Comment on Driving in the dark by David L. Hagen
Comment on Driving in the dark by justinwonder
This might be the only way to get the alarmist community to think differently about their predictions. There is more than one way to change someone’s mind.
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration | Enjeux énergies et environnement
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by scotts4sf
tonyb
Really fairly heartbreaking. CA is rushing ahead w 30% and then 50% solar and wind. Kills lots of birds and messes the views but this is a rich state and can afford to experiment in a federal system. Highest electricity rates in the US. Big water problems here and rooting for El Nino in the fall to bring the rains. That may also raise the surface air temp and it will be interesting to see the response. The 2014 increase advertised by NCDC as hottest ever was so much smaller than the potential error in measurement it will generate lots of discussion if we actually have an 1998 type El Nino. If the pause continues though we will see a lot of settled science falsified. Hard to know what to root for. Rain or heat?
Scott
Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by Steven Mosher
#1
“The passage you quoted is meaningless, isn’t it?
A. No it’s meaningful
B. demonstrating meaninglessness is a very difficult task
to do it you have to demonstrate that there is no context
or set of assumptions that could render it meaningful.
C. Defining what meaning itself “is”, is no simple task. If you
can go ahead. One of the simplest definitions is that meaning
is the response. If you see a stop sign and stop then the
meaning of that sign is demonstrated by your behavior.
This is known as a response theory of meaning. Under this
approach it is very hard for something to be meaningless.
you write:
“Within the press conference, scientists tried to use the certainty of climate change to demonstrate that it is meaningful and that ‘we’ must take action:”
Tried to use the certainty of climate change? When did the climate ever not change? What have scientists to do with the climate changing?
A) Tried to use the certainty of climate change.
This refers to sccientists trying to use the ‘certainity’ of man made
climate change. Note in this context ‘climate change’ has a prior
referent: the IPCC document on human caused climate change.
hence by applying the proper context you can define the term
‘climate change’ such that it has meaning. That is all you need to
do to refute the mere assertion that it is meaningless.
B) When did the climate ever not change?
It depends on your definition of climate. Under certain definitions,
say Koppen classifications, climate is the thing that DOESNT CHANGE. Further, “change” is also a relative term. Change implies
a time frame which you havent defined. Further, change can refer
to meaningful change, or noticable change, or statistically significant
change. All of these definitions of change are conditional and dependent upon your choice. To show that climate is ALWAYS changing
you have to show that under all choices of times periods and all choices of what “change” is, that climate is always changing. Consult
heraclitus, he will help you but your case wont be proved.
C) What have scientists to do with the changing climate?
If the climate is changing ( you’d have to demonstrate that ) their role at a minimum is that of observer.
Comment on Driving in the dark by Richard Drake
+85
for all the years in between
Comment on Driving in the dark by justinwonder
JimD – I deliberately left out sea level rise because that issue is covered by floods, which can be caused by a storm surge. If the sea level rises significantly over the next century, and we build to accommodate floods, we’ll be ok.
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by ristvan
Your CO2 EOR number is very optimistic. Has been used in the Permian Basin, and at Wayburn in Canada. Nothing like these results on a general basis. Wayburn (the IEA example) is 25%. BP says that since 1950, all EOR methods together have enhanced recovery factors by about 25%.
Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by JCH
Two meters above the land makes sense. SST, whatever the H that is, is little tougher.
But their methods are transparent, and bunches of people have gone through them over and over and over. I refuse to get tied up in this insipid conspiracy rot, and it is rot.
Some will never be satisfied and that means they simply don’t matter.
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Pooh, Dixie
Re: Breakthrough Institute’s FAQ
Great post! It covered the bases, probably because of space limitations. Here are a few more:
A breeder reactor can produce more fuel than it uses. It produces energy from waste, as noted above. The experimental breeder reactor (EBR-1) was the first (1950s). It suffered a breakdown, but release was minor and no fatalities.
Wikipedia contributors. “Nuclear Reactor Accidents in the United States.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, February 21, 2015. There has been 1 fatality since 1988; it was a construction accident, not nuclear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States&oldid=648161768
Yucca Mountain (storage project) was shut down by political fearmongering. We have Harry Reid to “thank”. However, our ballistic submarines are nuclear.
“Population control” is yet another “Cause celebre” of the Left. China adopted harsh measures to control it. However, people tend to have fewer children when they are well off. In the West, it appears to be automatic. Cheap and plentiful energy replaced candles with light switches, for example. Tractors replaced horses. And so on.
Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by Steven Mosher
“The problem is exactly their selective definition of “meaningful”.
As I said, you can quibble with their definition, HOWEVER, you cannot
merely assert that their definition is meaningless or makes no sense.
Further, All definitions are SELECTIVE, that’s the goal of a definition.
Objectively determining the best definition is hard. try it.
Now to your point.
‘SUPERSTORM Sandy is “meaningful”, but 3500 days without a Cat 3
landfall in the U.S. is “err, ummm, … weather”.”
Yes: Sandy is relevant, 3500 days without a dangerous storm is not relevant. Note the argument here is about its relevance to your lived
experience. of course you can argue that it is relevant you might have a case. But you have to make a case, not merely assert one.
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by ristvan
Good luck having UNFCCC force transparency commitments on China. Paris is shaping up to be a worse train wreck than Copenhagen.
Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by Turbulent Eddie
‘surface’ refers to 2meter atmospheric temperature.
‘skin’ refers to the temperature of the land/ocean.
definitions are a wonderful thing.
learn one
Of course, the WMO standard is 1.25m to 2m
and memory tells me a number of EU stations are at 1.5m
Do you have metadata for this?
Most station catalogs include only a single value – elevation
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by Scott Basinger
Wishful thinking. We’re having a difficult enough time with technology issues pushing an excess of intermittent renewables in the electricity supply industry.
Good overview at The Conversation:
https://theconversation.com/good-luck-g7-leaders-we-wont-be-off-fossil-fuels-by-2100-43025
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by David L. Hagen
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by Turbulent Eddie
Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by Steven Mosher
Mike 2.
“The climate seems to have continuously changed for four and a half billion years or so, without permission or agreement from scientists.”
A. You merely assert this. demonstrating that it has CONTINOUSLY
changed is a hard piece of work. Go ahead, make the case
and we can audit your work.
B. To do so you have to define climate and what you mean by change.
go ahead, I’ll play skeptic.
C. They are refering to human caused climate change.
D. Assuming the climate changes, assuming there is an objective
thing in the world called climate ( how much does it weigh? how
big is it? what color? ) its true that it doesnt need scientists to
agree.
you write:
Are the scientists happy with the present climate of California? For that matter, find one of these “scientists” to tell us – meaningfully – what the present Californian climate is, what it was, and what it should be in the future.
A. Since some climate scientists live in other places I’m sure they are happy with climates outside california. Since some live in california
I am sure that some are happy. If they ski they are not so happy
with the climate. Their emotional state is hard to measure and can probably only be inferred from their behavior. Some may smoke weed
and be happy regardless of the climate. Some may move to costa rica
and have the benefit of both.
B. Find one to tell us what it meaningfully is?
Easy. If you restrict climate to snowpack you can go look at the last
30 years of data. That’s a good estimate of the climate. This would
be meaninful or relevant to a skier. If you are a farmer, the relevant
portion of climate would be rainfall. Look at the last 30 years. Good first
cut. Are you a nudist? then you probably care about sunshine. Go look at that. Many aspects of the climate are relevant or meaningful. Depends on who you are and what you do.
C. What is the california climate? depends. Are you a solar company?
then climate might be average sunny days. farmer, climate would be
precipitation and degree days. Energy producer? climate might be
temperature.
D. What should it be in the future? Again, it depends on who you are and what you do. However, the question misunderstands the problem.
The problem isnt Picking the BEST climate. the problem is avoiding
the WORST. Tonight i shall take a warm bath. If you asked me what the best water temp was, I could not give you an answer. I could however,
say that 32F was bad and that 212F was very bad. I might guess that 96F was comfortable, but there is wiggle room. The mere existence of wiggle room does not entail that ALL changes in the temperature of bath water will be acceptable. Some are clearly bad even though you cant define the optimum. If I tell you that I would like to limit my bathwater below 105F
That doesnt entail or require that some number below that is optimum.
A single unique optimum need not exist for us to conclude that 105F bath water might be uncomfortable, considering that hot tbs have a cuttoff at 104, who am I to argue.
So, what is the optimum bath water temperature. Understand bath water temperature is always changing and unless you can define the optimum, then all changes are acceptable..
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by PA
The facts:
1. CO2 is beneficial.
2. Spending hundreds of billions to reduce CO2 emissions is paying money to take food off our table and makes no sense.
3. Fossil fuel is limited and we will by the end of the century be using something else.
4. Batteries will eventually have the power densities to power aircraft and just about anything else. However a battery with that power density is a bomb if something goes wrong.
5. Using todays batteries on the scale needed for massive use of renewable energy is crazy because current battery technologies cause a lot of pollution to build and/or consume scarce resources and/or are toxic.
It makes sense to do research. Deploying pilot facilities and fielding equipment when the technology is cost effective makes sense.
Massive deployment of expensive, resource/land intensive, technology that causes a lot of pollution during manufacturing doesn’t make a lot of sense. We should wait and do better.
The advocates of massive renewable energy today have another agenda. They are either lining the pockets of green interests, trying to maintain the illusion that radical environmentalism is still relevant, deliberately trying to cripple the US economy, or some combination of these and other motivations.
The one thing we do know is that the “deploy it nowers” do not give a damn about the best interests of the American people.
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by Barnes
Frankly, I think most are simply detached from reality. They have feel good “solutions” that cause harm while producing nothing of value. And, they don’t care about the well being of ANYONE, not just those of us living in the USA.