Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 Next
Comments 83851 to 83900:
-
Bob Lacatena at 08:29 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
248, J. Bob, What the heck are you talking about? Phrase a direct question, and I'll answer it. -
J. Bob at 08:16 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica @235, I take it that’s a (can’t or won’t) no. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:14 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
All, This...
is not the nature of the climate debate.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a denier, not a skeptic.
Response:[DB] All I got is dis.
-
scaddenp at 08:13 AM on 3 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
Actually, I dont think ENSO is that relevant at all. What we do see is that La ninas now are producing warmer temperatures that El ninos of decades ago. Whether one or other predominates, what you can expect is that temperatures for the same index will get steadily higher. -
scaddenp at 08:09 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J Bob. "Forcings" is well-defined term for anything externality that affects the energy balance. Aerosols, solar, GHG, albedo. No forcing, no climate change. Just weather. Claims of "its just to complicated" it just denial in the face of evidence that climate (not weather) is well accounted for by just those forcing. Explain how increasing energy input to surface by 2W/m2 is NOT going to cause more temperature rise. Likewise, even weather must be accounted for in terms of known energy flows. Internal energy flow from earth is measured in milliwatts, from sun in hundreds of watts so lets just stick with things that vary solar. Now, if current warming is heating due to say movement of energy from atmosphere to oceans, then why dont oceans cool. etc. etc. -
scaddenp at 08:01 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(skeptic) - firstly I would like saw that I have valued your contribution here and wouldnt call you a denialist or pseudo-skeptic at all. Your respect for facts is refreshing. A couple of things though. How happy are you with content of Michaels "Climate of Extremes" (funded by Cato)? "I defend libertarian principles having carefully studied the lack of direct evidence for CAGW" CAGW is somewhat poorly defined. Is "CAGW" that same as likely predicted effects of climate change as reported in AR4? -
Bob Lacatena at 07:56 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
242, Eric,Interesting how you glossed over the part where you used net incoming radiation, but gross outgoing
I don't know what you are talking about here. 240 in, 240 out at TOA. 517 in at the surface, 517 out (from the surface, to the atmosphere or space). I obviously didn't sit and reiterate all of Trenberth's numbers (did I need to?), but I don't know what you mean by glossing over "net incoming" and "gross outgoing" because I really didn't go anywhere with any of that, and don't know why I should have. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:53 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
242, Eric, I'll ignore all of the condescending cr@p that implies that you actually understand the science. It's neither he nor there. Suffice it to say that your demonstrated understanding of the subject matter is not up to par. On pronouncements, your words: "The other question that is not being asked is..." My interpretation of this was that you feel climate science is somehow lacking by not pursuing all avenues, and in particular the one where you feel lies an excuse to ignore the rest of climate science, a magic bullet that will stand everything on its head and demonstrate why the warming won't ever be "that bad." If I misunderstood, I apologize, but it certainly looked (looks) like a backhanded slap at climate science and scientists. Again, if it wasn't, I apologize, but I'll blame my reaction on the tendency of deniers to frequently do exactly that -- impugn the science and the scientists at every turn, because presumably in their wisdom they know better....your belief that you are absolutely right...
No, my understanding, not belief, and not that I am "right," but rather that I understand the science and the facts as they currently stand. This is a common denier problem, equating every position with a "belief" (or opinion), because ultimately that's what denial positions amount to, so I imagine it's hard to imagine anything else. But it's not a "belief," any more than I believe in multiplication or I believe that the boiling point of water at 1 atmopshere is 100˚C. It's an understanding of the science, the facts, and the conclusions drawn by scientists, and an understanding of what can be wrong and how likely it is to be wrong, and why it is or isn't likely....what would it take for you to completely switch your position?
As I just got finished saying, I don't have a "position," I have an understanding of the science. Nothing is going to suddenly appear that reverses it all in one fell swoop. That's a typical denier dream, that "this [paper/idea/observation/discovery] is the final nail in the AGW coffin!" That's the Lindzen Iris effect, and Spencer's cloud feedback interpretation, and Svensmark's GCRs. It's all nonsense. So anything that adjusts the science by increments... a study here that points to lower climate sensitivity, a study there that identifies an as yet unconsidered negative feedback, another study there that better quantifies the cloud feedbacks. That will "change my position," by increments, over time, because "my position" is whatever the current state of climate science points towards. To be honest, my "position" is already constantly changing, because the science is constantly changing. Unfortunately, all of the reputable and worthy papers that I've seen in the past year have been worse, not better, with respect to climate change. The only papers I've seen that make the situation look better have turned out to be flawed (or misinterpreted and misrepresented by deniers). So I guess the best answer to the question you are really asking, "what would it take for me to think that climate change will not happen, or will not be worth mitigating" is probably years and years of cumulative research which ultimately (and very surprisingly) reverse much of what we understand today. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:35 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Jay... Our US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu came out a few weeks ago be believes that before the end of the decade solar will be competitive with coal... without subsidies. I would have to suggest this is not only clearly harnessing the power of the sun but also harnessing the power of the marketplace. -
dana1981 at 06:54 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Personally my opinion is that if a paper puts the most likely climate sensitivity value below 2°C for 2xCO2, it's neutral. Below 1.5°C I'd call "skeptic". But that's a tough call because the possible range of values would still significantly overlap with the IPCC range. So this is just my opinion. -
Composer99 at 06:53 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
We have known we can harness the power of the sun for a very long time. Same with lightning. Yet nobody has figured out how to capture or maximize this energy.
Dr Cadbury, surely you jest.Response:[dana1981] I'm assuming he only meant we don't know how to harness lightning, although I don't have the foggiest idea why that's the least bit relevant.
-
KR at 06:51 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Eric, quite correct on the topic point. Quite frankly, I don't know where that dividing line should be drawn. I would prefer placing them into categories of "correct", "incorrect", and "unproven" - with many of the anti-AGW papers being incorrect. The only neutral papers are those that aren't concerned with the climate. -
Eric the Red at 06:48 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
KR, You are getting further OT. The point was about classification about papers. When does a paper cease to become pro-agw, and become neutral? -
dana1981 at 06:48 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Jay - wow, that's by far the worst article I've ever seen on Salon."The scenarios with the most catastrophic outcomes of global warming are low probability outcomes."
By definition "the most" is going to be a low probability outcome. So let's just ignore the catastophic outcomes that aren't "the most" catastrophic? Absolutely horrible logic. That article is a prescription for disaster. I'm not exactly impressed by the logic "we're not doing it now therefore we can never do it", which is your argument in a nutshell. In the early 1900s, cars accounted for between 0 and 1% of transportation miles. I guess that's why they never made it big!"We have known we can harness the power of the sun for a very long time"
And we've been doing it for a long time. And the price of solar power is rapidly declining, set to be on par with fossil fuels in a few years (already cheaper than fossil fuels if you account for externalities). Of course I'm not exactly sure what any of this has to do with the blog post here. -
KR at 06:43 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Eric the Red - And why not just look at what those forcings are, and how much they are changing the current climate? Plenty of data on that, for example from NOAA, ESRL, NASA/Hansen, etc. Sensitivities to forcings are in the range 1.65°C to 4.5°C, most likely 3°C. This is supported by both models and empirical evidence, with that range shrinking over time with more data. The lower limit is both unlikely and very hard, the upper limit unlikely but less well determined. I really hate to say it, Eric, but your attempt to subdivide forcing percentages appears to me to be driving at minimizing the apparent importance of CO2. Sensitivity is to total forcing changes, including CO2, so (if all else remains the same) a CO2 change will induce just that much temperature change. And the same for a TSI change, an aerosol change, etc. You're attempting to re-define the vocabulary - that's really not kosher. -
Eric the Red at 06:43 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Bob, You may want to read up on RC. They had a nice series on albedo changes over the past couple millenia. Interesting how you glossed over the part where you used net incoming radiation, but gross outgoing during your snide attack. Are you dismissing all the work on cloud cover that has been occuring during the past decade? Maybe you should read up on some of it. There is a good correlation between increasing temperature and cloud cover, although admittedly mechanisms are only suggestive. I am sure the audience has gained entertainment value through your posts. Not sure what you meant about pronouncements. I do not doubt that you know more than self-proclaimed skeptics, it shows in your posts. What also shows is your belief that you are absolutely right, while others are misled. SO I will ask you this question, which I think you asked of someone else (although I could be mistaken), "what would it take for you to completely switch your position?" -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:39 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Additionally, I don't think anyone has put solar energy into perspective. We have known we can harness the power of the sun for a very long time. Same with lightning. Yet nobody has figured out how to capture or maximize this energy. @MattJ What are your thoughts on clean natural gas? -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:35 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
@MattJ It is nice to see an advocate for nuclear power. I am disagreement with dana because I don't see 100% of our energy needs met with renewable energy. Below is an excellent article I read today. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels/index.html With renewable energy accounting for between 0 and 1%, I think it is a plastic banana dream to convert to 100% renewable. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:34 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
238, Eric, I missed this bit.BTW, the radiation is reflected back to space. Where else would it go?
Presumably you are referring to your "filter" effect. I didn't realize that was just another name for albedo, and I'm unsure why you separated the two (or did you, I'm all confused by your own personal climate science terminology). So, yes, if your "filter" is a mirror which reflects energy back into space, you're right, but what's your point? That the sun's energy can be reflected? Wait, that's it! What were we thinking? You've figured it all out. The earth is warming because of the "filter effect" being turned down. Or is your "filter" what I took it to mean based on the normal use of the word in English, something that traps something on the way through, such as trapping the energy of radiation in the atmosphere and preventing it from reaching the surface? But of course that would warm the atmosphere, and it would still have to get back out into space (maybe through evaporation? haha, that's a joke, by the way). I don't know. I'm all confused by your grand skeptic's science. Maybe I need to go study more, like you said. Let me go google some books on the "earth's energy filter," and how moving heat around to the poles will save us from global warming, and how those foolish climate scientists were too dang silly to think of and research something so obvious. -
Eric the Red at 06:29 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
I disagree that measured results strongly suggest a total sensitivity of 3C. Some research has suggested higher, others lower. Getting back to my original question. If a paper was published with a lower forcing attributed to CO2, and higher attributed to the other factors. Let us put temperature numbers on it: 0.25C from CO2 increase, 0.2C due to an increase in solar radiation (or sunspots), 0.15C due to the UHI, 0.1C due to ENSO oscillation (this would become negative in the future turning from a peak to a trough), and 0.05C based on total land changes. Using this lower value attributed to CO2 would reduce the total sensitivity in your link. The only number useful for calculating climate sensitivity is that for CO2 (all feedbacks included). Forget everything else if it is confusing, and answer this quesiton. At what level of climate sensitivity would you say the paper moves from being pro-agw to neutral? -
scaddenp at 06:28 AM on 3 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
Gee you are quoting from K&D and suggesting VS isn't robust?! You can bet that a very comprehensive analysis is going to be published in time for inclusion in AR5 so that will be interesting. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:27 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric, 340 is what comes in. The earth's (average) albedo is 0.7. 340 * 0.7 = 238. This is what the surface of the earth sees, and what defines the temperature of the planet (minus greenhouse gases)....which might help you inderstand better.
You've got to be kidding me. You actually said that?...any change from the present could either increae or decrease the reflected radiation at the surface.
Yes, obviously. Sorry if I didn't go ahead and write 50 pages explaining every single detail of where you were or weren't wrong. But exactly where is this imagined change in albedo coming from, anyway?You are ignoring the even larger mechanism for removing heat; evaporation.
Even larger? Trenberth's energy budget, which was derived from observations, attributes 17 W/m2 to convection (thermals), 80 W/m2 to evapotranspiration/latent heat, and 390 to radiation. How does 80 compared to 390 become "the even larger mechanism?" But even then, evaporation can only get it from the surface higher into the atmosphere. The only way for the planet to shed heat is through radiation.Funny how you do not think...
Don't be foolish. The mechanism is far more complex than that. And don't play games by putting words into my mouth to try to make me look stupid. Again, I already wrote too much dismantling your ridiculous "insight." Backtracking now to try to make yourself look smart just looks desperate.The even funnier part is that you think you know everything about the Earth's climate...
No, I simply no more than self proclaimed skeptics who make such pronouncements not only about people who comment on blogs, but also about professional climate scientists (as you have done).Maybe you should read your posts thoroughly before submitting and realize some of what you say is ridiculous.
Sage words. My main point stands. There are almost no skeptics, only deniers, and they adopt that position long before they understand the science well enough to justify it. Thank you for providing a live demonstration for the audience at home and here in the studio. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:16 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
237, dhogaza, Hmpph. You may be right. Something that bizarre never even occurred to me. I thought it was a backhanded slap against GHG theory (i.e. "internal radiation"), but in retrospect, now I'm not even sure. Maybe by "energy source is the sun" he didn't even mean "the sun", but rather "the son".Response:[DB] Does that mean I can go on driving my tricked-out Jupiter 8?
-
Eric the Red at 06:12 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica, Besides being snide, you can be very wrong also. Internal radiation contributed about 0.02% to the Earth's surface. I would call that very little. The incoming solar radiation is about 340, not 240 W/m2. Unless you were referring to the net incoming radiation, which is 240, but that is balanced by the net outgoing radiation which is also 240. Here is a graphic which might help you inderstand better. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/radiationbalance.htm You seem to be confused on clouds and albedo also. Starting from a cloudless sky, then clouds can only decrease the incoming radiation. Any change from the current situation will either increase or decrease the incoming radiation, depending on the change. Then there is the added issue of smog. BTW, the radiation is reflected back to space. Where else would it go? Besides the minor issue of reflectance when talking about albedo, any change from the present could either increae or decrease the reflected radiation at the surface. You are ignoring the even larger mechanism for removing heat; evaporation. Of course you did get the part right about moving it to the upper atmosphere. Funny how you do not think that warm water in a cool atmosphere will radiate heat to the atmosphere more efficiently than in a warm atmosphere. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the North Atlantic is warmer during the warmer years. Maybe you should study more, instead of telling others. The even funnier part is that you think you know everything about the Earth's climate when even the best and brightest among us admit otherwise. Maybe you should read your posts thoroughly before submitting and realize some of what you say is ridiculous. -
dhogaza at 05:57 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica: "Specifically (from Eric's comments, of which you faithfully approve): The primary energy source is the sun, with very little attributed from interenal radiation. No, the only energy source is the sun, and yet the comment about "very little attributed" in this context causes a clear violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics" I assumed the internal radiation bit was in reference to radioactive decay within the earth itself ... -
Bob Lacatena at 05:23 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
234, J. Bob, and 213, Eric, Just one more point on this statement:The most efficient means of removing added heat is to move it to the area which will result in the greatest removal, in our case, the poles.
This is tantalizingly funny, because you're right in being so wrong. The way to remove added heat is to move it in an area which will result in the greatest removal, in our case, the upper atmosphere. This is how the negative lapse rate feedback works. As the atmosphere warms, the higher layers get warmer, even though density does not change (i.e. less atmosphere higher up), although the warmer atmosphere will expand some. This results in the upper layers being warmer, and therefore radiating more, but without dense, intervening gas there to re-absorb and re-emit (some back down) as occurs at lower altitudes. Hence, with the upper atmosphere warmer, a warmer earth radiates more, and keeps cool. The negative lapse rate feedback defeats the greenhouse effect by bypassing the greenhouse gases. So you are right, in a way. You're just thinking in two dimensions (i.e. surface of the earth) instead of three, and purposely ignoring the important mechanisms (radiation) because they are repugnant to you. Still, all of this has been thought out more thoroughly by better educated minds than ours. I didn't think of this stuff, I just read it. Because I study, instead of just making stuff up to match my preferred conclusions. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:15 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
234, J. Bob,I’ve posted some personal analysis above, to back up my opinion, have you?
Hah, hah. Spare me the rhetorical attempt to start a fight, and the insinuation that I have nothing to say, because I'm not saying what you want to hear and the way you want to hear it. Pertaining to science, and (-SNIP-) the ignorance Eric expressed in his post #213... and this is a perfect, perfect example of exactly what I'm saying... you don't understand the issues and science on the most basic of levels, yet you feel you have the ability to (-SNIP-)[declare] the truth of something that is incontrovertibly, flat out wrong, and ill-conceived to boot. Specifically (from Eric's comments, of which you (-SNIP-) approve):The primary energy source is the sun, with very little attributed from interenal radiation.
No, the only energy source is the sun, and yet the comment about "very little attributed" in this context causes a clear violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The earth receives on average 240 W/m2 from the sun, but is at a temperature which radiates (and this has been measured) about 390 W/m2. So where is the other 150 W/m2 coming from, and how do you possibly agree with the descriptor "very little" to describe 150 of 390 (almost half).It is not a question of an energy source, rather of an energy filter (clouds) and energy absorber (albedo).
Albedo refers to reflection (lack of absorption), but that minor quibble aside, how do either of these mechanisms increase the temperature of the planet? Each can only decrease it. And what is an "energy filter," other than absorption by the atmosphere, and what is the scientific rationale for limiting such an effect to clouds, or even attributing the lions share to clouds? What does this actually mean, anyway? After the radiation is "filtered" where does it go? It just vanishes? The statement is flat out wrong in so many ways that it would take pages to explain. But in a nutshell, it's not a question of some artificial "filter" concept or albedo (another well measured quantity), but of... hold on, you're not going to like this... greenhouse gas radiation.The other question that is not being asked is what natural processes (if any) will work to alleviate the additional heat.
What do you mean not being asked? What makes you think all aspects of the climate system are not being studied? This is just made-up garbage like you see at WUWT, with no foundation whatsoever... and it is flat out wrong. But in a nutshell, the negative lapse rate feedback and anthropogenic aerosols appear to be the two main negative feedbacks which are or will keep warming in check, and the day that fossil fuel consumption slows, so do the aerosols, and the warming will actually get even worse.The most efficient means of removing added heat is to move it to the area which will result in the greatest removal, in our case, the poles.
This is also foolish nonsense. Heat is only removed from the system through radiation. What would make the poles better at radiating heat? What is even the point of a statement like this... that the fact that a warming planet warms most at the poles is going to cool the planet? This is exactly the kind of half-baked science that exemplifies what I'm saying, that self-proclaimed skeptics are perfectly happy with taking the science and logic only 1/4 (1/10th? 1/100th?) of the way to a conclusion, and then stop there, and to assume that professional scientists have not already taken this a hundred times further than you have, and arrived at and published logical, supportable conclusions that you cannot refute with mere whimsical half-thinking on blog comments. Go study.Moderator Response: [e] Please try and tone down the inflammatory bits, especially the implication of religiosity -
KR at 05:12 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Eric the Red - Please note that the various measures (as opposed to models) of climate sensitivity do not care which feedback is which. All they do is measure temperature change in response to forcings, total climate sensitivity. And those measured results (see this link, under "Climate sensitivity from empirical observations") strongly support a total sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling of CO2, or ~0.8°C for a 1 W/m^2 forcing. While we may not agree on how large individual trees are, we have a very good idea of the size of the forest. -
Eric the Red at 04:52 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Calling it "wrong" was not the purpose of this exercise, nor very meaningful. Since the climate sensitivity is derived from the warming effect of CO2, stating it as the effect that an increase of CO2 has on global temperatures is not "radically different." I was curious as to what people might think if the response to CO2 was presented as lower, while natural effects were presented as larger, while keeping CO2 at the top fo the list. I fully understand that the climate sensitivity is the final effect after all feedbacks are included, both positive and negative. The net feedback is the additional change caused by the original effect. In your post, the net feedback would be 2. Physics says the direct effect from a doubling a CO2 is about 1. Adding the effect from the increase in water vapor attributable to the increase in temperature usually results in a climate sensitivity of 1.8. After that, the calculations diverge significantly, primarily due to the treatment of clouds. If the other forcings resulted in a 1C cooling, then the feedbacks would also multiple the total to 3C. Papers have been published showing higher values for the other forcings than I presented. All I did was put them all together into one imaginary scenario. -
J. Bob at 04:41 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica @ 221 says, “So do everyone a favor, instead of responding with an outraged diatribe, stop posting comments, and start reading.”. Outraged diatribe? Am I missing something? I’ve posted some personal analysis above, to back up my opinion, have you? -
Utahn at 04:36 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(skeptic): "The tobacco analogy is too stretched and now broken." No, maybe in terms of generic funding of Cato specifically, but if specific instances of funding other groups or programs within Cato that relate to climate disinformation occur (not saying that they have definitely occurred, but I think it would be likely), the analogy would be exact. Exxon has their scientists tell them the truth, then proceed to fund the deceiving of the public. As a side interest, that was a pretty interesting article, as I had no idea that at least some at Cato agreed with Jim Hansen about "confiscating property": "Negative externalities are costs that are not borne by the party in charge of the process that creates them. For example, the owner of a smoke-spewing factory does not fully bear the costs associated with the smoke, stench, and health risks his factory produces; many of those costs are foisted onto the factory’s neighbors. When conduct involves negative externalities,participants will tend to engage in that conduct to an excessive degree, for they bear the full benefits, but not the full costs,of their activities. Quite often, then, government intervention(e.g., taxing the cost-creating behavior or limiting the amount permitted) may be desirable as a means of ensuring that the cost-creator does not engage to an excessive degree in the conduct at issue." Maybe they're more reasonable than I thought... -
Alexandre at 04:36 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric (skeptic) at 02:45 AM on 3 June, 2011 Much of the consequences of emissions is fairly known. I wonder to what extent you are aware of what's known. But are you saying that we can only do something about this when every consequence is exhaustively researched, determined and proven? That's a certain path for inaction. On this rationale, the 19th century English law limiting coal burning (and with its harmful urban smoke) would still be waiting for further research to calculate how many lungs were affected by it, and how many pounds each case would mean. The same for automotive emissions. Sorry, people have to make decisions with limited knowledge. This is always the case. Maybe further discussion would belong to the "It's not bad" thread. -
J. Bob at 04:35 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric the Red @ 213 Amen to your 1st paragraph. -
dana1981 at 04:26 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
by the way, let's please not turn the comments into a nuclear argument, since it's just one relatively minor aspect of the article in question. -
dana1981 at 04:25 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
MattJ - I disagree that we necessarily need nuclear, or at least very much more nuclear. I do think we need to keep the nuclear we have, at least for now, and phase-out fossil fuels first. But we can eventually meet 100% of our energy needs with renewable energy. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:23 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
227, DB, For what it's worth, I knew Clarity in college. She was great to have around when you needed to get things done, but she really wasn't much fun (or rather, she got in the way of having fun -- there are points in my life when I wish she hadn't been around). On opting out... why am I not surprised. He was very comfortable in his own venue, where unscientific declarations and ideological diatribes could continue unchecked, as long as they followed the denial party line. That an environment such as this, and a need to both support what you say, stick to the subject at hand, and avoid the netherworld denial nonsense, would be intractably uncomfortable to him is not a surprise. -
CBDunkerson at 04:15 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Eric, the way you are using the term 'climate sensitivity', as explained in comment #21 above, is radically different from the standard definition used in most discussions here and regarding climate science in general. Again, most of us take the term 'climate sensitivity' to be the degree of climate feedback to any forcing. That is, whether the planet is accumulating heat due to increased solar output, an enhanced greenhouse effect, or a martian death ray, we can expect this additional heat to be partly offset by negative feedbacks and enhanced by positive feedbacks. The net feedback effect is the 'climate sensitivity'. While there would be some variation in feedbacks based on the type of forcing (e.g. a martian death ray aimed at the Arctic circle would introduce ice-albedo feedbacks faster than otherwise equal warming from increased greenhouse gases would) these variations are comparatively small and generally ignored when discussing the sensitivity of the climate to forcings. Most estimates put short term climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling at a total of about 3 C... 1 C from the CO2 itself and 2 C from feedback effects. Any other forcing which would produce 1 C warming by itself would also be expected to result in about 3 C total warming as the same feedback effects would apply. Thus, applying the usual definitions to your original statement I wouldn't call it 'pro-AGW', 'anti-AGW', OR 'neutral' so much as just 'wrong'. I can sort of follow where you were going based on your definitions of the terms above, but you'd probably be better served following standard usage. -
MattJ at 03:49 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
I notice the clause "no barriers to the use of nuclear energy". But as the article also observes, the Fukushima incident has been a major setback for the use of nuclear energy. It pains me to notice that after some small progress getting environmentalists to accept the need for nuclear, that has been pretty near completely erased due to Fukushima. More precisely, due to TEPCO's total failure to address long-standing safety problems in the way they run their nuclear plants. Still, in the course of following the news during the month after the disaster, I learned of a very interesting alternative in nuclear technology, one I wish the world knew more about: thorium liquid fuel cycles. Apparently, the use of thorium instead of pure uranium or plutonium, and the use of it in liquid form instead of solid, really does make it much safer. No meltdown is possible, for example, because it is already molten; and if the molten fuel escapes, it solidifies instead of providing "China syndrome". But most of the material about it on the web is by industry advocates, so it may be 'colored' by industry optimism. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:24 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
228, Tom Curtis,I do not think I can be clearer than that; and doubt I lacked clarity in either of my previous two posts on this issue.
Your first posts were more than clear, and Eric's gross misrepresentation of your position in his post 197 -- which purposely chose just the right words to make your position seem preposterous -- is a perfect example of very bad behavior, and one that I think requires an apology. In any event, posts such as those teach us with whom we can expect an open and honest discourse in the future, versus those with whom we can expect a tactics-filled waste of time and energy. -
Tom Curtis at 03:13 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(skeptic) @225, I do not know the details of the funding of textbook Hansen refers to, so cannot comment. The issue of giving money to Cato per se is irrelevant. Let us assume that all Cato publications have that minimum level of intellectual integrity that the authors believe what they write, and that it fairly represents the subject matter. Then the Cato authors cannot be guilty of crimes against humanity on this basis because clause (b) is false of them. Let us further suppose that the CEO of a fossil fuel corporation knows that climate change is real, and that it will bring about mass deaths. We suppose that they further know that the opinions of the Cato authors are false or misleading, but that they fund them anyway in order to delay action on carbon emissions, thus maximising their short term profits at the expense of hundreds of thousands of premature deaths decades from now. In that case, they are guilty of a crime against humanity by funding Cato, even though the Cato authors are not guilty of any crime by publishing. Let us further suppose there is a third party who funds Cato because, either they believe all that Cato authors write, or they believe some part of it while disagreeing on the issue of climate change, but believe the overall production of Cato is worthwhile. Again they are not guilty of a crime by funding Cato because they do not satisfy clause (b). I do not think I can be clearer than that; and doubt I lacked clarity in either of my previous two posts on this issue. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:10 AM on 3 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
26, Tom, Pretty much agreed. My position was probably presented in too extreme a fashion. Certainly, everyone benefits hugely from the vast transportation infrastructure that has grown in the last 150 years, and you are right, modern societies and populations would not be sustainable without it. But, I would also argue that while all benefit from it, the wealthy benefit disproportionately more, and pay disproportionately less. A transportation tax of any sort (on roads, or on fuels/energy) will ultimately be passed on to the consumer, making all products more expensive. But this will ultimately result in a new, more appropriate balance between more-expensive-to-produce-but-cheaper-to-transport local goods, versus the opposite (which is almost all we have in today's society). It moves some of the easy ability to accumulate wealth out of the hands of a national and international very few, and into more, more local hands. Not a lot, just some. It would also result in the development of cheaper and more sustainable energy sources and transportation systems. So, in the end, my argument is that future fossil fuel taxes and their effect on the economy are really simply righting an injustice that is already inherent in the current system, i.e. that large corporations and a wealthy few benefit disproportionately from a massive, fossil-fuel based infrastructure that is not, in and of itself, as currently fashioned, in the best interests of either society or most people in society. It is already a redistribution of wealth, from the poor and average person to the wealthy. Will prices go up some? Yes. Would a wholesale destruction of the current system badly damage society, and individual wealth at all levels? Obviously, and absolutely. Are either of these valid arguments for leaving the current system in place? Not remotely close. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:59 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
219, MichaelM, You should note that one of the people who has been posting on this very thread falls vehemently into the category you actually named, i.e. he thinks that greenhouse gas theory contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and steadfastly clings to that position in spite of all of the facts (many of which he simply does not properly understand, and so dismisses due to a simple failure/lack of adequate abstract thinking and sufficient background knowledge). *Rolls eyes, stifles a cough, and stumbles off mumbling that there are some people who are just hopelessly lost*Response:[DB] For clarity's sake (and I hope to someday meet the semimythical Clarity & pray she's worth the wait), the individual you refer to has chosen to opt-out of participating in discussions at SkS.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:57 AM on 3 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
Sphaerica @25, I doubt that this is really on topic here, or anywhere else on Skeptical Science, so I will make a few short observations and leave it at that. First, while there is a hidden subsidy of private transport, the subsidy is one in which all, or almost all members of society are substantial beneficiaries. In the simplest terms we know the standard of living of people dependant primarily on local distribution networks, and it is not high. Indeed, it struggles to match that of even pensioners in our society. Typical examples can be found in any Indian or African village. With modern technology, that standard can be lifted to a very comfortable level, but the ready availability of that modern technology depends on the existence of mass markets and cheap transport. Consequently a modern village life style can only be a utopian dream for a wealthy (at least in world terms) few. Further, such a life style cannot sustain anything like our current world population. You probably did not have in mind anything like the level of localisation I am describing, but the point is a general one. Consequently I am certainly not opposed to the hidden subsidy on private transport. I just do not think the need to subsidise public transport is not a reason to invest in it. What is at issue is which is the most efficient subsidy, and that will depend on the particular situation. In general, public transport will yield greater efficiency, but only because as a result of the very visible nature of the subsidy, investment in public transport tends to lag investment in private transport. -
Albatross at 02:45 AM on 3 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
Don't get too focussed on ENSO. Paleo data form the tropic has shown that when the planet warms the ITCZ shifts and that of course has marked impacts on the rainfall in the tropics. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:45 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
222, apiratelooksat50, Or, more briefly, I have no respect for anyone who takes the time to label themselves a skeptic. If they feel they have to actually justify their stance with labels, then they don't have as justifiable stance, and more importantly, they aren't trying to educate themselves, they're just trying to sway others towards their opinion on matters (because without proper education, it's only opinion, not knowledge). -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:45 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Alexandre, the externalities of GHG are a very broad topic. I am for examining the externalities that include: farming practices and productivity, domestic reforestation, foreign aid priorities, positive and negative contributions to ocean uptake, ongoing emssions (not punitive damages for past emssions), and all other parts of the emission equation. Then we would have to delve into the much stickier issue of the cost (and benefits) of those emissions. Not an easy task in a room full of scientists, never mind in a room full of politicians. Tom (207) thanks for spelling it out in 2 a, b, and c. Those are unfortunately not answered in Hansen's short portion of testimony on that topic. I asked more specifically for 2b and an explanation of the part of Hansen's testimony that you posted. Does "funding textbooks" have some other meaning than "giving money to CATO" and if not, does "giving money to CATO" in conjunction with the "internal state of mind" allegation of 2a constitute a crime against humanity? I agree with the "intentional" part of 2c (they did what they did with the intention to protect their property rights). -
Bob Lacatena at 02:43 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
222, apiratelooksat50,Can you explain this? I think you are saying that a skeptic is automatically a denier.
Pretty much, yes. Or, more specifically, I'm saying that everyone that I've met who labels themselves as a skeptic is in fact a denier. A real skeptic wouldn't for one moment be worried about their label, or arguing a position. They'd be studying and learning, because the amount of knowledge that it takes to move from "skeptic" to "knowing" is vast. But my point is also that it is possible to be in the "knowing" camp (without labeling what it is that you would know) when you have studied enough. Then you are no longer a skeptic, because you believe in whatever the facts point toward. The denier inevitably tries state or imply that there are gray areas, things we don't know, random elements, too much margin for error, etc., etc. But it's all nonsense. We have more than enough knowledge, and more than enough understanding of exactly what the margins of error are. The problem is probably more than a little in the definition of "skeptic." A real skeptic is someone who isn't sure, and so is open minded and trying to learn more. The definition of a skeptic used by deniers, to apply to themselves as individuals, is someone who doesn't believe in what mainstream climate science is saying, but don't themselves have actual knowledge to refute it (or, rather, they think they do, but they've stopped learning themselves short of what they need to have a viable position). The real skeptic is skeptical about the science, and so needs to learn more. The faux skeptic is skeptical about the foggy common man's understanding of the science, and how it was derived by the real scientists, and then stops there and spends all of his time getting angry, absorbing other faux skeptical bits of non-information from other faux skeptics, and then posting comments on blogs to express their personal outrage based on their own ignorant faux skepticism. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:34 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Mods, I reposted my comment 217 to the thread suggested by KR. You may replace it with a {moved to http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm#53074} link if you wish. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:33 AM on 3 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
212, Tom Curtis, (from another thread here),I also find it utterly risible that people claim that public transport is inefficient because it requires subsidies to operate, while completely ignoring that users of private transport never pay the full cost of the roads they use.
That's an excellent point, even as it relates to the redistribution of wealth issue. The beneficiaries of publicly funded interstate highway and rail systems are inevitably the very wealthy. While we may not enjoy the selection as much, people could very, very easily live a good life style using more locally produced goods, which require less roads and rail infrastructure. Certainly, our current society depends on those two, but by far, the beneficiaries are the extremely wealthy who then accumulate more wealth than they otherwise could. So a "fair" tax on roads and rail really should be on a per-use basis (in which case the small, local businessman would be far more competitive, and the consumers would have a better choice, and free market forces would include that hidden expense of long-distance-transportation infrastructure... but the wealthy would never stand for such a thing). -
apiratelooksat50 at 02:33 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica @ 196 You read an awful lot into the words I typed in reply to Tom Curtis. What you wrote tended to ramble and is not typical of most of your writing. "The day I meet an actual skeptic, I'll let you know. Until then, IMO, anyone who thinks they are a skeptic needs to wake up and admit to themselves that they are a denier (yourself included). Until they do so, they are closed to the truth, avoiding the actual facts and science, and fooling themselves by clinging to a belief in what they'd like to be true." Can you explain this? I think you are saying that a skeptic is automatically a denier.
Prev 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 Next
