Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by gbaikie

0
0

Since someone thinks I am completely wrong I will correct some of my port [clarify and edit any mistakes].

“Cold gas can radiate as much energy as warm gas.”
Meaning not hot gases.
So warm would up to 100 C and cool can be cryogenic, say -150 C.
Or within the temperatures found in the earth’s atmosphere.

“The amount energy radiated from a greenhouse gas is dependent upon some heat source which radiate at wavelength which excites a greenhouse gas.

Should be:
The amount energy radiated from a greenhouse gas is dependent upon a heat source which radiates at a certain wavelengths which will excite a greenhouse gas. ”

“The temperature of any gas is related to the velocity of the gas molecule.”
Meaning temperature of any gas in the earth atmosphere. Or the air temperature of 70 F at noon, is measuring the velocity of gas molecules effect upon on thermometer.

“Gases are not a source of radiant energy, but emitter of radiant energy some other source of energy.”
Should be:
Gases are not a source of the radiant energy, but rather are an emitter of radiant energy from some other source of the radiant energy.

“Gases can store energy in terms having their average velocity increased.”
Should be:
Gases can store potential kinetic energy in terms having their average velocity increased.

“So when you measuring radiant energy from greenhouse gases, this radiation is dependent of the source of this energy- which can be liquids or solids.”
Should be:
So when you are measuring radiant energy from greenhouse gases, this radiation is dependent upon the source of this energy- which can be liquids or solids.”


Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by Roger Caiazza

0
0

I suggest that the point is that extreme weather and climate events will happen with or without any additional warming or cooling caused by mankind’s activities. Therefore, the proposal to decrease vulnerability to extreme weather is a “no regrets” option whatever the science says.

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by manacker

0
0

Judith Curry

It appears to me that you have captured and described the essence of the problems inherent with “consensus” in science and with the IPCC’s political consensus process.

As you point out, the logical progression: “consensus => harmony => acceptance => compromise” is alien to science itself, which is based on the progression: “skepticism => controversy => dissention => challenge”

The IPCC “consensus process” is a political, rather than a scientific, process, i.e. it dictates political consensus rather than scientific inquiry.

As you have written, it results in group-think and confirmation bias,.

As was demonstrated by Climategate, etc., it resulted in the exclusion and marginalization of dissenting scientific findings and viewpoints and fudging the data to make them fit the consensus.

It even failed to achieve a political action plan (at Copenhagen, Cancun, etc.) and it resulted in a basic mistrust in the overall public of IPCC and climate science in general.

You summarized this with:

In summary, the manufactured consensus of the IPCC has had the unintended consequences of distorting the science, elevating the voices of scientists that dispute the consensus, and motivating actions by the consensus scientists and their supporters that have diminished the public’s trust in the IPCC and the consensus building process.

So much for the basic conflict between “science” and “consensus” and the failure of IPCC’s “consensus” process.

Now to your “ways forward”:

The two quotations, which you cite early on (Feynman and Dessai et al.), point the direction:

“Science is belief in the ignorance of experts”

“Science should be a tool for policy action rather than a tool for political advocacy”

You write:

The single most important thing that is needed with regards to the science – particularly in context of the IPCC assessment reports – is explicit reflection on uncertainties, ambiguities and areas of ignorance (both known and unknown unknowns) and more openness for dissent in the IPCC processes.

To me the most basic question this raises is whether or not IPCC has outlived its usefulness, as it is structured today.

My personal opinion is that this is the case. Things can only go downhill for the “consensus” position on CAGW and for climate science in general as long as IPCC continues to be the driving force. It has quite simply lost the public trust.

You state

it is important that scientists not to fall into the trap of acceding to inappropriate demands for certainty from decision makers.

In other words, climate science must return to the scientific bases which make it a science and away from a consensus process which make it simply politics as usual.

To do so, IPCC must either be totally restructured or terminated. The “consensus process” must be eliminated. This includes IPCC’s myopic fixation on human GHGs to the virtual exclusion of all the many other factors, which influence our planet’s climate, and its sweeping under the rug of all uncertainties, ambiguities and dissenting views.

I do not believe that even a total restructuring can achieve this, as long as IPCC has the brief it now has and reports to the political body, to which it now reports.

IOW, I truly believe that the only “way forward” to salvage climate science from its current malaise is to terminate IPCC and cancel the publication of the planned AR5 report (which will only be yet another continuation of the “consensus” approach).

It should be replaced with a small panel of scientists and engineers, with climate scientists representing differing opinions, including some supporters as well as rational skeptics of the “consensus” viewpoint, but no “advocates”. This should be a bottom up approach and these should not be chosen for political reasons or to fill “national quotas”.

The brief of the group should be to collect and summarize scientific papers related to our planet’s climate and the natural as well as anthropogenic causes for climate changes, much in the same general fashion as IPCC, but without the “consensus process” and the resulting myopic fixation on anthropogenic GHGs.

They should not be chosen by politicians or by venerable “scientific” institutions whose political leaderships have joined the “consensus”, but by someone who is both knowledgeable in the subject matter and not bound by any “consensus” viewpoint.

Who would fit this description?

You know the players much better than I do, but I would guess that on the top of the list of individuals who will choose the panel replacing IPCC should be:

Judith Curry
Roger Pielke Sr.
John Christy
Richard Best
Roy Spencer
Steven McIntyre
Raymond Pierrehumbert
Richard Lindzen
Ken Minschwaner

The fate of IPCC and its possible replacement is a topic you left open in your “way forward”, so I have added my comments. I realize that this is a “hot topic”, but I hope you will address it nevertheless.

While some of the details still need fleshing out (as you point out), the rest of your “way forward” makes sense to me, as I understand it:
- plan and implement local and regional actions to anticipate and adapt to extreme weather events
- encourage new technologies to expand energy access, particularly in those regions, which do not yet enjoy access to reliable, low-cost energy
- hold off with the implementation of any global mitigation schemes based on reducing human GHGs until remaining uncertainties in the scientific justification can be better clarified, cost/benefit analyses for each specific action can be made, other alternates can be considered and any unintended negative consequences can be fully evaluated

I would fully agree with your summarizing statement:

It is time to abandon the concept of consensus in favor of open debate of the arguments themselves and discussion of a broad range of policy options that include bottom up approaches to decreasing vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events and developing technologies to expand energy access.

Lots of luck with your paper.

Along with all the other denizens here (plus most of the individuals who have an interest in the ongoing debate surrounding AGW), I am looking forward to reading it.

Max

.

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by tempterrain

0
0

Latimer,

You shouldn’t believe everything (or anything?) that Peter Lang tells you. I have no connection to skeptical science. But don’t tell him though, I’m just winding him up on the expense claims!

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by tempterrain

0
0

Peter Lang,

It would be too much off topic to get into a detailed discussion about Nordhaus’s economics. It wouldn’t lead anywhere anyway. Its just another argument from you guys on why nothing should be done on climate change.

You don’t really care what argument is the correct one or even if there is a correct one. Anything will do for you guys. Deniers run through them all: the earth isn’t warming, or that the Earth is warming but its from natural causes, or the Earth has warmed by human GH emissions but its only a small safe amount, or it has warmed but it stopped in 1998 and now the atmosphere is saturated so we’ve had all we’re going to get, or it has warmed but that warming is a good thing etc etc etc

So you are now focusing on the The-Earth-has-warmed-and-may-even-warm-more-but-its-too-expensive-to-do-anything-about-it argument?

Well so what?

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by Bart R

0
0

Tomcat | July 15, 2012 at 5:30 am |

And yet, statists universally oppose the most effective actions to counteract CO2E emissions, whether on the left the socialists (who want command-and-control regulations shown to be of limited effect) and communists(who limit children per family but not coal per person), or on the right the tax-and-spend corporate subsidizers (who favor paralysis over decision, more study of well-established effects to action, and giving tax dollars to fossil fuels, expropriating land for pipelines and turning food crops into a supplement for gasoline).

The statists don’t get anything out of the science, except to delay action further. The people who benefit from immediate action of privatizing the carbon cycle are the owners of the carbon cycle who are being ripped off by free riders. Every citizen, per capita. I’m a citizen. I want my money.

Give me my money.

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by tempterrain

0
0

David,

Using the argument that CAGW speculation being equated with routine medical diagnostics is ridiculous is itself ridiculous. Using the argument that equating climate skepticism with grief denial is insulting is insulting too. Telling Fan that this is his stupidest argument so far is your stupidest argument so far. I’m impressed that you’re impressed!

PS Anyone form the other side may then come back with something like: Using the argument that using the argument of CAGW speculation being equated with……. is ridiculous and is itself ridiculous is even more ridiculous!

But this is more ridiculous than ever! Don’t you think?

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by RobertInAz

0
0

Hey, I am just telling you what I can get in Phoenix. There are real cents/guaranteed kWh of delivered power- it is like you have not read what I am paying. These are real numbers and price/kWh beats what I pay for base load capacity.


Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by Peter Lang

0
0

Tempterrain,

It would be too much off topic to get into a detailed discussion about Nordhaus’s economics. It wouldn’t lead anywhere anyway. Its just another argument from you guys on why nothing should be done on climate change.

So, what you are arguing is that decisions should not be made rationally, they should be made on the basis of your beliefs, scary adjectives and your latest nightmare. Just chuck proper decision making out the window and run with your gut feeling. Is that a correct interpretation of how we advocate we should make investment decisions?

You don’t really care what argument is the correct one or even if there is a correct one.

I’d reverse that. I suggest that applies to your approach to this topic.

I notice you haven’t yet acknowledged how silly is the video you put up, and clearly believe (the one purporting to be risk analysis) by a young extremist alarmist.

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by RobertInAz

0
0

“However, this comprises a miniscule proportion of electricity demand, so it irrelevant with regard to reducing emissions. ”
Correct, there is no demand because there is no capacity to deliver power. So rather than focusing on replacing base capacity with solar in the rich countries to reduce carbon, let us focus on creating capacity where none exists in the poorest places to reduce poverty and thereby increasing their ability to adapt to whatever climate change might occur.

The good is independent of what happens to the climate.

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by Latimer Alder

0
0

@steven mosher

‘If you want to predict sea level rise at 2100, you need a model. That model will have error. which model should you use? and why?’

I think that I’d start with one that had a reasonable track record of getting it right over 5 years, then 10, then 25.That would at least show that it had some skill. And the results presented like that might have some chance of persuading the general public…who ultimately are the guys paying for all of this, that it hasn’t all been a complete waste of time and effort.

But you say – from your great academic height – that such trivial stuff like ‘is it any good at forecasting the future? is ‘not really the test we apply to models’. You wander off into some theoretical arguments about ‘completeness’ and ‘reliability’.

Returning to my previous example, it matters not a jot how complete and reliable the process of the fans of Fast Nag was. They got it wrong and Cart Horse won.

Climate modelling has so far shown no results at all that come anywhere making accurate (as compared with subsequent observations) about the real world. It may be as academically complete and reliable as you like, but it is no good at prediction.

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by RobertInAz

0
0

“You clearly have not the faintest understanding of economcs or financing such schemes.” Actually, I am secretary/treasure of tiny non profit the routinely executes schemes in a fourth world location. We have not ventured into appropriate solar, but as I have recently learned how radically the economics have changed, we might.

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by Latimer Alder

0
0

@Robert in Az

Have you actually installed this kit and verified the predictions? Or are they just salesman’s hype?

PS : I note that they are ‘guaranteed’ power costs. ‘Guaranteed’ by whom, and for how long? What penalties are open to you if the guarantee is not met?

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by tempterrain

0
0

But, Peter, if the scientific consensus proves to be correct, which it well could do, the “spin merchants of socialist/progressive/Left ideology” will be crowing about how they’ve been proved right and you’ve been proved wrong for years, decades and, maybe even, centuries to come.

It will be alright for you. You’ll be dead. But think about those generations of right wing libertarians to come. Just imagine how hard it will be for those still unborn souls. They will have to re-invent history somehow to explain it all away. They’ll have to say that people like Peter Lang, Manacker etc etc were socialist imposters, and their secret agenda was to discredit free market economics. They’ll have no other choice.

Do you really want to leave that legacy?

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by Steven Mosher

0
0

Except C02 forcing is real david and measured. The very same physics that tell us doubling C02 will give us an extra 3.7Watts is used to defend our country and process UAH data. 3.7Watts.

LIA? how much colder was it? and what was the suns input at that time?
maybe 1 Watt less than today.

Oscilations explain nothing. you want to understand
1. how big they are
2. what caused them
3. what happens if you add ADDITIONAL forcing (3.7W) on top of that


Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by Latimer Alder

0
0

@tempterrain

Have you stopped taking your medication while I’ve been on hols? First you’ve been totally spooked by Greg Laden(?)’s re-presentation of Pascal’s Wager. Now you’re off on some legacy kick. Or is that just you have ‘over-celebrated’ the imposition of the Carbon Tax?

Whatever the cause, there is a notable degradation of the quality of your posts in the last fortnight….

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by gbaikie

0
0

“In specific answer to your question. I have been evaluating bids for grid tied residential solar that guarantee delivery at between 6.6 and 8.4 cents/kWh over 20 years. My current average cost is 11.5 cents/kWh and on my time varying rate plan, my peak cost is 24.5 cents/kWh at times at which solar output is highest. So in Arizona and with panel prices at 2 cents per watt, it pencils out even without subsidies. ”

Arizona has high amount to solar energy:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas/

And with subsidies it could make economic sense.
Subsides can make anything make economics sense.
If you off the grid sources of electricity can be
very costly, using solar could cheaper in the that situation.
But without the grid, one has added costs for solar- or don’t
use any or much electrical power when the sun goes down.

If you have the grid, it can cheaper because you draw power from grid when sun goes down. Also there laws which government forces
power providers to buy any excess electrical power, and usually at
higher cost than electrical provider pay for it in a free market.

This leads to obvious point, if you want replace powerplants with solar energy panels, there would not be the power available for when sun goes now, nor would be power provider to forced to pay you from any excess electrical power you generate.

So to supplement electrical power, in places like Arizona, one could maybe do it without subsidies. But just having connection to the grid is by itself a form of subsidy. Though might not be parasitical to power companies if one reducing peak power needs [requiring them to make surplus power capacity for hours other then peak hours- or import it at perhaps higher price off the main grid. .

Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by Steven Mosher

0
0

But science isnt the belief in the ignorance of experts.

People fail to see the irony in quoting Feynman as the expert on the falibility of experts.

Comment on Just the facts, please by Bart R

0
0

lurker passing through, laughing | July 15, 2012 at 5:03 pm |

It doesn’t take believing in any consensus to be ripped off without consent.

I know it. You know it. Someone’s making out like a bandit at the expense of those who emit less CO2E by emitting more for money.

I want my money, regardless of any consensus.

This is simple Economics. It’s the Economy.

It’s not nonconsensus that’s the issue. It’s non-consent.

Comment on Just the facts, please by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

The argument is not based mainly on correlation. This has been discussed last couple of days so much in an ancient thread on Prof. Salby’s presentation and supposed future paper that will probably not ever appear that starting it again does not make sense.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images