Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Peter Lang

June 2, 2012, 1:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on Gamesmanship by Max_OK

≪ Previous: Comment on Gamesmanship by gbaikie

$

0

0

Faustino,

Thank you for you’re your reply. I agree with all the points you make, (but should just correct this misunderstanding of one of my assumptions):

You said:

Peter, I can’t comment on the $3.5 tr figure. Your calculation assumes that this cost would be equally distributed on a per capita basis, which is most unlikely.

Actually, I assumed it would be equally distributed on a per GDP basis, not per capita. This would also be most unlikely, but would overestimate rather than underestimate Australia’s share because Australia’s share of world GDP will likely decrease as the century progresses and Asia’s share of world GDP increases. I was wanting to keep the analysis simple and overstate rather than underestimate the estimated benefits/costs.

Regarding the compliance cost, you might be interested in this, if you didn’t already see it: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13578&page=0

I second your statement:

It would have been better to have had a CBA undertaken by the Productivity Commission, but the government obviously fears independent analysis by the PC (as with the NBN et al).

---

Comment on Gamesmanship by Max_OK

June 2, 2012, 1:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Peter Lang

$

0

0

CO2 levels certainly are rising. Some stations in the arctic were showing 400 ppm this spring.

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Pekka Pirilä

June 2, 2012, 1:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on Gamesmanship by Peter317

≪ Previous: Comment on Gamesmanship by Max_OK

$

0

0

I’m not really worried about Ozzie’s problems in understanding my writing. Actually I have written a couple of my messages, when I have noticed that he hasn’t understood at all what native English language writers have written in a very clear fashion.

His problems are not my problems, and I don’t expect that he will be any more happy with my writing in the future.

Comment on Gamesmanship by Peter317

June 2, 2012, 1:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on Gamesmanship by BatedBreath

≪ Previous: Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Pekka Pirilä

$

0

0

<blockquote>On the other hand, that unused fossil fuel will still be available for future generations</blockquote> Which future generations would that be? Won't they all in turn be saving it for <b>their</b> future generations?

Comment on Gamesmanship by BatedBreath

June 2, 2012, 1:44 am

≫ Next: Comment on What separates science from non-science? by gavincawley

≪ Previous: Comment on Gamesmanship by Peter317

$

0

0

In the game, imposing the eight-sided die represents the imposition of “the science is setted”. You may not question or reject this, you can only treat it is a given.

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by gavincawley

June 2, 2012, 1:46 am

≫ Next: Comment on What separates science from non-science? by gavincawley

≪ Previous: Comment on Gamesmanship by BatedBreath

$

0

0

@Latimer The model ensemble aims to provide a projection of the response of the climate to the change in forcings. Thus it is not a direct estimate of the evolution of the climate itself as the observed climate is the combination of the response to the forcings and a chaotic component corresponding to the unforced response (i.e. weather noise – stuff like ENSO). The latter is chaotic and hence is inherently unpredictable; all we can do is simulate it instead. Thus while the ensemble mean is the projection most likely to match the observations, there is no good reason to expect them to lie any closer than the spread of the model runs (which show the range of things considered plausible given the assumptions of the model). So if you see a model-observation comparison that doesn’t give an indication of the model spread, then there is a good chance it is bogus.

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by gavincawley

June 2, 2012, 1:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Brian H

≪ Previous: Comment on What separates science from non-science? by gavincawley

$

0

0

of course it is an ad-hom, you are dismissing an argument on the grounds of its source rather than its content. That is the very definition of an ad-hom.

Comment on Science is not about certainty by Brian H

June 2, 2012, 1:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Anteros

≪ Previous: Comment on What separates science from non-science? by gavincawley

$

0

0

OTOH, it’s some of he 1-49%ers who will end up replacing the 51-99%ers as a New Consensus. The problem is guessing which ones!

---

Comment on Science is not about certainty by Anteros

June 2, 2012, 1:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Brian H

≪ Previous: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Brian H

$

0

0

pekka –

You beat me to it!

But well put anyway

Comment on Science is not about certainty by Brian H

June 2, 2012, 1:56 am

≫ Next: Comment on Gamesmanship by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Anteros

$

0

0

Thanks, JC, for those suggestive excerpts. As is unfortunately usual, however, the quality of the translation and editing degrades the closer to the end one gets. That last sentence borders on incoherence. “I am throwing down an open door …”
LOL Say what?
Oh, well …

Comment on Gamesmanship by Peter Lang

June 2, 2012, 2:12 am

≫ Next: Comment on Science is not about certainty by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Brian H

$

0

0

No, I was correct the first time: 100 days (not 100 weeks) to build an aircraft carrier in WWII.

“USA was building aircraft carriers in 100 days at the end of WWII. “
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/G/269245×269223/8330/a0.htm

Comment on Science is not about certainty by David Springer

June 2, 2012, 2:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Gamesmanship by Peter317

≪ Previous: Comment on Gamesmanship by Peter Lang

$

0

0

@Pekka

I was reading your english blog’s most recent entry and would point out that the basic physics underlying atmospheric physics are not as settled as you seem to think. I would point to one very recent and very important finding in this regard. That is the reflectivity of clouds. There is a phenomenon called “The Glory” which was first observed several hundred years ago by mountain climbers looking downwards on a cloud with the sun at their back. The climber would see his shadow on the cloud but he would also see a rainbow halo around his shadow. If there were other climbers he would see their shadows but he would not see their halos. The sunlight, you see, is being reflected back at precisely 180 degrees so you see your own halo but not that of someone whose shadow precisely in front of you. The problem is that there is no physics which describes how light can be refracted 180 degrees by a water droplet. That angle is well beyond the optical limit of refraction. The answer, it turns out, is due to quantum tunneling. If a photon passes within a wavelength of a water droplet it can tunnel into one side of the water droplet then tunnel out the opposite side traveling in the exact opposite direction. The critical weakness in climate models, as you may know, is clouds. The rest of the stuff is, as you say, fairly straightforward and explained by basic classical physics. The empirical evidence all points to the water cycle as having a net negative feedback which serves to put an upper bound on surface temperature yet to get climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling to something more worrysome than welcome this thing called water vapor amplification was invented out of (pardon the pun) thin air. This increases the sensitivity to a CO2 doubling from a widely agreed upon maximum of 1.1C to at least treble that number. This is pure unadulterated fantasy. The highest mean annual temperature on the earth’s surface is an equatorial salt desert. If water vapor amplification were true the hottest place would be an equatorial jungle or ocean where there’s far more water. The fact of the matter is that where you have water vapor you have clouds and clouds in sum reflect more light than they trap. This recently described quantum tunneling of light to acheive a 180 degree reflection in a photon is not contained in extant cloud models and IMO is probably why the models have the net effect of clouds making the surface warmer while the observations show them having the opposite effect. The model would have all photons not striking a water droplet passing by to a lower level in the atmosphere and, eventually, causing more photons to reach the surface. The quantum tunneling which captures and reflects by 180 degrees photons passing close to a water droplet makes a big difference. Without water vapor amplification catastrophic global warming become welcomed global warming and efforts to mitigate human emissions go from a possibly productive endeavour to a certainly counter-productive endeavour.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-science-of-the-glory

Comment on Gamesmanship by Peter317

June 2, 2012, 2:21 am

≫ Next: Comment on Science is not about certainty by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Science is not about certainty by David Springer

$

0

0

Which part of the MT paper do you believe illustrates whatever point you’re trying to make?
The only reference to global warming I could find is:

In Fig. 5, we gave the yearly number of days n in which a severe (L ≥ 10 km) tornado occurred and in Fig. 6, the yearly total number NY and yearly total path length LY of severe tornadoes. There are systematic increases of all three quantities (n, NY, LY) from 1981–2010, but also considerable scatter. Thus, we hesitate to attribute these increases to causes such as global warming or another external source.

(my bold)
In fact, none of the words ‘climate’, ‘temperature’, ‘greenhouse’ or ‘CO2′ appear anywhere in the paper.

Comment on Science is not about certainty by David Springer

June 2, 2012, 2:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Science is not about certainty by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Gamesmanship by Peter317

$

0

0

@Pekka

As an aside, if English were your native language your competence with it it is admirable. If Finnish is your native language your fluency and precision with English it is astounding. I didn’t agree with everything you wrote on your blog but it was still a pleasure to read because your thoughts were communicated so well.

Comment on Science is not about certainty by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

June 2, 2012, 1:55 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Science is not about certainty by David Springer

$

0

0

The sky dragon response though is not helpful either. There is a radiant impact that varies with conditions. ASHREA did a cursory test for including a radiant barrier on the R-value of construction insulation. Under ideal conditions, a radiant barrier increased the R-value of a 3/4″ air space by 50% from R=2 to R=3. The problem though was that dust, condensation and orientation impacted the values, mainly negatively. That is pretty much the same thing that is happening in the atmosphere. There is an optimum radiant impact condition that nearly everything impacts negatively. Denying any radiant impact is lunacy.

A better way of showing the impact of “back radiation” is to separate the air temperature by individual thermal impacts. Kiehl and Trenberth’s cartoon was wrong on so many levels, but combining all atmospheric energy into one “Down Welling Long Wave” arrow was the worst. Had they separated the huge arrow into it individual components, like the NASA budget, they might have better illustrated the effect and found their 20Wm-2 error to boot

---

Comment on Science is not about certainty by Jim D

June 2, 2012, 1:57 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Science is not about certainty by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

$

0

0

No, radiation dominates surface cooling at night. What are you talking about? You don’t get convection and evaporation at night (dew formation is the opposite of evaporation).

Comment on Science is not about certainty by Jim D

June 2, 2012, 2:08 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Science is not about certainty by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Jim D

$

0

0

sometimes I think skeptics live on a different planet.

Comment on Science is not about certainty by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

June 2, 2012, 2:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Greg House

≪ Previous: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Jim D

$

0

0

I think I could use a multiple radiant disc model that could compare well with triple glazing Actually, I suggested a three layer greenhouse experiment for the doubting Thomases at one time. If you consider the atmosphere you would have the atmospheric boundary layer at the bottom, the radiant layer in the middle and the tropopause sink at the top. Results in a remarkable good estimate of climate sensitivity

Comment on Science is not about certainty by Greg House

June 2, 2012, 2:13 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Gamesmanship by m

≪ Previous: Comment on Science is not about certainty by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

$

0

0

Pekka Pirilä | June 2, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
The atmosphere is very different, because the temperature at tropopause is much lower than at the surface. This temperature difference is essential for that kind of greenhouse effect we have in the atmosphere.
====================================================
You can talk about various things in the atmosphere and call them “greenhouse effect” but this substitution will not help.

The “greenhouse effect” of the AGW people is based on the notion, that back radiation from the “greenhouse gasses” additionally warms the SURFACE and thus the air near the SURFACE too. The Wood’s experiment demonstrates, that this does not happen. The nature does not work this way.

Back radiation won’t work, guys.

Comment on Gamesmanship by m

June 2, 2012, 2:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Gamesmanship by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Greg House

$

0

0

A “revenue neutral carbon tax” will not change our planet’s climate one iota.

No tax ever did.

(And no tax is “revenue neutral”, by definition.)

Max

PS The above is my assessment of the premise. If yo, on the other hand, believe that a“revenue neutral carbon tax” will change our planet’s climate, please describe exactly how this will happen and specifically how significant the climate change will be over which time frame.

Then please describe how it will be “revenue neutral”.

In which countries will it be imposed?

How will it be collected and by whom?

How will it be administered and by whom?

Answers please – not just BS.