Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 Next
Comments 118351 to 118400:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:32 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Wow. A lot of activity took place here over the evening. Not sure where to start... 1) I find it interesting that so much of the discussion has revolved around the politics of my post rather than the larger point of my post. In the body of the post my intent was to paint VERY broad strokes regarding ideological influences hopefully without pegging anyone into any position (maybe an impossible task). In that I was trying to feel out the mechanisms for the ever expanding gulf in people's positions on AGW not create a discussion on political positions. I tried to go out of my way to diffuse conflict by saying this was my own biased perspective. 2) I actually believe that my post is very much in keeping with John's wonderful website here. The whole concept of Skeptic Science is to "take back" the term "skeptical" from those who claim to be skeptical of AGW. Science is inherently skeptical. I would hold that everyone in that inner sphere of peer reviewed science (Fig 2) is a skeptical scientist, from Svensmark and Lindzen to Hansen and Mann. The real science, the real skeptical science, is clearly coming down on the side of AGW being real (again, in keeping with the position of this site). That is NOT a political position, it's just where the data are pointing. That is a skeptical science position and the basis for the whole argument I laid out. 3) Please don't miss the actual point I'm trying to make in this post people! I'm saying there is common ground. There is a place in the middle where the ideologies dissolve and we find we're all sitting in the same boat together. If Anthony Watts gets giddy over electric cars then that says to me there is a silver lining to this incredibly divisive issue. Let's explore THAT rather than whether my biased vision of why it's the case is true or not. I'll reiterate the end of my post. Don't stop fighting to make sure the science is right. BUT we should all be looking for the clean energy solutions that make us as giddy as Anthony Watts is over his car. -
KR at 01:29 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
theendisfar, there's an excellent paper by Kiehl and Trenberth showing measured values for radiation, convection, evaporation, etc. at the Earths surface. I understand this was updated recently - values haven't changed more than 2%, mostly in a higher average thermal radiation value for the surface due to the 4th order dependence of radiation to temperature. Sorry I don't have a link to the most recent update. They explicitly include convection and evaporation in their models. Thermals (convection) account for ~24 W/m^2, evaporation is 78, and radiation is 390 W/m^2 (updated if I recall to 396 in the most recent writeup). Thermals therefore account for ~5.7% of energy leaving the Earths surface, thermals and evaporation for ~21% - significant, if not dominant, energy flows. They are of course not at all involved in TOA energy exchanges. As to credentials and the like, theendisfar, I personally don't have the resources to recreate all lines of evidence for any scientific assertion made - that seems to be what you're asking for. I read the papers, I examine the methods, and look for well supported conclusions. If the evidence is weak or the conclusions unwarranted I'll ignore that source in the future. If you feel the consensus view is incorrect, collect your evidence and publish it. That's how reputations are made in science; proving something different! Peer review isn't perfect, but it's pretty d**m good - and if you manage to slip something through peer review that is WRONG it will be gladly pointed out by other scientists interested in correcting the record (and getting something published :) ). On the other hand, if what you want is to butt heads while waving credentials - have fun, but I'm going to decline to participate. -
tobyjoyce at 01:28 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@Blessthefall, You made the allegation. I investigated and found it had no real foundation (excuse the pun), especially when compared to the moolah flowing to denialists. As you made the allegation, and cannot substantiate it, I think we can dismiss it. Let's have a communal shrug on that one. -
chris at 01:22 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
I would also add Lean and Rind (2008) to the list of pukka solar scientists (Judith Lean) who have established that solar variation has made a minimal contribution to warming of the last 100 years (perhaps 10%) and a slight cooling contribution during the last 25 years. J. L. Lean and D. H. Rind (2008) How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006 Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L18701.Response: Yikes, how had I missed that paper for the It's the sun page?! Now added, thanks for the link! -
theendisfar at 01:17 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
@241 Riccardo, I meant no disrespect, please allow me to clarify. Without knowing your background, reply @236 seemed as though you were parroting someone else's understanding rather than having the understanding yourself. I have no issue with taking your word that you are a physicist, no need to discuss that. From @233, have I made any false statements? Can you see where I'm going? If not, I am pleased to clarify my position or arguments. -
Riccardo at 01:06 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
theendisfar, I take as a form of due respect to listen to what people say regardless their degree, not even scientific journals ask for the degree. I do have a physics degree but i'm not interested in discussing it. -
JMurphy at 01:00 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
How is it possible for Monckton to keep getting away with all these falsehoods ? I really can't understand it. -
John Cook at 00:56 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Just letting everyone know George Monbiot has written an article about John Abraham's comprehensive rebuttal of Monckton in the Guardian. The article is Viscount Monckton, another fallen idol of climate denial. An exerpt:Abraham, like the other brave souls who have taken on this thankless task, has plainly spent a very long time on it. He investigates a single lecture Monckton delivered in October last year. He was struck by the amazing claims that Monckton made: that climate science is catalogue of lies and conspiracies. If they were true, it would be a matter of the utmost seriousness: human-caused climate change would, as Monckton is fond of saying, be the greatest fraud in scientific history. If they were untrue, it was important to show why. As Abraham explains at the beginning of his investigation, his scientific credentials didn't mean that he was automatically right, any more than Monckton's lack of scientific credentials meant that he was automatically wrong. Every claim Monckton made would be judged on its merits. Where Monckton gave references, Abraham would follow them up, seeking to discover whether he had accurately represented the papers he cited, or whether the authors of those papers agreed with his interpretation. Where he did not give references, Abraham would see whether Monckton's claims were consistent with published scientific data. The results of Abraham's investigation are astonishing: not one of the claims he looks into withstands scrutiny. He exposes a repeated pattern of misinformation, distortion and manipulation, as he explains in the article he has written for the Guardian. Some of Monckton's assertions are breath-taking in their brazen disregard of facts. He has gravely misrepresented papers and authors he refers to, in some cases he appears to have created data, graphs and trends out of thin air: at least that was how it appeared to Abraham when Monckton gave no references and his graphs and figures starkly contradicted the published science.
Good to see JA's huge effort is getting more exposure. -
theendisfar at 00:52 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
@236 Riccardo, In the IPCC reports their diagrams note that convection is only responsible for ~10% of cooling the Earth's surface. This is plainly false, see #239. Are you suggesting that radiation is more efficient at transferring energy than convection because moist convection was included in a 1964 model? How about dry convection? While GHG's may slow the rate of Radiation cooling, the increase in temps will only cause the radiation and convection rates to increase, where the convection rate of cooling increases more than the radiation. Again, since convection is not impeded, no greenhouse, the cooling rate is free to increase as temps rise. Now assume that this is new data and you are the Peer reviewing. Are you qualified to answer or must you have a document to refer to? -
theendisfar at 00:34 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
@235 yocta, Here's the claim. If you heat a body with radiation and it has both radiation and convection as a means to cool, it will cool more so via convection and as you increase the surface temp, you increase the convection rate more so than the radiation rate. You be the Peer. Is this correct or is it incorrect? -
theendisfar at 00:29 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
@234 scaddenp, Not sure I understand you question exactly, but here's a start. Assumption: By TOA, I assume you mean the actual Top of Atmosphere at 0 ATM. Let's tackle convection and then we can get to evaporation. Convection is caused by a combination of gravity and differences in fluid density. When the Earth's surface is heated, it not only radiates energy to cool, but it also conducts heat energy to the adjacent air above it. When this occurs the air expands and becomes less dense than the cooler air above it. At this point gravity comes into play and pulls more strongly on the cooler more dense air above, effectively dragging the cooler air underneath the warmer air. The Earth's surface warms that parcel of air and the process repeats. Convection only occurs up to the tropopause because at that point the temperature scale inverts and temps get higher with altitude. This is why you often see thunderstorms form anvils since the cooler upper troposphere stops where the stratosphere begins to warm. It is also worth mentioning that the atmosphere is elastic in nature where the tropopause varies in altitude depending upon the temperature. Lower at the poles, cooler more dense air, higher in the tropics, warmer less dense air. This is important because if the atmosphere was fixed in size the temp would rise faster with more heat added since it could not expand to reduce both pressure and temp. So in real terms, convection is only relevant to the TOA in that it transports most of the energy the Earth is cooling up to the tropopause where radiation finishes the job. -
theendisfar at 00:01 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Re 234, 235, and 236 Thank you for your replies, I am pleased to have a detailed discussion on this subject. So that I may better understand at what level I need to be responding will you please let me know if you are trained in physics? I am happy to provide and accept links as evidence, but I need to know whether the person 'providing' material understands the evidence or is simply referring to it as Peer-Reviewed and therefor fact. Can we agree to review the 'facts' ourselves? I claim that I have enough understanding of thermodynamics and related physical sciences to discuss these topics with anyone. I am not claiming this for any other reason than to let you all know that what I write is completely within my understanding and I will not be parroting someone else's understanding. I expect the same of you. I wish to convey that I do not have a problem with AGW believers, I only wish to get some answers and to provide some myself. While I will not resort to ad hominem, feel free to be as condescending as the moderators will allow, I understand emotions sometimes run high. With that, I look forward to gaining a better understanding of the believer's position and hopefully I can help you all understand the position of a scientific skeptic. My name is Steve A. Morris, but will keep theendisfar to remain consistent. Thanks -
JMurphy at 23:53 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Berényi Péter wrote : "There are twenty two occurrences of expressions like "denial", "denialism", "denialist", "denier" or "deny" under this post so far. If it is not ranting, I don't know what the current rules are supposed to be." I have always been bemused by the way so-called skeptics are sensitive to those words you have highlighted, as if they can see the danger in being tagged with such descriptive words, while simultaneously showing how precisely those terms DO describe them exactly : anyone who denies the science is, by default, a denier, surely ? The fact that we have different words to describe those who hold the other types of denial (Creationist, Troofer, Birther, etc.), only shows that one word is not capable of encapsulating the whole gamut of Global Warming denial. Except, of course, for a word that involves the various forms of the verb 'to deny'. And the reason why all those forms of the word 'deny' are not ranting, as you think, is because 'ranting' involves anger, hyperbole, extravagance, noise, vehemence, bombast, etc. See any presentation by that Monckton chap for a good example of such... -
Marcus at 23:47 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Hmmm, seems like your little "Convection/Evaporation" pseudo-hypothesis was still-born, theendisfar, given that you've got absolutely nothing solid to back it up. Your "theory" does nothing to explain current warming trends in the lower atmosphere, & is directly contradicted by the cooling in the upper atmosphere. All-in-all I'd say that this, & a lack of a little thing we like to call EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE gives your little pseudo-hypothesis the one-two knockout punch. I mean, I could claim that the atomic theory is *wrong* & that the universe is made up of gnomes, but if I can't back it up with PROOF, then I'd just end up looking a little bit silly-kind of the way you do right now! -
Blessthefall at 23:43 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@tobyjoyce: I stated that both sides receive money and both sides are fueled by politics. Pointing out that Hansen and "libertarian" think tanks receive money from this or that organization only proves my point. Moreover, saying that it was "probably spent on lab equipment, salaries, etc." is akin to shrugging your shoulders: we'll never know what that money was spent on, but we do know that Hansen received money from a politically connected organization. @Riccardo: Bias exists in the scientific community. Not only in climate science, but in psychological science, biological science, and so forth. That "single scientist bias" is actually representative of the whole scientific community, regardless if someone is pointing out the bias. Impartial science is impossible and we're going to see bias on both sides of the argument. My point, which was eventually backed up by tobyjoyce, shows that climate science is not impartial. Whether some of these scientists are trying to be biased or hiding it is irrelevant. @Berényi Péter: I pointed out the exact same thing with a rather scathing response, but my post was deleted. I think anyone who wants to inject politics into the science (both of which I've shown to be inseparable - at least in the US) on this website can now do so because this guest post violates the comment policy and violates Skeptical Science's choice of "taking the politics out of the science." Mr. Cook, I'd like to know why my first post was deleted when others are saying the exact same thing I am and their posts are not getting deleted.Response: Early in these threads, I try to keep the discussion focused on science and adhering to the comments policies. I deleted comments from both sides (lately, it seems I've been deleting more "pro-AGW" comments than skeptic ones, particularly on the Monckton thread where people just couldn't help themselves.
Unfortunately sometimes the discussion degrades to the point where I just have to wash my hands of it - I only have limited hours in the day to get stuff done - and hope that discussion will move onto a more fruitful topic on the next post.
I wish I could give a more satisfying answer but at this point, I'm not particularly impressed by comments from both sides and would sit down and shred much of this whole thread if I could spare the time. -
theendisfar at 23:31 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@ doug_bostrom 18 "You're simply wrong." Sorry, you won't convince a nonbeliever until he/she can repeat the methods and arrive at the same conclusions. I am most certainly open to persuasion if someone can give me their methods so I can repeat the test. And we don't need 1,000's of Earth to do tests. One simple exercise is to measure the cooling rate of an object in a vacuum, and then measure the cooling rate with 1 ATM of dry air, then add water. This will give us a good idea of the efficiencies of radiative and convective cooling. This will help determine if the models are calibrated correctly. You won't find a more reliable source. If you don't understand the weight this report carries I'm afraid there's really no perfectly kind way of saying you're quite out of your league in making judgments about this topic. Sigh, I'm often amazed that so few today take the time to check things for themselves and leave it up to others. Moody's Investment Ratings is a perfect example. You won't find a more reliable source. They still rate US Bonds as AAA. That's laughable at best and quite sad when you ponder it. Check out http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=5&t=239&&n=76#15225 on occasion. There I will point out exactly how the Greenhouse Effect is only a small piece of the Earth's thermo-system. Let's do the peer-review right here at Skeptical Science, no need to take someone else's word, right? We have scientists here. -
Ned at 23:29 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
John Russell writes: I could add more but perhaps it's best just to ask, do others share my unease? I do. In fact, my first reaction on seeing this new thread was "Oh no...." Clearly, some people would like to discuss "meta" issues, in ways that bring in all kinds of normally shunned topics (politics/ideology, other people's motivations, etc.) I guess my one suggestion or humble request would be that everybody try to keep the politics etc. "quarantined" in this one thread. And if this post attracts a lot of new visitors[1], let's all do our best to gently help them learn the standards that are maintained in the more normal science-centric threads on this site. [1] With the prominent reference to Anthony Watts in the title of this thread, I'm half expecting an influx of new visitors from WUWT-land. -
Marcus at 23:26 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
theendisfar. Well you'd know all about making incorrect conclusions, wouldn't you? So are you *honestly* saying that the Greenhouse Gas theory is wrong, and isn't the cause of our planet being 33 degrees warmer than its Black-Body temperature? As I said above, if you're going to challenge a theory that was established over a century ago-& has been built on via experimentation & observation over the intervening period-you'd better have something better than "well, it's wrong 'cause I just SAY SO"-which is, in effect, what you're doing. What you're also doing is applying extremely *simple* mechanics-like convection & evaporation-to an extremely complex thing like our climate. As to your answer to point (b), the thing is that global temperatures fluctuated between 18 & 24 degrees C over that 400 million year period-largely in line with shifts in CO2 concentrations. If your explanation held true, then the planet would have *only* gotten cooler. As to the 2nd part of your "proof", I could just as easily say that the reason Earth has been locked in ice over these time periods-in spite of a warmer sun-is that, compared to the pre-Quaternary era-Planet Earth is relatively CO2 constrained. That the coldest parts of Earth's history coincide with the lowest levels of CO2 in its history are surely not a coincidence, & highlight how much more important these gases are than incoming solar radiation (within reason) in government average temperatures. Similarly with your answer to (c). Long-term studies of past climate & sunspot proxies have shown an *extremely* close correlation-with the exception of the last 30-60 years, when CO2 emissions have been rising. Again, coincidence? Sounds to me like you're the one trying to spread red herrings around Theendisfar. Like I said before, there is plenty of empirical evidence out there for the Greenhouse Effect-& the enhanced Greenhouse Effect. When you can provide proof to rebut this evidence, then you might have some credibility. At the moment, though, you have precious little. -
Marcus at 23:14 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
"Anyway. If one thinks carbon dioxide is dangerous, the rational track to take is to promote nuclear energy. This is the only technology mature enough to supply all the electric power needed by the economy right now." Absolute rubbish Berenyi-given the CO2 intensity of the nuclear energy cycle-not to mention such issues as Waste Disposal, weapons proliferation & uranium being yet another *non-renewable resource*. This last part is most important. Best estimates suggest that uranium reserves will last 100 years *at current levels of use*. We'd need to *triple* total nuclear capacity just to reduce global CO2 emissions by 15%. How long do you *really* think that can be sustained? Meanwhile, far greater reductions in CO2 emissions can be achieved simply in how we *use* electricity & gasoline-even before we get to the question of using renewable fuels. Beyond efficiency, bio-sequestration (algae) offers a significantly cheaper alternative to nuclear as a means of significantly reducing the CO2 output of existing fossil-fuel power stations, as well as being an excellent source of oil &/or gas. Additionally, landfill & sewerage gas are extremely useful *distributed* sources of electricity & heat which would also be less costly to tap than nuclear, & without the by-products. Then you have such mature technologies such as PV's; wind power coupled with vanadium flow batteries (to smooth out supply); Solar Thermal Power with long-term heat storage; Geothermal Power, Micro & Mini-Hydro Power; Tidal Power-& rapidly up & coming power sources based on osmotic potential. What's particularly amazing is that the bulk of these technologies achieved maturity with only a *fraction* of the funding enjoyed by coal & nuclear power over the last 50 years. So in a nutshell-*no* an acceptance of the danger of CO2 induced global warming does not immediately suggest an automatic support for nuclear power. That sounds more like a product of lazy thinking-designed to enrich just another already wealthy member of the corporate community. -
dhogaza at 23:11 PM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
However, the point I'm making is that we still don't have a gold standard way of measuring what the ice is doing. Consequently, different algorithms give divergent results. We don't know what the trend would have been had the JAXA algorithm been available thirty years ago. I assume the likely answer would be 'more extensive ice' but in reality we don't know.
JAXA and NSIDC show similar trends, I don't get why you think they're significantly different. Similar trends with different algorithms applied to data from different sensors. A "divergent result" would be a significantly different trend, and this simply isn't the case. Area calculations by the cryosphere today people show a similar trend. And there's evidence that if anything the satellite sensors overestimate ice when it has broken up. If you believe that what we're seeing is an artifact of poor or reliable instrumentation, you're living in fantasy land. Those were real ships sailing the northeast passage last summer, encountering exactly the kind of ice conditions reported by the various satellite data processing groups. -
theendisfar at 23:04 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@ Marcus 14 "If you're going to keep banging on about Convection & Evaporation as being major obstacles to AGW, then it is beholden upon you to provide the EVIDENCE-preferably in the form of peer-reviewed scientific journals." Forgive me doubting Peer-Review, especially today. We can easily get around Peer-Review with repeatable tests can we not? The common argument here that Peer-Review is necessary only tells me that there are no scientists here to think and answer for themselves. John is a physicist, but cannot answer questions? Heck, a well defined AGW Theory would help greatly. In any event, I was pointed to http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=5&t=239&&n=76#15225 in order to carry on the conversation about CO2. For your questions; (a) that in spite of having a black-body temperature of -18 degrees C, the planet has been around +8 to +15 degrees C for the better part of 80 million years; Do you mean in spite of having a BBT of 18 C today? The Earth's average temp is 14 or 15 C, where do you get 18 C? Regardless, when you average all the known temps of a vast thermo-system you end up knowing far less about the behavior of the thermo-system. For example, a body that is uniform in temperature will cool more slowly than one with a varied surface, where convection is available, because convective currents are more efficient over varied surfaces. (b) in spite of the sun being cooler 500 million to 1 billion years ago, the planet was around 6 to 8 degrees *warmer* than in modern times. The main difference back then there was 5 to 10 times more CO2 in our atmosphere; We know that the Earth saw an increase in cooling once the North and South American plates joined and the Himalaya formation also seems to have adjusted to the jet stream to carry polar air masses deep into the temperate zones. Don't forget that the Moon was also much closer so tidal energies were also higher, days were shorter, many variables were different. Also, in spite of the Sun being warmer than 500 million years ago, much of the Earth has been locked in Ice for the better part of the 5 million years with only brief, 25 thousand years or so, periods of interglacial. (c) in spite of 30 years of declining sun-spot activity, the planet has warmed at a rate of 0.16 degrees per decade Sun Spot numbers, TSI, and amount of Radiation reaching the Earth's surface are all different things, though correlations can be made. The correlations are not well defined and again using terms like 'despite' for single phenomena to explain highly complex systems can only lead to false conclusions. Now, if all your claims about Convection & Evaporation were correct, then neither (a), (b) nor (c) could hold true. See above. -
solarsparky at 22:57 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Re 3;"If everyone bought an electric car, as did Anthony Watts, the grid would be quickly overwhelmed." Not true, an elegant solution to turn electric cars into distributed power can be found at 'better place', this company is rolling out demo site's world wide. IMHO electric cars may be the just best thing to happen to "smart grids'enabling storage of intemittent renewable inputs, -
Berényi Péter at 22:56 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
#43 JMurphy at 20:46 PM on 3 June, 2010 I assume that any ranting will continue to be (quite rightly) deleted I thought so. However, trying to define ranting in this context brings us to a slippery slope. It reminds me under communist rule here friendly criticism was always encouraged. It was just the opposite with hostile criticism. Had it been done in public, the punishment was immediate and severe. Sometimes even in private it turned out to be a grave mistake. However, in practice there had to be no difference between the to types of criticism whatsoever to find yourself in either category. Rules were constantly made up and redefined by those in power and there was no way to know them in advance. This ambiguity used to belong to the very nature of the System. There are twenty two occurrences of expressions like "denial", "denialism", "denialist", "denier" or "deny" under this post so far. If it is not ranting, I don't know what the current rules are supposed to be. Anyway. If one thinks carbon dioxide is dangerous, the rational track to take is to promote nuclear energy. This is the only technology mature enough to supply all the electric power needed by the economy right now. So much so, that AGW scare machine must have Big Nuke in the background. With a somewhat hesitant Big Oil on its side, united against Big Coal, of course. One should not forget that hydrocarbons can produce about twice as much energy for the same CO2 output as coal. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/is-nuclear-power-renewable/ -
CBDunkerson at 22:47 PM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
New study just out which says that sediment analysis suggests current Arctic sea ice levels are the lowest in at least the past few thousand years. Study - fee site News article -
Marcus at 22:26 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
The way I see it there are ultimately only two possibilities: (1) In spite of extensive evidence to the contrary, AGW will prove to be a myth-or won't be as bad as they're saying or (2) The evidence is correct, & AGW is occurring & will be as bad-if not worse-than what they're saying. So lets say (1) is true, but we still adopt a precautionary approach: & start implementing much greater efficiency in our economy, & switching to energy sources which are cleaner, renewable & more easily tunable to changes in the demand cycle. What's the outcome? The initial outlays will probably be high, but the mid-to-long term outcome will almost certainly be cleaner air, soil & water; a shift in employment to areas less dependent on fluctuations in commodity prices; reduced dependence on unstable countries for our vital resources & more money in our pockets due to reduced energy & fuel costs. So we benefit even *if* AGW proves to be fantasy. So now lets say (2) is true, but we adopt a "business as usual" approach. Well on top of all the costs associated with adapting to rapidly changing climate, we'll also face increasing levels of more "mundane" pollution from the pursuit & consumption of fossil fuels, as well as ever rising costs as these resources become increasingly depleted-not to mention the increasing dangers from the unstable nations that supply us with these resources. In a world of both climate change & peak oil, the only big question is which resource will we be prepared to kill more people over-fresh water or oil? I believe that what I've outlined is a variant of Pascal's Wager-namely "I don't know if God does-or does not-exist; however, I lose nothing from behaving as if I believe in him, even if he doesn't; but stand to lose everything by behaving as if I don't believe in him, only to find out he *does* exist. -
Marcus at 22:12 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
"A simple explanation to why almost all scientific reports are in the upper right quadrant, is that that's where the money is, and that's where you have to be to get your report published. Those who are not AGW believers become outcasts." Yet another post which shows a total lack of knowledge about how science *actually* works. The real money-& fame-has always actually been in finding something completely new/cutting edge & separating yourself from the crowd-as long as your *new* theory is backed by *evidence*. About 40-50 years ago, it was Anthropogenic Global Warming that was the new theory on the block, & it was one which has had to fight *very* hard to be accepted in the scientific mainstream-in spite of its excellent pedigree (the natural Greenhouse Effect, which had been identified by scientists more than a century earlier). Indeed, AGW theory had to fight a great deal of hostility from both within & without the scientific community. However wheras most theories, once they accumulate sufficient evidence to back them, no longer have to keep fighting quite so hard for acceptance (like Relativity & Evolution) for some reason AGW endures more resistance the more evidence that accumulates in its favor. Also, Argus, if you want to know where the *real* money is in science, its in Geology-mostly that associated with mining & oil exploration. Strangely enough, this is also where AGW's most vociferous critics reside too. Coincidence? -
CBDunkerson at 21:24 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
While I understand the fear, I don't think it is accurate that the dynamics examined in this article will continue ad infinitum. Unlike the people who dispute evolution, claim the Earth is only a few thousand years old, insist that the ozone hole and/or acid rain don't exist, still believe that asbestos/DDT/tobacco are harmless, or trust that complete deregulation and totally free markets are always good for people and the economy... despite all the incontrovertible proof to the contrary... global warming is something which they will personally witness the impacts of. People can delude themselves into believing just about anything... but it gets alot harder when it is impacting them personally. The ski enthusiast who finds that the trails in their area are getting worse and worse... the farmer whose land is slowly drying out and dying... the bird lover whose favorite birds have all migrated further north... eventually the changes they see with their own eyes are going to break through the nonsense for most of them. And once it hits a critical mass the fraudsters in politics and media will back away from denial to preserve their 'credibility'. At which point the whole house of cards WILL collapse, because financial interests can't push the lie on their own. That said, I expect we'll see people converting away from fossil fuels BEFORE denialism collapses. Oddly most analyses I've seen compare the current cost of wind and solar power to the current cost of coal and conclude that coal is still cheaper. I say this is odd because it ignores that wind and solar costs are all upfront and thus essentially 'fixed' at the time of construction... while coal costs are ongoing and thus change over time. Sooner or later people are going to start realizing that since the costs of coal and other fossil fuels are increasing (yes, the economic collapse has dropped prices recently, but it won't last) they should really be comparing wind/solar costs to the AVERAGE cost of fossil fuels over the lifetime of the renewable plants... by which standard 'grid parity' has already come and gone. We may have to wait until renewables are cheaper than CURRENT fossil fuels, but even that isn't very far off now. -
kdkd at 21:02 PM on 3 June 2010Robust warming of the global upper ocean
Ken, We've been through this to death elsewhere. You maintain that the global heat balance is well enough understood to supersede all other global warming indicators. I maintain that the global heat balance is one of the least understood parts of the system, and the measurement uncertainties are why it can't be used to discard all the other evidence for AGW. At the end of the day what is required is a consistent story that is scientifically robust. The uncertainties in the global heat balance record that are inconsustent with -
JMurphy at 20:46 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Berényi Péter, the actual 'No politics thingie' states : "Rants about politics, ideology or one world governments will be deleted." I assume that any ranting will continue to be (quite rightly) deleted. -
CBDunkerson at 20:43 PM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
HumanityRules #34, odd that I didn't SAY any of the views you talk about me 'favoring'. What I DID say is that we don't have sufficient data about Arctic conditions around the 1930s to support claims that 'it was warmer then than now' and/or that 'ice loss then was comparable to current'. Yes, we work with what we have... and nothing we have supports those claims. Indeed, there is strong evidence that the 30s/40s were nowhere nears as warm as current globally... which would tend to argue against taking the lack of Arctic data as an excuse to assume that region was hotter. We work with what he have. Not with things that somebody just 'made up'. -
Nick Palmer at 20:32 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
37 @Argus "I also think that common people have understood that climate science is debatable: it is not like the basic natural sciences - if it is at all possible to set up a global experiment, it takes 100 years before you see the outcome (and you can only set up one experiment at a time)." That is why we must act now. The empirical validation (the eventual result of our experiment on Planet Earth's climate) of climate science will be with us too late, whether in 10 or 100 years, to do anything about it. The denialist position is insane because they are so sure that nothing will happen that they don't realise that they will be gambling with everybody's future if they are wrong. Oh and BTW Rob Honeycutt, it may be that in the USA it is the liberal "left" wing that is pro AGW and the wingnut right that takes the denialist position but America IS NOT THE WHOLE WORLD. In Europe, the political affiliations vis à vis AGW are much harder to categorise. I would say I have a right wing bias but I'm not stupid and the threat of changes ranging from uncomfortable to catastrophic means that the only prudent course of action is to avoid those scenarios. -
Berényi Péter at 20:21 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Question. This one is clearly a political post. Is the No politics thingie of Comments Policy relaxed here? -
JMurphy at 20:07 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Argus wrote : "A simple explanation to why so many non-scientists are skeptics, is that people tend to side with the underdog. If too many infallible science geeks say exactly the same thing, you tend to listen to those who say the opposite." Does that mean that you are on the side of the Creationists ? Or the 9/11 troofers ? Or the Flat-Earthers ? -
RSVP at 19:56 PM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
ubrew12 On your comment about, "...fighting a crusade, of some kind. ".... politically speaking, that would be "the War on Heat". Also, your use of "GW" might be confusing to some. -
J Bowers at 19:48 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
It's really nothing new. Eisntein had the same problem with relativity... “This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.” -- Albert Einstein, 1920, in a letter to Marcel Grossmann. http://www.jossgarman.com/?p=584 -
John Russell at 19:16 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
While it's valid for Rod Honeycut to address the subject of people's motivation for their climate science views, can I raise the question of whether the Sceptical Science site is the right place for this post? It seems to me that it strays too far into the political arena and too far away from the actual science of climate change. The home page of this site asks about sceptics; "Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?" As far as I can see it doesn't ask, "why do people believe what they do?" I suggest that some of the comments that have appeared so far add to my concern. I could add more but perhaps it's best just to ask, do others share my unease? -
Argus at 18:31 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
A simple explanation to why almost all scientific reports are in the upper right quadrant, is that that's where the money is, and that's where you have to be to get your report published. Those who are not AGW believers become outcasts. Also, many scientists in other fields have testified that it helps you a lot if you put something about AGW and climate in your report (and vice versa), even if it has little or nothing to do with your research. A simple explanation to why so many non-scientists are skeptics, is that people tend to side with the underdog. If too many infallible science geeks say exactly the same thing, you tend to listen to those who say the opposite. Especially when there are reasons to get suspicious (embarrassing facts leaking out, grave errors in official reports, etc). I also think that common people have understood that climate science is debatable: it is not like the basic natural sciences - if it is at all possible to set up a global experiment, it takes 100 years before you see the outcome (and you can only set up one experiment at a time). -
Riccardo at 18:02 PM on 3 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
theendisfar, the first paper I can remember where moist convection has been included in a climate model dates back to 1964: Manabe, S., and R.F. Strickler, 1964: Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a convective adjustment. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 21, 361–365. And be sure that the problem was known well before 1964. You're a little late with this breaking news on convection. -
Riccardo at 17:45 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Blessthefall your logic utterly fails when you extrapolate the eventual single scientist bias to the whole community. Indeed, the bias is random and the other scientists will be happy to find and point out his errors. Anyone who is familiar with the scientific community knows this. -
tobyjoyce at 17:37 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@Blessthe fall, I checked the figure & James Hansen got $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation. Correction, his institution got it. It was probably spent on labs, travel, post-doc salaries and graduate researchers. In the scheme of running a large science department, it was almost peanuts. All of which expenditure is subject to audit. Are you suggesting that Hansen pocketed the money or blew it in Vegas? Contrast that to the $25,000,000 spent by Koch Industries in 5 years on "Libertarian" think tanks writing papers against climate change. Add to that the money spent by Exxon Mobil and other ocmpanies, and you get some idea of where the big bucks are lining up. -
tobyjoyce at 17:28 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Galloping camel has a point. We will get much farther on "enlightened self-interest" than altruism. The number of altruists will always be less than the self-interested. We should honour the altruists, but most of us can only aspire to be like them. However, even the most selfish will recognise the need for change if the case is presented in the light of what it means to the individual. It has often been said that a visiting alien would be amazed at us ripping up the planet to extract fuel when there is a magnificent energy source at the heart of the solar system. It is clear we cannot stop using carbon-based fuels overnight, but a gradual transfer could be made to work. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:42 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
GC, unfortunately most people will misinterpret your EV, causing you to be misidentified as a somebody with a holistic viewpoint. You might want to put a bumpersticker on your car stating "Maxwell Yes, Fourier No!" or something with the general effect of communicating that you're not quite playing with a full physics deck. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:28 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
One item to add to general discussion on improving habits. We work at home, exclusively so in my case. This involves the use of a couple of printers and some other network gear w/an idle consumption of a little over 30 watts, excluding a server and a few other pieces needing to be on 24/7. Separating the bits needing to be on and putting the rest on a timer shutting things down during hours we almost never require print services saves about 90kWh/year. Investment required was about $10USD, so simple payback in about 1.5 years at our rate. A modicum of electrical savings, but why not take it? Just a matter of remembering. -
gallopingcamel at 16:28 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Marcus, I was using compact fluorescents when the only place you could get them was Amway. I did it to save money, not the planet! -
gallopingcamel at 16:20 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
You folks just don't get it. My electric car is so much fun to drive. I just ignore that nonsense about how it might help to reduce "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming". Thank you Obama for paying almost 70% of what it should have cost me! -
Marcus at 16:18 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
So I guess my point above is that everything I do to reduce my CO2 emissions (commuting & energy efficiency) is actually *saving* me money. Given that, I'm surprised at the number of people who'll still quite happily spend more than they need to-all because someone has convinced them that it will cost *more* to reduce CO2 emissions?!?! -
Marcus at 16:15 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
For my part, I do a great deal to reduce my CO2 footprint. I only use public transport for commuting (which, btw, actually *saves* me money) & at home I use only the most energy efficient light-globes, hot-water service & electrical appliances I can get. I also source 50% of my total energy from Green sources through my electricity company (i.e. I pay a slight premium in order to get them to source electricity from the Green Grid to meet my electricity needs). I rent my property, so installing a solar panel isn't really an option, but when I move into my own house, I certainly intend to have a solar panel & solar hot water system installed, to reduce my CO2 footprint even further. This isn't simply about reducing CO2 emissions-though-its also about conserving non-renewable resources so that we don't run out of them any time soon! -
actually thoughtful at 15:58 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@David Green "Ummm Me but the set up cost are expensive even with govt subsidies , the average person would have to be quite committed to consider it ." Cool that you are there, for the record I am as well, but barely as I have the house handled, but not transportation. The bit about quite committed seems a little extreme - It is a 20 year payback (~25/30 without incentives). Solar thermal at least, being made of copper and glass, has a virtually limitless life. So it can be rolled into a mortgage, or financed via any number of schemes. I stand by the statement that what is missing is the will. Don't forget that these technologies not only save money and pollution, but they literally pay for themselves. So if it costs the same as a new car, or even 2 new cars, but it pays for itself, how can you justify not doing it? I am not downplaying the challenges, rather highlighting the rewards (personal and societal) that make it worth overcoming the (relatively minor) challenges. -
yocta at 15:44 PM on 3 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
RE#233 theendisfar You need to cite evidence for your claims or at the very least some physical arguments based on direct observations of gas systems. Your statements do not explain or contribute anything. If we can understand where you are coming from then we can answer your questions. -
Daved Green at 15:34 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@23"How many posters here use any renewable energy? How many can claim over 50% of their personal energy usage (auto, home electric, home heating/cooling) comes from renewable sources?" Ummm Me but the set up cost are expensive even with govt subsidies , the average person would have to be quite committed to consider it .
Prev 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 Next
