SS does not show good faith. Period.
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Peter Davies
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Stephen, Fiscally responsible options would be “proven” as you have a good idea of cost and performance, you can be specific, AP1000/ESBWR etc..
Generic Solar isn’t “proven” because various types of solar are still in development, costs are changing, lifetime and maintenance are questionable. Roof top solar pv is fiscally responsible depending on the situation which would be determined by the utility and/or owner. Most solar is still “energy of the future” or only deserves research stimulus.
Cellulose ethanol – research, energy of the future not ready for prime time.
Natgas, fiscally responsible at twice current natgas prices.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by opluso
It is politically relevant to remember that a 2C temperature increase, sans significant sea level rise, is most likely to be net beneficial to humanity. So why not base policy on measured sea level (not Hansen-esque projection)? At least that is the one threat everyone seems to agree upon.
The trigger for international action could be based on a selection of agreed upon coastal monitors. Of course, estimating sea level change is about as fraught with uncertainty as estimating “global average” temperatures. But if you are trying to mitigate potential harm, you should at least consider correlating your response activities to the harm itself, rather than a surrogate.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by aplanningengineer
Peter -two seconds after I hit the Post key, I figured you would get on me for not throwing nuclear in as well as gas. Funny that on opposite sides of the world we had the same thoughts at the same time. I can not see your slide 11, the link did not come through.
Between nuclear and gas the battle as to which is better is really a question of what you take as a given and what you see as the more pragmatic approach from that given. From my perspective it’s easier to remove the obstacles to gas, but that’s my view of the world we live in nothing about the technology or potential. Clearly nuclear could be more competitive if the burdens on it were eased. I wouldn’t argue either perspective as wrong.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by AK
<blockquote>Can you provide us some bullet items of what you are referencing? (e.g., cheaply and fostering exponential growth)</blockquote>Yes. How much sense they'd make without longer explanations is questionable, else I'd be plugging it into almost every thread here. But some examples (the most important thrust being to look for more, before trying to settle on a "solution"):
<b>• Requiring an exponentially rising fraction of carbon-based fuel to be non-fossil.</b> <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/15/decision-strategies-for-uncertain-complex-situations/#comment-718596" rel="nofollow">More:</a><blockquote>[... A] generally agreed percentage of fuel being required to use environmentally derived carbon (“carbon-neutral”). Suppose the required fraction starts at 0.1% (1/1000) and increases by ~25% each year. After 31 years the required fraction would be 100%.</blockquote><b>• "Free" subsidies;</b> <i>i.e.</i> subsidies that don't require taking any money from current fisks. <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/22/week-in-review-36/#comment-649968" rel="nofollow">More</a><blockquote>So here’s what could be done: anybody who creates a prototype underwater compressed air system can be granted a large plot of ocean bottom, for future development. To keep it (analogous to homesteading in the 19th century US) the grantee must show progressive development of energy storage using the underwater area granted. As with the railroad subsidies, the underwater rights will only acquire value when the technology develops.</blockquote><b>• R&D subsidies without</b> (much) <b>regulatory oversight.</b> <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/10/my-interview-with-mrs-green/#comment-662737" rel="nofollow">More:</a><blockquote>Why not allow businesses to allocate a portion of their taxes due to research of their choice, with some limited rights in the result (less than full patents, more than nothing), rather than giving it to the government to spend on congressional pork-barrels or whatever?</blockquote>These are examples of opportunities I've noticed but never seen discussed (except by me). They seem to me to be well "out-of-the-box", but plausibly feasible, plausibly low-cost, with a good chance of <b>actually doing something about the problem.</b>
Of course, these are only examples, and even in the linked comments, I've only very briefly sketched out ideas that would/will require a lot of fleshing out. But that's a <b>big</b> project. I'm working on it, in my spare time, but most of my time is taken up with things I get paid for.
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by AK
Peter, I'm against “<i>irrational regulatory blocks</i>” to anything. The issue being the definition of "rational".
But I'll point out that in the first bullet item in my response to Stephen Segrest above, given the price utilities and transport would be able to pay for fuel made from power→fuel options, it would serve as an <b>immediate market</b> for fuel made using nuclear power, as well as solar. It might pay better than hooking nuclear to the grid, and by the time nuclear actually becomes cost-effective (if it does), it could easily solve most of the storage problem, while avoiding sunk costs from current investments in gas and fuel technology.
Personally, I'm very confident solar will price other nuclear out of the major markets within a couple decades, but I certainly think "we" should have as many strings to "our" bow as possible. It should be pursued, especially as there are probably many situations where it would be cost-effective even with solar PV at a ¢/watt.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Jonathan Abbott
+1
True for this and so much else
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Jonathan Abbott
If CAGW is true, it’s already too late for prevention, so what is needed is massive deregulation to allow local adaptation actions to flourish, decided upon and acted out as close to the individual level as possible. Free people to sort themselves out.
Mind you, I also think we should do this anyway, CAGW or not.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by sciguy54
As ristvan implies, there are three parts to avoiding systemic fragility: correctly judging the problem and its causes, raising funds in an acceptable and productive manner, and mounting an efficient response. To be effective, all three parts must be done in an open and iterative fashion.
As of now we are only in the earliest stages of judging the problem, funding largely by ad-hoc debits from general accounts, and utilizing piecemeal response methods that are unproven but likely have low effectiveness.
As much as we would like to pass on a healthy planet and economy, it is far too early to make large-scale decisions on mass implementation. We must face the fact that our best policy now would be to continue research and development while we grow a healthy world economy which will be capable of funding the programs we decide are necessary when we have sufficient knowledge and buy-in.
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by opluso
aplanningengineer:
…a very promising alternative solution to alternative energy would be to focus on what we can do with natural gas near to midterm.
I look forward to your column. It seems to me that the comparative ease of adding gas units (peaker or baseload) compared to nuke units (and when will we solve the political issue with spent fuel?) weighs heavily in their favor for the foreseeable future.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)
What international action are we talking about? Something like threatening economic sanctions on coal exporting countries?
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
Yes exactly my thought. Could it be the “skeptics” are actually having an impact in spite of he “97% consensus”?
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by zentgraf2
Whatever index variable is conceived, I want to know how we keep government climate agencies honest. Will they continue to manipulate temperature and other source data to match their ideologies? If I see another temperature curve bent upward without sufficient scientific debate, I am going to puke! We need a Red Team first, then let’s talk about index variables!
↧
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Willard
> I think you now illustrate another of Popper´s points.
Moshpit’s not illustrating the point (there’s only one) behind Popper’s quote, but this one:
In the epistemology of science, confirmation holism, also called epistemological holism, is the view that no individual statement can be confirmed or disconfirmed by an empirical test, but only a set of statements (a whole theory).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_holism
Sir Karl’s quote rather shows that his falsificationism omits this aspect of both scientific norms and practice.
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Steven Mosher
S or F
Willard or I can go on like this forever. Been doing it for years.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by opluso
Poor word choice on my part. I wasn’t thinking in terms of international sanctions so much as coordinated individual national policies. I do not think internationally-imposed policy is advisable or even will work.
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Joshua
Punksta –
Group A says “we understand it, it works like this, the models and measurements concur”.
Group B says “no we don’t understand it, you are just pretending; the the models and measurements are at odds. and we dont even have all the necessary measurements”.
Consider an alternative:
Group A says – “We have a reasonable understanding that there is risk involved. Of course there are uncertainties, but here is our estimate of the probabilities w/r/t that risk. It makes sense to plan accordingly.”
Group B says – “Your argument that the ‘science is settled’ doesn’t hold up. Obviously, your claim of absolute knowledge and complete understanding is part of a worldwide hoax to destroy capitalism – through such methods as ‘adjusting’ temperature data so as to hide any uncertainties. We can’t think of any other explanation, so that must be it.”
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by opluso
That is why policy shouldn’t be based on easily debated or easily manipulated global averages. Using some number of specifically selected sites may produce the same end result but it would provide a more transparent opportunity for oversight.
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Steven Mosher
danny
a medical practice is not a theory.
you know seriously guys this is not that hard.
Choose
A) a skeptic with no alternative theory
B) a skeptic with an alternative theory
C) a skeptic with a better alternative theory.
Choose.
Now given a free choice you would all choose C. ask yourself why.
instead you choose A and argue that this is all you have to do.
Ask your self why skeptics get so excited when somebody ( say Willis or David Evans ) comes of with an alternative “concept” . They are really theories… kind of a theory fetus.. Skeptics get really excited when
somebody looks like they are coming close to doing B. why is that?
Its because you tacitly know that the job of science is explanation.
you know that criticism is not enough. its only the beginning.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Joel Williams
The normal set of antiniers are very quiet! They must be sitting back for a smoke and drink enjoying the chatter of the “niers”, for once without needing to add their wind to deflect the prevailing wind direction. Quite a shift in the “wind” (or “gas”) from where I sit! Seems like there are lots of “eddies” now. Waiting to see how many more hard/electronic publications, tweaking the water flow through the rocks, will appear as polys make their way to Paree.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
