Matthew,
And finally, this article indicates testimony began Sept. 24th. http://watchdog.org/238676/minnesota-aims-predict-social-costs-energy-300-years-now/
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Danny Thomas
↧
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
Paraphrasing David Victor, Paris will be the funeral of the 2K target.
50,000 mourners are expected at the wake.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
But isn’t that based on a higher sensitivity?
“The requirement that the RCPs are based on existing literature (criterion 1) is related to the scientific requirement of traceability, and follows existing IPCC guidelines on this.” (Page 9).
“Finally, the RCP4.5 shows a clear turning point in global land use based on the assumption that carbon in natural vegetation will be valued as part of global climate policy. As a result of reforestation programs, the use of cropland and grassland decreases, following considerable yield increases and dietary changes”. (van Vuuren et.al. 2011)”
The above, assuming lower sensitivity, would not be considered ‘conservative’ but may indeed be an understatement.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Jim D
The RCP scenarios are not dependent on sensitivity, only their effect. RCP4.5 is actually a little less severe than these ones leading to 530-580 ppm in WG3, but still unlikely to keep temperature rises below 2 C with a 3 C sensitivity, but it becomes more likely when you switch the sensitivity to 2.5 C. This all comes from AR5 WG3 Table SPM.1 that displays temperature ranges due to sensitivity uncertainty.
↧
Comment on Carbon mandate: an account of collusion, cutting corners and costing Americans billions by Vaughan Pratt
@justinwonder: <i>These people are rats <b>operanting</b> in the dark.</i>
Oh, <i>great</i> portmanteau word, justin. Rants set to the music of Verdi would surely elevate the tone. And rats? Shades of Ratatouille.
<i>We should shine a light on them and then we should crush them like vermin.</i>
When exactly? While they were hitting a high C?
And what with? RICO?
Anyone can use RICO. That doesn't mean that anyone should.
↧
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by AK
@Geoff Sherrington...<blockquote>I cannot imagine what drives otherwise sensible people to propose limits on their future well being, by devising schemes whereby the impact of fossil fuels is diluted and made more digestible.</blockquote>If you mean me, I see reduction in <b>net</b> fossil carbon emissions as a positive value, given the risk associated with dumping all that fossil carbon into the system.
To me, then, the question is: <i>How can "we" reduce, eliminate, and perhaps reverse the process of digging up fossil carbon and dumping it into the system, <b>without</b> impacting the cost of energy, or its increasing availability to developing societies?</i>
That's the ideal. Proposals on the table clearly make no effort to achieve the second part, and mostly seem unlikely to achieve the first.<blockquote>In my experience, if you design one impost to offset another, you will end up with both.</blockquote>Unintended consequences abound, of course. Look at the <a href="http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/FFF8F863CF33DB1E85257E1B004BAD8F?OpenDocument" rel="nofollow">real estate investment trust legislation</a>, for instance. IMO the best way to <b>minimize</b> regulatory complexity (it can't be eliminated entirely) is to establish clear, well-demarked guiding principles.<blockquote>This is how restrictive bureaucracies operate. It is all about control.</blockquote>Hmmm, I can't agree with that. IMO a "bureaucracy" is a hierarchically organized entity, or sub-entity, made up of people. Each with their own agenda(s). The unifying motivation (again, IMO) is lust for status, and/or power.
As for your vision of Paris, It wouldn't surprise me. But IMO they're trying to drive a screw with a hammer, then blaming the <strike>oil </strike>fossil carbon companies because they're not getting anywhere. I'm just trying to point out that a screwdriver might do the job better, at <b>far lower cost.</b>
↧
Comment on Carbon mandate: an account of collusion, cutting corners and costing Americans billions by Vaughan Pratt
@timg56: <i>But certainly with an agenda </i>
As 90% of the present audience will attest, timg56 has no agenda whatsoever. Right?
↧
Comment on Carbon mandate: an account of collusion, cutting corners and costing Americans billions by Vaughan Pratt
@jim2: <i>I’m not the one spouting BS, you are.</i>
Yet another fine specimen from jim2 of the logic that has hanged people for millennia.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
I understand that the scenarios are not sensitivity based, but the projections are which is why I suggested the conservative nature of the projections might be stated inaccurately. (And effectively, that’s what you’ve indicated).
↧
↧
Comment on Carbon mandate: an account of collusion, cutting corners and costing Americans billions by Steven Mosher
“I wouldn’t trust a partisan report from either side. And I don’t have the time or inclination to comb through the report to look for mistakes.”
Then the intellectually honest thing to do would be to suspend judgement and STFU.
The simple fact is this. If they did what the report claims– then they have a problem. Big problem? dunno I suspend judgement. I honestly don’t know. Just be honest Joseph, remember we are the good guys.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Peter Lang
Richard Tol,
O/T, would you be able to explain for me, or provide a link to answer a question I posted (late) on a previous thread http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/20/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-13/#comment-732145 . Below is a copy of the comment for convenience (slightly reworded):
Richard Tol,
Could you please compare the projected economic impact of warming plotted in Figure 1 in your new paper with Figure 2 in your earlier paper, and explain the reasons for any differences.
Richard Tol, 2015, Economic impacts of climate change: New evidence, Figure 1,
http://www.voxeu.org/article/economic-impacts-climate-change-new-evidence
Richard Tol, 2013, The economic impact of climate change in the 20th and 21st centuries, Figure 2,
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0613-3
Free access to prepublication version: Richard Tol, 2011, The economic impact of climate change in the 20th and 21st centuries, Figure 2, http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf
If you’ve explained the differences elsewhere, could you please provide a link.
↧
Comment on Carbon mandate: an account of collusion, cutting corners and costing Americans billions by Vaughan Pratt
Rob Starkey: My response- You have no reliable evidence of any net harm much less catastrophic consequences. What you have is a strong system of belief
Whereas your opposing belief is backed up by more reliable evidence?
Unless you have such evidence then you have an even stronger system of belief, namely that UR has no reliable evidence.
Which is complete rubbish, UR has tons of evidence, sufficiently convincing for 60,000 members of the American Geophysics Union and a comparable number of members of the European Geophysics Union, to to believe that evidence.
Say what you like but you’re fighting a losing battle. CO2 is a serious problem recognized by scientists worldwide along with those who take the scientists’ word on this more seriously than that of the climate sceptics.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by freeHat
Paris should acknowledge the huge knowledge gaps in climate science. They could start by earmarking funding for observational equipment, launch initiatives to attract the best and brightest into climate science, dozens of more things I can’t think of. An intergovernmental organization seems to be an excellent vehicle to do this.
↧
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Peter Lang
I’d suggest, nomore public funds. In fact, cut back the $1.5 trillion p.a. (reportedly) climate industry to what ever can be justified on an economically rational basis – i.e. every little if the Copenhagen Consensus has it about right.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Danny Thomas
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Peter Lang
Jim D,
why not support these policies whichever side you are on. It is neither hopeless to try nor ineffective in outcome.
What policies are your referring to?
What is the net cost benefit of those policies, to say 2050 and 2100? What’s the uncertainty on your estimate of the net cost benefit?
If you can’t provide widely accepted estimates the net-cost benefit of the policies you advocate, why should any informed, rational person support them?
Please avoid motivated reasoning and responses that do not directly answer these questions.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Peter Lilley in the UK, Peter Walsh in Aus until his recent death, I could dig up more but my point is made. Both of them anti-CAGWers.
↧
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
PS I’ve corresponded with Lilley and talked to Walsh.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
The one constant is change, the only thing that we cannot foresee is the future.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Geoff Sherrington
Danny,
There are numerous examples of a better outcome when separate countries apply their skills to problems loving. That is how we come to have rich and poor countries. Far better than trying to impose anything globally. Globally has less scope to try variations, one of which is a winner.
Personally,I have advised my Australian government to avoid pledges and global solutions. Many in our government agree. A fistfullin Canberra are not convinced and they have some power. Time will tell.
The case has not been made for any nation to take measures to reduce CO2 to halt global warming. It is little more than pushy advertising.
Geoff
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
