David in TX: <i>Climate models are conceptual not physical. </i>
The GCMs are based on physical laws. Whether calculated values can be taken as evidence of anything is undermined by the fact that they are globally running hot against the mean temperature values that they can be calibrated against.
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by Matthew R Marler
↧
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by Jim D
I know, and to you the choice is nuclear or nothing. I am not opposed to nuclear, but there can be a balance with new energy, and there is especially a need when it comes to some forms of transportation that nuclear can’t fulfill.
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by Matthew R Marler
RiHoo8: The reading of 102F is evidence.
That’s my view. It is also model output, though not (cf Jim Reedy) calculated. There is a range of complexities in the models and their calculated outputs. If calculations and comparisons have shown them to be well-calibrated (accurate against out of sample data), then the calculated outputs can be evidence. I mentioned GPS and MRI images. A model output gives the “age of the universe” — that is taken as evidence of the time lapse since the “big bang”.
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by Jim D
The forcing used to drive the models has an uncertainty. Being 10% too hot can easily be accounted for by 10% too much forcing, which is within its error bars.
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by stefanthedenier
Climate keeps changing; BUT: there is no such a thing as ”global” warming!: Here is the HOLLY GRAIL of climatology::: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/
↧
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by Don Monfort
Joshie only knows boondogglers with no-layoff lifetime gubmint jobs. Well, most of them retire on disability by the time they reach 45, but you get the idea.
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by thomaswfuller2
GaryM, the U.S. Federal government began subsidizing coal in the late 1700s. Federal land grants in the 1800s were in many cases specifically directed at construction of railroad lines to serve coal mines.
Expensing of intangible drilling costs for oil began in 1916. Cost depletion began in 1926. Oil subsidies in the first 5 years of the industry’s existence amounted to $14 billion in current dollars.
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by Peter Lang
Jim D,
You are misrepresenting me. I am not saying nuclear or nothing. What I am saying is:
1. If you advocate for policies that will reduce economic growth you will fail.
2. If you advocate for policies that will raise the cost of energy you will fail
3. Renewables cannot achieve much. They are not economic and not sustainable. They cannot support modern society and will not be able to: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
4. If we can’t have energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels we’k keep using fossil fuels until we can have a cheaper alternative.
5. Nuclear is already by far the cheapest way to make large reductions to global GHG emission (much cheaper than renewables but still more expensive than fossil fuels)
6. the cost of nuclear could be massively reduced.
7. Those most concerned about CAGW and AGW need to lead the way to remove the impediments to low cost low GHG emissions energy. These are the people who are blocking it, so it is them that need to lead the way to unblock. If they don’t nothing will heppen because 99% of the world doesn’t see CAGW as a priority issue and they are not prepared to waste money on it. This is the political reality. It’s up to you and those who share your beliefs.
8. Your comment about transport fuels is irrelevant. once we have cheap nuclear we’ll get to have unlimited transport fuels too.
It’s all up to you guys. You not going to get any support for any of your beliefs until you can show the way forward with economically rational policies.
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by angech
Don, you looked too?!!
↧
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by angech2014
And here are some reasons for disagreement among the Senators:
Insufficient understanding of the science and the science debate
Concerns over the politicization of the science
Distrust of climate science (e.g. Climategate, advocacy etc)
Ambiguities in the language used to communicate climate change
Clashes of values, politics, etc.
Basically what one side says the other denies unless both have a common interest. Superannuation, pay rises for senators and the right to remain silent.
If you tied Climate Change to an increase in Superannuation you would have 100% support for the legislation.
There is a big push to get the USA to contribute more money to the poorer nations at the expense of American industry, there must be jobs and money for a lot of people somewhere in this, or votes.
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by JustinWonder
Dang, I just knew his would happen! The sea is rising and the sky is falling at the same time!
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by A. Voip
The ‘Greek Isles’ are behind door number one and the new owners are even willing to take on the risk of a raising sea. Do you think Greece will get them back again?
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by mikerestin
Damn JT
To call on Taggart here:
↧
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by JustinWonder
JimD – If it is really AGW and not CAWG, then who cares?
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by kneel63
I don’t have attribution, but some once said (paraphrasing):
Good lawyers make lots of money from bad laws.
Bad lawyers become politicians and make bad laws.
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by Faustino
My post on The Conversation:
“Scientists tell us the world is warming and that a climate catastrophe is imminent. They’re probably right.” Some scientists say the world is warming; others note that there was similar warming from 1910-1940, not related to human emissions, and that there has been no warming since 1998. Some say that “catastrophe” is imminent, and others do not. I’ve been following the issue since the 1980s, when I was briefed by the IPCC’s Chief Scientist, and I have seen no convincing case that a catastrophe is in sight, never mind “imminent.” The word means “about to happen.” Could you please demonstrate exactly when this “imminent” catastrophe will occur, what form it will take and where it will manifest itself? If you can’t do that, then your premise fails and your article is pointless.
As to what policies we might adopt if there were a catastrophe on the horizon, that’s another big question. The emissions-reduction policies followed to date have had high economic costs for a minimal impact on any warming that might occur.
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by KenW
In as far as “model” refers to a big pile of software, the models are evidence of <b>nothing</b>.
I have developed and tested industrial software for 25 years and this is exactly what makes me skeptical the most. Where I come from, the software has to be proved correct before it is used for anything, not the other way around.
Show me Gods <a href="http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126954.htm" rel="nofollow">validation</a>, then I shall believe.
↧
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by Faustino
Somewhat longer attention spans here, ATAndB.
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by kneel63
Mosher: “on any given day you can find a skeptic who claims to believe in the LIA
( it was cooler before ) AND who claims to believe that the warming we have seen since then is all a hoax perpetrated by climate scientists who
adjust data.”
Sure. It’s also true that on any given day you can find a warmist who claims to believe the consensus AND who claims there is no pause/hiatus, despite numerous papers from consensus authors positing reasons for a pause.
What’s your point?
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by Faustino
Ambiguity is a tool in getting people to support things that they might oppose if they were fully understood.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
