Excellent questions and excellent answers.
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Peter Lang
↧
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Jeffrey B McKim
Excellent.
Here’s detail on a lesser point above: There’s a back and forth about wood burning. In many circles it’s considered carbon neutral because the carbon it contains is already available to the atmosphere, not sequestered. There are those who consider it better than neutral due to how it’s produced and the relatively low carbon overhead of harvesting it. And of course there are those that consider it a tool of Satan used to stoke the fires of Hell…or at least the CO2 part thereof.
It will of course be shocking to learn that statistics supporting any position you care to align with are readily available from all sides.
Personally, I find the technological advances in this area of the last 15 years allay any concerns I might have. Modern wood burning stoves continue to improve efficiency and have radically reduced particulate exhaust.
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by George Klein
Judith,
Great answers with great clarity.
BTW, Does the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology have a staff member who is a bonafide, degreed climate scientist?
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by David Springer
“If you believe the climate models, then President Obama’s INDC commitment (total of 80% emissions reduction by 2015),”
Correction: 80% by 2050 not 2015
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by popesclimatetheory
When i see this done properly we will see that 100% of the warming was caused by the same natural variability that caused the Roman And Medieval Warming. There is no real data that proves this to be wrong.
What do you think worked before that stopped working such that now we need manmade CO2 to cause warming that is just like all the warming periods in the past ten thousand years.
This warming is the warming phase of a natural cycle that has worked the same for ten thousand years.
↧
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Mike Jonas
6.A. Could changes in cloud distribution or optical properties contribute to the global surface temperature hiatus? — and to the warming 1970-2000?
—
I would like to see more emphasis on the question of whether warming is harmful or beneficial.
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by sciguy54
“Energy regulations that raise energy prices will be a disproportionate burden to the poor. I have heard anecdotal evidence in the UK of people burning more wood to avoid high energy costs.”
Exactly. The poor and middle class have to make allocation choices with limited resources all the time. Any governmental action which reduces discretionary funds will make it less likely that a family will buy a new cleaner running car in the US or replace a dung cooker with natural gas in India.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by popesclimatetheory
Until climate science provides plausible explanations with plausible evidence on what caused previous transitions from glacial to interglacial periods and back, how can climate scientists be confident that natural variation is not the major driver of current changes? Such explanations may be possible if all the questions in Dr. Curry’s list were answered, but it is also possible that the explanation will remain ambiguous and speculative
It is really simple. it snows more when it is warm and then it gets cold. it snows less when it is cold and then it gets warm. It is a natural cycle.
Look at the actual data. natural variation is the driver of climate changes.
CO2 is a trace gas, it is an important trace gas, it makes green things grow better with less water. It did not cause the climate cycles of the past ten thousand years and it did not cause this modern cycle that is following the same profile as all of the past warming cycles in the past ten thousand years. It is a natural cycle. We are warm now because we are supposed to be warm now.
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Mike Jonas
re 1970-2000 warming : see 14th slide in
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE%20WORKSHOP%202004/SESSION_4/4_12_Palle.pdf
It shows declining albedo from 1985-97.
See also the chart in
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
it shows increasing Earth albedo from 2000-07.
(NB. The Y axes in the two graphs go in different directions.
↧
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by popesclimatetheory
It is very clear that the failure is the theory and models.
Data is data. Model output that does not match data is junk.
If the data is wrong, that does not make the models right.
That means they have no way to build a proper model.
You must first have data.
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by HaroldW
Also for 1A: “warming would be reduced by 0.011 degrees Centigrade” is clarified if you append “by 2100″.
Similarly for 2A (assuming 2100 is the correct date).
8A: “Business As Usual Emissions Scenario (RCP8.5)” My understanding is that RCP8.5 is a plausible upper bound on concentrations, and RCP6.0 is a more likely scenario.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by David Springer
Wrong, Jimbo. The pause exists even if the trend line begins in 2000 or 2005. Jimmy D is the new denier. What a laugh riot. The denier shoe is on the other foot!
Last 10 years flat as a pancake:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/last:120/plot/rss/last:120/trend
Last 15 years flat as a pancake:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/last:180/plot/rss/last:180/trend
Last 36 years total rise 0.44C
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/every/plot/rss/every/trend/detrend:0.44
Last 36 years decadal trend (0.44 / 3.7) 0.12C/decade
Warmunists lost, Jimmy. 0.12C/decade is not cause for alarm. The pause killed the cause. We are now in a “wait & see” attitude.
And before you go cherry picking UAH instead of RSS satellite data, there is about to be a UAH reanalysis released that makes UAH essentially the same as RSS:
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Peter Lang
Absolutely! Those want want to reduce global GHG emissions should put all their effort into arguing for cheaper low-emissions energy.
Consequently they should stop advocating for high cost, useless technologies like renewable energy.
↧
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony | Enjeux énergies et environnement
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony | Enjeux énergies et environnement
[…] For reference, my previous blog post on the Hearing, along with my testimony, can be found [here]. […]
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
I raised five research questions. A number of people responded that “this is policy, not science”. That is a mistaken response, for two reasons.
First, the first four questions have a large, positive components. What happens to wheat yields in Africa if the world were warmer? What happens to wheat yields in Africa if fertilizers would be applied? Which effect is larger? What happens to the cost of transport if we apply a carbon tax on fuels? And what if we apply a biofuel mandate? Which effect is larger, for emissions and costs?
Second, while you may be uncomfortable with the normative elements of these questions, dismissing them as “policy” suggests that there is no reasoned and informed debate possible.
By the way, climate science (narrowly defined) would not be controversial if the impacts of climate change were small OR IF effective climate policy were cheap.
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Peter Lang
JC,
I still think your reply to this question misses the most important overarching issue
B. What are the most glaring or problematic uncertainties, ambiguities and areas of ignorance at this state in our understanding of climate change?
There are two overarching issues:
Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes
How much the planet will warm in the 21st century
It seems to me the most important overarching issue is: does it matter?
– What’s the consequence?
– What’s the damage function?
– Is higher GHG concentration a net benefit or net cost?
– Does higher GHG concentration increase or decrease the probability of negative consequences?
↧
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Peter Lang
I agree. The whole AGW, CAGW and climate change debate is about risk – i.e. consequence of an event or condition x the probability of that consequence or condition occurring. If there is no serious consequence, then there we need to redirect the climate research funds and researchers to more important issues (as Bjorn Lomborg has been pointing out for 17 years or so).
If GHG emissions are reducing the risk of a seriously damaging abrupt cooling event, we need to know this.
So, the most important thing we need to know is the consequences of human’s GHG emissions, in terms of damages and benefits (by region).
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by oppti
Clean air act is a US initiative and it has taken aerosols as sulfur out of the air.
The impact of this is often neglected. Why?
It is responsible of some warming that might bee mistaken for CO2 warming.
Is this just rubbish?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Pierre-Normand Houle
Those two republican congressmen politely asked Judith whether President Obama had the power to prevent earthquakes. Why didn’t Judith respond? Now, they will remain ignorant.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
