Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Pierre-Normand

0
0

Jim D, I wasn’t talking about the terrestrial troposphere, which is optically thick, but rather about optically thin tropospheres as discussed in Pierrehumbert’s texbook. They match the temperature of the convective troposphere at the tropopause, but thereafter the profile remains isothermal *because* of heat diffusion.


Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by ferdberple

0
0

how about dust? There is a whole lot of dust in the air, I expect a lot of it PM2.5. Are we going to outlaw anything that produces dust, like a moving car or person? How about we outlaw the wind?

Or how about plants. They produce all sorts of nasty allergens and while hay fever may not kill you, any one that has it will tell you it makes you wish you were dead. Are we going to outlaw plants?

where do you draw the line?

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by ferdberple

0
0

The china study shows you the methodology.
=======================
But in spite of the pollution, Chinese life expectancy continues to increase faster than US life expectancy.

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SP.DYN.LE00.IN/compare?country=cn#country=cn:zr:us

So, if air pollution is causing so many “extra deaths”, then China with the worst pollution should be showing this in reduced life expectancy, while the US with the EPA should be showing much better progress.

But the data isn’t showing it. It shows that China is catching the US in life expectancy, so the only thing that can be argued based on this data is that air pollution is better for you than the EPA.

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by ferdberple

0
0

You wouldnt let me pee up stream in your creek
==========
fish pee in your creek, along with a whole lot of other animals. ever heard of beaver fever? it isn’t something only teenage boys get.

Years ago I caught Leptospirosis in Hawaii from swimming in a river. Not nice. There were fatalities in Hawaii, before they finally got it sorted. It doesn’t come from humans, but from animals peeing in the river.

so if you are going to stop humans, you better also stop animals.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Pierre-Normand

0
0

Arrgh! Why do I type ‘tropo…’ when I am thinking ‘strato…’. Let me try that again:

“Jim D, I wasn’t talking about the terrestrial [strato]sphere, which is optically thick, but rather about optically thin [strato]pheres as discussed in Pierrehumbert’s texbook. They match the temperature of the convective troposphere at the tropopause, but thereafter the profile remains isothermal *because* of heat diffusion.”

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by ferdberple

0
0

I expect recirculated air in buildings and aircraft kills more people in Canada each year than PM2.5. Why do we not outlaw this practice?

Come flu season in the fall one person in an office gets sick it isn’t long before half the office is sick. A certain percentage of those people go on to develop pneumonia, and some of these will die early as a result.

And who hasn’t traveled on a plane and some yahoo is coughing his guts out the whole flight. Lack of sleep, jet lag, and sure enough a few days after you land you are also coughing your guts out.

When are we going to outlaw recirculation of air in buildings and aircraft?

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by Willis Eschenbach

0
0

Steven Mosher | December 7, 2014 at 10:53 pm |

Your question was were are the corpses which doesnt really show you understand the problem or the metric.

The china study shows you the methodology. If you like go search the literature for US figures, but you can pretty much read the lost years
off the pm25 concentration.

Premature deaths is a perfectly reasonable metric for this sort of thing.
Its reasonable because you DONT get figures like 5 minutes off a life.

If you DID get figures like 5 minutes your objection might hold water.

Elected officials actually get to decide that cutting life expectancy by a couple years IS something worthwile to look at.

They dont need the science to be perfect. they dont need the metrics to pass YOUR smell test. That is why you are not a policy maker.

Jeez, Mosh, chill out. I never said it needed to pass my smell test, that’s your sick fantasy. And I’m well aware that elected officials make the decision, and they not only don’t require the science to be perfect, they often act in opposition to the science. Read my comments to Dr. Pielke, I’m well aware of how it works.

Steven Mosher | December 7, 2014 at 11:03 pm |

for US figures you can start here

http://lae.mit.edu/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/US-air-pollution-paper.pdf

Pretty big CI

Having now read the study, I can say that in fact, you saying “pretty big CI” [confidence interval] is a huge understatement. Their numbers are guesses backed by EPA computer models. The relative risk for PM25 reduction is not even given, and they say that their results are the result of an “expert elicitation” … perhaps that impresses you, Steven, but I prefer my science to be, you know, scientific.

They do give the relative risk for the ozone figures … and it’s a whopping 1.040 … seriously? They use a study with an RR of one point freakin’ zero four zero to base public policy on, and you claim I’m the one who doesn’t understand what’s going on?? Physician, heal thyself.

however its clear. Dumping PM25 in MY FRICKING AIR is not something YOU get to do with impunity.

YOU drive a car. YOU dump PM25 in MY FRICKING AIR with total impunity. When are you going to start beating yourself up for your crimes? Everyone does it with impunity.

Prove its safe and I have no issue. Until then the best science we have, however flawed or uncertain, says that its NOT without risk.

You wouldnt let me pee up stream in your creek, dont pollute my air and then tell me I have no say

First, I never said you “have no say”, that’s just your paranoia at work. Second, you “pollute my air” every time you drive a car. Heck, much of the PM25 comes from construction dust, and I don’t see you living in a tent so your construction doesn’t “pollute my air”.

Next, almost nothing is safe. Of course the science says PM25 is “not without risk”. The question is, how much risk and how much are we willing to pay to avoid it?

So no, I can’t “prove” that PM25 is safe … but as you know, or should know, that’s never the question. The question is, how much of an unsafe substance is society willing to tolerate, given that there is a cost to get rid of it?

Next, bear in mind that the EPA thought so little of the dangers of PM25 that they deliberately exposed people to it to judge its effects. Since they’re willing to test it on live subjects, I find it hard to believe they found it all that much of a problem.

Unlike you, I suspect, I actually went to the source document used for the claims in the paper you cited … and I found EPA “science” at its finest.

Now, you’d think that the EPA would have used actual data on the amount of PM25 particles in the air, and compared them to actual deaths, to see if people died earlier in areas of high PM25 concentrations … dream on.

They used no actual data at all about PM25 concentrations. Instead they used an EPA model to estimate the reductions in PM25 from the Clean Air Act.

But then they found their models didn’t actually fit the data for beans, so they just changed the numbers to fit their fantasies, viz:

One notable exception to the above involves the specification of PM2.5 emissions from non-EGU point sources and area sources. After initially attempting to model PM2.5 emissions in the without-CAAA scenario in 2000, 2010, and 2020 using the process described above, we determined that the resulting estimates over-attributed emissions reductions to the amendments. We applied two separate approaches to correct these emissions estimates: For emissions from area sources, we projected emissions from the two sectors responsible for the majority of emissions – construction and wood stoves – using source-specific data. For emissions from non-EGU point sources, the project team determined that emissions reductions from CAAA-mandated controls would be negligible in 2000, so we set without-CAAA PM2.5 emissions equal to with-CAAA emissions in that year.

One last comment about the EPA report … they mentioned Relative Risk only once in the entire 238 page report, and never gave an RR value for a single one of their claims. That’s statistical fraud, Mosh, that’s not science of any kind.

And guess what … at the end of the day, the finding of the EPA, the very people who designed and implemented the Clear Air Act, is that it is just a wonderful, stupendous thing! How surprising!

The results of our analysis, summarized in the table below, make it abundantly clear that the benefits of the CAAA exceed its costs by a wide margin, making the CAAA a very good investment for the nation.

The EPA graded themselves, and gave themselves an A+. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse … I assume, Mosh, that this is some of “the best science we have” that you refer to above that you seem more than willing to accept … I don’t give a damn if it’s the best, I’m still unimpressed and unwilling to use it for anything but hygienic paper. Why on earth should we make decisions based on that self-serving nonsense?

Finally, why the personal bitterness? I’m not saying that we should not regulate pollutants. I’m not pissing upstream from you. I’m saying that paying $4 million dollars for each avoided premature death is a joke, and that before we impose serious burdens on our economy for minimal returns, we should have solid evidence evidence about costs and benefits, not just some EPA bumpf. Please think about the differences before you fly off the handle at me again.

w.

PS—You say:

Premature deaths is a perfectly reasonable metric for this sort of thing. Its reasonable because you DONT get figures like 5 minutes off a life.

Actually, you DO get figures like five minutes off a life. Well, not five minutes, but six hours. According to the study above, if a change reduces your “mortal risk” by 1/100,000, then in a population of 100,000 that’s counted as one premature death, viz:

Because people are valuing small decreases in the risk of premature mortality, it is expected deaths that are inferred. For example, suppose that a given reduction in pollution confers on each exposed individual a decrease in mortal risk of 1/100,000. Then among 100,000 such individuals, one fewer individual can be expected to die prematurely. If the average individual’s WTP [Willingness To Pay] for that risk reduction is $50, then the implied value of a statistical premature death avoided in that population is $50 x 100,000 = $5 million.

And if a person lives about 72 years, 1/100,000 of that is about six hours …
you really should check your facts before you start calling me names.

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by Willis Eschenbach

0
0

HR | December 7, 2014 at 10:54 pm |

Willis said

“Depends on what you are calling a “model”. Many environmental diseases (e.g. mercury poisoning) were described long before we had computer models. How? Plain old observation plus statistics.”

It does depend on what your calling a model. Ok your arbitry dislike for models is focused on computers. That makes no rational sense. Sorry cant follow you down the Luddite route against technology love the modern world too much.

Thanks, HR. I fear you misunderstand me, likely my fault.

Having both written and used a host of computer models, I have no problem with computers at all. What I have a problem with is using models in lieu of using actual data, which is far too common and often leads us astray.

w.


Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by Mike Flynn

0
0

angech,

I agree with you that there is always some good in reigning in big polluters, particularly if you are paid a multi-million dollar salary to reign.

I have been appointed (by myself, in the best Klimatological tradition) to the post of Chief Autocorrect Correction Inspector. If your intent was to write “reining” rather than “reigning”, and your Autocorrect subverted your intention, in an effort to rattle your equanimity, I suggest you thrash the fellow until there is not a drop of blood left in his body! This tends to have a salutary effect on such intractable swine!

Eternal vigilance is the price you must pay, to avoid the persistent attempts by the Autocorrect to lay you low.

I remain, sir,
Your humble and obedient servant,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by ferdberple

0
0

“What would be your desired limits on the atmospheric criteria pollutants?”
==============
A what point does the regulation itself do more harm than the pollutants? For example, other drivers on the road are a clear danger to me and my family. I say we should outlaw all drivers except me. This would clearly prevent any problem drivers from harming me, consistent with the Precautionary Principle.

Likewise, we should quarantine anyone that has any sort of illness, lest they spread the disease and perhaps kill someone. Colds and flu kills prematurely, so we should make it illegal for anyone with a cold, flu or other communicable disease to leave their house. Which would also include anyone exposed to them.

We can apply this logic without end, until robots rule the world and people are all kept in prisons, lest they harm someone else. or perhaps the robots would kill us, to prevent us from polluting the atmosphere with CO2 when we breathe and thus harming nature.

Science Fiction? Not really. Bureaucracy is not much different than a sea of mindless robot blindly following the rules.

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by Willis Eschenbach

0
0
Brandon Shollenberger | December 7, 2014 at 11:17 pm | <blockquote><blockquote>Unlike you, I try not to reformulate the question according to how I might wish it would have been asked. I answer it as best I understand it.</blockquote> I don’t know why you’d personalize this by suggesting I behave in some undesirable way. It’s pointless and rude. More importantly, it’s not true. Had I been asked the same question, I’d have answered the question in the literal way then say I suspect he had something else in mind and answer that. If I was wrong about in my interpretation, there’d be no harm. The worst that’d happen I’d give him additional information about my views.</blockquote> I'm sorry that you took that personally. I didn't mean it as a slight, merely a distinction. You try to guess what someone means. I don't. If you'll re-read what I said, you'll see I didn't say or imply that your way was wrong, only different. <blockquote>Considering multiple ways a person might have intended you to interpret their comments is not a bad thing. Trying to be flexible and allow for multiple intended meanings is not a bad thing. These are not reasons to make snide remarks about a person.</blockquote> My friend, if I make snide remarks, you will be under no illusions. That was not a snide remark, just a distinction. Here's my position. I have been burnt many, many times trying to guess what someone meant, only to have them get on my case and say "That's not what I meant! Don't put words in my mouth! Can't you understand a simple question!" and the like. So I don't do it any more, I got tired of being abused for doing that. I simply answer the question asked as best I can understand it, and let it go at that. I figure if the person had some other meaning, they'll let me know. Now I understand you don't do that, and that's fine ... but it's also fine that I do that, it's the result of having my fingers burned too many times when I've tried your method. Finally, at your urging, I not only <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/07/super-pollutants-act-of-2014/#comment-653568" rel="nofollow"><b>answered</a></b> your question, I answered the question that I thought you were asking ... and in response, I got nothing. Not one comment on my answer. Zip. You see why I've given that up? Evidently, that wasn't the question you had in mind ... last time I'll try that. w.

Comment on Open thread by Matthew R Marler

0
0

a fan of *MORE* discourse: Whose goals does that capital serve?

You are shifting your ground again.

It was not they who created America’s oil production resurgence, it was free market entrepreneurs. Next up: photos of Khamenei and Kim Jong UN? The Pope again? Oil bureaucrats in Venezuela?

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by ferdberple

0
0

There is no quicker way to make an enemy than to make other people lose face. The cornered rat is always the most dangerous.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

Jim,
All the discussion of atmospheric physics you are referring to excludes molecular diffusion and conduction from the consideration, because it’s so weak that it can, indeed, be dismissed in typical applications. When you discuss diffusion, you seem to consider collective movement of air that occurs both in convection and in turbulent mixing. In these phenomena individual molecules are never considered, but parcels of air that are large enough to have local thermodynamic properties like pressure, temperature and density. It’s also assumed that diffusion through the boundaries of these parcels can be dismissed without making any significant error.

What P-N and myself have be discussing is molecular diffusion under conditions, where the external input of free energy is exactly zero (no heating at the bottom), not very small but exactly zero. In that case all convection dies out and all turbulent mixing dies also out, because they need free energy to continue. In terms of entropy, the situation is already so close to maximum, that the addition that turbulence would imply is not possible any more. Under these conditions the laws of thermodynamics that control convection are satisfied in the trivial way that convection goes to zero.

Molecular diffusion remains as strong as ever at the same temperature, because it’s not controlled by the equations of thermodynamics. It’s not part of the physics described by thermodynamics, but it is part of physics described by statistical mechanics. In presence of temperature gradients molecular diffusion leads to conductivity that can be used as input in equations of thermodynamics.

When everything else goes to zero, the very weak conduction becomes the dominant form of heat transfer. Conduction is not adiabatic as heat is transferred also through the boundaries of the air parcels. This is the only remaining process, and that leads to the isothermal final outcome.

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by Joseph O'Sullivan

0
0

What is the environmentalist agenda, and what is your definition of pollutant?


Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by JustinWonder

0
0

Now THAT is funny! We need more funny!

Comment on Open thread by tonyb

0
0

Danny and Max

Around half the price of fuel for cars is tax of one sort or another. Yes we have refineries.

Max

You said;

“Tony do you know If there were times in the past when heating fuel in the UK was more affordable, and whether winter mortality rates lower during those times?”

. I would say it has become less affordable in the last 10 years through deliberate Govt policy. That coincided with a number of very cold winters which had the effect of causing problems in as much falling temperatures and rising fuel prices means you need to spend more in order to keep the same degree of warmth in your home or let the heat level fall as temperatures drop. Here is a graph showing that (Last winter was very mild)

I don’t think you can compare times in the past with today for a variety of reasons. A lot has been done in the last decade to improve insulation whilst social and medical services are more attune to identifying people who may be in need of help . I did note in one of the reports cited however that mortality had crept up again over the last 7 years (presumably not last winter due to its mildness)

Prince William is with Obama today I believe. I’ll have a word and see if he can get your President to double prices. Then with your increased profits you can pay my fuel bills. Deal?

tonyb

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by ferdberple

0
0

For example, suppose that a given reduction in pollution confers on each exposed individual a decrease in mortal risk of 1/100,000. Then among 100,000 such individuals, one fewer individual can be expected to die prematurely.
=============
that is faulty logic. the odds are spread over the entire population. it would be highly unlikely to be concentrated into a single individual. for example, two individuals might die prematurely, but each linger twice as long as the case when only one died.

In any case, the quality of care has a lot to do with premature death, which is directly related to how much health care the economy can afford. If you spend all your money of scrubbers and ignore the economy and someone gets pneumonia for example due to having lost their job and living on the street, then all the clean air in the world isn’t going to cure them.

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by JustinWonder

0
0

I love the smell of cheap gas in the morning, it smells like recovery. I think I’ll go for a long ride to look at Christmas lights then, with the money I’ve saved I’ll buy a mongo beef burger, a double double animal style with xtra onions. Then me and the ungulate will do a little duet out off the wrong end of the pipes.

Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

0
0

I had that Maxy’s rents had a farm in Oklahoma – with oil and gas resources. Adding taxes depresses demand – marginally – and productivity – depressing both profits in oil and gas and demand in the wider economy. Depressing demand even further. A bit of a economic death spiral there.

Maxy’s rents wouldn’t be happy.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images