Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by AK
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by ...and Then There's Physics
Oh, you’ve slightly changed the question. I was answering “in what way would it be different”, which I think I have at least attempted to do. What we would specifically do, I don’t know? I’m just a stupid physicist, so my understanding relates to the physical consequences of different emission pathways. Which pathway we should be aiming to follow and how we actually do so, is not my forte. That doesn’t really change the point, though. Total emissions are relevant and if there is a level of total emissions above which the damages will become high enough that it is worth mitigating against that, then how much we emit initially is relevant.
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by thomaswfuller2
Well, the different question is at my website. And while total emissions are relevant, sensitivity is more so for this exercise. If we would by fiat convert all coal powered stations to natural gas to face 2C, would we not do that at the same time to meet the demands of 4C?
If we federalized nuclear power plant construction to face 2C, would we not do the same at the same time for 4C?
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by AK
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by Willard
Here’s Groundskeeper’s very substantive answer, or at least his hypothesis:
It is my working hypothesis that if we ordered a list of adaptation and mitigation processes, the first 10 things we would do would be absolutely the same for each level of rise.
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/climate-questions-that-never-get-answered/
In the first 20 years, that is, and oblivious to the realization that his hypothesis deprecates his own tepid branding.
You just can’t make this up.
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by AK
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by thomaswfuller2
I don’t need to make things up, willard. You’ll do that for me.
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Salvatore del Prete
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/09/new-paper-finds-natural-ocean.html
CO2 levels do lead temperature already since at least 1900, as the increase in CO2 is (far) beyond what Henry’s law shows for the temperature increase.
That is a very good point Ferdinand.
This is why I approach the flaw in AGW on two fronts, neither one being the topic we have been discussing.
Front one is, as evidenced by the data I sent that natural forces correlate quite nicely with temperature trends.
Front two is, I think more attention needs to be paid to the water vapor aspect of the GHG effect rather then increasing amounts of CO2.
Also the saturation factor in that increasing amounts of CO2 have a lesser effect upon temperature.
If a negative feedback is associated with upper atmospheric water vapor concentrations and an increase in CO2 concentrations then this theory(AGW) is in deep trouble.
Better yet if natural conditions are the controlling factor of water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere at all levels of the atmosphere this would also put AGW theory in deep trouble, especially if the climate should cool ( which I think it may) due to prolonged minimum solar conditions.
Evidence for the above assertions is the lack of a lower tropical tropospheric hot spot and the fact that OLR emissions from earth to space have yet to decrease in response to increasing CO2 concentrations.
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by ...and Then There's Physics
Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by andywest2012
David Ramsay Steele | May 12, 2015 at 2:35 am
But to get a user name and password, don’t I have to ‘join’? It says in the general info that the forum is private and joining is subject to approval. Nor even if approval is granted do I particularly want to ‘join’ (no dislike of your blog implied at all, but I don’t want to join any politically orientated forum at this time). In essence, there appears to be no true public access therefore, as there is here for instance, unless simply a WordPress or Facebook or similar ID works (there’s no indication of that). If this is not the case, can you simply reflect my reply below your article or enact one of the other fixes please? Thanks.
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by PA
Michael | May 20, 2015 at 7:03 am |
” Hasn’t been proven that CO2 is bad.” – PA
Golly gosh.
We just understand the radiative forcing properties of GHGs, which has come about through a century of scientific discovery.
But who needs physics when we can just play dumb.
Well, gee. A quick recap of my points.
1. Hasn’t been proven that CO2 is bad.
Over $ 1 trillion per year in benefits from more CO2. You have to demonstrate $1 trillion per year in harm before we hit the “bad” point.
2. Hasn’t been proven that warming is bad.
3. The only measurement of the warming effect is 1/3 of the IPCC value. 4. The IPCC models are off by about a factor of 3
5. The indicated forcing value outside the IPCC confidence interval (they claim it can’t be less than 2 but it is less than 2).
6. The CO2 level postulated by the IPCC are unattainable with existing fossil fuel reserves.
And as to your forcing thing.
They measured the low level IR. Study came out in February.
0.2 W/m2 for 22 PPM.or F = 3.49 * ln (C/C0).
That is 1/3 the IPCC formulation for TSR. The IPCC formulation for TSR is
F = 2 * 5.35 * ln (C/C0).
The 1.5°C-4.5°C ECS was the result of combining two bad models (one by Hansen that predicted 4°C) at Charney lead conference in 1979. They combined a 2°C model with Hansen’s model and a 0.5°C guess at the error and voila. That is a lot of guessing.
You have no evidence to support your TCR and ECS claims. I have actual measurements and the models abysmal failure during the hiatus to support mine.
The ocean carbon uptake in GT (using the CDIAC Co2 levels in PPM for C) is more or less following curve of:
Oc = (C-285) *0.02712
Since 1998 it has been pretty much following the curve.
You have problems. The rapidly increasing environmental absorption and the pitiful amount of measured CO2 forcing makes any CAGW scenario basically a pipe dream at this point.
“We just understand the radiative forcing properties of GHG” and your guess and your models are off by a factor of 3?
Buddy you don’t know jack.
And you still haven’t proven that more CO2 is bad.
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by Willard
> I don’t need to make things up
Matt King Coal does, if we accept that 2C or 4C don’t matter much for 25-years policies. The Lomborg Collective too. Anyone who plays the lukewarm gambit does, if it carries any policy implication whatsoever for 25-years policies. The most expedient way to show that the lukewarm gambit is pretty useless for 25-years policies is to show that sensitive matters have no bearing on them.
Now, we know that the lukewarm gambit should be safely ignored for the very hypothesis one of his founding fathers holds.
It’s quite simple, really. This simple case reinforces Dr. Doom’s hypothesis. Groundskeeper’s computing powers are just crawlingly slow.
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Chief Hydrologist
Demysterfying emergent decoupling processs?
http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/reinvent-the-toilet/
http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/26/food-for-people-conserving-and-restoring-soils/
http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/30/black-carbon-a-health-and-environment-issue/
‘From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.’ Hayek
The open threats to capitalism and democracy are obvious in this age of mass communication. The manifesto is intended as a counter to philosophies of limits and of economic degrowth.
That economic growth and technological progress is required to solve environmental problems is an antidote to the politics of despair. Politics is a game we play for fun. Some better than others.
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Chief Hydrologist
The nuts and bolts refer to technology.
http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/30/black-carbon-a-health-and-environment-issue/
http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/reinvent-the-toilet/
http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/26/food-for-people-conserving-and-restoring-soils/
There are many web resources for Elinor Ostrom and common pool resources.
e.g. http://www.iasc-commons.org/
I deliberately linked 2 quite accessible videos in the post – and only linked a paper deep in the comments. Complaining about the paper and insulting me seems a bit churlish.
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Chief Hydrologist
It is btw business and government and community operating at many scales – local, regional, national and transnational to manage common pool resources.
What might an institutional and legal framework look like? Bring in consultants, business, farmers to work with expert teams and work out voluntary agreements on a contractual basis, But go way beyond that to integrated landscape management.
http://watertechbyrie.com/2015/05/01/changing-our-approach-to-the-environment/
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Chief Hydrologist
‘The Reserve Bank is responsible for Australia’s monetary policy. Monetary policy involves setting the interest rate on overnight loans in the money market (‘the cash rate’). The cash rate influences other interest rates in the economy, affecting the behaviour of borrowers and lenders, economic activity and ultimately the rate of inflation.
In determining monetary policy, the Bank has a duty to maintain price stability, full employment, and the economic prosperity and welfare of the Australian people. To achieve these statutory objectives, the Bank has an ‘inflation target’ and seeks to keep consumer price inflation in the economy to 2–3 per cent, on average, over the medium term. Controlling inflation preserves the value of money and encourages strong and sustainable growth in the economy over the longer term.’
The target was introdusced in 1993. Interest rates influence the rate of money circulation – and the money supply grows very slowly. We don’t do quantitative easing.
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Chief Hydrologist
The phrase gobsmackingly inane cliche comes to mind.
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Don Monfort
You see, Gary is very smart and a keen student of history:
The free market is not the product of elitist brahmins who designed their own economic system. The Robber Baron’s only became elitist brahmins, after they had schemed and created their monopolies and oligopolies.
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Chief Hydrologist
Anti-trust legislation was a belated response.
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Don Monfort
Recently, it looks like they can’t lower interest rates fast enough, Chief. They might think they have to resort to quantitative easing sooner, rather than later. With China manufacturing stagnant to declining, you have a problem.