Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 Next
Comments 37801 to 37850:
-
Magma at 08:17 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Correction, Jonathan Powell, not John.
-
Magma at 08:16 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
John (comment #5), you can see a photo of the John Powell in question (who seems to be the source or conduit of much misinformation) in this four-year-old Express article:
Although some UK 'detective work' might uncover further information on Mr. Powell, I suspect it would be the same story we've seen before, just a hack for hire. His Vantage Weather Services website is astonishingly thin and uninformative:
-
Tom Curtis at 07:19 AM on 8 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
My apologies to Bob Lacatena. Obviously it was he rather than Dikran I intended to thank @2 above.
-
Leto at 07:18 AM on 8 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
"I don't plan to waste more time on it than I already have."
JH, I think Russ's "it" here means the "oversimplified cartoon", not this "relatively obscure blog."
Moderator Response:[JH] Whatever.
-
MA Rodger at 06:49 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Just considering the rainfall over SE England, as a 60-day period it was record-breaking and by quite a margin. (And bear in mind that winter is not the rainiest season, although it can contain the rainiest episode of the year).
I'm of the opinion that this 60-day rainfall is so unlikely that it consitiutes proof of climate change, coz otherwise I reckon a fair estimate of this event on its own would make it a one-in-20,000 year event. And look more closely - 3 of the 4 highest are in the last 14 years, as are 2 of the 4 lowest. Rainfall appears to be becoming more variable.
UK weather used to change by the week. For the last 3 or 4 years it seems to change by the season.
-
John Mason at 05:38 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Ben (comment #3) - I'd be interested to learn of the ultimate source of those 'forecasts' that appeared in The Netherlands. Did they come from a local source, or from farther afield?
-
Andy Skuce at 05:14 AM on 8 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Chriskoz@57 She likes to use the double-negation language
Just to nitpick, I counted three negations, in the cartoon quote, in eleven words.
I don't disagree with your main point, though, not eschewing double negation, isn't the worst way of confusing readers.
-
shoyemore at 04:50 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
BTW, as an inhabitant of the light green part of the above map of the "British Isles" (a name we seldom use around here), Ireland (as in Republic of) also had its wettest winter since records began.
One observatory on the west coast recorded 843mm of rain, 180% of its average. Being less densely populated than the UK, the impact of flooding and coastal erosion is less, but still financially significant.
-
Ben Lankamp at 04:00 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
In The Netherlands we had to endure the news reports on the approaching 'icy armageddon', or 'horror winter' as it was called here, as well. My response to these reports was published in several newspapers and also on my employers site (where it received 33k+ views). You can read it here in English through Google Translate.
-
jsmith at 03:45 AM on 8 March 2014Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
It might be a good idea to expand this article with information from this study. It starts out by saying that the earth has, in fact, not warmed as much as expected, and says that there are two reasons why:
1. the IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity being too high, and
2. the greenhouse gas forcing being partially offset by forcing by increased concentrations of atmospheric aerosols.
So aerosols explain some of the predictions-observations discrepancy, but not all of it.
-
KR at 03:32 AM on 8 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
r.pauli - I believe the aim was similar to that seen in the ClimateGate hack. To take private conversations, including the hyperbole and sarcasm seen in discussions among friends and colleagues, and to quote them out of context. And using those out of context lines to claim nefarious intent and ill will on the part of forum participants, a very basic ad hominem logical fallacy attack on the science presented by SkS.
This underhanded approach is hardly new:
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu
-
shoyemore at 03:29 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Here is a disquieting account of how the Daily Mail, possibly the most climate-denying media operation in these islands, in a heartbeat turns from climate denial to a homophobic smear of the Environmental Agency's Director (who happens to be openly gay). The rediculous claim is he spent more on "gay pride tea mugs" than on a few extra sandbags that would protect people's homes, yet it gets lurid headlines.
Longstanding denier Christopher Booker weighs in with a whine on behalf of the people of Somerset - how much did Mr Booker think about the people of Somerset when he was calling climate scientsts "fraudsters"?
A word to the wise - as matters worsen, do not expect those who deny the evidence to change heart - they will shift the goalposts, get more strident and angry, and demans heads on platters.
http://climatedenial.org/2014/03/04/how-climate-change-messengers-become-blamed-for-the-floods/
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:46 AM on 8 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
Andy @ 16,
Paul Ryan and so many others continue to try to claim that actions related to the continued burning of fossil fuels are helpful, or solutions.
Prolonging unsustainable activity, particularly the harmful ones like burning fossil fuels, is not a solution to anything other than satisfying the desire of a few already fortunate people to get more benefit for themselves in their moment. The only potential redeeming value of such an activity would be to ensure that all benefits are effectively dedicated to the rapid sustainable improvement of conditions for the least fortunate. No one who is already fairly fortunate should benefit in any way. The fortunate should already be only acting and benefiting in truly sustainable ways and be competing to develop even better sustainable ways of enjoying their moment of life on this amazing planet.
The essential need for the rapid development of a sustainable better future for everyone and all other life needs to always be the context of any of these discussions. If an action isn't leading to that required rapid development it is just entertainment, and as such it better not risk harm to any life, other that the risk-taker fully aware of the potential consequences of the risk they choose to take and certain that only they would suffer any consequences.
The battle over control of Ukraine is just like all the other major conflicts. People with attitudes other than the desire to rapidly develop a sustainable better future for all are fighting each other to gain control everywhere that there are opportunities to obtain momentary wealth from an unsustainable and damaging extraction or consumption of limited non-renewable resources. And they also collectively fight against their biggest threat, a growing better understanding of how unacceptable their unsustainable and damaging desires are.
The greatest threats to the global economy, and any part of the global economy, and humanity, are those who want to pursue benefit from unsustainable and damaging activities. It is as simple as that.
That clear irrefutable fact needs to be kept ion the forefront of any discussion. And when you try to do that you will clearly see how vicious and irrational many people are. The desire to get more for themselves any way they can get away with makes them what Albert Camus referred to when he said "A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world".
-
Maggnum at 02:45 AM on 8 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
I, too, would like to add my thanks to you all for the hard work and effort you've put into this site. The information it contains has been a godsend for dealing with the small but presistant denialist cadre! Please keep up the good work and know that your efforts are appreciated not only around the world, but even in this little corner of Western Canada, where denialism is almost as required as hockey!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:26 AM on 8 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
The only frustrating part of this series of articles is, I know we're going to get to the end and we're still not going to know "who dunnit." [sigh]
-
StBarnabas at 02:22 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Thanks for this nice article.
The Express is a rag. Both it and the Daily Mail live up to the gutter press name. When I first came to England I was horrified by the quality of most of the tabloids. Sadly their circulation is much greater than that of the Guardian - which always has been my UK paper of choice and has a proud history in quality reporting in matters of science, including climate change. I live in Northumberland and work in Newcastle upon Tyne. The weather has been very windy here but no wetter than average. It is very different down south.
The good news is that the Tory party aspects of whom had been drifting towards climate denial insanity seems to be getting a reality check. Even some right wing members such as Michael Gove and Michael Howard have expressed concerns on climate change. There seems to be little talk of once in 200 year events as we had in Northumberland in 2008, but an acceptance that climate change will make such extreme events more likely.
-
r.pauli at 02:16 AM on 8 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
Thank you so much for all your hard work. This is so important to the world.
I have to wonder about the hacker's payload - what is the target or goal? Is it destruction? Not credit card numbers, but could it be just names and data? Or is the value to a hacker boasting rights over access, or is it ideological? It is not directly financial unless this is a financed attack.
What a dark mystery. I am constantly amazed at how complex, varied and dark can be aspects of climate science. Now even more interesting. Thanks so much for sharing news of the battle.
-
KR at 02:03 AM on 8 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R. - My apologies on missing the change of reference that scaddenp introduced, mea culpa.
I feel that Tom Curtis has a good point about that reference though, in that Curry is speaking of far more than geoengineering. And that her statements there are again representative of Currys tendency to overstate uncertainties, dismiss the knowledge that we have, and advocate for a "do-nothing" approach. All of which really supports the original post cartoon - Curry just doesn't seem to understand risk management, central estimates, or the equal possibilities of best-case and extreme outcomes.
Curry appears (IMO) to have abandoned science in favor of ideological advocacy, public notoriety, and frequent appearances before congressional committees. Which I really don't understand - I've eaten at several of the House/Senate cafeterias, and believe me the food and coffee there are _not_ a sufficient reward for debasing the science...
-
Albatross at 01:39 AM on 8 March 2014Peer-reviewed papers by Skeptical Science authors
Hi Michael,
Thanks. You might be interested to know that the above list is not even a comprehensive one. There are more quite a few more papers out there authored by SkS team members, but for a variety of reasons we decided against listing them.
The SkS team members are very busy behind the scenes working on new research, so expect more to come :) -
Composer99 at 01:23 AM on 8 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Thanks for the clarification, Russ R.
(I should also clarify my comment #61: after reading through Fox & Gallant 2011, I was not going to echo CBDunkerson exactly, since CBDunkerson does not appear to be interested in further engagement with Russ R. Rather, the echo was the point that the Fox & Gallant paper and the other quotes were themselves projections.
On the specific matter of Ontario power bills, the projections by the Minister, the LTEP, and/or Fox & Gallant could conceivably be corroborated by (a) determining the extent to which Ontario ratepayers' bills have increased since the passage of the Green Energy Act and (b) undertaking attribution analysis to confirm the extent to which such increase is a necessary consequence of the Act - and/or the follow-up LTEP. I attempted a cursory search yesterday without much success.)
-
Russ R. at 01:14 AM on 8 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
John Hartz@60,
"All: In a deleted comment, Russ R has stated that he is done posting on this thread."
Not quite. I apologized for violating the SkS Comments Policy as was pointed out in the Moderator's Response @51, and invited you to delete my subsequent comment (a response to scaddenp@52) in which I further violated the excessive repetition policy. (This was not done intentionally, as I posted the comment before seeing the moderator's response).
If however, you're indirectly instructing me to stop posting on this thread, I'll comply.
I still owe CBDunkerson evidence that various costs of mitigation policies are irrecoverable or are locked in for decades. (Assuming CBD actually wants it.)
Moderator Response:[JH] From your deleted comment:
Ultimately, is this a big deal? Not really. It's an oversimplified cartoon on a relatively obscure blog. I don't plan to waste more time on it than I already have.
-
Composer99 at 00:19 AM on 8 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Too bad, I had run into some issues downloading the Fox & Gallant paper and only got to reading it late last night. (Although I was just going to echo CBDunkerson, anyway.)
-
John Hartz at 00:03 AM on 8 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
All: In a deleted comment, Russ R has stated that he is done posting on this thread.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:40 PM on 7 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
What an exciting story! And so well written! Thanks, Bob, for this fascinating account of what, at the time, must have seemed like a horrible nightmare. And thanks to the whole SkS team for what, in my view, is the best site on the Internet!
-
CBDunkerson at 22:25 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R, for the record, your statement that you were able to provide "real-world evidence" ("instead of abstract projections") of future costs (i.e. "mitigating global warming") was sufficient to convince me that there was no point in further discussion.
Your subsequent citation of the Fox & Gallant projections has only confirmed that conclusion.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:41 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
chriskoz @55, even if Michael Sweet was rejecting the conclusions of Gallant and Fox (2010) (as is likely given his post @56), nothing follows regarding his integrity, nor his compliance with normal SkS standards, despite Russ R's insinuation. Indeed, the direct response to Russ R's question:
"What does SkS call people who refuse to accept peer-reviewed literature and instead cite sources such as Wikipedia, industry PR sites, and newpaper op-eds?"
is that we do not call them anything at all.
Implicit in the question is an assumption that any peer reviewed article must be accepted uncritically. That is not Russ R's opinion, of course, but one by which he misrepresents the regulars at SkS in attributing it to us. Such a standard is automatically contradictory, for many peer reviewed articles contradict each other.
The SkS standard has, and has always been that you need some very solid, indeed, peer reviewed evidence to reject a consensus within the peer reviewed literature.
-
chriskoz at 21:17 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
I concur with Tom Curtis@54, that the article characterises Judith Curry accurately. Especially the double-negation part. JC has been shown many times that she recently abandened the science and just plays the "uncertainty games".
Russ R.@37 claim:
Cook and dana1981, [...] are misrepresenting Judith Curry
(emphasis original)
is an absurd, given the welth of examples showing her abuse of double-negation. She likes to use the double-negation language and often contradicts herself in the process. On the other hand, I haven't seen any double-negation statements in IPCC. The cartoon's portrayal of JC as double-nagating obfuscator, is very accurate, in-line with the evidence I linked above.
-
michael sweet at 21:12 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ,
Fox and Gallant chose to do a worst case analysis of renewables. The cost basis has decreased so much in the past 4 years that ther analysis is no longer valid. I choose an industry site for costs because it is up to date. It was the first of dozens of sites that document that wind and solar power have dramaticly decreased in cost and your reference is dated so that it no longer applies. Anyone who is informed on the subject would know this without a reference.
My Wilipedia reference was to address one of your many unsupported arguments. Here again, anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that fossil fuels transfer much of their cost from electricity onto general funds through health, fire suppression, general pollution etc. I added the reference since you are apparently unaware of these basic facts. While Wikipedia is not peer reviewed, this fact is so basic it does not require much to support the argument. Since you are upset about me citing Wikipedia, what do you call someone who constantly uses his unsupported word for his arguments? You have still not supported the bulk of your post here, in spite of your repeated posts since then and your wild claim that you had copius examples. That is sloganeering and is prohibited at SkS. The moderators have been lenient with you despite your repeated failures to support your wild claims.
My op-ed cite was of an expert that you found and showed that your unsupported word that your increases in electricity were due just to renewable energy was incorrect. The increases are due to multiple causes and not just renewable energy. Once again I have cited an expert and you have your unsupported word. You have provided no evidence that the bulk of your price rise was due to renewables. I also provided a clear cut example of savings due to wind energy. It is too recent an example to get into the peer reviewed data set yet. This is because wind and solar have only in the past two years become useful for solely economic reasons.
It is very tiresome to constantly post against your unsupported word when you are generally incorrect. It is rare for you to provide even a single reference. Since I posted asking you for references, you have made seven posts on this thread and have cited one, outdated, reference. Then you complain that I do not solely use peer reviewed sources for common knowledge. Please provide evidence to support your wild claims.
-
chriskoz at 20:48 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R.@51,
If you want to dispute the study's findings, you're welcome to take it up with the authors directly. What does SkS call people who refuse to accept peer-reviewed literature and instead cite sources such as Wikipedia, industry PR sites, and newpaper op-eds?
(about michael sweet @50)
I must opine this statement is a gross misrepresentation (followed by unnecessary personal attack), because michael sweet @50 said:
It is good that you have finally cited data to support one of your positions, even if it is a little out of date. Please link to data to support your other claims
(my emphasis)
which is an indication of actual acceptance of "peer-reviewed literature", contrary to your claim. Perhaps his interpretation of the quoted study ("it is a little out of date") is not the same as your interpretation, but such difference does not mean that he "refuses to accept" the study. Rather than trying to personally attack him, it would be more constructive take your detailed knowledge of the study you apparently have, and prove that your interpretation is right, i.e. provide the data that supports your interpretation. But you instead have chosen to do baseless hand-waving "you're welcome to take it up with the authors directly", followed by personal attack. Such argumentation, I can repeat aftrer Tom Curtis above: "lessens you".
-
Tom Curtis at 14:50 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R @51, on the Curry quotation, your response is evasive at best. Curry has clearly indicated an opinion that we do not currently have enough information to justify any sort of policy response requiring explicit reductions in CO2 emissions, the fact that you are evading. If you wish to treat that as irrelevant, then it is about time you started quoting Cook accurately. He does not quote Curry as saying, "We should do nothing about climate change." Rather he quotes her as saying, "I can't say myself that [doing nothing] isn't the best solution". Playing bait and switch, as you have been doing, lessens you.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:52 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ said... "Fortunately for John Cook, he chose to lampoon a climate scientist who isn't likely to sue him."
Fortunately, John is responsible enough to not claim that someone is fraudulent in their research when it's clearly known they're not.
-
Alpinist at 13:05 PM on 7 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
Likewise to Tom and SB. Having worked a bit on the website for our non-profit nordic ski club website I know how much work even a minor website can be. SKS is one of my go to sites and I really, really appreciate the work the entire drew does!
-
scaddenp at 11:47 AM on 7 March 2014We're heading into cooling
jsmith - I hope you dont get your understanding of science from Fox, but yes, Tsonis did say that. What he hasnt done is provided scientific support for his contention. The closest you get is the Tsonis and Swanson 2009 paper does not support any long term change in global warming. You can see the statements, and Swanson's commentary on the 2009 paper here.
-
scaddenp at 11:42 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ, the contention of the cartoon, is that in the face of uncertainty, Curry is claiming that doing nothing is a valid option. I would find it very hard to read any other meaning into her statements. I dont contend that she has said it is the best solution - I claim that she is contending that it is a valid (ie a logical, reasonable choice). The cartoon is lampooning such a response.
-
Russ R. at 11:24 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Tom Curtis @47 and michael sweet @50,
Fox & Gallant's $60.94/MWh calculation was entirely incremental to the rate increases in Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP) 2010, which already accounted for savings from coal plant shutdowns. By the government's own accounting, electric power prices will rise much more than the 1% promised in 2009. If you want to dispute the study's findings, you're welcome to take it up with the authors directly. (What does SkS call people who refuse to accept peer-reviewed literature and instead cite sources such as Wikipedia, industry PR sites, and newpaper op-eds?)
scaddenp@48 and Tom Curtis @49,
Everything you wrote is nice and all, but none of it is an actual quotation of Curry saying, without qualification, that "We should do nothing about climate change" or "Doing nothing is the best solution". Unless you can produce that, I'm going to continue to argue that her quote in the above cartoon is a misrepresentation.
Moderator Response:[JH] You have expressed your opinion about the Curry statement embedded in the cartoon more than once. Please move one. Excessive repetition is a violation of the SkS Comments Policy.
-
jsmith at 11:03 AM on 7 March 2014We're heading into cooling
I feel obliged to point out that while the green box at the top says that "many of the listed scientists are not predicting global cooling," apparently Anastasios Tsonis is not amont them. He said, ""We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped." Source:
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
dmyerson at 10:27 AM on 7 March 2014Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
The footnote may provide plausible deniability, but it also proves that he was intentioanlly deceiving people by hiding relevant information. I don't see how anybody could in good faith leave that second sentence out of the main text when it addressed the central question at hand.
-
Wol at 09:53 AM on 7 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
.
>>Climate change is at once really easy and really hard to write about.<<
It's really hard "debating" with deniers (deliberate quotes) for the average punter like me, who, while accepting the AGW concensus, has little scientific education beyond basic meteorology and climatology.
In fact it's damn near impossible: the deniers "know" they are right, and if they come up with any references at all (rather than merely stating that it's "crap") as we all know they bring up the same three or four culprits again and again. Those of us who have not studied the complexities of climate change are immediately at a disadvantage since all we can do is reference sites such as this one - which immediately brings the response that it's a leftie conspiracy ecomaniac website and is talking rubbish.
I don't see any way of effectively combatting the misinformation of the oil and gas industries in popular blogs and the like, only trying to show denial politicians the scientific facts - and they've been got at too.
At a deeper level, unless world population is brought under control any and all attempts to curb CO² emissions are doomed to failure, unless we prevent the developing world from attaining something approaching our own standard of living. And if you think convincing deniers of the AGW facts is difficult, good luck with arguing effectively for population control!
.
-
michael sweet at 09:33 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ,
Fox and Gallant use prices for wind and solar power installations that are from 2010. Since the cost of both has dropped by over 50% since then, they are out of data and no longer apply. For a recent cost estimate see this wind industry site, solar is about the same right now. This op-ed peice from Gallant (written last month) lists a number of items that raise your electricity costs. Only a few relate to renewables (none in the first five). He specifically mentions that the contract with Samsung has been renegotiated, which addresses your concern about not being able to stop after you start.
It is confusing when you mix costs from renewables with costs from industry subsidies and fuel cost increases. Please site a reference that separates out the renewable expense from your other costs. Some of the costs you cite are from increased coal prices. It is not apparent how much of your increase in electricity costs is from renewables.
This Wikipidea article (from about 2011) documents about $3 billion dollars per year of health costs from coal alone in Ontario. There are additional large costs from acid rain, mercury and other coal pollution. You will see lower general taxes from savings due to lower coal use since much of fossil fuel costs are paid from general revenue instead of from the electricity bill.
This Clean Technika article documents large consumer savings from wind energy during heat waves in Australia (caused by AGW) because fossil fuel electricity costs less since it has to compete with wind. The savings on the hot days paid for the wind subsidy for the entire year! They claim that a fossil fuel plant was written down because it cannot make much money competing with wind.
It is good that you have finally cited data to support one of your positions, even if it is a little out of date. Please link to data to support your other claims.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:58 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R @39, the statement quoted by Scaddenp @38 comes at the end of a discussion of geoengineering, but is clearly not intended to be limited to geoengineering. Specifically, she denies that the IPCC even has enough information to know that potential climate change is dangerous; and she couches her advice on policy terms in the most general language.
As an aside, I will note that Curry is contradicting herself if she is applying the quote to geoengineering, and specifically the geoengineering that Pearce suggests may be necessary. Specifically, early in the he post she quotes herself, writing:
"In this book I outline the reasons why I believe this particular climate fix—creating a thermostat for the planet–is undesirable, ungovernable and unreliable. It is undesirable because regulating global temperature is not the same thing as controlling local weather and climate. It is ungovernablebecause there is no plausible and legitimate process for deciding who sets the world’s temperature. And it is unreliable because of the law of unintended consequences: deliberate intervention with the atmosphere on a global-scale will lead to unpredictable, dangerous and contentious outcomes."
(My emphasis)
However, the geo-engineering proposal she argues against is just the reduction of CO2 concentrations back towards c. 1950-2000 levels. If reducing CO2 levels from c. 550 ppmv to c. 320 ppmv will "...lead to unpredictable, dangerous and contentious outcomes", then of necessity, so also will increasing CO2 levels from 320 to 550 ppmv. Indeed, even more so as when increasing CO2 we are taking it to levels not recently experienced, and hence to a climate state on which we have little direct data. In contrast, the reduction will be to a climate state that we know better than any other.
Finally, Curry's quote essentially says that an organization set up to provide an exhaustive assessment of the current state of information on the science, effects and best policy responses on global warming should completely shut up about what are the best policies (given current information) unless they have perfect information. That means her preference is for ill informed policies based mostly on self interest rather than the best informed policies available.
-
scaddenp at 08:51 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ, fair on context for my quote.. However If that means doing nothing, "I can't say myself that that isn't the best solution." seems entirely relevant to the quote. It ignores that uncertainty cuts both ways and ignores the precautionary principle. Frankly it sounds more like the chant of "we dont to pay for energy and absolutely dont want to pay more tax".
This economy-first ("cant do anything that might have negative impacts on economy") is usually what you associate with a right-wing ideology. Interestingly, right wing ideology is usually also keen on respecting others rights and taking full consequences for your actions. Almost all the enhanced CO2 contribution to the current atmosphere is from Western emissions. A disproportiate amount of the impacts will happen outside the West. Will the West accept the consequences of the emissions and pay for this? Frankly I think going there would be an absolute quagmire and it constituents yet another risk with doing nothing. Better to mitigate emissions.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:29 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R, Fox & Gallant estimate the costs of transferring to renewables on the assumption that all gross costs of electricity generation are also net costs. That is, they assume that increased investment in renewable energy will not be partly offset by reduced investment in coal fired power plants. That fact alone means that their headline result does not follow from their analysis.
Further, I cannot make head nor tail of how they determined their final values. They do not show their working at any point. As you are citing them, presumably you have been over the numbers and have confirmed them. That being the case, can you link to a spreadsheet showing how the numbers are determined.
-
Andy Skuce at 08:00 AM on 7 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
Paul Ryan stuns CNN host: Keystone pipeline will solve Russia’s Ukraine invasion
When Ryan was asked what the US Congress should do about Ukraine:
“I think we should approve an LNG terminal in the east coast to go to Europe. I think we should approve the Keystone Pipeline. And I think we should show that the U.S. is going to be moving forward on becoming energy independent.”
“Moving forward with the Keystone pipeline!” Bolduan [the CNN interviewer] exclaimed. “That development would take years, though, to actually make that happen.”
Ryan argued that the controversial pipeline would be a “signal” to Russia.
From this we learn that:
- Paul Ryan believes that the pipeline is needed to get the the bitumen to market.
- He thinks that the Russians believe this too.
- The fact of the KXL approval will be a "signal".
- He implies that importing Canadian bitumen will help make the US energy independent; forgetting that Canada is a separate country from the USA, as Ukraine is from Russia.
-
Russ R. at 07:54 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Composer99,
If you're skeptical, invite you to actually read the Fox & Gallant paper and get back to me. Feel free to read other sources to familiarize yourself with what's actually happened in the Province of Ontario.
I've had the benefit of actually living here and watching this unfold.
-
Russ R. at 07:45 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
KR@41,
(-snip-).
I took the time to read the blog post that scaddenp@38 linked to, entitled "Can science fix climate change?". (-snip-). I suggest you focus on the very first line: "Global warming is irreversible without massive geoengineering of the atmosphere’s chemistry. – Fred Pearce" Geoengineering was the subject of the blog post, and the quote that scaddenp provided was her conclusion.
The quote you're refering to was from the NPR interview was an entirely different matter. It said: "All we can do is be as objective as we can about the evidence and help the politicians evaluate proposed solutions," she says. If that means doing nothing, "I can't say myself that that isn't the best solution." It had nothing to do with geoengineering or scaddenp's question.
(-snip-).
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:31 AM on 7 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
I'll add my voice to St Barnabas, and say thanks to John Cook and the team for the invaluable service they provide, and the tremendous effort they put into it. Even my brief stint on the inside did not allow me to appreciate the amount of time and effort John has put into, what remains, an unpaid service. (And thankyou Dikran for detailing that.)
-
Composer99 at 07:26 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R.:
Your quotes do not, in and of themselves, show that rate increases are a specific consequence of the Green Energy Act without which they would never have occurred, nor does the text you have cited from Fox & Gallant (2011).
Colour me skeptical.
-
Russ R. at 07:01 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
michael sweet @33, KR@35, Composer99@36, Dikran Marsupial @40, and CBDunkerson (who never actually requested it).
Recapping, I challenged the cartoon's insurance analogy with this humorous bit:
"Uncertainty Mutual sells a homeowner's policy, except they don't tell you the cost of your premiums in advance, the deductible is ambiguous, and they can't guarantee that your losses will actually be covered. Oh, and you don't have the option of cancelling your policy."
CBDunkerson conceded that the insucance analogy "breaks down" as it doesn't directly cover losses, but challenged two parts of my analogy (costs disclosed in advance, and no option of cancelling). CBD did not cite specific evidence, but claimed there are "a number of studies" describing costs, and that actions like carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes can be reversed.
I responded with two points...
- The studies are abstract projections, and I could provide real-world evidence of the public being misled by low-balled cost projections.
- I agreed that some policy actions are easily reversible, but would be happy to show evidence of others that are not.
So, going at them one at a time:
Real-world evidence of the public having been misled about the costs of mitigating global warming, only to discover the true costs once the policy was enacted:
I didn't have to look far for this example, since I am presented with evidence of it every time I see my electric power bill. In 2009, the Ontario government passed the Green Energy Act, that would replace coal-fired electric power with renewable wind and solar power. They said the costs to ratepayers would be low:
Energy Minister George Smitherman, at the time of the enactment
of the Green Energy Act, stated, “I have been very clear
about it. One percent per year, incremental on the cost of a
person’s electricity bill, with corresponding capability through
investments in conservation for people to lessen their use of
electricity” (Hansard, 2010).After the GEA was enacted the story changed dramatically:
Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP), announced by the
Liberal Party on November 23, 2010, states,
Over the next 20 years, prices for Ontario families and
small businesses will be relatively predictable. The consumer
rate will increase by about 3.5% annually over
the length of the long-term plan. Over the next five
years, however, residential electricity prices are expected
to rise by about 7.9% annually (or 46% over five years).
(Ministry of Energy, 2010)Actual costs that are 3.5x to 7.9x higher than promised constitutes being "misled" in my book. But that's not the worst of it, because the government still wasn't telling us everything. Citing a peer-reviewed paper, Fox and Gallant (2011):
"We have been able to identify omitted costs in the province’s
LTEP of $60.94 per MWh. These omissions would raise power
bills by 40% above the government’s forecast. Other areas of
possible omissions have not been quantified because the data
are not public. Assuming a continuation of current policies, the average
Ontario residential user’s annual bill will exceed $2,800 by
2015 and $4,100 by 2030, compared with the current $1,700."If Ontarians had been told in advance what they're finding out now, I'd imagine they would have been much less supportive. So, when I jested that "they don't tell you the cost of your premiums in advance", I had grounds for it.
More to follow.
-
scaddenp at 06:59 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
The IPCC isnt keen on geoengineering. Emission reduction is far better, safer, and arguably cheaper. The statement:
"Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system."
doesnt sound to me like advocacy for geoengineering.
-
KR at 06:41 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R. - 'Your claim that 'She's responding to the argument that "Global warming is irreversible without massive geoengineering of the atmosphere’s chemistry."' is simply incorrect.
The quote in question came from an NPR interview, and was reposted by Curry herself, and is in reference to "proposed solutions". Not just massive geoengineering (although that is in the spectrum of possible solutions), "proposed solutions" includes carbon taxes, incentives for renewables, and many many others.
Your claim is a strawman.
Prev 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 Next
