Recent Comments

Prev  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  Next

Comments 83701 to 83750:

83701. Tom Curtis at 02:13 AM on 6 June 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel @1020: 1) First you contradict yourself by claiming that my "analogy is little better" than that of Jigaro Kano, but then stating "The analogy of temperature and voltage has some merit". As the analogy of temperature to voltage was my only analogy, if it has merit, then it is better than that of Jigaro Kano. Kano wanted to analogise the increased greenhouse effect to an increase of power in a circuit. As the greenhouse effect is an increase of temperature, he is therefore analogising temperature to power, which is invalid. 2) The voltage multiplier circuit is not an analogue of the greenhouse effect, and nor is it intended as such. It merely demonstrates that circuits can increase voltage, and do not violate any law of thermodynamics in doing so. Therefore if Kano's analogy is adapted so that analogues are analogised with analogues, it provides no argument against the greenhouse effect. 3) The electrical circuit analogy breaks down because any circuit involves a small number of non-overlapping paths while energy transfer in the atmosphere involves an infinite number of overlapping paths. Consequently individual surfaces or sections of the atmosphere may have more power entering and leaving them than enters or leave the top of the atmosphere, but this is a consequence only of overlapping energy paths and does not represent a creation of energy or destruction of entropy. We know this because the net energy transfer is the same for the TOA, and for each level of the atmosphere below that, including the surface/atmosphere interface. 3a) The overlapping of paths is analogous to a laser striking a mirror in a dark room, then striking another mirror at right angles to the reflected beam so that the beam retraces its path. In such a scenario twice the output power of the laser strikes the first mirror, and is reflected from it, which is purely a function of that mirror being struck twice by the beam. No violation of the laws of thermodynamics is involved. This situation is exactly analogous to what happens in the atmosphere except that in the atmosphere and at the surface, energy is often absorbed and reradiated, and is often reradiated after being transferred to other molecules by collisions, and (as previously noted) there is no one path for energy in the atmosphere. 4) The issue of temperature change with altitude is very important for understanding the greenhouse effect, but irrelevant to the topic here, ie,whether the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics. Unless you wish to argue that the adiabatic lapse rate violates the laws of thermodynamics, or against some other denier who on this thread has argued that, it is therefore of topic (as the moderators have repeatedly informed you).
83702. actually thoughtful at 02:00 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Garethman - what is a "climate Taliban" - I have never heard that term. Whatever it means, invoking the "Taliban" - both a religious term and a highly charged one is not in keeping with your posts that claim you want the debate to avoid insults. Am I right in saying your point here is that the AGW (aka pro science) crowd is alienating people by being so fervent in their position? If so I think you should consider that we are on post 360+ of a thread that has featured 10 or more posters saying "well I believe in one tiny part of this (maybe that the earth is warming" ... but I am not convinced" and the science crowd responding with "what in particular do you not agree with" OR "look it is science - there are ALWAYS open questions and things to trace down - but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence says we have the biggest problem we have ever faced, and chasing down these (99.9% or more) bogus and/or outright lies is a distraction from solving the problem." So if you get a strong response by claiming that if only the pro science crowd were nicer than all the deniers (word chosen carefully) will see reason - it is to be expected. You will also find these same posters will bend over backwards to explain a challenging issue to someone actually trying to understand. The frustration is we are DECADES past the easy mitigation, and staring down the barrel of some VERY nasty results. It has come to the point that those who say "tut tut..let's see what the research says in 10 years" are now condemning my children to a remarkably less hospitable planet. I DON'T LIKE people who do that! Now anyone who wants to understand, or point out we don't know everything (but is taking notable action) - that is A-OK with me. It isn't holding different beliefs that is the problem. To bring it back to the Taliban (and Chrissie Hynde) - I have no problem with them until they start dropping bombs on my street. Street meaning my life/country. The deniers, by enabling (and worse fomenting for) inaction, are dropping bombs.
       Moderator Response: No all-caps, please.
83703. garethman at 01:35 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       SEAN O'FARRELL at 22:57 PM on 5 June, 2011 Top poste this morning on Climate Progress "Australian climate scientists face death threats, cyberbullying” This is truly awful, but the inevitable result of the disdain which both camps, treat each other. Both right wing fundamentalists opposers and climate Taliban both have a lot to answer for.
       Response:

       [DB] "inevitable"?  "camps"?  "climate Taliban"?

       Very revealing as to mindset and ideology.  Surely your background in ethics would make you realize the communications gaffes you are committing here.

83704. skywatcher at 01:23 AM on 6 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Eric #20: You do realise that measuremets of surface temperature and lower tropospheric temperature are not measuring exactly the same thing? Tamino has lots of info on this, but safe to say your simplistic analysis is not up to the task. Are you considering that satellite analyses begin around 1979, at high solar activity, while they end in the recent deep low in solar activity, so introducing a skew? As the lower tropospheric measures are about twice as responsive to the small changes in solar activity, you would expect the skew of the temperature trend to be larger for the RSS and UAH than for surface temperature measurements. That's just one of several thing to consider, as Glenn's posts should make clear, as well as Tom's comment above - there's nothing desperately mysterious about the different trends of the different datasets.
83705. dana1981 at 01:19 AM on 6 June 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       John nicol - we are not listing politicians speaking about climate science without "a single clue about the science". If we were, at the very least Ross Garnaut would not qualify, as I believe he has spent substantial time reading up on the subject. However, the point of this resource is to list politicians who are repeating long-debunked climate myths, and to provide a link to the discussion of why these myths are wrong.
83706. Riccardo at 01:00 AM on 6 June 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       skeggy whatever surface temperature he used, either 3.5*T(700) or the expermental data, there's no point in using a fatally flawed model. The so-called one box model (or one layer zero-dimensional heat balance model) means that the layer has uniform temperature at any time, it can not emit at a different rate than the one given by its temperature. If we have a different surface temperature we also have some additional heat flow. It is equivalent to adding a surface layer, ending up with a two boxes model. This is reasonable, as Dr. Bickmore says in this post. A surface mixed layer (much thinner than 700 m) and the rest of the deep ocean. But then you must take into account (at the very least) the heat flow between the two layers, which Dr. Spencer didn't. It is not that the one or two box model isn't worth using, it is that Dr. Spencer applied it incorrectly forcing the model into an unphysical situation.
83707. damorbel at 00:46 AM on 6 June 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1019 Tom Curtis, you write:- "Jigoro Kano @1018, your analogy is inaccurate" I suggest your analogy is little better. What do you mean "...the surface radiation is greater than the incoming solar radiation averaged overtime"? Greater power? Higher temperature? The analogy of temperature and voltage has some merit but the voltage multiplier (VM) circuit you show does not increase the overall power. With 100% efficiency the output power is the same as the input power. The VM bears fair comparison with the atmosphere where the specific energy at the bottom of the atmosphere is the same as at a greater altitude. The temperature at the surface is higher than at altitude but the specific energy (J/mol) (or J/kg) remains the same. Yes the temperature cganges with altitude but it changes for all gases with or without GHGs.
83708. J. Bob at 23:48 PM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
       Dan @ 6, Nice graph, but you are only looking at a little over 50 years of reasonably accurate CO2 recordings. A longer record would be more helpful. This would show how CO2 concentrations changed during the global temperature dips in the 1880’s & 1940’s (HadCRUT). Also you are presenting a graph where the global temp was moving up at a relatively constant rate. It would have been more interesting to note any changes in temperature during the brief CO2 rate dip, starting in 1988-1994.
83709. SEAN O at 22:57 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Top poste this morning on Climate Progress "Australian climate scientists face death threats, cyberbullying" http://thinkprogress.org/romm/issue/
83710. garethman at 22:13 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica: Thanks for your post. You will note I did suggest that using religion as a metaphor for science belief was not a good idea. I did not initially raise that concept I challenged it. My point is that people who are complete believers and evangelists for the subject of climate change can get pretty nasty with anyone who does not toe the the line. This happens to an extent with the right wingers on WUWT, though there is no equivalent thread at present.on that site. You may not agree with my perspective on the right to be wrong, but you interestingly use words like: idiocy, cowardice, ignorance,falsehood, laughable, ploy, denial speak ( a new one on me) twisting the message and lots more besides.In fact I had some difficulty tracing the line of your argument through the insults. Apparently you are stating my position as a so called “denier” (despite the fact I have said I fully believe in the majority of climate science and run a low carbon household) is twisted and has no foundation whatsoever. What position is that? Interestingly as a non-expert I tend to steer clear of debating Science, I don’t have enough knowledge of the underlying theory. My expertise is ethics and psychology, and I approach the subject of the difference between sceptics, revisionists , Taliban and evangelists from that perspective. It may be evil and wrong to to do such a thing, or to suggest that it can be part of our freedoms to allow people to be mistaken in their scientific beliefs, but my personal and subjective view as that a great disservice is done to the movement by treating fellow humans in this dehumanising and condemning fashion. Dehumanising a group of people by giving them negative titles or stereotypes is usually the first step in some pretty dodgy goals.
83711. retward at 21:33 PM on 5 June 2011
       IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
       Thanks for clarifying dana1981.
       Response:

       [dana1981] My pleasure!  It was a good question and good point - the graph is most of the picture, but not the whole picture.

83712. skeggy at 21:27 PM on 5 June 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       BTW Roy's model does not use 3.5 * T(700) instead of Tsurface. Wrong guess. It's difficult to see why this is an "excellent" post. It attempts to dismiss R.S model without even having it to look at. It seems excellent is just some kind of believers vs heretics cheer-leader term I'm unfamiliar with. If your bias is the same as mine: go daddy! It would be more interesting to see a post that does deal with Spencer's work. I'm sure it's not perfect and there are limitations to such trivial models. In fact it's not Spencer's model, his credits it to someone else and mainstream climate researchers use simple models like this to avoid doing full GCM runs. What worrying is that they agree with real satellite data as well as or better than super computer models do. http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
83713. skeggy at 21:09 PM on 5 June 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       Dr. Spencer's model has been available since long before you wrote this article. http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/ He must get a HUGE amount of email every single day. He seems to have a policy (which seems not only reasonable but also essential in managing his time ) of simply ignoring requests for things that you should be able to find yourself with a little effort. He is not a human google backup for those who can't be bothered to look. As you note, he does reply where he thinks there is a point worth a reply. I have had replies and many non replies. I would not have the arrogance to expect that he replies to every question I would like to ask him. You would do better to use his model rather than try to second guess it if you wish to criticise him. It's been on his site since December 2010. Saying "I think he has done this and *its wrong*" is pretty unfair as well as unscientific. Your arguments would carry more weight if there was less snark.
83714. Bob Lacatena at 20:48 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garethman,

       ...you elegantly re-enforce my message by condemning...

       No. This is typical denial speak. Twist the message, so you actually have someone to fight against. No one is condemning you. We're laughing at you. And we're trying to make people realize that your positions (because deniers don't have one position, they have millions, anything that is at odds with the truth)... we're trying to make people realize that your positions have no foundation whatsoever in reality, no matter how hard you try to condemn twist the facts to make it appear to be so. We're also trying to help you to realize that your position, while in your own very short term interests, is not in anyone's long term interests, and is in fact a threat to modern civilization and human lives, well being, and standards of living.

       I do not laugh at them or ensure derogatory terms...

       Deniers do this in wave after wave, on a hundred times as many blogs and comment threads as serious, thoughtful people do. Don't play the "oh, we're all nice" card. It's as laughable as your lack of a scientific position. Oh, and the whole "religion" tack is yet another debate ploy, although I find it very enlightening (pun intended) that you've equated denialism to a religion. How true.

       The reality is we may have such ideas with regard to religion, especially the fundamentalist type, but we do not give them derogatory labels on such popular sites as this and hold them up to ridicule.

       Yes, because they are religions. They are people's personal beliefs, to which everyone is entitled. As Senator Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." This is about science, not religion, no matter how often deniers attempt to cast it as such, and no matter how often deniers accuse scientists (boy, is this laughable) of being "believers" and of modern climate science as being a "religion." So your analogy was perfect. It highlights exactly what needs to be said. This is about science, not religion. This is about truth, not opinions. Hiding behind freedom of speech and freedom of religion so that you are "free" to trumpet ignorance, idiocy, and falsehoods (like the 2^nd Law nonsense) is cowardice and cowardly tactics, pure and simple.
83715. Eric (skeptic) at 20:33 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       actually thoughtfull, the market is not simple, why should the solution be simple? The biggest problem with the carbon tax is the size of the tax needed to distort the market to reduce emissions to the extent desired would result in an unimaginably large black market. The problem is that you would be fighting the market, not working with it, it will always find a way to produce goods at the lowest possible price working around whatever Rube Goldberg system is set up to track energy use. China can't produce enough power (I posted a link on another thread), can't track power usage, can't stop bootleg power users (e.g. politically-connected industry reselling power to unconnected industry) We already export a great deal of emissions to China today. Would we simply tax any imported good from China? Even if we could (the politicians would want to muck it up with loopholes) the tariff would be easily bypassed by laundering the goods through other countries. Tax any good from any country? The politicians would have a field day. Tear open every container at point of entry? I order online and have my packages shipped directly from China. Tear open every package from China? That starts to heavily invade privacy and inhibit trade. Last year I placed some orders for small parts for a particular research reason, not because I wanted the goods (I unloaded them to unknown people at the flea market for my cost). We would have other practical problems like determining the energy content of goods, mainly not penalizing goods that have genuinely reduced energy inputs or enhance energy efficiency here. We would have problems with the black market; I have gone to the flea market most weeks in good weather for about 10 years, and there are ever-intcreaising amounts of bootleg junk from China. Everything from digital goods, electronics, to batteries, all knock-offs of major brands made to look exactly like the original or changing a letter or two in the name (e.g. "Tociba"). The trade in these goods is literally beyond the control of government.
83716. garethman at 19:28 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) ... Interestingly you elegantly re-enforce my message by condemning me for suggesting that everyone should have the right of opinion. Saying that opinion is "such bunk” is revealing in itself. Using religion to support your argument was possibly not the best tactic. While I do not agree with people who have an odd ideas based on religion, I do not laugh at them or ensure derogatory terms are applied to them and used in various sites to attack them. Their beliefs may be strange, but apparently huge number of people in the USA believe people can rise from the dead after 3 days, so much so they congregate to worship such things and ensure Presidents toe the line on such beliefs. Laugh at them? possibly, if they are vulnerable it’s easy. What names do you give to their Islamic equivalents or is that a bit more of a challenge? The reality is we may have such ideas with regard to religion, especially the fundamentalist type, but we do not give them derogatory labels on such popular sites as this and hold them up to ridicule. With regard to power generation, my solar panels cope with everything I need and more. I say again, I may not agree with what people say, but I defend their right to say it, and while the pro-climate change group are undoubtedly correct in the majority of what they say, they come across as a pretty unsavoury and even nasty lot when they have to answer and queries which require thought and explanation. Denialism can be applied in many ways, not just with regard to what is important to oneself.
83717. adelady at 19:27 PM on 5 June 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       John Nicol "...when in fact they do not have a single clue about the science. Amateurs and novices don't need personal expertise when they rely on the results of 100+ years of scientific endeavour. (And I'm just accepting your characterisation of those particular people. For all we know, they might be quite knowledgeable about some aspects of the science.) It's only when people, scientists or otherwise, contest scientific findings that they must demonstrate expertise of their own. Commonly accepted science is occasionally overturned - steadily as with tectonics, all at once with stomach ulcers - but such events are rarely the result of non-experts producing the goods.
83718. e at 18:26 PM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Jigoro @48> "And as I also said, NYC is the only area in the US which could possibly make the numbers work." New York heavy rail generates on average 0.20 pounds of CO2 per passenger mile. That's even lower than a Toyota Prius which generates 0.26. It might be helpful if you actually read these reports instead of just making things up as you go.
83719. e at 18:07 PM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Jigoro @ 48 >"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" Again with this claim, are you serious? According to the CATO report I already provided, heavy rail generates 0.25 pounds of CO2 per passenger mile, commuter rail 0.29, and light rail 0.36. Meanwhile automobiles generate 0.61. Your claims are therefore demonstrably and inescapably false. Or are you seriously trying to argue that the 0.25 is greater than 0.61? If so, you have reached a level of denial so stunning that it is unheard of even on this website.
83720. actually thoughtful at 18:03 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric (skeptic) - if that is the choice, give me the carbon tax! It sure appears to be a case of your cure is worse than the disease (kicking the can on carbon taxes). Any economist will tell you that a pure/simple tax on carbon is the most straight forward way to change people's behavior regarding CO2. Your solution has me 1 scratching my head and 2 wondering why you are so wrapped around the axle. Why not follow the KISS principle?
83721. 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.
83722. 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
83723. 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.
83724. 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.
83725. 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.
83726. 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.
83727. 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.

83728. 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?
83729. 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).
83730. 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).
83731. 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?
83732. 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) ...
83733. 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 ...
83734. 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.
83735. 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.
83736. 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.
83737. 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.
83738. 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.]
83739. 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.
83740. 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?
83741. 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".
83742. 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.

83743. 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.
83744. 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?
83745. 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?

83746. 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.
83747. 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.
83748. 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.
83749. 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.
83750. 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?

Prev  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  Next