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 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.
83702. 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.
83703. 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.]
83704. 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.
83705. 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?
83706. 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".
83707. 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.

83708. 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.
83709. 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?
83710. 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?

83711. 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.
83712. 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.
83713. 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.
83714. 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.
83715. 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?
83716. 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.
83717. 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.
83718. 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.
83719. 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....
83720. 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.
83721. 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.

83722. 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.
83723. 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.
83724. 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.
83725. 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.

83726. 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).
83727. 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.
83728. 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)
83729. 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.
83730. 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.
83731. 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.
83732. 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.
83733. 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?
83734. 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.
83735. 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.
83736. Jigoro Kano at 06:29 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dana1981 @ 320 you said: "Denying" a falsehood doesn't qualify as denial. In other words; Denial is in the eye of of the accuser.
       Response:

       [dana1981] No, a denier denies facts.  You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

83737. Eric (skeptic) at 06:25 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       dhogaza, I posted those graphs to find out if someone would explain why GISS is lower in the early 80's (and/or higher at present) and could explain the monthly spikes in GISS.
83738. Eric (skeptic) at 06:22 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, sorry I didn't see your question (in 292) until now. I am ideologically driven as you say, so I cannot simply compare costs. There are lots of problems with restricting trade including black markets and economic distortions. For example, people might burn an apple tree for heating fuel. How are supposed to know not to do that without an economic signal for the relative value of future apples and present fuel? Would we want the government to take control of all apple trees? I don't see how a tariff of the scale needed to offset the export of our CO2 production would be anything other than a nightmare, way too high to not create huge black markets and a very large and corrupt government. I think other libertarians would agree oppose a very large tariff. The only way to stop the black market and other ill effects would be a world government that would be a complete anathema to libertarians. I would propose the alternative that I learned in the 80's in my brief stint as an environmentalist: think globally, act locally. You complained (post 279) about the expense of building a seawall or moving your local airport yet thinking globally would preclude having your own large convenient airport. How about having a small airport to connect you to some other large airport? I don't need an airport, why do you?
83739. Albatross at 06:20 AM on 5 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Eric, You agreed @29 to "keep it at that". So please cease with the games and with misrepresenting position on the CRU and the role of ENSO in modulating global SATs. Take that kind of nonsense elsewhere. We are all ears should you happen to have any thoughts on the post/topic at hand: "Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)"
83740. scaddenp at 06:18 AM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Jigoro - is few % drop in CO2 from engine efficiency (which also requires worldwide car ownership to be static) the best you can do for emission control consistent with your polical values? Come on please, I asked for effective emission reduction. My issue here is that if you can't come up with an effective scheme within your values, then I can only conclude that your "skepticism" is rationalization for doing nothing.
83741. dhogaza at 06:04 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Eric (skeptic) it would help if you actually read other posts, such as skywalker's, and even better it would help if you actually read serious analysis such as that offered by tamino (a professional statistician who specializes in time-series analysis) and linked by skywalker.
83742. garethman at 06:00 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica at 04:41 AM on 5 June, 2011 dhogaza, Other interesting examples of the word... google each of them... Asbestos Denialism Vaccine Denialism (and Vaccine Skeptics -- get that? They already grabbed the word "skeptics," too) Can anyone think of others? Many thanks for your quotes and suggestions. Most of them are new to me and most of my friends and family, I must lead a sheltered life. The use of this term is interesting as I guess it’s the new heresy, if something is 95% correct, so no-one can ever discuss whether or not it is 100% correct, because they will then be termed as “denialisr” or “heretic” or some equally aggressive and derogatory term. Lets be honest about this, I think many of the dissenters are wrong and politically motivated, and I will fight for the truth, but I will also fight for their right to an opinion. 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, the mirror image of the other side. The people of autocratic governments understand this principle, but I suspect here in the west in our search for climate action, we are forgetting basic human rights, and one of those critical rights is the right to be wrong without being pilloried and condemned. And that is the worst form of denial, the denial of human rights.
83743. Jigoro Kano at 06:00 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica @ 317 How about: Denying the harmful impact "Green" policies have on developing countries. Denying the harmful impact "Green" policies will have on the indigent in western countries. Denying economic powerhouses like Russia, China, Brazil care little about AGW. Denying Spain's "Green" revolution has financially deviated that country. Denying the impossibility of engineering a product such that it can have 240 W input and generate a 390 W output. (I know mod...2nd law thread)
       Response:

       [dana1981] Most of your examples here are simply wrong.  For example, see the rebuttals to Renewable energy investment kills jobs and CO2 limits will hurt the poor.  "Denying" a falsehood doesn't qualify as denial.

83744. actually thoughtful at 05:22 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigaro Kano, I was thinking of solar thermal (hot water). But my neighbor put in PV to lock in the price of electricity. He is thinking about retirement and looking to reduce his risks. The power company promised him no rate increases for 20 years if he allowed them to put the panels on his roof. I don't know where the panels were made, there are US panel manufacturers - Schott (Alb, NM) First Solar (Phoenix, AZ), Solarworld (CA) - many others. The Germans and other European countries manufacturer much what is used in the solar industry. I have to use German manufacturers for my controls and pumps as American manufacturers are not up to my standards. I do have American manufacturing for all of my solar (thermal) panels. The copper pipe usually comes from Mexico (although copper is mined in my home state). This is "issue", too, is a canard. Your asking that question suggests you would be in favor a global environmental standard. Interesting idea. PV carbon footprint - the embodied energy payback is less than 2 years. This has been questioned and studied to death. Why are you bringing it up in 2011? Do your questions have an agenda, or are you genuinely not-knowledgeable about solar PV? Here is the information you could have found with less than 30 seconds if you were genuinely curious Your summary statement isn't true as you didn't bother to get your facts correct in the first place. However, it is true that "n order to go "Green" we must first pollute beyond recovery while redistributing wealth to those whom don't need it and don't care" - it is obvious that no action will be taken until the the effects of the current wealth redistribution from the workers/middle class/poor to the rich has resulted in revolutionary-levels wealth inequalities, and an environment so degraded even those who will not see will be forced to look and act. Why do you have an emotional (and factually baseless) response to renewable energy? Solar PV is the MOST expensive mainstream way of making electricity. It doesn't mean that it has no role. And the costs are going down (faster than the rates of wind and wave, and of course faster than the rates for fossil fuel, which are going UP). It's output curve is a fairly close match to the AC/factory load peak in the American Southwest. So power companies can invest in PV and avoid the cost of creating additional centralized plants that would ONLY run during the peak PV hours. You often find synchronicities like that when using renewables. For example, my solar heating customers have to "endure" warmer, more comfortable homes in the fall, early winter and early spring in order to maximize the output of their solar heating system. Bizarrely, they don't complain. Here is a simpler, more correct value judgement for you to consider: "The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES an active mitigation response." For what it is worth - I thought your negative income tax idea was very interesting, and new to me (I realized in researching it that it has been around for awhile). If what you are doing isn't working - *try something else*!
83745. Eric (skeptic) at 05:21 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       I plotted UAH and GISS after adding 0.25 to the UAH anomaly. Starting in 1979:
       
       And around 96 to the present:
       

       It's not entirely clear what to use for an offset (I used 0.25), but obviously GISS ran colder in the early 80's and/or warmer recently. Also GISS shows monthly spikes except for El Nino where UAH tends to spike above GISS.

83746. retward at 05:07 AM on 5 June 2011
       IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
       I think you may need to check the emisions estimates in Figure 1. The IEA figures released earlier this week, and the EIA figures, are for energy-related emissions only, and do not include sources such as cement, which account for about another gigatonne (see for isntance this paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1022.html) I think the IPCC projections are for total human emissions of carbon dioxide, not just energy-releated emissions. I suspect that when you factor in the other emissions we are even closer to reaching the A1F1 path again.
       Response:

       [dana1981] No, I made sure to be careful about that.  The IPCC breaks down the numbers, and I used their projections for CO2 emissions from fossil fuels only.  So it's an accurate comparison, but you just have to keep in mind that the graph only plots CO2 emissions from fossil fuels/energy use.  As you note, there are other emissions sources as well.

83747. Eric the Red at 05:07 AM on 5 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Misguided? Are you going against the common perception (supported by realms of data) that El Nino years are warmed than La Nina years? I am still curious as to why you think the CRU scientists are "cheating."
83748. Yvan Dutil at 04:57 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       @Eric People have played with the dataset, with and without rural, with and without mountain, and with a without arctic station. The conclusion of all those studies is than removing those station drop the heating rate, not increasing it.
83749. Jigoro Kano at 04:48 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       actually thoughtfull @ 299 you said: "My right wing neighbor finally threw in the towel and got solar." 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? Were the PV panels made in US or Europe or where environmental regulations are weak, China? What is the carbon foot print of a PV panel? PV are not "Green"; they simply export the problem, and import good feelings for those concerned with AGW. For your "right-wing" neighbors, they receive monthly welfare payment in the form of subsidized electricity by all those whom have not gone "Green". It's ironic that in order to go "Green" we must first pollute beyond recovery while redistributing wealth to those whom don't need it and don't care, as you do, about AGW.
83750. Bob Lacatena at 04:41 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dhogaza, Other interesting examples of the word... google each of them...
       • Asbestos Denialism
       • Vaccine Denialism (and Vaccine Skeptics -- get that? They already grabbed the word "skeptics," too)
       Can anyone think of others?

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