Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 Next
Comments 37901 to 37950:
-
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.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 06:33 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
RussR wrote "Do any of these studies show actual real-world costs, instead of abstract projections?"
Unfortunately we don't yet have data on real world costs of actions taken in the futrue, hence we have to make do with projections.
RussR "Thank you for your concern, but my comment wasn't addressed to you."
You are taking partin a discussion on an open forum. This is a bit like people having a discussion around a table at a pub. If you say something, anybody at the table is allowed to reply. If you want to have a private discussion, email would be more appropriate. In particular, if you claim to have information of interest to others at the table, it is not unreasonable for them to ask you for it.
-
Russ R. at 06:26 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
scaddenp,
re: "And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself."
She's responding to the argument that "Global warming is irreversible without massive geoengineering of the atmosphere’s chemistry."
Like her, I wouldn't support any "massive geoengineering" projects without being near certain that the solution isn't worse than the problem. Would you?
-
scaddenp at 06:14 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Interesting. What is your interpretation on this Russ?
JC message to IPCC: Once you sort out the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and fix your climate models, let us know. Then please do the hard work of understanding regional vulnerability to climate variability and change before you tell us what constitutes ’dangerous’ climate change. And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself.
-
Russ R. at 06:03 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
KR,
"You have indeed been pointed to a number of studies (here and also here), as per my previous post, discussing carbon pricing wrt the Federal deficit, energy costs, gas prices, household impact, discount rates, etc."
All of which are no doubt excellent arguments against "doing nothing". I'm not arguing with them because I'm not, nor have I been, arguing in favour of "doing nothing". As I wrote above: "Each action has to be evaluated on its own merits, and not all actions are mutually exclusive. Some actions will rank higher than others, and the "do nothing" option will rank somewhere in that continuum. Where "do nothing" ranks is currently unknown. I think it's a low probability that "do nothing" ranks highest, but that probability does exist."
So you're wasting your time and effort arguing, and I'm not interested in wasting mine doing likewise.
However, nothing in any of your comments responds to my original comment to John Cook and dana1981, who are misrepresenting Judith Curry by quoting her out of context, and drawing a cartoon to attack an argument that she never actually made.
If you can show me where Curry has ever actually said or written, without qualification, that "We should do nothing about climate change", I would concede that the quotation is not a misrepresentation.
Until then...
-
StBarnabas at 05:06 AM on 7 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
John Cook
thanks again for all your endeavors. SKS has a different feel from the other fora I follow and I was aware of his tremendous work in debunking the usual pathetic "skeptical" arguments but was unaware of quite how much technical effort John has put into this. Indeed I used some of SKS's graphics yesterday at an outreach event. The "escalator" in particular seemed to hit the mark. I am intrigued as to how the hack was done.
SeanD -
Composer99 at 04:51 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Saith Russ R.:
I would be more than happy to show you 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 don't know what else Russ R. has dug up, beyond the articles regarding Spain and Ontario that Russ R. shared in the re-post of Dr Abraham's The Guardian blog (the one he shares with Skeptical Science's dana1981). I'll be interested in seeing them (if CBDunkerson requests them).
-
KR at 04:46 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R. - You have indeed been pointed to a number of studies (here and also here), as per my previous post, discussing carbon pricing wrt the Federal deficit, energy costs, gas prices, household impact, discount rates, etc.
Now, what are your examples? Because I have to say that an unwillingness to provide evidence gives the appearance of handwaving on your part.
Moderator Response:[PS] While discussing risk management, then please continue. However, further discussions on the costs associated with CO2 mitigation, should happen on the topic CO2 limits will harm the economy
-
Russ R. at 03:48 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
michael sweet,
Thank you for your concern, but my comment wasn't addressed to you. Nor was it addressed to Composer99, because I'm not arguing with him/her.
My comment was addressed to CBDunkerson in response to his/her argument @26, which cited nothing more specific than "a number of studies". Taking that as the bar for argumentation on this issue, I thought I'd leave it to him/her as to whether he/she will accept my counter-argument at face value, or demand more specific evidence.
-
michael sweet at 03:08 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ:
If you have real-world examples it would save us all time if you linked them in you post, instead of making promises to supply them later. As it is you have made empty, unsupported assertions.
Composer at 7 has already linked the Stern report and IPCC AR4, AR5 has not been released yet. Please only link peer reviewed material as a response to IPCC reports.
-
Russ R. at 02:01 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
CBDunkerson@26,
"Actually, there have been a number of studies on the costs of mitigating global warming."
Do any of these studies show actual real-world costs, instead of abstract projections? I would be more than happy to show you 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.
"Really? Once we start a carbon tax or cap and trade or funding for renewable energy research we can never stop? "
I'd also be happy to show you, backed up again with real-world examples, that not all mitigation policies are as easily reversible as a carbon tax. Some have blown huge amounts of capital that can never be recovered, while others have incurred future costs that will be locked in for decades.
-
RemootSensing at 01:42 AM on 7 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
Another piece of information that came out this week in the US is the Quadrennial Defense Review which sets "a long-term course for DOD as it assesses the threats and challenges that the nation faces..."
2014 Quadrennial Defense Review
While this is a high level document discussing how the DOD plans to move forward, it does not ignore science. From page 25:
"Finally, the Department will employ creative ways to address the impact of climate change, which will continue to affect the operating environment and the roles and missions that U.S. Armed Forces undertake. The Department will remain ready to operate in a changing environment amid the challenges of climate change and environmental damage."
-
wili at 20:22 PM on 6 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
JH, thanks for activating the links. But I don't have the scientific chops to judge how accurate they are. Is this dynamic of cool capping water really enough to shut down that thermohaline circulation as the Daily Kos article claims? IIRC, it would take about one sverdrup of fresh water to shut down the AMOC. Is that true of this southern current? Is there really that much fresh water down there?
Thanks ahead of time for any insights on this important issue.
Moderator Response:[JH] I will defer to one of my more learned colleagues to respond to your question.
-
chriskoz at 18:41 PM on 6 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
MichaelK@2,
-
Michael Whittemore at 17:51 PM on 6 March 2014Peer-reviewed papers by Skeptical Science authors
You guys are doing a great job and in my opinion, the best job!
-
MichaelK at 17:46 PM on 6 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
The link to "Global warming slows down Antarctica's coldest currents" returns a Not Found.
Moderator Response:[JH] The link has been fixed. Thank you for bringing this glitch to our attention.
-
wili at 12:05 PM on 6 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
More on the Antarctic current here:
"The Antarctic Half of the Global Thermohaline Circulation is Collapsing"
"The largest source of Antarctic Bottom Water in the global thermohaline circulation (labelled W) has ceased production.
...this study probably underestimates the amount of fresh water around Antarctica and its effects on Antarctic Bottom Water (ABW) formation...
Global political policies are not keeping up with the rate of change and our models have, to date, underestimated the rate of change. We are witnessing a total failure of global leadership to deal with changes we caused that are spiraling out of control."
Peter Ward on the consequences of this development: "When [the global ocean current conveyor belt] stops, we lose oxygen at the bottom, and we start the process toward mass extinction."
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for providing the links to additional articles. The findings of this new study have attracted quite a bit of coverage.
PS - I activated your second link.
Prev 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 Next
