Interesting. I wonder if it was mentioned in TAR but not AR4.
Either way, it seems like a bad reason not to quantify the effect. The issue is relevant even if it isn’t included in GWP calculations. Besides, if countries don’t use the same standards, that is a problem in and of itself. By not double counting the effect, they’re saying it’s okay to ignore it for some countries.
We look ter the future which is uncertain, where there be black
swans, and we cannot make predictions with any certainty.
Judith has posted threads on preparing fer uncertainty and fer
disaster events. Seems all we can do is be resiliant, bulwarked
by buoyant, low debt economies and by having in place response
procedures fer emergencies like hurricanes, fire storms and flood.
But what about IPCC and green activist advice ter governments?
Living in the meme of CAGW, they have ‘seen’ the future and it
is ‘hot’. But is this so? The science ain’t settled and the future
could just as likely be ‘cold.’ Thirty years PDO cool period and predominance of la ninas is possible.
In climate and economics we inhabit Extremistan and need ter be
flexible and adaptive. So what are we doing?
# We’re putting our eggs in one basket, that’s what we’re doing …
living in the global warming meme though we don’t know which way
the cold winds of reality will blow tomorrow .
# We’re introducing wealth depleting carbon taxes on efficient energy
…where we could be increasing produtivity, sequestering CO2 by conservation farming and increasing crop yields.
# We’re subsidizing inefficient, intermittant ‘sustainable’ energy
technology. like windturbines that shut down when the wind stops
blowing or blows too hard. In the UK BBC weatherman Paul Hudson reported in 2011, that in 3 consecutive winters of intense cold there
was little or no wind ter generate electricity.
# Emergency plans? We are preparing fer some envisaged emergency scenarios like hurricanes but ignoring others like extreme cold weather when people die of hypothermia, pensioners who can’t afford heating, fer instance, and there are accidents on icy roads beause there’s no salt treatment, local governments jest didn’t anticipate cold weather.
Say, I think I have seen the future and … it appears … ter be …
foggy …and …confused…
What’s new. )
I sure hope this intellectually dishonest style is not how you conduct yourself in your normal academic role. What’s particularly juvenile about it is that the flaws in your posturing are so visible.
Once again, you ignore the substantive points in my comment–effectively conceding them to any neutral observer. So now you’ve conceded not only that my energy-intensiveness forecast is likely correct, but that arguments from authority are pointless here and that your favored oracles are no more likely to be correct than anyone else’s. OK, I’m glad we agree about future energy demand and the pointlessness of citing von Neumann’s 1955 opinions as authority for anything.
Then, you accuse me of cherry-picking Dyson. Uh, no. Anyone who’s read Dyson’s books–Disturbing the Universe, Infinite in all Directions, The Sun and the Genome, Eros and Gaia–would recognize that I have accurately represented his sensibility.
In fact, your warmist cohorts (and perhaps you, I don’t remember) have attacked Dyson precisely on the grounds that he’s an out of date denialist (he isn’t, of course) because of his heterodoxy on climate change issues. You need to get your story straight if you want to remain addicted to arguments from authority.
I take on board and thank you for your opinions and comments
To avoid any confusion, those who don’t subscribe to the ‘consensus’ global warming view should be called “climate rebels”, like the rebel alliance from Star Wars.
We are scattered, thin on the ground and un-funded, yet we fight on against the tyranny of failed global computer model(er)s and adjusted data, using ‘the force’, the ‘truth’, of empirical evidence.
The last estimate of a 1m sea level rise in the US was on the order of 400 Billion. I suspect its somewhat higher now.
Again, people are not going to listen to you about the costs of impacts, if all you have to say is posed in the form of a question.
They ask the questions. If you have an answer they might listen.
Your problem is that you think science has to answer your questions to your satisfaction. it doesnt.
The key will be the missing physics. see if you can find one measure for that process.
sure thing vuk. anytime somebody shares data its a good thing..
even iff the variables are not identified.. hehe.
But you see that merely crunching the stats without a notion about the
“physics” units behind the numbers can lead to problems.
Like scafettas stuff. its not even dimensionally correct.
“We have a situation where everything is presented out of context in space and time. Natural events are identified or presented as unnatural. Normal events are identified or presented as abnormal. Speculation about more unnatural or abnormal events is self-fulfilling.” (anon)
Did you see the sleight of hand?
Pekka Pirilä | November 21, 2012 at 4:25 am | The Second law was originally formulated as a postulate that was needed to explain observations. It is one basic postulate in the formal mathematical theory of Classical Thermodynamics. At that time it was not possible to explain this theory from anything more detailed or more fundamental.
The 2nd Law was brought in to ‘correct’ the 1st which doesn’t care which way anything travels as long as energy is conserved, it would be quite happy with heat flowing from colder to hotter, corrected by the observation that heat always travels from hotter to colder and never the other way around.
There is nothing more fundamental in heat transfer than the 2nd Law – that heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder, it’s a fact, an observable fact. It takes work to change that. Your fridge works because we know this. If it was not a fact we would end up with perpetual motion and unless you have something to prove perpetual motion is physically possible then I suggest you stick with the 2nd Law as it is writ.
During the 19th century scientists like Maxwell and Boltzmann developed a theory that goes deeper in the questions of thermodynamics. They realized that classical thermodynamics can be derived from some simple assumptions on the micro-physics and the mathematical theory of statistics. The theory of statistical thermodynamics is a more powerful theory than classical thermodynamics as the latter can be derived from the former and as statistical thermodynamics can explain additional phenomena.
Throwing “quantum” around to confuse the subject, and “statistical” is another AGWSF meme rebuttal, doesn’t mean anything unless you can prove that heat flows from colder to hotter, you will just have to grin and bear it.
You cannot pretend that this breaks down on your imagined quantum level when you can offer no proof that it doesn’t obey the 2nd Law at this level, but which level is anyway totally and utterly irrelevant to this subject, and you can pretend that “photons travel in all directions therefore ..”, or pretend that there is some magical spontaneous statistical “net” created out of “heat also flows from colder to hotter” when it breaks the 2nd Law of heat flow which requires work to be done to achieve such a thing, and when the real statistical net is still as Boltzmann’s probabilities that atoms would be travelling at certain speeds and in certain directions – you still have to show that radiant heat photons travel spontaneously from colder to hotter and all, all, empirical evidence from countless real world applications have NEVER observed this. The Real Science Discipline of Thermodynamics has studied this in depth. It understands heat and work.
The state of statistical thermodynamics was not entirely satisfactory in the 19th century as there were some serious problems in the theory. Most notably the ultraviolet catastrophe could not resolved. What was needed to make the theory consistent was Quantum Mechanics. The Quantum Statistical Thermodynamics is a theory that is free of serious internal contradictions and can be used to derive the Classical Thermodynamics wherever this is applicable.
There was no ultra-violet catastrophe, it violated conservation of energy. The catastrophe was only in the minds of some who imagined infinite runaway global ultraviolet being produced from a finite source…
..and Planck didn’t have this in mind anyway when he came up with quantum, it appears, that this “quantum” explanation has just been tagged onto the ultra-violet catastrophe as “having solved it”, when it does no such thing since it wasn’t an observable phenomenon anyway. If you say it does, then please, explain exactly how.
Hmm, find this all the time in the AGWSF world, here’s an example: http://damnedhippie.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/the-ultraviolet-catastrophe/
“If the rock follows the old laws of physics, it would radiate an infinite amount of high-energy ultraviolet radiation.”
You, generic, can claim that this imagined catastrophe comes from “the old laws of physics and only quantum saved this”, but it clearly doesn’t since it ultra-violates the “old laws of physics of conservation of energy”.
But the next bit is funny, “So, in exchange for a finite amount of electrical energy, our scientist would get an infinite amount of light energy. Set in front of it a solar-powered mechanical device that generates electricity to run the hot plate, and you have a perpetual motion machine.”
Which is exactly what your “backradiation” is when further heating the warmer surface as it radiates heat from the colder atmosphere.
What we have from AGWScienceFiction extrapolation is the ludicrous scenario I was told a while back, that a hunter could leave a chunk of raw meat in his igloo while he went out for a few hours and on his return that chunk of raw meat would be his dinner cooked by “backradiation” from the ice..
As I’ve said, AGWSF is internally incoherent and makes nonsense of the real world. None of its explanations make sense because they are not meant to, the Greenhouse Effect fisics was designed to confuse. And to that end they’ll play every trick in the book to hide that its Greenhouse Effect fisics is fake.
Presently we have some confusion and a lot of empty rhetoric that originates from the presence of two alternative ways of defining heat, the classical one, and the “modern” one. The modern approach has the advantage that it agrees better with everyday use of the word. In climate discussion we meet the controversy only when skeptics try to use the classical definition to confuse or to “prove” their false “theorems”.
There’s nothing wrong with the classical definitions of heat. The only confusion here is that you are trying to change it to mean something entirely imagined from the idiotic meme “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all creates heat” because you want to pretend that “visible light can heat matter and no longwave infrared reaches us from the Sun”. It is idiotic because it is gobbledgook, as I have explained above.
You can pretend all you like that that your “quantum” and your “statistics” give you a “modern” explanation, but since you still end up with runaway global warming from a cold atmosphere heating a hotter surface/no means of stopping heat flowing from colder to hotter, you’re clearly talking outside of the realm of our real physical reality. So your “modern heat” is as it appears here, mangling real physics and the history of it to pretend that it exists.
But back to my point, I’m not interested in “backradiation” arguments here, they’re irrelvant:
You’re the one confused by this deliberate manipulation of fake fisics. That’s why you don’t realise your claim that “the Sun gives off very little longwave infrared” doesn’t make sense.
Because you don’t understand what you’re really saying is that “the Sun gives off very little heat”.
Longwave infrared is the thermal energy in the electromagnetic spectrum, it is invisible, it is what we feel as heat because it is heat, it heats us up because it is capable of doing so, it causes our whole molecules of matter to vibrate, which is kinetic energy which is heat. It is what we feel as heat from the Sun, read the NASA quote. You claim the Sun gives off no heat!
You don’t understand what you’re saying because you have been convinced that heat is something different and convinced that visible light can heat matter so you don’t notice the real heat from the Sun is missing in your world.
I can only suggest that you take up the direct science challege I gave earlier, show that visible light from the Sun can heat the matter of land and water at the equator to the intensity this is heated in the real world which is what gives us our huge equator to poles winds and dramatic weather systems.
Or, get to grips with what I am saying here about the real missing heat from the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect energy budget..
We cannot feel shortwave from the Sun.
This is a physical fact of our reality.
The heat you feel from the Sun is THERMAL INFRARED, LONGWAVE INFRARED. As traditional physics still teaches.
Please, think about what I have just said. Traditional physics contradicts you.
You cannot make such claims against traditional physics teaching without offering some physical proof..
It’s misleading to present downhill flow of water as an analog for the flow of heat from hot to cold. It’s misleading because the flow of water is a collective flow where every molecule is forced to move with the flow. The transfer of heat by conduction or radiation is a statistical phenomenon. In conduction the micro level energy transfer goes always in both directions and the overall flow of heat is due the larger number (and average energy) of micro level movements in one direction than in the other. In this respect conduction is not any different from radiative energy transfer where the same is true. The difference between conduction and radiative energy transfer is that the distance covered by a single micro level event is extremely short in conduction while its often rather long in radiative energy transfer. For this reason it’s rather easy to intercept the radiative energy transfer and measure radiation from each direction while intercepting conduction is either impossible or much more difficult.
As heat flow from hotter to colder is forced.., by the temperature difference. That is what is meant by “spontaneous” in the 2nd Law. It takes work to change this direction.
http://www.phys.unm.edu/~gbtaylor/phys102/lectures/9_temperature.pdf
“2nd Law of Thermodynamics
● Imagine two bricks at different temperatures in
thermal contact
– If the hot brick were able to extract heat from the cold
brick, would this violate the 1st law of
thermodynamics?
● No. Not if the cold brick becomes even colder so that the
total amount of energy is conserved.
– This sort of behavior is prohibited by the 2nd law of
thermodynamics:
● Heat never spontaneously flows from a cold object to a
hotter object.
– Heat can be made to flow in the opposite direction, but only by
doing work on the system or by adding energy from another
source.”
You can pretend the 2nd Law doesn’t exist, you can pretend that it means something entirely different ‘to your modern understanding’, by inserting “net” where none is required, from taking statistics out of context, and so on, but until you can show and tell you’re just creating imaginary scenarios.
The 2nd Law limited the 1st to observation. Water always flows downhill. It takes work to change that direction, just as it takes work to change the spontaneous flow of heat from hotter to colder.
It’s time AGWSF supporters opened their eyes and looked at the real world around them..
..and felt the real world around them. The heat we feel from the Sun is longwave infrared, thermal infrared, the Sun’s thermal energy on the move to us transferred by radiation.
Your Greenhouse Effect world doesn’t have this.
And since shortwave from the Sun isn’t thermal and can’t heat matter then your world has no heat from the Sun at all.
Think about this, please.
It was obvious since ocean acidification became the resort, that nothing mattered but the wanted result.
That does not mean people who stay concentrated on the original memes are pointless.
The two-party system is dead.
This seems to be a curious thing for an American to say. The two main parties would have had 99% of the vote and won all the seats in Congress. I can’t think of any other country which is as remotely dominated by two parties as the USA.
When was the last time an outside party won anything in America?
“# We’re putting our eggs in one basket, that’s what we’re doing …
living in the global warming meme though we don’t know which way
the cold winds of reality will blow tomorrow .”
Life is robust because of it’s diversity- the tendency toward the monolithic
has many potential bad consequences.
“# We’re introducing wealth depleting carbon taxes on efficient energy
…where we could be increasing produtivity, sequestering CO2 by conservation farming and increasing crop yields.”
Inhibiting the use of energy, only makes sense in terms of buying time.
It’s sort of like saving money for retirement. Part of the assumption is as you grow old, you will become weaker, and the clock is running- you will die.
It’s fairly desperation situation if think we need to save resources for the future generation- in the long term it can’t possibly work.
No civilization [a entity which multi-generational in it's nature] can function this way.
Many people have the opinion that civilization fails precisely because it failed to conserve resources and I believe the main fallacy with such ideas is the idea that civilizations are *suppose to* remain static.
That it is somehow good that a civilization should be unchanging for centuries or thousands of years. Instead of the idea that a non changing civilization is a dying civilization. Something not desirable.
There are so many aspects about idea of limited resources which illogical, but I will grant that perhaps if one were living a thousand ago, it could pass for wisdom.
And quite simply, we live in a different world and should eager to transition to a newer worlds. And such a world could be comprised of near infinite resources [which may become infinite].
Science should always be backed up by empirical evidence, so I thought I’d summarise what empirical evidence exists for the main points I have made. Links and references for all these have been provided in previous posts and/or papers and articles I have provided before.
There is empirical evidence …
(a) that the heat transfer between two blackbodies is in accord with the quantification in Section 4 of my paper.
(b) that air in equilibrium in a tall sealed insulated container will be warmer at the base than at the top, the difference being explained by the same adiabatic lapse rate which is proportional to the acceleration due to gravity – no coincidence.
(c) that placing a cool blackbody close to a warmer one does slow the radiative rate of cooling of the warm one.
(d) that evaporative cooling accelerates to compensate for any slowing of radiative cooling of the water surfaces.
(e) that low clouds at night slow overall cooling of the land surface at night, this being because the compensating effect of conduction takes a longer period.
(f) that surplus thermal energy in the atmosphere (causing temperatures above the plot based on the lapse rate) will be radiated away
(g) that radiation from a cooler atmosphere does not transfer thermal energy to a warmer surface, and nor does conduction or convection.
(h) that the surface temperatures of all planets with atmospheres can only be explained using the solar intensity and the adiabatic lapse rate. This is very clear cut on Venus where the surface hardly receives or emits any energy, so most heating of the atmosphere occurs when the atmosphere absorbs incoming Solar radiation. You cannot explain Venus temperatures using any radiative greenhouse effect, because such does not exist here, there or anywhere.
“or is the poisonous desperation constantly exhibited by BBD in a league of its own”
No it’s your typical Warmer With Nothing Better To Do With His Life Than To Troll Stupidity All Day kind of stuff.
Andrew
Don’t give me the cooked GISS data please.
BBD
Here is the correlation between PDO and the oscillation component of GMST.
It is remarkable this kind of correlation exists in our complex climate.
BBD
Since temperature record begun some 160 years ago in 1850, the GMST trend has been constant at about 0.6 deg C per century.
Due to the enormous heat capacity of the oceans and their inertia, this pattern is not going to change in the next couple of decades.
As a result, IPCC’s 0.2 deg C warming in the next two decade is simply wrong. According to the climate pattern of the last 160 years above, expect little warming in the next two decades.
Description:
This thesis explores the neglected issue of regional distribution of climate change mitigation costs. Using advanced methodologies and data from a multi-modelling exercise (specifically, EMF-22) and <b?focusing on economy-wide costs under a single global carbon tax regime, the study conducts a meta-analysis to investigate how and why mitigation costs for different countries vary and what the welfare implications are.
An analysis based on Gini coefficients reveals that global income inequality increases after mitigation, implying that (uncompensated) global mitigation is regressive. Although the increase in the Gini is small, the impact of the regressivity on the global cost of mitigation is large. This is shown by use of the concept of ‘equally distributed equivalent (EDE)’ cost. Though the effect is scenario dependent, and declines over time, taking account of regressivity increases global mitigation costs in 2020 by 64-90 per cent depending on the degree of inequality aversion.
So far the analysis has ignored the possibility of international transfers of compensation. The final part of the analysis tests the extent to which commonly proposed international financing schemes will alleviate the regressivity of regional mitigation costs. The main finding here is that the two commonly proposed schemes – the Copenhagen Funding agreement, and the Contraction and Convergence by 2050 – will at most eliminate regressivity. They are not sufficient to make the global mitigation effort a progressive one.
The thesis concludes with a discussion of limitations and future research questions. While the analysis is by no means exhaustive, overall the contribution of the thesis is to show that detecting, analysing and thinking through the implications of regional variation in mitigation costs deserve much more attention, and that attempts to do so will bring rich insights from both an academic perspective and a geo-political/negotiating one.
Biography:
Hyungsup Lee is a PhD candidate in the Environmental Management and Development (EMD) program at the Crawford School of Public Policy. Prior to joining the Crawford School, Hyungsup worked for the Ministry of Environment of Korea in the area of domestic climate change policy, air quality, and transportation environment.
[my highlight]
This study assumes: “economy-wide costs under a single global carbon tax regime” and concludes, in effect and in my words, high cost mitigation such as the carbon tax and renewable energy schemes proposed by CAGW advocates are not value for money. they are bad policy.
But it’s worse than that because that is the conclusion based on an economy wide, single global carbon tax. However, those who have been following the previous discussions would recognise by now that a world carbon pricing scheme cannot work. A short explanation of why is here: http://skepticalscience.com//news.php?f=nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money#82373. And acknowledged by Professor William Tol, world guru on impact costs of global warming and a long time supporter of carbon pricing, here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-239101
