Alexej,
Ignorance in science is rampant due to many factors of traditional teaching and practices of the past to protect the current group of scientists who enjoy the career and wages that they give advice to government policies on(considering it is usually the government that gives out grants).
Theories and hypotheses are encouraged while actual evidence is not!
Looks good on a resume…don’t it?
Probably will now become head of some private sector organization at 10 times the salary.
Peter Lang
Without even going into specific calculations one can conclude
- if the “costs” for non-compliance are not extremely high, there will be extensive non-compliance
- if the mitigation actions are not universally adapted, they will be meaningless
- the net losers will be:
a) the general populations of the developed nations, which will be left with the brunt of the cost
b) the inhabitants of the poorest nations, which will be derived of any chance to develop a reliable, low-cost supply of energy to lift themselves out of poverty
- the net winners (at least short term until everything collapses under its own weight) will be
a) politicians, who will have more tax revenues to hand out for favorite projects and to favored recipients
b) the big cat “favored recipients” and promoters of the “favored projects” (corporations, industrialists, political cronies)
- the net positive impact on our planet’s climate will be negligible, while
- the net negative impact on human welfare will be high
Max
Judith Curry
The Jasper Kirkby interview was very interesting. Thanks for posting it. I especially liked this quotation:
There’s a huge amount of opinion one way or another on the blogosphere that says “cosmic rays have no effect on the climate” to “cosmic rays do everything in the climate.” And no matter how passionately people believe this view or that view, we can’t settle it by energetic debate. We have to settle it by experimental measurements. We will settle that question, so there will be a firm scientific basis for answering that question by the end of CLOUD, as opposed to a gazillion opinions…
Let’s wait for the data before we “make up our minds”.
I sincerely hope that AR5 will take this work more seriously than AR4 did (which just wrote it off in two paragraphs as “controversial”).
But we’ll have to wait and see.
Maybe we won’t really know until “AR6″ (if there ever is one).
Max
Judith,
The influence of television programs on society is prevalent…
But…many avenues of the programs being shown misses many vital areas that scientist seemed to neglect.
When including the past of our species, we created the current lifestyle of being able to live in cold climates that our species would have had to do much moving in the past which then has to change the hypotheses being shown. Which then is also of a different latitude and different parameters of heat and light.
Nov thru Dec:
N97-D98 – 59C (red, a record instrument high and equal to 1998 record)
N01-D02 – 59C (yellow, tied record)
N04-D05 – 61C (green, record)
N06-D07 – 62C (blue, record)
N09-D10 – 65C (purple, record)
Trends:
blue – 17 years
brown – since 1997.9
September, 2012 – 62C (3rd hottest in record)
October, 2012 – 68C (tied for 2nd hottest in record)
November, 2012 – 68C (2nd hottest in record)
It doesn’t matter. I don’t think anyone respects you enough to accept your apology in the first place.
What does it matter how your unpronounceable foreign name is spelled on frickkin’ blog? It’s not like the misspelling is going on a passport or something. I’ll just call you Lief Smellsgold from now on. Everyone will know who I mean.
Just checked this out
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/
So, to my previous post, it looks like AR5 will give a bit more coverage to other sources of solar forcing beside only direct solar irradiance – it least in its chapter covering “radiative forcing” if not in the chapter on “understanding and attributing climate change” (which is being written by a different group).
The impact on our “understanding and attributing climate change” is major, of course: if up to 50% of past warming can be attributed to solar forcing (as many solar studies have concluded) then the whole model-predicted (2xCO2) climate sensitivity estimates are in serious question and, with these, all the projections for future climate change caused by AGW.
So this could be a “biggie”.
It looks like IPCC will not handle it that way in AR5, though.
Max
Oh wait. Leaf Smellsgold. That’s better. So Americans won’t mispronounce your first name.
The principle of not passing judgement on something based on a draft document which may not reflect the final wording which will actually be published and has been released in direct violation of the conditions on which the person responsible was given access to it. Especially given that, as I said above, anyone who wanted to take part in the review process and give their opinion on the draft documents had the opportunity to do so by applying to become an “expert” reviewer.
Simple summary:
Vaughan Pratt assumed that climate consisted of IPCC-AGW and something else.
His finding was that the climate consisted of IPCC-AGW and something else.
Now, if we had learned something of value about the ‘something else’, then there could have been merit in his argument. But we didn’t. The ‘something else’s only characteristic was that it could be represented by a combination of arbitrary sinewaves which bore no relationship to any natural phenomenon, and three box filters. The ‘something else’ began its short life as “all the so-called multidecadal ocean oscillations“, but that didn’t last long because it clearly could not be even remotely matched to the actual ocean oscillations. The ‘something else’ ended its short life as a lame “whatever its origins“. The sum total of Vaughan Pratt’s argument is precisely zero.
There’s more detail at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/circular-logic-not-worth-a-millikelvin/
“Kirkby: It will settle a particular question, which to my mind can only be settled by experimental data. There’s a huge amount of opinion one way or another on the blogosphere that says “cosmic rays have no effect on the climate” to “cosmic rays do everything in the climate.” And no matter how passionately people believe this view or that view, we can’t settle it by energetic debate.”
It seems unlikely cosmic rays does everything or has no effect.
Though is seems as obvious that same can said about CO2 levels.
It seems that something that can have a large effect on climate are already accepted. Stuff like large volcanic eruptions and year around snow in temperate zones. These are types of things that have large effects and stuff like CO2 or cosmic rays have at best secondary effects.
But a large focus of climatic has to do with rather minor effects that have occurred in last century or so.
And the biggest effect we had in last few centuries has been the Little Ice Age. It was period significant advancement of glaciers worldwide, followed by a significant retreat of glacier worldwide. So LIA wasn’t a small effect, nor was it huge.
We know CO2 levels had little or nothing to do with causing the LIA. And we pretty certain that cosmic rays were the only or primary cause of the LIA. One can not ignore somewhat large volcanic eruptions during this time.
One could have plausible explanation of the cause of the LIA which may primarily involved volcanic eruption and cosmic rays. But it also possible that the combination of volcanic eruption and cosmic rays were only responsible for about 1/2 or less of the cooling of LIA. So only combination of volcanic eruption and cosmic rays levels plus some additional factors were the cause.
One question is that assuming we don’t some vast volcanic eruptions that equals or exceeds those which occurred during the LIA and just prior to beginning of 20th century is there any other factor which could cause cooling. And likewise if we were to modest eruption like just prior to 20th Century, 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, would anyone imagine it would not at a comparatively major effect upon global climate?
Another item to add to this week in review.
With Controls, Britain Allows Hydraulic Fracturing to Explore for Gas
By STANLEY REED
Published: December 13, 2012
LONDON — The British government gave the go-ahead Thursday for exploratory hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract natural gas from shale-rock deposits. ****
Buy the mystery; short the history.
John Bills
Slightly reduced average solar activity since the mid-1980s has led to increased GCR flux. According to the GCR-cloud hypothesis that should mean more CCNs – and so more cloud – and so reduced DSW flux to the surface. In short, the GCR-cloud hypothesis predicts cooling since around 1985.
There’s a problem here, is there not?
The better analogy is predicting whether a day next month will be colder or warmer than today, versus six months from now. Other things are going on that override natural variation in the long term, as we already see from the historical record.
My guess is a lot of stocks currently in the DOW won’t be in it 100 years from now, but I have no idea what the new stocks in the DOW will be.
Will future climate be affected by something not affecting it now? Something new? I hope not.
OK, cheese breath, make it 20 years instead of 100 years.
Estimates of fossil fuels that are recoverable are increasing annually. Wait till they start looking at methyl clathrates. Technology advances. This is something like Moore’s Law where technology allows the progress in speed of computers to maintain an exponential shape even over decades. Anthropogenic GHGs have had a doubling time near 30 years just to meet global population and development needs. I think this will continue. I will call it Gore’s Law (not that he had anything to do with it, but I like the rhyme with Moore’s Law.)
