Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 Next
Comments 91101 to 91150:
-
dana1981 at 06:10 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Djon #14 - good point about Jevons paradox. I still think Ecofys is too optimistic about energy efficiency gains though. -
CBDunkerson at 06:07 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Djon, no actually I don't think energy tax values would 'go into a black hole'. You'll notice I didn't say anything of the kind? Rather the logical thing to do with them is to try to keep the overall cost of energy use level by taking 'savings' from efficiency improvements and funneling that money into the start up costs inherent in converting over to other methods of energy generation, offsetting higher costs for some forms of energy, et cetera. As to Jevons paradox not being a sure thing... I'll read the article you link to, but I've never seen a case cited where it didn't come into play unless regulations/price controls were deliberately implemented to prevent it. -
scaddenp at 06:05 AM on 25 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
No, you cannot. If the mechanism cools the troposphere, it must warm the ground. There may be other feedbacks that result from that warming (eg clouds), but increased CO2 will, even with no feedback, increase radiation to ground. I notice you choose to ignore the other fingerprints as well. -
dana1981 at 06:03 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles - your point was not that it should be done first in most favorable countries, your point was that it has not yet been achieved. Since this report is about future actions, that point is irrelevant. And arguing that most countries should not implement renewable energy and energy efficient technologies until Iceland has reduced its emissions to zero makes no sense whatsoever. I refer you to Rob's comment #2. -
Djon at 05:59 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
CBDunkerson, Leaving aside that you are asserting as fact that Jevons paradox has real world effects much greater than are accepted by people who actually study such things - see, for instance, http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/16/debunking-jevons-paradox-jim-barrett/ - you seem very confused about the effects that would be expected if energy prices were "artificially inflated", i.e. if energy taxes were imposed to prevent energy consumers from increasing their consumption in response to efficiency improvements. The energy tax revenues wouldn't go into a black hole - they would presumably either get spent on some new public good or taxes on something other than energy would be decreased. Or maybe we could even use the revenue to pay down the public debts that so many people profess to be so worried about. -
dana1981 at 05:59 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Re my comment #11 - indeed, Jacobson and Delucchi use the EIA estimates that global energy consumption will increase 36% between now and 2030, whereas Ecofys has them roughly equal. I prefer their plan to Ecofys, so I'm looking forward to writing a post about it. -
Gilles at 05:57 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
dana#9 : I'm right on topics, that's precisely what I'm saying ; if it is possible, it should be achieved first in countries where the situation is most favorable - that is those producing already 100 % renewable electricity, since they "only" have to switch the other uses (the other have to do both !). So I will first wait to see if these countries achieve that, before believing that the whole world can do it. Personally, I live in France where electricity is mainly nuclear and I'm heated by a combination of heat pump+ wood - I think I'm rather fine in this respect. -
dana1981 at 05:53 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
CBD #10 - I think that's a valid criticism. I think the projections of decreased energy consumption are probably the most unrealistic part of the report. Bear in mind to achieve them, we need to upgrade the efficiency 2-3% of buildings every year. I don't think that's realistic either. Part of that can be solved by assuming higher energy use, and meeting it by accelerating wind and/or solar power generation, for example. Currently the report has wind and solar growth rates flat and decelerating by 2050, respectively. I suspect Jacobson and Delucchi are more realistic about energy demands in their study. -
dana1981 at 05:46 AM on 25 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
Gilles #69 - I'm not sure where you get 50% from. The only time I referenced 50% was to say that roughly half of the early 20th century warming was from CO2. The Transient Climate Response is approximately 66% of the equilibrium climate response. That's why we've seen about 0.8 of the 1.4°C equilibrium warming from CO2 thus far. That's why approximately 0.1 to 0.15°C of the 1910 to 1940 warming was from CO2. -
dana1981 at 05:37 AM on 25 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
RSVP #61 -"Should cloud coverage go up or down with global warming?"
See "What is the Net Feedback from Clouds?". -
CBDunkerson at 05:35 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
A potential problem with this analysis is that it puts so much emphasis (50%) on energy efficiency... while Jevons paradox has repeatedly shown that increasing energy efficiency actually results in greater energy use. How this works is basically that as something gets more efficient the cost to power it per unit time goes down and it gets more usage. The original example was how making coal powered trains more efficient led to much more extensive railroads and greater total coal consumption. However, the same thing has been observed many times since. The most recent example I can think of would be energy efficient light bulbs... since the cost of powering the lights has dropped more locations now are less concerned about energy prices and leave the lights on all the time. A similar effect can be seen with gasoline prices... when the cost goes down people drive more. This effect can be avoided by offsetting the efficiency improvements with artificially inflated prices... if you are paying as much to run the appliances in your house as you did before then your behavior doesn't change even if you are using half as much energy as before. However, the plan above calls for cost savings from energy efficiency... which means that they don't intend to keep costs artificially level and Jevons paradox could come into play and trash the whole plan. Think about it... energy efficiency sufficient to reduce usage (and thus cost) by 50%. Why not get air conditioners for every room and run them full time in the Summer? It won't cost any more than having one or two to keep a couple of rooms bearable did in the past. Ditto on burning more heating fuel in the Winter. Car gets twice as much gas mileage? Road trip! Improving energy efficiency does not (by itself) reduce energy consumption, and any plan which assumes it will is bound to fail. -
dana1981 at 05:33 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles #6 - we've talked about this. Just because presently we rely on fossil fuels for transportation doesn't mean we will indefinitely. This issue is addressed in the Ecofys report (and again, I will address it when I discuss Jacobson and Delucchi). We're talking about the future, you're talking about the past and present. Please, stay focused on the topic at hand.
-
dana1981 at 05:30 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
perseus #5 - I disagree. Nuclear and carbon capture and storage technologies are as or more expensive than most of the technologies in the Ecofys report. There are other reasons to exclude nuclear as well, as I'll discuss in my post on Jacobson and Delucchi, who find that we can meet all energy needs with just wind, water, and solar power. -
dana1981 at 05:27 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
[1and0nly] #4 - I'm going to discuss Jacobson and Delucchi's work in my next article, as it so happens. -
Gilles at 05:22 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
" I don't believe #2 can be answered properly unless the word "significant" clarified, or a quantitative element is added." I agree - may be they should have added "anthropogenic component contributes between 1.5 % and 98.5 % of the warming" to justify the 97 % of "yes" ?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Your opinion of what 'should have been added' is entirely irrelevant. The survey was taken, the results published. If you disagree with the results, perhaps you can cite the results of a survey of your own. -
Gilles at 05:06 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles - Iceland has the highest per capita energy consumption of any country, yet it's among the lowest in per capita CO2 emissions. almost twice as much as the world average can hardly be called "the lowest in per capita CO2 emissions" ! it's surprising that they still need so much FF with so much electricity ! " The only reason their emissions are still significant is that they need so much energy (because the country is so cold). If Iceland had a more average energy consumption, their emissions would be extremely low." actually not : the main reason is the presence of huge aluminium and ferrosilicon factories that require a lot of electricity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iceland Curiously it's not so cold - it's bathed by the Gulf Stream and polar ice pack doesn't reach it even in winter - which are much milder than in Siberia for instance. http://notendur.hi.is/oi/climate_in_iceland.htm But they still need oil for cars, ships and planes - hydrogen is still a dream. And of course they must also import a lot of goods and don't include the corresponding CO2 in their budget.Moderator Response:[DB] Please do not copy others' comments in their entirety when quoting them. Either a short 1-sentence quote of the pertinent verse you wish to respond to is sufficient or (better yet) simply link to the comment (right-click on the time stamp & select Copy Link Location). Hotlinked URLs. Thanks!
-
damorbel at 05:01 AM on 25 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #814 your comment (as mod) was:- "Response: [muoncounter] Perhaps you should have checked the link in my response to #784. Unless you are a different damorbel, you gave us the parable of your disdain for textbooks some months ago. Do try to keep track of your own words; they are there for all to see." If you look at #784 carefully. I wrote :- "But I don't know which textbook I am suppose to read or whether it is a requirement for scientists to read text books. Personally I recommend original works, textbook contents are at least 2nd hand if not much more; at university my tutors always advised original texts, they had a low opinion of published textbooks." - I was responding to DB's comment in my #783 where he links to scaddenp #753. I responded to scaddenp's remark in 753 where he wrote:- "I asked if the experiment didn't go your way, whether you would be prepared to abandon your view and read the textbook. (ie, behave like a scientist)." This is of course a personal attack on me and I usually avoid responding to them. But, since you are in a special position as a moderator, I thought it would be a good idea to let you know the origin of these remarks that I, for one, see as highly irrelevant.Moderator Response:[DB] The comment is not an attack on you personally; that would be ad hominem and would be disallowed. The remark in question was directed to your very own words. Please be consistent and do not feign ignorance. The definition of "is" has already been debated.
[muoncounter] You repeated the substance of a prior comment, which adds nothing to the current discussion. You've done the same thing a number of times. If you find the instruction to stop that particular behavior a personal affront, so be it.
-
perseus at 04:59 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
For many countries I believe it is practically feasible to cut carbon emissions by 70-80% by replacing coal with a combination of natural gas, nuclear and renewables, without to much pain. However to attempt 100% reduction through renewables alone, especially without nuclear, carbon capture, or a large reserve of hydro is vastly more expensive and technically very challenging. If a 100% reduction has to be made, I wonder if alternative scenarios such an 80% reduction in carbon emissions combined with say a 10% biomass offsetting and 10% geoengineering might be more practical? I can't help but think that more practical approaches are being marginalised through extreme ideologies. On the one hand: we have our present course of 'business as usual' and striving for exponential growth, and on the other a 100% carbon reduction through renewable sources alone. -
[1and0nly] at 04:47 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030Moderator Response:[DB] Hot-linked URL. Note: It is considered good form to include some accompanying text with links to help provide context. Thanks!
-
dana1981 at 04:37 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles - Iceland has the highest per capita energy consumption of any country, yet it's among the lowest in per capita CO2 emissions. The only reason their emissions are still significant is that they need so much energy (because the country is so cold). If Iceland had a more average energy consumption, their emissions would be extremely low. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:18 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles... Snoozers are losers. That's like waiting to see how fast someone else can run the first lap before you get into the race. You put yourself at a distinct disadvantage. -
Gilles at 04:15 AM on 25 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
actually FF and hydropower haven't to be centralized. Historically , people began to develop small thermal and hydro power plants everywhere - they just realized after that it was better to build large networks to stabilize the grid and to gain on scale factors by building larger plants -but it is by no ways necessary. Note also that water- and windmills were abundant before : if the main plants used hydro and not windmills, it was for obvious reasons of intermittency. Water , FF and nuclear have an obvious advantage : they can have tanks. Now you can think that it is easier to do it differently - I just don't know any case where developing countries didn't increase their FF consumption. When reality contradicts principles, who is wrong? reality, or principles ? -
Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Harry, Your general criticism has been made before and addressed by the author. Also note Anderegg 2010 which found the same conclusions using very different methods. You also have Oreskes 2004 and the positions of nearly all leading national and international scientific organizations, all of which is discussed in the is there consensus main post. -
Gilles at 03:56 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
As I said before, a country like Iceland has already much more renewable electricity than what is needed for its population (most of it being used in big aluminium and other plants). It is totally deprived of any fossil fuels (for the very good reason that the whole country is not more than 30 millions years old). So in some sense it has already achieved most of this program and has absolutely no interest in importing FF that will become more and more expensive. Yet they're producing around 9 tCO2/cap/yr, much like Germany or other countries. I don't understand very well why they don't have already applied this beautiful program - they don't even have to care about smart grids, geothermal and hydroelectricity doesn't suffer from intermittency. So before believing it's applicable to the whole world, I will wait first to see if it's applicable to the easiest cases - such as Iceland. -
Chris Colose at 03:36 AM on 25 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
Actually the extreme ultraviolet was probably greater in the distant past, even with a fainter sun, so that does matter. -
Harry Seaward at 03:07 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
From the post: "Second, we know that burning fossil fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The properties of CO2 were first studied by John Tyndall in the late 1850s. Tyndall was an experimental physicist interested in how different gases absorb heat. John Tyndall's observations were remarkable. His pioneering work eventually inspired physicists to develop the theory of quantum mechanics, but his results about CO2 also led Arrhenius in 1896 to the conclusion that burning fossil fuel will result in global warming. So climate science is a very old science indeed; we have known about CO2 for more than 150 years." The question asked of the climate scientists was "do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor...". The author makes a leap to focusing on CO2. That was certainly not the question asked. -
Harry Seaward at 03:03 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Questions from the survey that generated the 97% consensus figure. 1 When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? I would answer #1 as generally risen. I don't believe #2 can be answered properly unless the word "significant" clarified, or a quantitative element is added. -
CBDunkerson at 03:03 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
That's similar to what I was getting at with the EPA. To date there have not been any CO2 emissions limits enshrined in law. That's a strike against these suits... though suits against the tobacco industry showed that if the company in question knew that their product was harmful, but released it anyway and claimed that it was safe then they may still be liable. Like I said, I'm not sure how it will come out from a legal perspective... and politics folds into that because the EPA is trying to introduce the sort of limits that haven't existed in the past, which would then make the legal basis for such suits rock solid going forward... but that'll only happen if politics doesn't stop the EPA from acting. All of which only applies to the U.S. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:59 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Jay... I don't think anyone carries any illusions that we're going to turn off the CO2 spigot over night. We all readily admit that pretty much our entire modern society is built on burning fossil fuels of one sort or another. But, we absolutely must find alternative means to produce energy quickly and efficiently. What's playing out here with states suing over CO2 production is a tactic. It would take years to litigate such cases. Think of how complex asbestos and tobacco were. Those cases were decades in the making. But they were both effective. Ultimately this should be an issue that is taken up in Congress and some form of carbon tax systems put into place. That is the right way to do it. One way or another this has to happen otherwise the costs we pass down to later generations will be unconscionable and potentially insurmountable. -
Alexandre at 02:52 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Cadbury #8 That's a good point about the law enforcement. So, assuming you're ok with the physics: knowing that CO2 amissions cause important externalities, how would you suggest this problem to be treated legally? -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 02:46 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Well I'm not trying to start an argument. Please let me know if anyone sees the similarity to this problem though. I think abruptly enforcing co2 emission laws is similar to the immigration issue. Some lawmakers want to outlaw illegal immigration and round up non citizens. It isn't plausible because we've have not enforced the existing law and we can't suddenly turn around and say "okay now we're going to enforce this law and your out." I think it is similar to telling a company "Lower your emissions or else." Many might argue that companies should have seen this coming, as it has been tied up in legal issues for several years but I still think it is unreasonable. -
Alexandre at 02:42 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Cadbury #2 The other responders are certainly more qualified than me, but as they said the problem with CO2 is not that it is toxic (below some 5~10% concentration, at least) or that it has a color (!!). It's its optical properties that cause IR radiation to be trapped. So the argument of the Washington Times is just a strawman. About your last paragraph: that's the problem with diffuse externalities. It's hard to pinpoint a culprit, even though everyone is to some extent. Higher CO2 concentrations have important climatic consequences, and some large emitters have played a larger role than others to change this concentration, regardless of which molecule obstructed which photon. BTW, I'm very interested in the outcome of lawsuits against such emitters. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:25 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Cadbury... The harm related to atmospheric concentrations of CO2 has nothing to do with the toxicology of CO2. It has to do with the effects on the climate system and the harm that can come from that. The EPA went to extreme lengths to detail out how and why CO2 is harmful. They published an extensive and detailed document. You might want to check it out before commenting further.Moderator Response: [grypo] Thanks, I added the EPA endangerment finding to the reading list. -
CBDunkerson at 02:20 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Jay Cadbury, carbon dioxide is instantly lethal to humans at concentrations of about 10%, toxic (i.e. eventually fatal) at approximately half that, and harmful to the environment on a global scale at trace levels currently being emitted. So, no... it is not "harmless". It is colorless, but doesn't seem particularly relevant. As to the suits... I don't know how they'll play out. The nearest precedent I can think of would be suits of companies emitting sulfur dioxide and other chemicals causing acid rain. In that case legislation limiting emissions of such things was passed and the companies settled (i.e. paid up). The EPA is working on similar limits on CO2 under existing clean air legislation and while the GOP may be able to block it in the House it seems unlikely they can in the Senate. However, that largely depends on the next election. So it may well come down to politics rather than law or science. -
DSL at 02:15 AM on 25 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ, it's the same old question: where does the energy being emitted by the atmosphere go? It cannot choose its path. If a molecule of CO2 3 inches above a fallow field in Idaho emits a photon downward at 3:00 in the afternoon on July 29th, and that photon is not impeded before striking the sun-warmed molecules that make up the soil, what happens to the photon? Does it slam on the brakes and say to itself "Damn, I almost violated the alleged 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!"? Or does it hit the soil and "bounce off"? Can it be absorbed? More home experiments! Take two pots of boiling water, both with a constant heat source of 90C. Place a 50C heat source ten feet (so there can be no question of convective interference) above pot no. 2. Will the temperature of pot no. 2 increase at all? Will the 50C heat source add its energy to the 90C source and make the water hotter than for pot no. 1? Yah, ok, DB. I'm done--and I barely got started. -
dana1981 at 02:09 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Cadbury, please look up the definition of the term "strawman argument". And please stop saying things like "we can all agree". I'm not sure I've agreed with a single thing you've said in any of your comments to date. -
michael sweet at 02:08 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Jay: Tell the 20 million people in Pakistan who's homes were flooded by AGW last summer that CO2 is harmless. Tell Tuvalu that they can all move to your home town when their country is gone. Will you provide them with new homes when they arrive? These comapnies know their product causes harm to others and they continue to deliberately cause that harm. They deserve to be sued until they pay for the harm they cause. This is the same argument that big tobacco uses: you have to proove which individual cigarette killed this person or we are not at fault. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 01:52 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Alexandre how can you say it is not harmless and colorless? People in the navy stay on submarines where the co2 concentrations are in the thousands of parts per million. Also, I think no matter what side of the debate you are on, we can all agree the lawsuits the 7 states want to open are frivolous. How is it fair that California wants to sue out of state companies when we all know they are going to ask for a bailout at some point. They want to sue a company for damages that they cannot prove and at the same time ask people to send money to their state because they ran it into the ground. Here is a scenario. California wants to sue company X and they claim that company X's emissions somehow contributed to a flood or a hurricane. How can the prosecution prove that company X's emissions directly impacted the storm? How can they directly trace the emitted co2 molecules from the company to the storm? -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 01:42 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
@moderator Sorry I only posted that statement from Happer as a response to his post about radiative forcing being well understood. I posted to try and show that there is disagreement. -
Gilles at 01:28 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
"They are settled (as much as any science is every settled) in the peer reviewed litterature." Actually I disagree on this precise point : issues are discussed in the peer reviewed literature - and most often not settled. Settled issues are usually presented in textbooks and no more in peer-reviewed literature. [I guess that the correct wording in English is literature and not LITTERature, or litchurtchur ;) - littérature is french BTW ) . That's why I don't think that citing a paper or another is a real answer to contrarians - paper are published to be discussed. Now I cannot oblige you to answer my question, I was just curious whether you thought I was holding a "non scientific" position, and why. But as I said, if your conclusion is to exclude people who don't think like you - I think this is kind of missing the goal of your website.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Operor non nutritor trolls -
Ken Lambert at 00:34 AM on 25 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Marcus #95-97 Bern #95 I am in favour of any energy source which is cost effective and has low or zero emissions. Coal and 'carbon pollution' just happens to be the cheapest and most reliable energy source on the Australian scene. Export of coal to less efficient and clean CO2 emitters such as in China, India and other places is a major source of revenue for State and Federal Govts. So while taxing its use here in Oz - those same Govts rely on coal export revenue for balancing budgets and providing foreign exchange so we acvnm but flat screen TV's. Those filthy 'carbon polluters' derided by our politicians were (and some still are) none other than State (Taxpayer) built run and owned electricity utilities. The filthy polluters were and are in fact - ourselves. What you have to consider is that base load 24/7 from black coal plant generates electricity for 4-5 cents per kWhr, Gas, Nuclear and Geothermal are in the 8-12 cents range. Wind 7-12 cents (depending on site and without storage). Solar PV used to be around 50 cents but that could have dropped with falling prices - please update me on this as I have not checked for some time. As for medical conditions - coal is not great, nuclear has its risks, wind induced low frequency sound effects are real enough for those affected. -
Alexandre at 00:27 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
"Harmless and colorless gas"... I can't believe they still use this kind of strawman. Readers should know better at this point. -
IanC at 00:14 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
73 Arkadiusz, I think you should read your articles fully before before posting them. RIght after where your quote ended: "Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate." Regarding your "cautionary tale", spending some time on google will tell you that it is far from certain that Scott and Duncan's theory is right. By the way, Scott and Duncan used computer models ! BTW it will be fallacious to assume that all paradigms will shifted because some paradigms have shifted. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:05 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
@Moderator "... with all other forcings and feedbacks Assumed to be zero net ..." The report quoted my question NASA is not "all" - but only "negative"Moderator Response:[DB] I spoke after having read the paper itself, which I linked to, not the NASA report on the paper. I'm trying to help you understand the context of the paper.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:53 PM on 24 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
@ rhjames (19) "Can anyone show me a model that predicts the lack of warming over the past 10 years or so? I know that people want to say it's a short term blip - we need to be talking 30 years minimum." When one filters out the cyclical noise and the effects of volcanoes on the system, it is possible to see a significant temperature vector in the data in temperature datasets, even in periods shorter than 30 years:
But it takes someone skilled in time series analysis to do the job right when dealing with extremely short time series, such as the significant warming of the globe since 2000, as shown above.
That's why most climatologists, being very conservative with what they say, prefer to use as much data as they can get (generally 30 years or more) to make their evaluations.
Otherwise what you're asking is impossible: to prove or disprove the non-existence of something.
Hope this helps,
The Yooper
-
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:52 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
“Black Death, & that it peaked *before* the start of the Little Ice Age (14th century vs the 16th century).” There is some truth. There was exactly in 1347 - along with the beginning of the LIA. Ended (as a pandemic) in the years 1660-1670 - the beginning of the LIA maximum cold finished "life of "black death. This is another - excellent - example the lack of linearity in a world of natural phenomena ... Warming or cooling - both of which can be both the cause of the disaster and development. -
Gilles at 23:52 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
"The purpose of SkS is to provide a forum for discussion of climate science relating to global warming. If it is not your goal to discuss climate science, perhaps you should find another forum more suited to your goals" Again, I don't think that scientific issues can be settled by discussions on a web forum. i'm here just as a citizen who, because of his scientific formation (actually profession), can understand scientific arguments, but I wouldn't try to give definite answers. I understood that this forum was devoted to a presentation of scientific facts towards a large audience - for me it's enough to see the "best arguments" as selected by the most convinced people to see how they sound. And if these "best arguments" don't sound terribly convincing, I'm afraid the others will be still more uncertain. So when I see things like statistics on models, or intuitive fudge factors, or simplistic logics obviously overlooking complex realities, well, that's enough for me to doubt. I have a question, by curiosity, concerning the position you believe I'm holding : is there any precise statement, that you think I would support, and that would be obviously wrong for you ? (such as "the world was created 5000 years ago", or " planets do influence the psychology of individuals") ? a good criterion to quantify the "obviously wrong" would be, as I said, that you would accept any bet even at very unfavorable odds for you. Is there such statement, in your opinion ?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Now you are just being silly - of course the scientific issues are not settled in discussions on a web forum and nobody has suggested they are. They are settled (as much as any science is every settled) in the peer reviewed litterature. The purpose of SkS is discussion of that science, and if you are not interested in that discussion, then please go elsewhere where the things you want to discuss are on-topic, rather than disrupt the discussion of the science here. I have not implied that you hold any position, I am not interested in guessing your position on the science [if you had a substantive point you would just make it rather than play guessing games] and have no desire to indulge your trolling any further. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:32 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
of course: You quote my work - paper, that further warming of 1.34 degree C (land) will have a global catastrophe ... -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:29 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
I. “Y. pestis was the cause of the Black Death” - sorry is “of topic”, but it shows the way thinking about the consensus. Nobody - including Scott and Duncan - do not claim that there was Y. pestis in the LIA - as the cause of death - even strong but rare epidemic (in relation to the virus). Skeletons found in Y. pestis DNA (usually port cities ONLY !) confirms this - but just that. Work cited by ScienceDaily is a little like the views of creationists ... There is one small piece of truth. Shows how big is the resistance to new scientific research. Scott Duncan and prove that it - in great part Europe - was not species of rats - especially in the UK or Iceland - it could not be there so the plague ... II. I quote my work - paper, that further warming of 1.34 degree C (land) will have a global catastrophe ... -
grypo at 23:28 PM on 24 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
Thanks for dropping by TTom. I'm just going to post you main thoughts here because there is no link there to get back to your comment. From here: "my chief comment would be that you and the 'libertarians' you discuss have all missed that the status quo favors massive corporations whose very status is suspect from a libertarian standpoint: they are creatures of government that could not exist without govt in their present form, and that embody moral hazard via the govt grant of limited liability to shareholders. Cato and other vocal 'libertarian' organizations are in fact corporate fronts and won't bite the hand that feeds them, and thus avoid delving too deeply when they defend a 'free market' that is predominated by organizations that are not controlled by shareholders or communities and that are dedicated to extracting gains irregardless of costs that others may be forced to bear." You explained that bit much better than I.
Prev 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 Next
