevenson screens. That is how current, maximum and minimum temperatures are used in the temperature record. One concievable error is where a transient event such as a jet exhaust or air conditioner turn on is captured by a maximum temperature measurement.
83605. Eric (skeptic) at 14:43 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, when you proposed your hypothetical up in this thread, I didn't realize you wanted to add lots of urgency. Now I see in 279, you want 50% reduction in 50 years. Do you accept nuclear power in this hypothetical? Regardless of electricity production method, we would still have to cut transportation fuel use in half. Libertarians would start with drastic cuts in government energy use, starting with DoE itself (would have to stop making nuclear weapons and stop cleaning up the mess from previous weapon making). Then get rid of the government fleet (200k vehicles) and the post office (200k more vehicles) Unfortunately that still leaves 200m private vehicles. Removing federal regulations would cut energy use (net) by removing such impediments to efficiency such as "crash safety" and "clean air" (my understanding is that Europe has dirtier diesels with better mileage) With that, we are still at the margins. Reduction in miles traveled is going to hammer the economy. But there's a nice Libertarian way out, cut taxes to boost entrepreneurship. Regardless of the climate debate, I would eliminate corporate income taxes and long term capital gains (maybe lengthen the term to 2 from 1 year) To reduce the miles, I would privatize the highways and let them sell credits for keeping them empty. To make it more expensive to use local roads we could have private subdivisions like mine with shoestring budgets with 100% resident funding (ours is about $8k per mile per year). Then an arrangement so that the trip to the privately maintained office park and shopping complex costs $20 but returned in credits instead of the current $2 in fuel. The credits would be given out as coupons for stores or bonuses by employers. Even with that, we have an economic friction problem. In order to get the best job match people have to travel a lot, especially the way the business and homes are laid out here. That might require more than the tax elimination and (what I didn't mention) restoring the long term value of money. Before and during the Civil War my area was an industrial mecca with a limestone quarry (on my property) a lime kiln (still there next door) and a furnace nearby for metal working. That also meant we had zero (really truly zero) trees left and lots of CO2 emissions from making quicklime. But the same ideas could be applied to many newer industries with some zoning flexibility, new small scale manufacturing, and local distribution and sales. Well, that's not very difficult now is it? The weather modification idea came from an article I read about it using ships to create clouds over the ocean. Lots of extensions are possible to most efficiently increase the water cycle. Heck, we could probably use frickin laser beams to do it.
83606. J. Bob at 14:23 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddeno, P.S. Clarification of the 3rd item. It is not seeing the connection between the 1880-1910 & the 1945-1955 global temperature dips and CO2 concentrations. One would think you would see something.
83607. Tom Curtis at 14:23 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dhogaza @350, I'm sure you meant 200 years, however I believe 50 years is the appropriate figure with the work of Gilbert Plass overcoming the major objections to the theory.
       Response:

       [DB] Fixed Link.

83608. J. Bob at 14:13 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp @ 268, took a longer look at the paper you referenced, Benestad & Schmidt. A few things bother me with the CO2 connection. First, the short time span of actual CO2 data ( 1958-2009) Second, the reliance of proxy CO2 data for earlier ( pre-1958) Third, the lack of comparing long term ( > 20 years) temperature variations to CO2 (GHG) variations. Have you noticed that?
83609. dhogaza at 13:59 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       JK is a true denialist: "If and only if the physics (radiative forcing) is a true mechanism." This has not been an issue for something close on 500 years (Tyndall). If you don't like physics, kill your computer. Even stone-aged living required physics (not identified at the time, but shaping points was/is dependent on nativist knowledge of how various rocks react to forceful blows).
83610. Tom Curtis at 13:59 PM on 5 June 2011
       Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
       RyanStarr @15, No. I am saying that the last ten years of instrumental data (2000-2009) added 0.4 degrees to the preceding ten years (1990-1999), ie, the last 10 years actually plotted by Lungqvist. I strongly suspect that the next ten years in the sequence (2010-2019) will add a similar amount, but I don't know the relevant data to make a forecast for 90 to 30 degrees North (ie, the area covered by the data).
83611. scaddenp at 13:58 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Further note to Eric(sk). On attribution of emissions... Is the responsibility for emissions from coal-powered consumer good with the consumer or with the producer? If its with the producer and there is no mechanism by with they pay the environment costs associated with production, then why would they not burn coal? If its with the consumer, then where is most of the consumer goods produced in China going to?
83612. dhogaza at 13:56 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Garethman:

       If what I see is condemnation in the most aggressive way against anyone who has an idea which goes against accepted thought, (regardless of how muddle headed or wrong that opinion is) then I suspect we may be moving towards a dark age in scientific thought which is deeply worrying. To never allow dissenting opinion is a form of denialism in itself

       So Garethman thinks geologists are evil for laughing at those who insist the earth is only 6,000 years old. Look, bible-thumpers are free to make the claim and no one says we can't "allow dissenting opinion". The fact that we laugh at them and point out their total disconnect with reality does not make us guilty of "denialism". We not only have science on our side, but oil and coal without which you probably wouldn't be getting the electricity that allows you to post such bunk. People are free to insist the world is flat, 6,000 years old, and that CO2 lasers don't work. We're free to point a CO2 laser at their forehead and test their faith (with, of course, their permission and the signing of proper release forms) ...
83613. Tom Curtis at 13:49 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigaro Kano @343, if you are not in favour of a government regulated market in CO2 emission permits, then the logical step for you to take as a libertarian is to ban any emissions from any property other than the results of natural processes except where the emitter has independently negotiated with all potentially effected people for permission to do so. It is very obvious that on libertarian principles you do not have the right to dump your rubbish on my land without my permission. Clearly the bar against dumping applies not just because the noxious substance is solid, or liquid, but because it potentially harms me, or the value of my property. Well, CO2 emissions potentially harm all humans and the value of property of millions. Ergo, not dumping without individually negotiated permission is a straight forward consequence of libertarian principles, once you reject a regulated market. Cue the usual libertarian sophistry about how their principles don't have their obvious consequences except when those consequences are beneficial to the libertarian ...
83614. scaddenp at 13:44 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro - but you dont offer any effective CO2 emission control as an alternative. I'm with Hansen on this - I dont cap and trade will do any good at all. His "fee and dividend" proposal is interesting but I'm just as happy with just ban it and let the market figure it out within the constraints. We dont let aluminium plants vent F, coal plant vent SO2, etc. You would have more credibility if you could offer a truly "effective" alternative but then I have just seen your comments on 2nd Law. Time you took a trip to Science of Doom. Please try and convince me that you are not rationalizing denial because your ideology is bankrupt of ideas for effective CO2 emission control.
83615. Tom Curtis at 13:41 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigaro Kano @341, I have dealt with your misunderstandings regarding the greenhouse effect and electrical circuits here. Kindly discuss it on the appropriate thread or not at all.
83616. Tom Curtis at 13:38 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp @340, I do not say the system I describe would be acceptable to libertarians. All I say is that it is consistent with their stated principles. As your comment makes plane, doing nothing about GHG emissions is actually inconsistent with libertarian principles in that it involves the degrading of other peoples privately held assets without their agreement and without compensation. Neither of these facts (the consistency with their principles of an emission permit scheme, and the inconsistency with those principles of doing nothing) will, IMO, impact on the decisions of many, if any libertarians. That is because libertarianism is IMO a true ideology, ie, an inconsistent or incoherent value system adopted consciously or unconsciously because it acting according to the supposed requirements of the value system is personally beneficial. I say "supposed requirements" because as the system in inconsistent, adherents to the system must pick and choose which requirements to actually follow.
83617. Jigoro Kano at 13:33 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       actually thoughtfull @337 You said: True market force fans (such as myself) are in favor of putting the missing price signal on carbon so the free market can do its magic. Which will be the rise of renewables, and the death of fossil fuels. I love the free market, but I'm not in favor of cap and tax. In fact most true market fan are not in favor of government controlled and regulated CO2 market system.
83618. Bob Lacatena at 13:31 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       341, Jigoro, Oh, God, not another 2^nd Law is being violated theorist. Why are there so many of these? It's embarrassing to the human race. Denial, plain and simple. If you have to start misapplying physics to make your point... and your position is at odds with even all leading denial climate scientists (Spencer, Lindzen, Choi, Pielke Sr., Christy, Curry, etc., my word, it's even at odds with Jo Nova!!!) then you know that you are a true denier. Indeed, name one even marginally reputable scientists who has signed on to the 2^nd Law insanity. If you need to go claiming that a theory that is accepted by flat out everyone engaged in the science is wrong for something as simple as a child's interpretation of how to apply the laws of Thermodynamics, well... you are a denier. [And you actually give other deniers a bad name.]
83619. Jigoro Kano at 12:54 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       actually thoughtfull @337 You said: "The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES an active mitigation response." If and only if the physics (radiative forcing) is a true mechanism. All damming CO2 data means nothing if the solution (cap and tax) doesn't mitigate the problem. I invite you to the 2nd law thread for your explanation on how an engineered product can have 240 W input and generate a 390 W output.
83620. RyanStarr at 12:49 PM on 5 June 2011
       Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
       @ Tom, are you telling us that the smoothed HadCrut plot for the next 10 years would add another 0.4 degrees to the dotted line on Ljungqvist's chart?
83621. scaddenp at 12:48 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Tom, the complexity of such a system will not appeal to libertarians. Its interesting that if a property is devalued by government (eg government just bans any new coal-fired generation without emission capture, like our previous one did), this is regarded as unacceptable theft of coal owners wealth and unacceptable restraint on freedom. It would appear though that most will accept control of F, SO2 etc into environment as these infringe the rights of others. On the other hand, loss of property to climate-accelerated erosion which was in no way the fault of the person incurring the loss is acceptable. Just part of the "adaption".
83622. Tom Curtis at 12:45 PM on 5 June 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Jigoro Kano @1018, your analogy is inaccurate and fails to understand the greenhouse effect. 1) It is inaccurate because it models temperature with power measured in Watts. Temperature, however, is not power, ie, energy over time. Rather it is (in a gas) the mean kinetic energy of the particles of the gas. As such, it is analogous to Voltage in electronic systems, ie, the energy per unit charge. So, you challenge should be,

       What electronic circuit will, when powered by a 240 watt source, raise the voltage? 2) It fails to understand the greenhouse effect because in the greenhouse effect, at equilibrium energy in equals out so that over time, power (Watts) in equals power (Watts) out. You are probably aware that the surface radiation is greater than the incoming solar radiation averaged overtime (and after albedo losses). But this is compensated for by the fact that the back radiation very nearly equals the surface radiation. As a result the net upward energy flow from the surface (516 Joules per second averaged over a year and the Earth's surface) very nearly equals the downward energy flow at the Earth's surface (517 Joules per second averaged globally and annually). The very slight difference is the reason for global warming, and will be balanced out once equilibrium is reached. Likewise at the Top Of the Atmosphere, energy in (341.3 Joules per second globally and annually averaged) very nearly equals energy out (340.4 Joules per second globally and annually averaged). (The slight difference between TOA balance and surface balance is due to measurement error). What is more, although it is not shown on the diagram, at every level of the atmosphere, energy in equals energy out except when that level is warming or cooling. Note, although there is more power flowing from surface to atmosphere than from the sun to the surface, that does not indicate an increase in power in the circuit. It merely indicates that the circuit doubles back on itself. Treating it as the circuit increasing the power is like considering only the bottom half of the Villard Cascade (above) and concluding that the circuit has increased the power threefold because there are three connections (Ds, D₂, and D₄) each carrying the initial power to the lower half of the circuit. It should be noted that climate models all have the feature that for each distinguished layer, energy in equals energy out if temperature is constant. Indeed, if a model of the atmosphere includes greenhouse gasses, it can only avoid a greenhouse effect by not having this feature.

83623. scaddenp at 12:41 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigaro - Based on Vattenfall study, solar photovoltaics produce 50 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of energy produced with 974 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour. Not that I think PV is answer but CSP might be PART of an answer.
83624. scaddenp at 12:38 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Good, Eric, that is what I would expect from you. However, I am not so sure about your attempts to distance yourself from the emissions. US has made massive contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere already, especially on a per capita basis. And I believe that this issue for the US is the coal power station more than oil (where rising prices will eventually force alternatives). So how is your electricity produced? I remain unimpressed that your measures would have any reasonable effect in the timeframe available, but of course we disagree about urgency. "First I would suggest rebuilding your airport at Mosgiel which is about 20 minutes drive." That is more or less where it is (the old airport is just beside it). However all that flat land is 1m above sealevel or less. Its the lack of flat land that is problem. Note also that travel arteries to north,south and west are all at risk. "Are you really asking me to toss aside my belief in the human potential? That we must all huddle mindlessly while waiting for the government to do something?" The "government" is us collectively doing something. I'm waiting for your suggestions of "sensible" government action. You seem to putting a standard of perfection above a standard of effectiveness. You are concentrating on adaption or engineering. I am asking, in the hypothetical case of being convinced that CO2 emission must be limited, what is the effective libertarian way to do it. You seem to be implying that there is possibility of limited emissions that is acceptable. "it is clear that increases in precipitation are a negative feedback, so I would try to figure out ways to speed up the water cycle." Its not clear to me at all. I am not sure what you mean. Can you explain further, preferably with reference?
83625. Eric (skeptic) at 11:56 AM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       I have a question about the economy-energy link. If this story http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/05/29/who-turned-out-the-lights-in-china/ then essentially China is reducing their fossil fuel use by capping the price of electricity while fossil fuel prices rise. One of the effects is shortages of electricity but presumably that will result in shortages in China's supply chain and eventually higher prices for U.S. and other consumers.

       Is this an acceptable way to pass the cost of limiting fossil fuel use along to U.S. consumers? If not, would a tariff on our end work better and why? Another question (presuming the story is accurate), does China have the option to make up for the economic loss with a green economy and if they do, why aren't they doing it?

83626. actually thoughtful at 11:53 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro Kano - I assure you I have no idea what your position is on climate change. I have a very easy rule you can check yourself against: The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES an active mitigation response. If you agree and are taking action - you are a true skeptic. If you disagree (for whatever little reason you might have) you are a denier. After many years of engaging in quibbling over the acres of minutia, I have finally boiled down to either you are taking action, or you are condemning our offspring to a dramatically lower quality of life (up to and including shorter, or not at all). If you are struggling with the 2nd law there is a thread for that. As for me, I have no trouble with it. Because I stick with the science, not the sophistry. As for redistributing wealth, by not valuing the pollution externality with such horrific outcomes -it is the denier who is engaged in inter-generational wealth transfer. As for solar thermal, doing it right in a freezing climate is much more expensive than most people realize. It is a valuable technology that works. Unsubsidized paybacks compared to propane or electricity are in the 10-14 year range. Compared to natural gas, it is roughly double that. Design lifetimes are 100 year minimum. Evacuated tubes are great for cold climates - EXCEPT the vacuum only lasts ~15 years. If that works for you then it is a good deal. A flat panel has a 100 year life (drainback, roughly half that if you use glycol). I have provided sources that point out the energy payback is roughly 2 years. You know want it cast some other way. Do you own research and provide a source for how long the carbon payback is. Or use my figures and the national average for energy production. Or find the figures for the factories (I even gave you towns). It is a non-issue, and will remain so. I invoke reality. As for my neighbor - he received no tax incentive. He is another confused libertarian. I do like his idea of putting all material in the dump so future generations know where to find it. He made a deal with the the local monopoly provider of electrons to host solar panels on his roof in exchange for a stable electricity rate over the next 20 years. The monopoly provider will probably maximize their profits by selling the REC or satisfying a requirement that they produce so much by renewables. This company has exceeded all state requirements, and has found it profitable to use solar PV as a source for peak electricity, even to the point of providing subsidies (again beyond the state mandate). This is called the (lightly regulated) free market. Any installer is paid their full costs, so your question doesn't make any sense. Would they have any customers without the incentives? They would have fewer (I speak from personal experience here in the solar thermal market). Are all energy source subsidized? Yes. Once you charge people for the right to mess up the atmosphere this whole thing becomes *not confusing* - even to libertarians. Free markets require perfect information to operate effectively (this is assumed in all economic models) - the lack of a price signal with carbon emissions means my definition we do not have a free market. True market force fans (such as myself) are in favor of putting the missing price signal on carbon so the free market can do its magic. Which will be the rise of renewables, and the death of fossil fuels. Put more colorfully, there is no force on earth greater an Americans desire to legally avoid taxes. Once a "tax" on carbon exists, this problem is virtually solved, and we can move on to lesser matters like the debt crisis, job creation (actually solved by putting a price on carbon) and reforming entitlements. But none of that matters if we are going to foul the next with CO2.
83627. Jigoro Kano at 11:53 AM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       actually thoughtfull @ 46 You said; "I wish all private industry was as "inefficient" as the NYC subway!" In case you missed it: US public transportation is inefficient regardless of the subsidy. The US light rail rail transit inefficiency arise from the constant power consumption. Whether it running full speed, half speed, idling or breaking, nearly the same power is consumed. The large cages, usually atop a the trains, contain a huge resistor grids. The grids act a giant rheostat to offset actual use to mitigate dynamic loading of catenary and/or third rail. Worse yet, being a government entity they operate on the 'use it or loose it" budgeting criteria. Budgeted money not spent is retracted and counts negatively (less funds) the following cycle...thus system manager leave surplus trains idling to burn electricity. Why you ask, well being a wholesale consumer of electricity, overages in negotiated electrical rates cost little, and show a need for bigger budget (tax money), and if overages are substantial enough a better negotiated rate. Under use will do just the opposite. Whats' the result, the CO2 ton/rider ratio is abysmal, while the cost/rider is exorbitant. As I said inefficient. Inefficiency to a level unheard of within the private sector. US rail transit is horribly inefficient Bolstered by e link, I stand by my position. And as I also said, NYC is the only area in the US which could possibly make the numbers work. Don't deny the facts.
83628. Jigoro Kano at 11:28 AM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       e @ 40 Your link, concluding statement: Conclusion: There may be places in the world where rail transit works. There may be reasons to build it somewhere in the United States. But saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are not among those reasons. Regions and states that want to be green should find cost-effective alternatives such as the ones described here.
83629. Tom Curtis at 11:11 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro Kano @335, if you wish the permit market to operate on libertarian principles, there would need to be a fine emitting beyond your permitted amount. I would make the fine a set multiple (four times is reasonable) of the highest value emissions permit trade, with part of the money being used to buy permits to cover the excess emission, and the rest being used to cover administrative costs. For practical reasons permits should be handed out periodically with a set fraction handed out each year to avoid market failures. Also to avoid market failures it would be desirable if permits expired 15 months after being issued, though I don't know that that can be made consistent with libertarian principles. Emissions would be assessed based on activities. If, for example, you purchase some fuel, and later no longer have that fuel, you would be assessed for the emissions value of that fuel. For practical purposes it would be advisable to require the assessment to be made at the first sale of the fuel (forcing the fossil fuel companies to buy up the permits) but a more flexible system could be designed to suit libertarian scruples at higher administrative cost.
83630. Jigoro Kano at 10:27 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Tom Curtis @ 332 you said: 3) Hand out those property rights to all people without charge on an equal basis globally (ie, every person receives the same initial emissions quota); What if I used more then my permit allowed? How would you know I did or did not?
83631. Tom Curtis at 10:21 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigaro Kano @320: I don't deny that any policy, no matter how desirable, can have harmful impacts if poorly implemented. But given that caveat: 1) I deny that green policies need have a harmful impact on developing countries; and in fact think most developing countries would benefit from greener policies - both their own and from the west. 2) I deny that green policies need harm the indigent and consider the presence of indigent people in any western country an indictment of that governments economic and social policies. I also deny that green policies need have a harmful impact the ordinary poor. 3) I deny that Russia and China care little about AGW (I don't know the situation in Brazil), although Russia did not care until the summer of 2010 gave them a reality check. 4) I deny that green policies where the cause of Spains economic woes. So if you want to call me a "green policy catastrophism denier", go right ahead. I'll wear the label with pride, and I will do so because I know that I can defend my opinions rationally.
83632. Jigoro Kano at 10:16 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       actually thoughtfull @ 319 You never answered my question: Do you think they bought solar because of environmental concerns or because the incentives (tax money) they received? Do you think the outfit which sold the PV grid would have even bothered if not for those incentives? Your liked document did not address the carbon foot print of PV cells. Personally I couldn't care less about the footprint, but as matter of forthrightness, alarmist should. EPBT assumes all energy generation is equal; which I know you do not believe. You asked: "Why do you have an emotional (and factually baseless) response to renewable energy?" Emotional no. I completely object to subsidizing ANY energy production. A little OT, redistributing wealth for any purpose is theft. It is not the government's to give. Solar thermal, is a great way to offset heating cost. Very little upstart cost, quick ROI and for those whom care Green. Do you recommend Evacuated Tubes or Flat Panels. Have you investigated using a Sterling Generator in conjunction with thermal Tubes/Panels for electrical generation. @ 327 Deniers, always blah..blah..blah never blah..blah..blah science blah..blah..blah. You don't seen to understand my position. And before I get snipped, it 2nd law thing.
83633. Tom Curtis at 10:05 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp @325, it is in fact trivially easy to come up with a solution to the need for carbon mitigation based on libertarian principles: 1) One recognise that the atmosphere's ability to absorb Greenhouse Gasses without catastrophic climate change is a limited resource; 2) Assign a property right to emit GHG; 3) Hand out those property rights to all people without charge on an equal basis globally (ie, every person receives the same initial emissions quota); and 4) Make the permits tradable so the market can determine the most efficient final allocation of the permits. There are problems with such a scheme relating to governance and verification, but they are certainly solvable. There are greater problems in that the US at present rates of consumption would run through its emission rights in six years. That probably requires some fudging to give US citizens greater emission rights than those of their global neighbours. However, any such fudging would contradict libertarian principles and should be strenuously resisted by any true libertarian. Transparently, given the scientific evidence, any true libertarian would be a strenuous advocate of global emissions permits on a strict per capita basis. Very few (if any) libertarians are prepared to face up to the inconvenience that would involve. So rather than face up to the fact that they are violating their principles, and fully intend to continue doing so, they retreat into denialism.
83634. Albatross at 09:54 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica @328, "But I will call a denier what he is, and the fact that he recoils so forcefully from the name exposes the bare, frightening truth behind the label. They don't like it, and they deny it, because it is what they are." Probably one of the most powerful and true comments on this entire thread. Bravo! It is rather amusing how those in denial about AGW are now frantically trying to reframe the argument, as well as try and turn the term on its head (i.e., we "warmists" are the ones in denial). Unbelievable....
83635. SoundOff at 09:49 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Thanks, Glenn. Part 2B was especially interesting and helped fill in some of my gaps.
83636. Tom Curtis at 09:45 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Eric (skeptic) @20, the interesting question is not why is the UAH trend lower than the GISS trend, it is why is it lower than the RSS trend: Given the close agreement between RSS satellite measured trends and the Hadley/CRU measured surface trend, it is likely that UAH is understating the trend for some as yet unknown reason. We know the GISS trend is slightly greater than the RSS and HadCRUt trend because it includes polar regions which are excluded from the others, and which are warming faster on average (much faster in the NH, slightly slower in the SH) than the non-polar regions of the globe.
       Response:

       [dana1981] I wouldn't say "unknown", necessarily.  There have been several studies suggesting changes to the satellite data analysis, which would bring it more in line with what we expect as compared to the surface warming trend.  Fu et al. (2004) is one, and Vinnikov & Grody (2006) was another.  Tamino had a good discussion on this.

83637. Jim Powell at 09:23 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       A most informative, eye-opening post that filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge. I thought I understood why we use anomalies; now I may even be able explain it to someone else. Many thanks.
83638. actually thoughtful at 09:17 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro, Really! Do some research. I had hoped you would be a fresh voice with libertarian ideas that were internally consistent (something libertarians have a lot of trouble with), but you appear to be reposting the same easily disproved claims over and over again. 1. Spain had a housing/credit collapse. They also made significant investments in renewable infrastructure. The two events are not tightly related and the latter mitigated the former. 2. China and Brazil have CO2 records that are impressive. Look into Brazil's development of REAL biofuels (ie ethanol not from corn) and its impact on its CO2 output. Look into China's renewable efforts. They are huge, so they also have coal, nuclear, oil, etc. But to say they "don't care" about CO2 is only possible by cherry picking the data. 3. Review the thread "models are unreliable" or take a look at Hansen 1988. I don't know if you are speaking of an outlier, there are a (very) few who confuse the speed of the changes (unprecedented in nature) with *imminent* doom. Instead, under BAU - doom is put off at least until 2050! But the science indicates we will reach irreversible tipping points before the full detrimental effects of increased CO2 are fully realized (diamonds are not the only form of carbon that is (virtually) forever...) 4. I don't understand what you are asking, but we use transformers to change the characteristics of electrical output. No magic though. Finally, you confuse the rational recognition of alarming facts (the globe is warming, the oceans are rising, heating and acidifying and human activity is to blame) with "alarmism" - which would be exaggerating those alarming data points. But this site does not feature exaggeration (no alarmism is needed, the real world data is alarming enough!), indeed any attempt to do so is shot down by fellow posters and moderators alike, Just as false claims to "skepticism" are eviscerated immediately. You are welcome. Repeating a lie does not make it true. And that is true every time it is said.
83639. Riccardo at 09:01 AM on 5 June 2011
       It's methane
       AndyS the claim that CH4 is "more powerfull" than CO2 is a bit ambiguos. It's not clear to what it refers. I suggest a good discussion on this topic at Chris Colose site.
83640. AndyS at 08:41 AM on 5 June 2011
       It's methane
       Does anyone have a reference that supports the Methane is 21 times CO2 thesis? I have seen this figure referenced all over the internet, but I haven't seen how it is calculated.
       Response:

       [DB] Recent topical discussion on Methane over at Tamino's.

       Chris Colose, Eli Rabett (and also here) and Steve Bloom all weigh in with good points.

83641. Eric (skeptic) at 07:59 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Glenn, I understand your point about the change in bias, not the bias itself. The aerosol effect would likely be urban so removing rural stations would create an artificial cooling (provided the aerosols increased over the time period in question). I gave it as a counterexample. All such effects need to be analyzed, we can't simply claim that stations were randomly removed (not true) or that the bias change was random (unknown).
83642. Glenn Tamblyn at 07:54 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Eric. When comparing Surface vs Satellite records it is important to remember that the satellites aren's producing a surface warming trend. The LT series cover a band in the lower troposphere centred at around 2.5 km altitude. As to removal of stations introducing a bias, this can only happen if the net of all station removals is of stations that are COOLING, not just COOLER. If the rural aerosol effect is real (I hadn't heard of that effect before), is it a fixed bias or one that changes over time? If it is a fixed bias for a station then removing that station doesn't necessarily bias to the whole record. Biases at any station are only going to influence the record if the bias changes over time.
83643. Eric (skeptic) at 07:44 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, about drowning the deltas with all those people, that will take decades if not centuries (diff thread of course). Also those are not my personal emissions even with every indirect emission added in, not to mention my 50 new trees and other offsets. Not my HOA where we maintain 8 miles of roads on a $50k / year budget (read low emissions). Not much at my state level (VIrginia) At my federal level I as an American have some effect. It is small, a fraction of a degree anomaly (based on models) which makes no difference to those deltas. But adding in the indirect emissions is when we finally get to some amounts that can substantively lower the manmade CO2 rise. I don't ever stop wondering if am wrong and the CO2 will dramatically increase the water vapor with the necessary change in weather patterns to do that (e.g. there would be fewer tornadoes with a much more northerly jet among other things). When that happens and the Greenland temperatures really do rise the 10C needed to melt quickly (various ice models), what would I do at that point? First I would suggest rebuilding your airport at Mosgiel which is about 20 minutes drive. I would donate more for education and I would start donating for foreign educations. I would ask for refugees since we have some room and they add to our country's vitality. Are you really asking me to toss aside my belief in the human potential? That we must all huddle mindlessly while waiting for the government to do something? If you insist on that, I will vote some sensible government solutions. For example, it is clear that increases in precipitation are a negative feedback, so I would try to figure out ways to speed up the water cycle. But I would shy away from radiative solutions that might not be easy to undo (e.g. sulfur in the atmosphere, etc)
83644. Bob Lacatena at 07:42 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garethman,

       ...never allow dissenting opinion is a form of denialism in itself...

       Certainly. No one would argue that, or for stifling free speech. But where do you draw the line between free speech, and loud, orchestrated, wholesale misinformation and an all out assault on science? Because that is what we see from the legions of climate deniers, and their leaders (Monckton, Lindzen, etc.). They are deniers, and of the most despicable kind, because they make up most of what they say, they use tactics instead of truth, and they undermine all of science in the process. If Diogenes and I ever wander across an honest man a skeptic, I'll let you know. But I will call a denier what he is, and the fact that he recoils so forcefully from the name exposes the bare, frightening truth behind the label. They don't like it, and they deny it, because it is what they are.
83645. Riccardo at 07:36 AM on 5 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Charlie A "When looked at from the point of view of a statistician or forecaster, the climate models don't do very well globally, and are very poor at regional predictions. The climate models, in many tests, have predictive capability worse than a random walk." (emph. mine) This is your interpretation of the paper, not mine.
83646. actually thoughtful at 07:12 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro Kano 323 - this is a perfect microcosm of the whole denial problem. The pro-science crowd says lets look at the science and come up with a policy (if necessary) to deal with any problems. The denialist crowd ALWAYS avoids the real issues. Now you are claiming that if anyone disputes any of your list of untruths that you threw up that they are a "denier". Cute, but intellectually unsatisfying. Science and observed reality don't care how many semantic games you play. The world is warming, human activity is responsible. It is like I told all those climategate people a few years ago - emails are NOT melting the arctic, nor causing ocean acidification, nor warming the globe. If it helps - yes I absolutely deny the untruths you spouted in 320. I invoke reality.
83647. actually thoughtful at 06:57 AM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Just a note on NYC trips per day - I lived in Brooklyn and owned a car. And I drove the car every day (it was required as the rules mandated leaving opposite sides of the street car free each day). Other than moving it to meet the requirements - I used the subway for everything. It was a 2 block walk to the subway. So I could make 2 or 3 trips per day (4-6 "rides"). If you have never lived in NYC it seems a little strange. But the subway takes you where you want to go. No parking, no traffic. Clever New Yorkers don't even own a car. Rent as needed. The societal savings of the NYC subway are jaw dropping (time, pollution, wasted capital in vehicles, fuel, land dedicated to parking, CO2 emissions). Any one of which would justify the expense. I wish all private industry was as "inefficient" as the NYC subway! "stan clee doe" - the NYC subway driver's version of "please stand clear of the closing doors" - I will never forget it, and it still brings a smile.
83648. scaddenp at 06:50 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric, also you raise all the issue about carbon tariff but no solutions. If it works, does it matter if something isnt perfect?
83649. scaddenp at 06:48 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric (sk). But you are also respectful of science - which must mean you have indicators in mind which would tell you when your opinion is wrong. As I said in Jigoro, I find your inability to come up effective CO2 emission reduction strategy within your ideology disturbing. If you cannot conceive of a solution, then surely you recognize that you run the risk of rationalization for doing nothing rather than proper examination of reality as revealed by science. CO2 emissions is where you must think globally. Your emissions are what will drown the great deltas populated by people with far less resources to fix them. You might ask instead for your libertarian vision to somehow empower them but we both know that if science is right, that wont happen fast enough to be empower anything (do to what? invade their neighbour?). I am sorry but I think you are trivializing other peoples problems because of your inability to conceive solutions within your value system. I would urge you to try harder because its a problem for many others in your country too and the world actually needs the Right to striving as well. Consider a different hypothetical problem - an asteroid incoming, say 40% chance of strike on US. Solution possible but takes vast sum of money to fix and a very short time frame. What's the solution within your value system? My local issues? Look at Dunedin NZ. Not a large convenient airport but a small one located a long way from city. Reason for existence is the port servicing a wide hinterland. I wonder if you would be so sure of your ideology if you were going to be personally effected. In my country, a hot political issue would be highest rate of child abuse in western world. The left and right have very different solutions but neither side denies there is a problem. We need political spectrum to have same focus on climate change, not one side in denial.
83650. e at 06:37 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro @323, You make assertions without the backing of a single well sourced fact, and when shown such facts that contradict your claims, you continue unabated. That is denial.

Prev  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  Next