Are you serious? Did you not even read the PDF you quoted? Seriously explain yourself, did you just google search something (what?), find that PDF, and post the link without reading it and discovering the fact the PDF is debunking the lies in the quote you’ve posted here?
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by lolwot
↧
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by lolwot
Any debate should be done in the scientific journals. The IPCC is more of a judge of that debate.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by WebHubTelescope
Not surprised. Most of these climate skeptics are as scientifically illiterate as a doorknob.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by jim2
Some would argue they are somewhat less of a judge than all that.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Rob Starkey
Lolwot
Good point and well summarized.
I add- the IPCC has been “a judge” of:
1. The rate of warming as a function of CO2
2. The changes in weather conditions that will result from the aforementioned predicted warming to the nations of the planet
3. The net result on humanity of the changes in the weather conditions, and
4. What all the people’s of the planet should be doing.
↧
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Peter Lang
Why doesn’t John Quiggin apply this thinking to CAGW. He is one of the main alarmists and scaremongers. He also worked with Ross Garnaut on Australia’s CO2 tax and ETS justification. The basis for their damage estimates appears to be near non existant.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Rob Starkey
yet another stupid Web comment
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Rob Starkey
Is it possible that the govrnment wanted revenue
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Peter Lang
Megan,
given the best information we have now, there is more uncertainty at the high end of climate sensitivity than at the low end.
Does this conclusion from Nordhaus (2012) address your point?
we conclude that no loaded gun of strong tail dominance has been uncovered to date.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9779.2011.01544.x/full
↧
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Peter Lang
The huge uncertainties about mitigation are a) whether it will work at all (very doubtful), and b) whether it will do huge damage to the poor (almost certain).</blockquote>
Good summary. Succinctly stated.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Peter Lang
<blockquote> And I have often considered the costs of mitigation and how much I would be willing to “spend” in order to prevent the damage that building up the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause.</blockquote>
How do you know that you will get what you pay for? How do you know that CO2 pricing will change the climate in the way you would like it to?
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Peter Lang
the rational decision depends on the tails of the distribution
What tails?
we conclude that no loaded gun of strong tail dominance has been uncovered to date.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9779.2011.01544.x/full
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by lolwot
I agree with Stefan Lewandowsky’s argument. For a long time I have been arguing that uncertainty is the source of the danger from man-made climate change and that climate skeptics have been wrongly wielding uncertainty as if it represents the opposite. I have argued that bodies like the IPCC should more heavily emphasize uncertainty in the impacts of climate change as a root part of the danger of continued emissions.
Stefan Lewandowsky nails on opening of his first post with:
“In a nutshell, the logic of this position can be condensed to “there is so much uncertainty that I am certain there isn’t a problem.” How logical is this position?”
There is an important aspect that Lewandowsky didn’t mention though – while there is uncertainty in the magnitude and scale of impacts, there IS certainty in the underlying science that substantiate significant impacts on the climate from human GHG emissions. This certainty makes the danger of human induced climate change different from a phantom threat (some have cited speculations about earth destroying blackholes appearing from nowhere or flying monsters from space, but these are phantom threats with no underlying evidence of such things imminently being “near” whereas the CO2 rise is actually happening and will lead to significant impact on climate within the next few centuries if left unchecked).
The certainty of significant impacts from rising CO2 doesn’t prove the impacts will be very harmful or catastrophic – they might not be. But as Lewandowsky points out the greater the uncertainty the less we can rule out the truely devastating impacts.
I would recommend advocates for action on CO2 emission reductions start communicating the danger of the uncertainties in the science to the public. Yes it’s alarmist but if we don’t know what impact a doubling of CO2 will have on eg ocean circulation that is alarming.
↧
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by tempterrain
“Uncertainty is not your friend (?)”
Is that so? I’d say it was certainly a friend of AGW deniers. It makes for a simple argument: Scientists aren’t totally sure there is a problem due to GHG emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, they can’t provide any proof, the jury is still out, therefore there is no need for any action. Does this sound familiar?
Note to Judith. Its good you’ve put the question mark at the end of the sentence, for a change. Just need to persuade you that there’s no need for parenthesis now, and to put the verb at the beginning of the sentence when framing a question 
↧
Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by WebHubTelescope
“I look forward to Chief Hydrologists sanity check ”
Captain Skippy’s sanity check is to call anyone who argues with him an insane AGW space cadet.
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Pekka Pirilä
There’s radiative cooling from all altitudes up to the tropopause (stratosphere higher up is of lesser importance and very different). With more CO2 less and less radiation can escape directly to the space from the surface and lowest troposphere and a larger share originates at high altitudes. One part of this change is the increase in the altitude of tropopause. All these changes contribute and work in the same direction.
Pushing tropopause higher is important, because the lapse rate remains high and essentially constant throughout the troposphere. Higher tropopause means therefore that the temperature difference between the surface and the tropopause is larger. Therefore the Earth looks colder from the space and radiates less to the space until the temperature of the Earth has risen enough to compensate that effect.
Assuming that CO2 is added over a short period, the rapid response is reducing the radiation from earth to space. That leads to warming and the final response is warmer Earth surface. At that point the effective temperature of Earth as seen from the space has returned back to the earlier level, but the new effective temperature is a combination of colder tropopause and warmer Earth surface (and also warmer lower troposphere at fixed altitude).
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Dagfinn
I think the problem is that “[good/reasonable/accurate] representation of reality” is far too vague to base any meaningful consideration on. Mixing that with precise concepts like 95 per cent probablity only creates confusion.
↧
↧
Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Dave Springer
Choosing one’s battles.
There is no evidence in recorded history of any calving glacier causing a large or instant rise in sea level. Yet as recently as 1859 a coronal mass ejection from the sun caused telegraph lines to melt and auroras to be visible in Florida. It is called the Carrington Event. It is widely supposed that if such an event were to occur today that it would fry the electrical grid of whatever continent happened to be facing it so badly that it would be weeks before even emergency power could be restored. If it were the continential United States many millions, perhaps tens of millions, would die. Financial and other information systems would experience global disarray. Fuel could not be pumped at gas stations. Water and sewate systems would not be working. Hospitals would not have power after emergency generators ran out of fuel. Perishable food would all perish.
Now tell me Vaughn, which is more likely, a massive collapse of an Antarctic glacier unprecendented in recorded history causing catastrophic rise of global sea level or a repeat of a solar eruption of a magnitude last witnessed 150 years ago?
Adding insult to injury in the obvious misplaced priorities of the scientific establishment we can actually and practically prepare for a Carrington Event by modification of the electrical grid managment procedures, better detection and prediction of CME trajectories, and building up a stock of the large transformers which would, even with improvements in response, still be ruined in large numbers. It’s these transformers, you see, which are the weak link. They are normally exceedingly reliable devices and are built-to-order when needed rather than kept in inventory. The lead time is about 18 months with current manufacturing capacity for them which is why the electrical grid would be so long in getting it restored.
If you want to play Chicken Little may I humbly suggest you expend a bit of due diligence in choosing battles that are more likely and more winnable. There is no practical means of warding off a glacial collapse in Antarctica.
Repeat after me. God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by David Wojick
Maxok, you are a poster child for the irrational fear and outrage that drives CAGW. Disagreeing with you does not make people bad.
↧
Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by WebHubTelescope
<blockquote>"You left out specific heat of capacities which play a major role in temperatures."</blockquote>
That's why I said a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass" rel="nofollow">"thermal mass"</a>. A thermal mass includes heat capacity in its definition.
<blockquote>"Scientifically, thermal mass is equivalent to thermal capacitance or heat capacity, the ability of a body to store thermal energy."</blockquote>
Bunch of people acting like engineers. Phfhtt.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
